SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Commission file number 1-32740
ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY, L.P.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
(state or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
8111 Westchester Drive, Suite 600, Dallas, Texas 75225
(Address of principal executive offices) (zip code)
(Registrant’s 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
New York Stock Exchange
Securities 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 ý No ¨
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 ¨ No ý
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 ý No ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
Yes ý No ¨
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 the registrant’s 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. ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer ý Accelerated filer ¨ Non-accelerated filer ¨ Smaller reporting company ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Yes ¨ No ý
The aggregate market value as of June 30, 2016, of the registrant’s Common Units held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the reported closing price of such Common Units on the New York Stock Exchange on such date, was $10.86 billion. Common Units held by each executive officer and director and by each person who owns 5% or more of the outstanding Common Units have been excluded in that such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.
At February 17, 2017, the registrant had 1,079,185,030 Common Units outstanding.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Certain matters discussed in this report, excluding historical information, as well as some statements by Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (the “Partnership” or “ETE”) in periodic press releases and some oral statements of the Partnership’s officials during presentations about the Partnership, include forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are identified as any statement that does not relate strictly to historical or current facts. Statements using words such as “anticipate,” “project,” “expect,” “plan,” “goal,” “forecast,” “estimate,” “intend,” “continue,” “could,” “believe,” “may,” “will” or similar expressions help identify forward-looking statements. Although the Partnership and its General Partner believe such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions and current expectations and projections about future events, no assurance can be given that such assumptions, expectations or projections will prove to be correct. Forward-looking statements are subject to a variety of risks, uncertainties and assumptions. If one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or if underlying assumptions prove incorrect, the Partnership’s actual results may vary materially from those anticipated, estimated, projected, forecasted, expressed or expected in forward-looking statements since many of the factors that determine these results are subject to uncertainties and risks that are difficult to predict and beyond management’s control. For additional discussion of risks, uncertainties and assumptions, see “Item 1.A Risk Factors” included in this annual report.
The following is a list of certain acronyms and terms generally used in the energy industry and throughout this document:
Aloha Petroleum, Ltd
AmeriGas Partners, L.P.
accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
asset retirement obligations
billion cubic feet
British thermal unit, an energy measurement used by gas companies to convert the volume of gas used to its heat equivalent, and thus calculate the actual energy content
capacity of a pipeline, processing plant or storage facility refers to the maximum capacity under normal operating conditions and, with respect to pipeline transportation capacity, is subject to multiple factors (including natural gas injections and withdrawals at various delivery points along the pipeline and the utilization of compression) which may reduce the throughput capacity from specified capacity levels
Citrus, LLC which owns 100% of FGT
CrossCountry Energy, LLC
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Transportation
Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P.
Edwards Lime Gathering, LLC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ETC Fayetteville Express Pipeline, LLC
ETC Midcontinent Express Pipeline, L.L.C.
La Grange Acquisition, L.P., which conducts business under the assumed name of Energy Transfer Company
Energy Transfer Group, L.L.C.
ETE Common Holdings, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of ETE
Energy Transfer Interstate Holdings, LLC
ET Rover Pipeline LLC
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.
ETP Credit Facility
ETP’s $3.75 billion revolving credit facility
Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P., the general partner of ETP
ETP Holdco Corporation
Energy Transfer Partners, L.L.C., the general partner of ETP GP
ETP Preferred Units
ETP’s Series A Convertible Preferred Units,
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Florida Department of Transportation, Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise
Fayetteville Express Pipeline LLC
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC, which owns a natural gas pipeline system that originates in Texas and delivers natural gas to the Florida peninsula
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America
LE GP, LLC, the general partner of ETE
RIGS Haynesville Partnership Co. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Regency Intrastate Gas LP
Heritage Operating, L.P.
Hoover Energy Partners, LP
incentive distribution rights
Kinder Morgan Inc.
Lake Charles LNG
Lake Charles LNG Company, LLC
Lake Charles LNG Export Company, LLC
London Interbank Offered Rate
liquefied natural gas
Lake Charles LNG Holdings, LLC
liquefied petroleum gas
Lone Star NGL LLC
Mid-Atlantic Convenience Stores, LLC
Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC
The merger of Sunoco Logistics with and into ETP, with ETP surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Sunoco Logistics
million British thermal units
million cubic feet
methyl tertiary butyl ether
Natural Gas Act of 1938
Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978
natural gas liquid, such as propane, butane and natural gasoline
New York Mercantile Exchange
New York Stock Exchange
Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP and its subsidiaries
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP
PennTex Midstream Partners, LP
Philadelphia Energy Solutions
Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Susser Petroleum Property Company LLC
PVR Partners, L.P.
Regency Intrastate Gas System
Regency Gas Services, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Regency
Ranch Westex JV LLC
Regency Energy Partners LP
Regency Preferred Units
Regency’s Series A Convertible Preferred Units, the Preferred Units of a Subsidiary
ETP Retail Holdings LLC, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of ETP
Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC
Securities and Exchange Commission
Southern Union Company
Pan Gas Storage, LLC
Sunoco GP LLC, the general partner of Sunoco LP
Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P.
Sunoco LP (previously named Susser Petroleum Partners, LP)
Sunoco Partners LLC, the general partner of Sunoco Logistics
Susser Holdings Corporation
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC
Texas Railroad Commission
Trunkline Gas Company, LLC, a subsidiary of Panhandle
The Williams Companies, Inc.
Williams Partners, L.P.
West Texas Intermediate Crude
Adjusted EBITDA is a term used throughout this document, which we define as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, depletion, amortization and other non-cash items, such as non-cash compensation expense, gains and losses on disposals of assets, the allowance for equity funds used during construction, unrealized gains and losses on commodity risk management activities, non-cash impairment charges, losses on extinguishments of debt and other non-operating income or expense items. Unrealized gains and losses on commodity risk management activities include unrealized gains and losses on commodity derivatives and inventory fair value adjustments (excluding lower of cost or market adjustments). Adjusted EBITDA reflects amounts for less than wholly-owned subsidiaries based on 100% of the subsidiaries’ results of operations and for unconsolidated affiliates based on the Partnership’s proportionate ownership.
ITEM 1. BUSINESS
We were formed in September 2002 and completed our initial public offering in February 2006. We are a Delaware limited partnership with common units publicly traded on the NYSE under the ticker symbol “ETE.”
Unless the context requires otherwise, references to “we,” “us,” “our,” the “Partnership” and “ETE” mean Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. and its consolidated subsidiaries, which include ETP, ETP GP, ETP LLC, Panhandle (or Southern Union prior to its merger into Panhandle in January 2014), PennTex, Sunoco Logistics, Sunoco LP, and Lake Charles LNG. References to the “Parent Company” mean Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. on a stand-alone basis.
In January 2014 and July 2015, the Partnership completed two-for-one splits of its outstanding common units. All references to units and per unit amounts in this document have been adjusted to reflect the effect of the unit splits for all periods presented.
The Parent Company’s principal sources of cash flow are derived from its direct and indirect investments in the limited partner and general partner interests in ETP and Sunoco LP, both of which are publicly traded master limited partnerships engaged in diversified energy-related services, and the Partnership’s ownership of Lake Charles LNG.
At December 31, 2016, our interests in ETP and Sunoco LP consisted of 100% of the respective general partner interests and IDRs, as well as approximately 2.6 million ETP common units and approximately 81.0 million ETP Class H units. We also own 0.1% of Sunoco Partners LLC, the entity that owns the general partner interest and IDRs of Sunoco Logistics, while ETP owns the remaining 99.9% of Sunoco Partners LLC. Additionally, ETE owns 100 ETP Class I Units, the distributions from which offset a portion of IDR subsidies ETE has previously provided to ETP.
The Parent Company’s primary cash requirements are for distributions to its partners, general and administrative expenses, debt service requirements and distributions to its partners. The Parent Company-only assets and liabilities are not available to satisfy the debts and other obligations of subsidiaries. The Parent Company distributes its available cash remaining after satisfaction of the aforementioned cash requirements to its unitholders on a quarterly basis.
We expect our subsidiaries to utilize their resources, along with cash from their operations, to fund their announced growth capital expenditures and working capital needs; however, the Parent Company may issue debt or equity securities from time to time, as we deem prudent to provide liquidity for new capital projects of our subsidiaries or for other partnership purposes.
The following chart summarizes our organizational structure as of December 31, 2016. For simplicity, certain immaterial entities and ownership interests have not been depicted.
Significant Achievements in 2016 and Beyond
Our significant strategic transactions in 2016 and beyond included the following, as discussed in more detail herein:
In January 2017, ETE issued 32.2 million common units representing limited partner interests in the Partnership to certain institutional investors in a private transaction for gross proceeds of approximately $580 million, which ETE used to purchase 15.8 million newly issued ETP common units.
In November 2016, ETP and Sunoco Logistics entered into a merger agreement providing for the acquisition of ETP by Sunoco Logistics in a unit-for-unit transaction. Under the terms of the transaction, ETP unitholders will receive 1.5 common units of Sunoco Logistics for each common unit of ETP they own. Under the terms of the merger agreement, Sunoco Logistics’ general partner will be merged with and into ETP GP, with ETP GP surviving as an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of ETE. The transaction is expected to close in April 2017.
On November 1, 2016, ETP acquired certain interests in PennTex from various parties for total consideration of approximately $627 million in ETP units and cash. Through this transaction, ETP acquired a controlling financial interest in PennTex, whose assets complement ETP’s existing midstream footprint in northern Louisiana.
On October 12, 2016, Sunoco LP completed the acquisition of the convenience store, wholesale motor fuel distribution, and commercial fuels distribution business serving East Texas and Louisiana from Denny Oil Company (“Denny”) for approximately $55 million plus inventory on hand at closing, subject to closing adjustments. This acquisition includes six company owned and operated locations, six company-owned and dealer operated locations, wholesale fuel supply contracts for a network of independent dealer-owned and dealer-operated locations, and a commercial fuels business in the Eastern Texas and Louisiana markets. As part of the acquisition, Sunoco LP acquired 13 fee properties, which included the six company operated locations, six dealer operated locations and a bulk plant and an office facility.
In November 2016, Sunoco Logistics completed an acquisition from Vitol, Inc. (“Vitol”) of an integrated crude oil business in West Texas for $760 million plus working capital. The acquisition provides Sunoco Logistics with an approximately 2 million barrel crude oil terminal in Midland, Texas, a crude oil gathering and mainline pipeline system in the Midland Basin, including a significant acreage dedication from an investment-grade Permian producer, and crude oil inventories related to Vitol's crude oil purchasing and marketing business in West Texas. The acquisition also included the purchase of a 50% interest in SunVit Pipeline LLC ("SunVit"), which increased Sunoco Logistics' overall ownership of SunVit to 100%.
In February 2017, Sunoco Logistics formed Permian Express Partners LLC ("PEP"), a strategic joint venture, with ExxonMobil Corp. Sunoco Logistics contributed its Permian Express 1, Permian Express 2 and Permian Longview and Louisiana Access pipelines. ExxonMobil Corp. contributed its Longview to Louisiana and Pegasus pipelines; Hawkins gathering system; an idle pipeline in southern Oklahoma; and its Patoka, Illinois terminal. Sunoco Logistics’ ownership percentage is approximately 85%. Upon commencement of operations on the Bakken Pipeline, Sunoco Logistics will contribute its investment in the project, with a corresponding increase in its ownership percentage in PEP. Sunoco Logistics maintains a controlling financial and voting interest in PEP and is the operator of all of the assets. As such, PEP will be reflected as a consolidated subsidiary of Sunoco Logistics. ExxonMobil Corp.’s interest will be reflected as noncontrolling interest in Sunoco Logistics’ consolidated balance sheet.
On August 31, 2016, Sunoco LP acquired the fuels business (the "Fuels Business") from Emerge Energy Services LP (NYSE: EMES) ("Emerge") for $171 million, inclusive of working capital and other adjustments. The Fuels Business comprises Dallas-based Direct Fuels LLC and Birmingham-based Allied Energy Company LLC, both wholly owned subsidiaries of Emerge, and engages in the processing of transmix and the distribution of refined fuels. As part of the acquisition, Sunoco LP acquired two transmix processing plants with attached refined product terminals. Combined, the plants can process over 10,000 barrels per day of transmix, and the associated terminals have over 800,000 barrels of storage capacity.
On August 2, 2016, Bakken Holdings Company LLC, an entity in which ETP indirectly owns a 60% membership interest and Sunoco Logistics indirectly owns a 40% membership interest, agreed to sell a 49% interest in its wholly-owned subsidiary, Bakken Pipeline Investments LLC, to MarEn Bakken Company LLC, an entity jointly owned by Marathon Petroleum Corporation and Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. for $2.00 billion in cash. This transaction closed in February 2017. Bakken Pipeline Investments LLC indirectly owns a 75% interest in each of Dakota Access, LLC (“Dakota Access”) and Energy Transfer Crude Oil Company, LLC (“ETCO”). The remaining 25% of each of Dakota Access and ETCO is owned by wholly-owned subsidiaries of Phillips 66. ETP will continue to consolidate Dakota Access and ETCO subsequent to this transaction. Upon closing, ETP and Sunoco Logistics collectively own a 38.25% interest in the Dakota Access Pipeline and Energy Transfer Crude Oil Pipeline projects (collectively, the “Bakken Pipeline”) and MarEn Bakken Company owns 36.75% and Phillips 66 owns 25% in the Bakken Pipeline.
In August 2016, ETP, Sunoco Logistics and Phillips 66 announced the completion of the project-level financing of the Bakken Pipeline. The $2.50 billion credit facility is anticipated to provide substantially all of the remaining capital necessary to complete the projects. As of December 31, 2016, $1.10 billion was outstanding under this credit facility.
On June 22, 2016, Sunoco LP acquired 18 convenience stores serving the upstate New York market from Valentine Stores, Inc. (“Valentine”) for $76 million plus the value of inventory on hand at closing. The acquisition included 19 fee properties (of which 18 are company operated convenience stores and one is a standalone Tim Hortons), one leased Tim Hortons property, and three raw tracts of land in fee for future store development.
On May 2, 2016, Sunoco LP finalized an agreement with the Indiana Toll Road Concession Company to develop and operate 8 travel plazas along the 150-mile toll road. The agreement has a 20-year term with an estimated cost of $31 million. The first series of plaza reconstruction began in the third quarter of 2016, and the total construction period is expected to last two years.
On March 28, 2016, Sunoco LP entered into a Store Development Agreement with Dunkin’ Donuts to be the exclusive developer of Dunkin’ Donuts restaurants in the state of Hawaii for an initial term of eight years. We have committed to building and operating 15 Dunkin’ Donuts restaurants at an estimated cost of $20 million. We anticipate that approximately half the restaurants will be built on existing Aloha-controlled (convenience store/gas station) properties and half will be standalone restaurants developed on properties that will be acquired in the future.
In March 2016, ETP contributed to Sunoco LP its remaining 68.42% interest in Sunoco, LLC and 100% interest in the legacy Sunoco, Inc. retail business for $2.23 billion. Sunoco LP paid $2.20 billion in cash, including a working capital adjustment and issued 5.7 million Sunoco LP common units to Retail Holdings, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Partnership. The transaction was effective January 1, 2016. In connection with this transaction, the Partnership deconsolidated the legacy Sunoco, Inc. retail business, including goodwill of $1.29 billion and intangible assets of $294 million. The results of Sunoco, LLC and the legacy Sunoco, Inc. retail business’ operations have not been presented as discontinued operations and Sunoco, Inc.’s retail business assets and liabilities have not been presented as held for sale in the Partnership’s consolidated financial statements.
Our primary business objective is to increase cash available for distributions to our unitholders by actively assisting our subsidiaries in executing their business strategies by assisting in identifying, evaluating and pursuing strategic acquisitions and growth opportunities. In general, we expect that we will allow our subsidiaries the first opportunity to pursue any acquisition or internal growth project that may be presented to us which may be within the scope of their operations or business strategies. In the future, we may also support the growth of our subsidiaries through the use of our capital resources, which could involve loans, capital contributions or other forms of credit support to our subsidiaries. This funding could be used for the acquisition by one of our subsidiaries of a business or asset or for an internal growth project. In addition, the availability of this capital could assist our subsidiaries in arranging financing for a project, reducing its financing costs or otherwise supporting a merger or acquisition transaction.
Our reportable segments are as follows:
•Investment in ETP, including the consolidated operations of ETP;
Investment in Sunoco LP, including the consolidated operations of Sunoco LP;
Investment in Lake Charles LNG, including the operations of Lake Charles LNG; and
Corporate and Other, including the activities of the Parent Company.
The businesses within these segments are described below. See Note 15 to our consolidated financial statements for additional financial information about our reportable segments.
Investment in ETP
ETP’s operations include the following:
Intrastate Transportation and Storage Operations
ETP’s natural gas transportation pipelines receive natural gas from other mainline transportation pipelines, storage facilities and gathering systems and deliver the natural gas to industrial end-users, storage facilities, utilities and other pipelines. Through its intrastate transportation and storage operations, ETP owns and operates approximately 7,900 miles of natural gas transportation pipelines with approximately 15.2 Bcf/d of transportation capacity and three natural gas storage facilities located in the state of
Texas. ETP also owns a 49.99% general partner interest in RIGS, a 450-mile intrastate pipeline that delivers natural gas from northwest Louisiana to downstream pipelines and markets.
Through ETC OLP, ETP owns the largest intrastate pipeline system in the United States with interconnects to Texas markets and to major consumption areas throughout the United States. ETP’s intrastate transportation and storage operations focus on the transportation of natural gas to major markets from various prolific natural gas producing areas through connections with other pipeline systems as well as through its Oasis pipeline, its East Texas pipeline, its natural gas pipeline and storage assets that are referred to as the ET Fuel System, and its HPL System, which are described below.
ETP’s intrastate transportation and storage operations results are determined primarily by the amount of capacity its customers reserve as well as the actual volume of natural gas that flows through the transportation pipelines. Under transportation contracts, customers are charged (i) a demand fee, which is a fixed fee for the reservation of an agreed amount of capacity on the transportation pipeline for a specified period of time and which obligates the customer to pay even if the customer does not transport natural gas on the respective pipeline, (ii) a transportation fee, which is based on the actual throughput of natural gas by the customer, (iii) fuel retention based on a percentage of gas transported on the pipeline, or (iv) a combination of the three, generally payable monthly.
ETP also generates revenues and margin from the sale of natural gas to electric utilities, independent power plants, local distribution companies, industrial end-users and marketing companies on the HPL System. In addition, ETP’s intrastate transportation and storage operations generate revenues from fees charged for storing customers’ working natural gas in ETP’s storage facilities and from managing natural gas for its own account.
Interstate Transportation and Storage Operations
ETP’s natural gas transportation pipelines receive natural gas from other mainline transportation pipelines, storage facilities and gathering systems and deliver the natural gas to industrial end-users, storage facilities, utilities and other pipelines. Through its interstate transportation and storage operations, ETP directly owns and operates approximately 11,800 miles of interstate natural gas pipelines with approximately 10.3 Bcf/d of transportation capacity and has a 50% interest in the joint venture that owns the 185-mile Fayetteville Express pipeline and the 500-mile Midcontinent Express pipeline. ETP also owns a 50% interest in Citrus which owns 100% of FGT, an approximately 5,325 mile pipeline system that extends from South Texas through the Gulf Coast to South Florida.
ETP’s interstate transportation and storage operations include Panhandle, which owns and operates a large natural gas open-access interstate pipeline network. The pipeline network, consisting of the Panhandle, Trunkline and Sea Robin transmission systems, serves customers in the Midwest, Gulf Coast and Midcontinent United States with a comprehensive array of transportation and storage services. In connection with its natural gas pipeline transmission and storage systems, Panhandle has five natural gas storage fields located in Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan and Oklahoma. Southwest Gas operates four of these fields and Trunkline operates one.
ETP also owns a 50% interest in the MEP pipeline system, which is operated by KMI and has the capability to transport up to 1.8 Bcf/d of natural gas.
Gulf States is a small interstate pipeline that uses cost-based rates and terms and conditions of service for shippers wishing to secure capacity for interstate transportation service. Rates charged are largely governed by long-term negotiated rate agreements.
We are currently in the process of converting a portion of the Trunkline gas pipeline to crude oil transportation.
The results from ETP’s interstate transportation and storage operations are primarily derived from the fees ETP earns from natural gas transportation and storage services.
The midstream natural gas industry is the link between the exploration and production of natural gas and the delivery of its components to end-use markets. The midstream industry consists of natural gas gathering, compression, treating, processing, storage and transportation, and is generally characterized by regional competition based on the proximity of gathering systems and processing plants to natural gas producing wells and the proximity of storage facilities to production areas and end-use markets.
The natural gas gathering process begins with the drilling of wells into gas-bearing rock formations. Once a well has been completed, the well is connected to a gathering system. Gathering systems generally consist of a network of small diameter pipelines and, if necessary, compression systems, that collects natural gas from points near producing wells and transports it to larger pipelines for further transportation.
Gathering systems are operated at design pressures that will maximize the total throughput from all connected wells. Specifically, lower pressure gathering systems allow wells, which produce at progressively lower field pressures as they age, to remain connected to gathering systems and to continue to produce for longer periods of time. As the pressure of a well declines, it becomes increasingly difficult to deliver the remaining production in the ground against a higher pressure that exists in the connecting gathering system. Field compression is typically used to lower the pressure of a gathering system. If field compression is not installed, then the remaining production in the ground will not be produced because it cannot overcome the higher gathering system pressure. In contrast, if field compression is installed, then a well can continue delivering production that otherwise might not be produced.
Natural gas has a varied composition depending on the field, the formation and the reservoir from which it is produced. Natural gas from certain formations is higher in carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide or certain other contaminants. Treating plants remove carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide from natural gas to ensure that it meets pipeline quality specifications.
Some natural gas produced by a well does not meet the pipeline quality specifications established by downstream pipelines or is not suitable for commercial use and must be processed to remove the mixed NGL stream. In addition, some natural gas produced by a well, while not required to be processed, can be processed to take advantage of favorable margins for NGLs extracted from the gas stream. Natural gas processing involves the separation of natural gas into pipeline quality natural gas, or residue gas, and a mixed NGL stream.
Through its midstream operations, ETP owns and operates natural gas and NGL gathering pipelines, natural gas processing plants, natural gas treating facilities and natural gas conditioning facilities with an aggregate processing, treating and conditioning capacity of approximately 12.3 Bcf/d. ETP’s midstream operations focus on the gathering, compression, treating, blending, and processing, of natural gas and its operations are currently concentrated in major producing basins and shales, including the Austin Chalk trend and Eagle Ford Shale in South and Southeast Texas, the Permian Basin in West Texas and New Mexico, the Barnett Shale and Woodford Shale in North Texas, the Bossier Sands in East Texas, the Marcellus Shale in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, and the Haynesville Shale in East Texas and Louisiana. Many of ETP’s midstream assets are integrated with our intrastate transportation and storage assets.
Our midstream operations also include a 60% interest in ELG, which operates natural gas gathering, oil pipeline, and oil stabilization facilities in South Texas, a 33.33% membership interest in Ranch Westex JV LLC, which processes natural gas delivered from the NGLs-rich shale formations in West Texas, a 75% membership interest in ORS, which operates a natural gas gathering system in the Utica shale in Ohio, and a 50% interest in Mi Vida JV, which operates a cryogenic processing plant and related facilities in West Texas, a 51% membership interest in Aqua – PVR, which transports and supplies fresh water to natural gas producers in the Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania, and a 50% interest in Sweeny Gathering LP, which operates a natural gas gathering facility in South Texas.
The results from ETP’s midstream operations are primarily derived from margins ETP earns for natural gas volumes that are gathered, transported, purchased and sold through ETP’s pipeline systems and the natural gas and NGL volumes processed at its processing and treating facilities.
Liquids Transportation and Services Operations
NGL transportation pipelines transport mixed NGLs and other hydrocarbons from natural gas processing facilities to fractionation plants and storage facilities. NGL storage facilities are used for the storage of mixed NGLs, NGL products and petrochemical products owned by third parties in storage tanks and underground wells, which allow for the injection and withdrawal of such products at various times of the year to meet demand cycles. NGL fractionators separate mixed NGL streams into purity products, such as ethane, propane, normal butane, isobutane and natural gasoline.
ETP’s liquids transportation and services operations includes approximately 1,400 miles of NGL pipelines with an aggregate transportation capacity in excess of 1.5 million Bbls/d, five NGL and propane fractionation facilities with an aggregate capacity of 545,000 Bbls/d and NGL storage facilities with aggregate working storage capacity of approximately 53 million Bbls. Four of ETP’s NGL and propane fractionation facilities and 50 million Bbls of ETP’s NGL storage capacity are located at Mont Belvieu, Texas, one NGL fractionation facility is located in Geismar, Louisiana, and operations have 3 million Bbls of salt dome storage near Hattiesburg, Mississippi. The NGL pipelines primarily transport NGLs from the Permian and Delaware basins and the Barnett and Eagle Ford Shales to Mont Belvieu. In addition, ETP owns and operates the 82-mile Rio Bravo crude oil pipeline.
Liquids transportation revenue is principally generated from fees charged to customers under dedicated contracts or take-or-pay contracts. Under a dedicated contract, the customer agrees to deliver the total output from particular processing plants that are connected to the NGL pipeline. Take-or-pay contracts have minimum throughput commitments requiring the customer to pay regardless of whether a fixed volume is transported. Transportation fees are market-based, negotiated with customers and competitive with regional regulated pipelines.
NGL fractionation revenue is principally generated from fees charged to customers under take-or-pay contracts. Take-or-pay contracts have minimum payment obligations for throughput commitments requiring the customer to pay regardless of whether a fixed volume is fractionated from raw make into purity NGL products. Fractionation fees are market-based, negotiated with customers and competitive with other fractionators along the Gulf Coast.
NGL storage revenues are derived from base storage fees and throughput fees. Base storage fees are firm take or pay contracts on the volume of capacity reserved, regardless of the capacity actually used. Throughput fees are charged for providing ancillary services, including receipt and delivery and custody transfer fees.
These operations also includes revenues earned from the marketing of NGLs and processing and fractionating refinery off-gas. Marketing of NGLs primarily generates margin from selling ratable NGLs to end users and from optimizing storage assets. Processing and fractionation of refinery off-gas margin is generated from a percentage-of-proceeds of O-grade product sales and income sharing contracts, which are subject to market pricing of olefins and NGLs.
ETP’s Investment in Sunoco Logistics
ETP’s interests in Sunoco Logistics consist of 67.1 million Sunoco Logistics common units and 9.4 million Sunoco Logistics Class B Units, collectively representing 23% of the limited partner interests in Sunoco Logistics as of December 31, 2016. ETP also owns a 99.9% interest in Sunoco Partners LLC, the entity that owns the general partner interest and IDRs in Sunoco Logistics. Because ETP controls Sunoco Logistics through its ownership of the general partner, the operations of Sunoco Logistics are consolidated into ETP.
Sunoco Logistics owns and operates a logistics business, consisting of a geographically diverse portfolio of complementary pipeline, terminalling, and acquisition and marketing assets which are used to facilitate the purchase and sale of crude oil, NGLs and refined products primarily in the northeast, midwest and southwest regions of the United States. In addition, Sunoco Logistics owns interests in several product pipeline joint ventures.
Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil operations provide transportation, terminalling and acquisition and marketing services to crude oil markets throughout the southwest, midwest and northeastern United States. Included within these operations are approximately 6,100 miles of crude oil trunk and gathering pipelines in the southwest and midwest United States and equity ownership interests in two crude oil pipelines. Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil terminalling services operate with an aggregate storage capacity of approximately 33 million barrels, including approximately 26 million barrels at its Gulf Coast terminal in Nederland, Texas and approximately 3 million barrels at its Fort Mifflin terminal complex in Pennsylvania. Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil acquisition and marketing activities utilize its pipeline and terminal assets, its proprietary fleet crude oil tractor trailers and truck unloading facilities, as well as third-party assets, to service crude oil markets principally in the mid-continent United States.
Sunoco Logistics’ NGLs operations transport, store, and execute acquisition and marketing activities utilizing a complementary network of pipelines, storage and blending facilities, and strategic off-take locations that provide access to multiple NGLs markets. These operations contain approximately 900 miles of NGLs pipelines, primarily related to its Mariner systems located in the northeast and southwest United States. Terminalling services are facilitated by approximately 5 million barrels of NGLs storage capacity, including approximately 1 million barrels of storage at its Nederland, Texas terminal facility and 3 million barrels at its Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania terminal facility (the “Marcus Hook Industrial Complex”). These operations also carry out Sunoco Logistics’ NGLs blending activities, including utilizing its patented butane blending technology.
Sunoco Logistics’ refined products operations provide transportation and terminalling services, through the use of approximately 1,800 miles of refined products pipelines and approximately 40 active refined products marketing terminals. Sunoco Logistics’ marketing terminals are located primarily in the northeast, midwest and southwest United States, with approximately 8 million barrels of refined products storage capacity. Sunoco Logistics’ refined products operations include its Eagle Point facility in New Jersey, which has approximately 6 million barrels of refined products storage capacity. The operations also include Sunoco Logistics’ equity ownership interests in four refined products pipeline companies. The operations also perform terminalling activities at Sunoco Logistics’ Marcus Hook Industrial Complex. Sunoco Logistics’ refined products operations utilize its integrated pipeline and terminalling assets, as well as acquisition and marketing activities, to service refined products markets in several regions in the United States.
ETP’s Other Operations and Investments
ETP’s other operations and investments include the following:
ETP owns an equity method investment in limited partner units of Sunoco LP consisting of 43.5 million units, representing 44.3% of Sunoco LP’s total outstanding common units.
ETP’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Sunoco, Inc., owns an approximate 33% non-operating interest in PES, a refining joint venture with The Carlyle Group, L.P. (“The Carlyle Group”), which owns a refinery in Philadelphia.
ETP conducts marketing operations in which it markets the natural gas that flows through its gathering and intrastate transportation assets, referred to as on-system gas. ETP also attracts other customers by marketing volumes of natural gas that do not move through its assets, referred to as off-system gas. For both on-system and off-system gas, ETP purchases natural gas from natural gas producers and other suppliers and sells that natural gas to utilities, industrial consumers, other marketers and pipeline companies, thereby generating gross margins based upon the difference between the purchase and resale prices of natural gas, less the costs of transportation. For the off-system gas, ETP purchases gas or acts as an agent for small independent producers that may not have marketing operations.
ETP owns all of the outstanding equity interests of a natural gas compression equipment business with operations in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Texas.
ETP owns 100% of the membership interests of ETG, which owns all of the partnership interests of Energy Transfer Technologies, Ltd. (“ETT”). ETT provides compression services to customers engaged in the transportation of natural gas, including ETP’s other operations.
ETP owns a 40% interest in the parent of LCL, which is developing a LNG liquefaction project.
ETP owns and operates a fleet of compressors used to provide turn-key natural gas compression services for customer specific systems. ETP also owns and operates a fleet of equipment used to provide treating services, such as carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide removal, natural gas cooling, dehydration and BTU management.
ETP is involved in the management of coal and natural resources properties and the related collection of royalties. ETP also earns revenues from other land management activities, such as selling standing timber, leasing coal-related infrastructure facilities, and collecting oil and gas royalties. These operations also include Coal Handling, which owns and operates end-user coal handling facilities.
ETP also owns PEI Power Corp. and PEI Power II, which own and operate a facility in Pennsylvania that generates a total of 75 megawatts of electrical power.
Investment in Sunoco LP
Sunoco LP is engaged in retail sale of motor fuels and merchandise through its company-operated convenience stores and retail fuel sites, as well as the wholesale distribution of motor fuels to convenience stores, independent dealers, commercial customers and distributors.
Sunoco LP is a wholesale distributor of motor fuels and other petroleum products which Sunoco LP supplies to its retail operations, to third-party dealers and distributors, to independent operators of consignment locations and other consumers of motor fuel. Also included in the wholesale operations are transmix processing plants and refined products terminals. Transmix is the mixture of various refined products (primarily gasoline and diesel) created in the supply chain (primarily in pipelines and terminals) when various products interface with each other. Transmix processing plants separate this mixture and return it to salable products of gasoline and diesel.
Sunoco LP is the exclusive wholesale supplier of the iconic Sunoco branded motor fuel, supplying an extensive distribution network of approximately 5,335 Sunoco-branded company and third-party operated locations throughout the East Coast, Midwest and Southeast regions of the United States, including approximately 235 company operated Sunoco-branded locations in Texas. Sunoco LP believes it is one of the largest independent motor fuel distributors by gallons in Texas and one of the largest distributors of Chevron, Exxon, and Valero branded motor fuel in the United States. In addition to distributing motor fuels, Sunoco LP also distributes other petroleum products such as propane and lubricating oil, and Sunoco LP receives rental income from real estate that it leases or subleases.
Sunoco LP purchases motor fuel primarily from independent refiners and major oil companies and distribute it across more than 30 states throughout the East Coast, Midwest and Southeast regions of the United States, as well as Hawaii to approximately:
1,345 company-operated convenience stores and fuel outlets;
165 independently operated consignment locations where we sell motor fuel under consignment arrangements to retail customers;
5,550 convenience stores and retail fuel outlets operated by independent operators, which are referred to as “dealers” or “distributors,” pursuant to long-term distribution agreements; and
2,130 other commercial customers, including unbranded convenience stores, other fuel distributors, school districts and municipalities and other industrial customers.
As of December 31, 2016, Sunoco LP’s retail operations operated approximately 1,345 convenience stores and retail fuel outlets. Our retail convenience stores operate under several brands, including Sunoco’s proprietary brands Stripes, APlus, and Aloha Island Mart, and offer a broad selection of food, beverages, snacks, grocery and non-food merchandise, motor fuel and other services. We have company operated sites in more than 20 states, with a significant presence in Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, Florida, Virginia and Hawaii.
As of December 31, 2016, Sunoco LP operated approximately 740 Stripes convenience stores in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Louisiana. Each store offers a customized merchandise mix based on local customer demand and preferences. Sunoco LP has built approximately 255 large-format convenience stores from January 2000 through December 31, 2016. Sunoco LP has implemented our proprietary, in-house Laredo Taco Company restaurant concept in approximately 470 Stripes convenience stores and intend to implement it in all newly constructed Stripes convenience stores. Sunoco LP also owns and operates ATM and proprietary money order systems in most Stripes stores and provide other services such as lottery, prepaid telephone cards, wireless services and car washes.
As of December 31, 2016, Sunoco LP operated approximately 445 retail convenience stores and fuel outlets, primarily under Sunoco’s proprietary and iconic Sunoco fuel brand, and principally located in Pennsylvania, New York and Florida, including approximately 400 APlus convenience stores. Sunoco Retail's convenience stores offer a broad selection of food, beverages, snacks, grocery, and non-food merchandise, as well as motor fuel and other services such as ATM's, money orders, lottery, prepaid telephone cards, and wireless services.
As of December 31, 2016, Sunoco LP operated approximately 160 MACS and Aloha convenience stores and fuel outlets in Virginia, Maryland, Tennessee, Georgia, and Hawaii offering merchandise, food service, motor fuel and other services. As of December 31, 2016, MACS operated approximately 110 company-operated retail convenience stores and Aloha operated approximately 50 Aloha, Shell, and Mahalo branded fuel stations.
Investment in Lake Charles LNG
Lake Charles LNG provides terminal services for shippers by receiving LNG at the facility for storage and delivering such LNG to shippers, either in liquid state or gaseous state after regasification. Lake Charles LNG derives all of its revenue from a series of long term contracts with a wholly-owned subsidiary of BG Group plc (“BG”).
Lake Charles LNG is currently developing a natural gas liquefaction facility with BG for the export of LNG. In December 2015, Lake Charles LNG received authorization from the FERC to site, construct, and operate facilities for the liquefaction and export of natural gas. On February 15, 2016, Royal Dutch Shell plc completed its acquisition of BG. Shell announced in the second quarter of 2016 that they will delay making a final investment decision (“FID”) for the Lake Charles LNG project and Shell has not advised LCL of any change in the status of the project. In the event that each of LCL and Shell elect to make an affirmative FID, construction of the project would be expected to commence promptly thereafter and first LNG exports would commence about four years later.
Investment in ETP
The descriptions below include summaries of significant assets within ETP’s operations. Amounts, such as capacities, volumes and miles included in the descriptions below are approximate and are based on information currently available; such amounts are subject to change based on future events or additional information.
The following details the assets in ETP’s operations:
Intrastate Transportation and Storage
The following details pipelines and storage facilities in ETP’s intrastate transportation and storage operations:
Description of Assets
Miles of Natural Gas Pipeline
Pipeline Throughput Capacity
Working Storage Capacity
ET Fuel System
East Texas Pipeline
RIGS Haynesville Partnership Co.
The following information describes ETP’s principal intrastate transportation and storage assets:
The ET Fuel System serves some of the most prolific production areas in the United States and is comprised of intrastate natural gas pipeline and related natural gas storage facilities. The ET Fuel System has many interconnections with pipelines providing direct access to power plants, other intrastate and interstate pipelines, and has bi-directional capabilities. It is strategically located near high-growth production areas and provides access to the Waha Hub near Midland, Texas, the Katy Hub near Houston, Texas and the Carthage Hub in East Texas, the three major natural gas trading centers in Texas.
The ET Fuel System also includes ETP’s Bethel natural gas storage facility, with a working capacity of 6.0 Bcf, an average withdrawal capacity of 300 MMcf/d and an injection capacity of 75 MMcf/d, and our Bryson natural gas storage facility, with a working capacity of 5.2 Bcf, an average withdrawal capacity of 120 MMcf/d and an average injection capacity of 96 MMcf/d. Storage capacity on the ET Fuel System is contracted to third parties under fee-based arrangements that extend through 2023.
In addition, the ET Fuel System is integrated with ETP’s Godley processing plant which gives ETP the ability to bypass the plant when processing margins are unfavorable by blending the untreated natural gas from the North Texas System with natural gas on the ET Fuel System while continuing to meet pipeline quality specifications.
The Oasis Pipeline is primarily a 36-inch natural gas pipeline. It has bi-directional capabilities with approximately 1.2 Bcf/d of throughput capacity moving west-to-east and greater than 750 MMcf/d of throughput capacity moving east-to-west. The Oasis pipeline connects to the Waha and Katy market hubs and has many interconnections with other pipelines, power plants, processing facilities, municipalities and producers.
The Oasis pipeline is integrated with ETP’s Southeast Texas System and is an important component to maximizing our Southeast Texas System’s profitability. The Oasis pipeline enhances the Southeast Texas System by (i) providing access for natural gas on the Southeast Texas System to other third-party supply and market points and interconnecting pipelines and (ii) allowing us to bypass our processing plants and treating facilities on the Southeast Texas System when processing margins are unfavorable by blending untreated natural gas from the Southeast Texas System with gas on the Oasis pipeline while continuing to meet pipeline quality specifications.
The HPL System is an extensive network of intrastate natural gas pipelines, an underground Bammel storage reservoir and related transportation assets. The system has access to multiple sources of historically significant natural gas supply reserves from South Texas, the Gulf Coast of Texas, East Texas and the western Gulf of Mexico, and is directly connected to major gas distribution, electric and industrial load centers in Houston, Corpus Christi, Texas City and other cities located along the Gulf Coast of Texas. The HPL System is well situated to gather and transport gas in many of the major gas producing areas in Texas including a strong presence in the key Houston Ship Channel and Katy Hub markets, allowing us to play an important role in the Texas natural gas markets. The HPL System also offers its shippers off-system opportunities due to its numerous
interconnections with other pipeline systems, its direct access to multiple market hubs at Katy, the Houston Ship Channel and Agua Dulce, as well as our Bammel storage facility.
The Bammel storage facility has a total working gas capacity of approximately 52.5 Bcf, a peak withdrawal rate of 1.3 Bcf/d and a peak injection rate of 0.6 Bcf/d. The Bammel storage facility is located near the Houston Ship Channel market area and the Katy Hub, and is ideally suited to provide a physical backup for on-system and off-system customers. As of December 31, 2016, ETP had approximately 10.8 Bcf committed under fee-based arrangements with third parties and approximately 36.9 Bcf stored in the facility for ETP’s own account.
The East Texas Pipeline connects three treating facilities, one of which ETP owns, with our Southeast Texas System. The East Texas pipeline serves producers in East and North Central Texas and provided access to the Katy Hub. The East Texas pipeline expansions include the 36-inch East Texas extension to connect our Reed compressor station in Freestone County to our Grimes County compressor station, the 36-inch Katy expansion connecting Grimes to the Katy Hub, and the 42-inch Southeast Bossier pipeline connecting our Cleburne to Carthage pipeline to the HPL System.
RIGS is a 450-mile intrastate pipeline that delivers natural gas from northwest Louisiana to downstream pipelines and markets. The Partnership owns a 49.99% general partner interest in RIGS.
Interstate Transportation and Storage
Description of Assets
Miles of Natural Gas Pipeline
Pipeline Throughput Capacity
Working Gas Capacity
Florida Gas Transmission Pipeline
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line
Trunkline Gas Pipeline
Fayetteville Express Pipeline
Sea Robin Pipeline
Midcontinent Express Pipeline
The following information describes ETP’s principal interstate transportation and storage assets:
The Florida Gas Transmission Pipeline (“FGT”) is an open-access interstate pipeline system with a mainline capacity of 3.1 Bcf/d and approximately 5,325 miles of pipelines extending from south Texas through the Gulf Coast region of the United States to south Florida. The FGT system receives natural gas from various onshore and offshore natural gas producing basins. FGT is the principal transporter of natural gas to the Florida energy market, delivering over 66% of the natural gas consumed in the state. In addition, FGT’s system operates and maintains over 81 interconnects with major interstate and intrastate natural gas pipelines, which provide FGT’s customers access to diverse natural gas producing regions. FGT’s customers include electric utilities, independent power producers, industrials and local distribution companies. FGT is owned by Citrus, a 50/50 joint venture between ETP and KMI.
The Transwestern Pipeline is an open-access interstate natural gas pipeline extending from the gas producing regions of West Texas, eastern and northwestern New Mexico, and southern Colorado primarily to pipeline interconnects off the east end of its system and to pipeline interconnects at the California border. The Transwestern Pipeline has bi-directional capabilities and access to three significant gas basins: the Permian Basin in West Texas and eastern New Mexico; the San Juan Basin in northwestern New Mexico and southern Colorado; and the Anadarko Basin in the Texas and Oklahoma panhandles. Natural gas sources from the San Juan Basin and surrounding producing areas can be delivered eastward to Texas intrastate and mid-continent connecting pipelines and natural gas market hubs as well as westward to markets in Arizona, Nevada and California. Transwestern’s Phoenix Lateral Pipeline, with a throughput capacity of 660 MMcf/d, connects the Phoenix area to the Transwestern mainline. Transwestern’s customers include local distribution companies, producers, marketers, electric power generators and industrial end-users.
The Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line’s transmission system consists of four large diameter pipelines with bi-directional capabilities, extending approximately 1,300 miles from producing areas in the Anadarko Basin of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas through Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and into Michigan.
The Trunkline Gas Pipeline’s transmission system consists of one large diameter pipeline with bi-directional capabilities, extending approximately 1,400 miles from the Gulf Coast areas of Texas and Louisiana through Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan.
The Tiger Pipeline is an approximately 195-mile interstate natural gas pipeline with bi-directional capabilities, that connects to our dual 42-inch pipeline system near Carthage, Texas, extends through the heart of the Haynesville Shale and ends near Delhi, Louisiana, with interconnects to at least seven interstate pipelines at various points in Louisiana.
The Fayetteville Express Pipeline is an approximately 185-mile interstate natural gas pipeline that originates near Conway County, Arkansas, continues eastward through White County, Arkansas and terminates at an interconnect with Trunkline Gas Company in Panola County, Mississippi. The Fayetteville Express Pipeline is owned by a 50/50 joint venture with KMI.
The Sea Robin Pipeline’s transmission system consists of two offshore Louisiana natural gas supply systems extending approximately 120 miles into the Gulf of Mexico.
The Midcontinent Express Pipeline is an approximately 500-mile interstate pipeline stretching from southeast Oklahoma through northeast Texas, northern Louisiana and central Mississippi to an interconnect with the Transcontinental Gas Pipeline System in Butler, Alabama. The Midcontinent Express Pipeline is owned by a 50/50 joint venture with KMI.
Gulf States owns a 10-mile interstate pipeline that extends from Harrison County, Texas to Caddo Parish, Louisiana.
The following details our assets in the midstream operations:
Description of Assets
Net Gas Processing Capacity
Net Gas Treating Capacity
South Texas Region:
Southeast Texas System
Eagle Ford System
North Central Texas Region
The following information describes our principal midstream assets:
South Texas Region:
The Southeast Texas System is an integrated system that gathers, compresses, treats, processes, dehydrates and transports natural gas from the Austin Chalk trend and Eagle Ford shale formation. The Southeast Texas System is a large natural gas gathering system covering thirteen counties between Austin and Houston. This system is connected to the Katy Hub through the East Texas Pipeline and is also connected to the Oasis Pipeline. The Southeast Texas System includes two natural gas processing plant (La Grange and Alamo) with aggregate capacity of 410 MMcf/d and natural gas treating facilities with aggregate capacity of 510 MMcf/d. The La Grange and Alamo processing plants are natural gas processing plants that process the rich gas that flows through ETP’s gathering system to produce residue gas and NGLs. Residue gas is delivered into our intrastate pipelines and NGLs are delivered into ETP’s NGL pipelines to Lone Star.
ETP’s treating facilities remove carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide from natural gas gathered into ETP’s system before the natural gas is introduced to transportation pipelines to ensure that the gas meets pipeline quality specifications.
The Eagle Ford Gathering System consists of 30-inch and 42-inch natural gas gathering pipelines with over 1.4 Bcf/d of capacity originating in Dimmitt County, Texas, and extending to both ETP’s King Ranch gas plant in Kleberg County, Texas and Jackson plant in Jackson County, Texas. The Eagle Ford Gathering System includes four processing plants (Chisholm, Kenedy, Jackson and King Ranch) with aggregate capacity of 1,920 MMcf/d and one natural gas treating facility with capacity of 930 MMcf/d. ETP’s Chisholm, Kenedy, Jackson and King Ranch processing plants are connected to its intrastate transportation pipeline systems for deliveries of residue gas and are also connected with ETP’s NGL pipelines for delivery of NGLs to Lone Star.
ETP’s Northern Louisiana assets are comprised of several gathering systems in the Haynesville Shale with access to multiple markets through interconnects with several pipelines, including our Tiger Pipeline. ETP’s Northern Louisiana assets include the Bistineau, Creedence, and Tristate Systems, which collectively include three natural gas treating facilities, with aggregate capacity of 1,186 MMcf/d.
ETP’s PennTex Midstream System is primarily located in Lincoln Parish, Louisiana, and consists of the Lincoln Parish plant, a 200 MMcf/d design-capacity cryogenic natural gas processing plant located near Arcadia, Louisiana, the Mt. Olive plant, a 200 MMcf/d design-capacity cryogenic natural gas processing plant located near Ruston, Louisiana, with on-site liquids handling facilities for inlet gas; a 35-mile rich gas gathering system that provides producers with access to ETP’s processing plants and third-party processing capacity; a 15-mile residue gas pipeline that provides market access for natural gas from our processing plants, including connections with pipelines that provide access to the Perryville Hub and other markets in the Gulf Coast region; and a 40-mile NGL pipeline that provides connections to the Mont Belvieu market for NGLs produced from ETP’s processing plants.
The Ark-La-Tex assets gather, compress, treat and dehydrate natural gas in several parishes in north and west Louisiana and several counties in East Texas. These assets also include cryogenic natural gas processing facilities, a refrigeration plant, a conditioning plant, amine treating plants, and an interstate NGL pipeline. Collectively, the eight natural gas processing facilities (Dubach, Dubberly, Lisbon, Salem, Elm Grove, Minden, Ada and Brookeland) have an aggregate capacity of 1,025 MMcf/d.
Through the gathering and processing systems described above and their interconnections with RIGS in north Louisiana, ETP offers producers wellhead-to-market services, including natural gas gathering, compression, processing, treating and transportation.
North Central Texas Region:
The North Central Texas System is an integrated system located in four counties in North Central Texas that gathers, compresses, treats, processes and transports natural gas from the Barnett and Woodford Shales. ETP’s North Central Texas assets include its Godley and Crescent plants, which process rich gas produced from the Barnett Shale and STACK play, with aggregate capacity of 740 MMcf/d and aggregate treating capacity of 1,120 MMcf/d. The Godley plant is integrated with the ET Fuel System.
The Permian Basin Gathering System offers wellhead-to-market services to producers in eleven counties in West Texas, as well as two counties in New Mexico which surround the Waha Hub, one of Texas’s developing NGL-rich natural gas market areas. As a result of the proximity of our system to the Waha Hub, the Waha Gathering System has a variety of market outlets for the natural gas that ETP gathers and processes, including several major interstate and intrastate pipelines serving California, the mid-continent region of the United States and Texas natural gas markets. The NGL market outlets includes Lone Star’s liquids pipelines. The Permian Basin Gathering System includes ten processing facilities (Waha, Coyanosa, Red Bluff, Halley, Jal, Keyston, Tippet, Orla, Panther and Rebel) with an aggregate processing capacity of 1,418 MMcf/d, treating capacity of 1,580 MMcf/d, and one natural gas conditioning facility with aggregate capacity of 200 MMcf/d.
ETP owns a 50% membership interest in Mi Vida JV, a joint venture which owns a 200 MMcf/d cryogenic processing plant in West Texas. ETP operates the plant and related facilities on behalf of Mi Vida JV.
ETP owns a 33.33% membership interest in Ranch JV, which processes natural gas delivered from the NGL-rich Bone Spring and Avalon Shale formations in West Texas. The joint venture owns a 25 MMcf/d refrigeration plant and a 125 MMcf/d cryogenic processing plant.
The Mid-Continent Systems are located in two large natural gas producing regions in the United States, the Hugoton Basin in southwest Kansas, and the Anadarko Basin in western Oklahoma and the Texas Panhandle. These mature basins have continued to provide generally long-lived, predictable production volume. Our Mid-Continent assets are extensive systems that gather, compress and dehydrate low-pressure gas. The Mid-Continent Systems include fourteen natural gas processing facilities (Mocane, Beaver, Antelope Hills, Woodall, Wheeler, Sunray, Hemphill, Phoenix, Hamlin, Spearman, Red Deer, Lefors, Cargray and Gray) with an aggregate capacity of 885 MMcf/d and one natural gas treating facility with aggregate capacity of 20 MMcf/d.
ETP operates our Mid-Continent Systems at low pressures to maximize the total throughput volumes from the connected wells. Wellhead pressures are therefore adequate to allow for flow of natural gas into the gathering lines without the cost of wellhead compression.
ETP also owns the Hugoton Gathering System that has 1,900 miles of pipeline extending over nine counties in Kansas and Oklahoma. This system is operated by a third party.
The Eastern Region assets are located in nine counties in Pennsylvania, three counties in Ohio, three counties in West Virginia, and gather natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica basins. ETP’s Eastern Region assets include approximately 500 miles of natural gas gathering pipeline, natural gas trunklines, fresh-water pipelines, and nine gathering and processing systems. The fresh water pipeline system and Ohio gathering assets are held by jointly-owned entities.
ETP also owns a 51% membership interest in Aqua – PVR, a joint venture that transports and supplies fresh water to natural gas producers drilling in the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania.
ETP and Traverse ORS LLC, a subsidiary of Traverse Midstream Partners LLC, own a 75% and 25% membership interest, respectively, in the ORS joint venture. On behalf of ORS, ETP operates ORS’s Ohio Utica River System (the “ORS System”), which consists of 47 miles of 36-inch and 13 miles of 30-inch gathering trunklines that delivers up to 2.1 Bcf/d to Rockies Express Pipeline (“REX”), Texas Eastern Transmission, and others.
Liquids Transportation and Services
The following details ETP’s assets in the liquids transportation and services operations:
Description of Assets
Miles of Liquids Pipeline
Pipeline Throughput Capacity
NGL Fractionation / Processing Capacity
Working Storage Capacity
Lone Star Express
West Texas Gateway Pipeline
Other NGL Pipelines
Liquids Fractionation and Services Facilities:
Mont Belvieu Facilities
Sea Robin Processing Plant1
Hattiesburg Storage Facilities
Additionally, the Sea Robin Processing Plant and Refinery Services have residue capacities of 850 MMcf/d and 54 MMcf/d, respectively.
The following information describes ETP’s principal liquids transportation and services assets:
The Lone Star Express System is an intrastate NGL pipeline consisting of 24-inch and 30-inch long-haul transportation pipeline that delivers mixed NGLs from processing plants in the Permian Basin, the Barnett Shale, and from East Texas to the Mont Belvieu NGL storage facility.
The West Texas Gateway Pipeline transports NGLs produced in the Permian and Delaware Basins and the Eagle Ford Shale to Mont Belvieu, Texas.
Other NGL pipelines include the 127-mile Justice pipeline with capacity of 375,000 Bbls/d, the 45-mile Freedom pipeline with a capacity of 56,000 Bbls/d, the 15-mile Spirit pipeline with a capacity of 20,000 Bbls/d, the 82-mile Rio Bravo crude oil pipeline with a capacity of 100,000 Bbls/d and a 50% interest in the 87-mile Liberty pipeline with a capacity of 140,000 Bbls/d.
ETP’s Mont Belvieu storage facility is an integrated liquids storage facility with over 50 million Bbls of salt dome capacity providing 100% fee-based cash flows. The Mont Belvieu storage facility has access to multiple NGL and refined product pipelines, the Houston Ship Channel trading hub, and numerous chemical plants, refineries and fractionators.
ETP’s Mont Belvieu fractionators handle NGLs delivered from several sources, including the Lone Star Express pipeline and the Justice pipeline.
Sea Robin is a rich gas processing plant located on the Sea Robin Pipeline in southern Louisiana. The plant, which is connected to nine interstate and four intrastate residue pipelines, as well as various deep-water production fields.
Refinery Services consists of a refinery off-gas processing and O-grade NGL fractionation complex located along the Mississippi River refinery corridor in southern Louisiana that cryogenically processes refinery off-gas and fractionates the O-grade NGL stream into its higher value components. The O-grade fractionator, located in Geismar, Louisiana, is connected by approximately 100 miles of pipeline to the Chalmette processing plant, which has a processing capacity of 54 MMcf/d.
The Hattiesburg storage facility is an integrated liquids storage facility with approximately 3 million Bbls of salt dome capacity, providing 100% fee-based cash flows.
Investment in Sunoco Logistics
The following details the assets in ETP’s investment in Sunoco Logistics:
Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil operations consist of an integrated set of pipeline, terminalling, and acquisition and marketing assets that service the movement of crude oil from producers to end-user markets.
Crude Oil Pipelines
Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil pipelines consist of approximately 6,100 miles of crude oil trunk and gathering pipelines in the southwest and midwest United States, including Sunoco Logistics’ wholly-owned interests in West Texas Gulf and Permian Express Terminal LLC (“PET”), and a controlling financial interest in Mid-Valley Pipeline Company ("Mid-Valley"). Additionally, Sunoco Logistics has equity ownership interests in two crude oil pipelines. Sunoco Logistics’ pipelines provide access to several trading hubs, including the largest trading hub for crude oil in the United States located in Cushing, Oklahoma, and other trading hubs located in Midland, Colorado City and Longview, Texas. Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil pipelines also deliver to and connect with other pipelines that deliver crude oil to a number of refineries.
Southwest United States Pipelines. The Southwest pipelines include crude oil trunk pipelines and crude oil gathering pipelines in Texas and Oklahoma. This includes the Permian Express 2 pipeline project which provides takeaway capacity from the Permian Basin, with origins in multiple locations in Western Texas: Midland, Garden City and Colorado City. Sunoco Logistics’ fourth quarter 2016 acquisition of a West Texas crude oil system from Vitol Inc. and the remaining ownership interest in PET facilitates connection of its Permian Express 2 pipeline to terminal assets in Midland and Garden City, Texas.
In the third quarter 2016, Sunoco Logistics commenced operations on the Delaware Basin Extension and Permian Longview and Louisiana Extension pipeline projects. The Delaware Basin Extension pipeline project provides shippers with new takeaway capacity from the rapidly growing Delaware Basin area in New Mexico and West Texas to Midland, Texas. The project has initial capacity to transport approximately 100,000 Bbls/d. The Permian Longview and Louisiana Extension pipeline project provides takeaway capacity for approximately 100,000 Bbls/d additional out of the Permian Basin at Midland, Texas to be transported to the Longview, Texas area as well as destinations in Louisiana utilizing a combination of our proprietary crude oil system as well as third-party pipelines.
Sunoco Logistics owns and operates crude oil pipeline and gathering systems in Oklahoma. Sunoco Logistics has the ability to deliver substantially all of the crude oil gathered on its Oklahoma system to Cushing. Sunoco Logistics is one of the largest purchasers of crude oil from producers in the state, and its crude oil acquisition and marketing activities business is the primary shipper on its Oklahoma crude oil system.
Midwest United States Pipelines. Sunoco Logistics owns a controlling financial interest in the Mid-Valley pipeline system which originates in Longview, Texas and passes through Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio, and terminates in Samaria, Michigan. This pipeline provides crude oil to a number of refineries, primarily in the midwest United States.
In addition, Sunoco Logistics owns a crude oil pipeline that runs from Marysville, Michigan to Toledo, Ohio, and a truck injection point for local production at Marysville. This pipeline receives crude oil from the Enbridge pipeline system for delivery to refineries located in Toledo, Ohio and to Marathon Petroleum Corporation’s Samaria, Michigan tank farm, which supplies its refinery in Detroit, Michigan.
Crude Oil Terminals
Nederland. The Nederland terminal, located on the Sabine-Neches waterway between Beaumont and Port Arthur, Texas, is a large marine terminal providing storage and distribution services for refiners and other large transporters of crude oil and NGLs. The terminal receives, stores, and distributes crude oil, NGLs, feedstocks, lubricants, petrochemicals, and bunker oils (used for fueling ships and other marine vessels), and also blends lubricants. The terminal currently has a total storage capacity of approximately 26 million barrels in approximately 150 above ground storage tanks with individual capacities of up to 660,000 Bbls.
The Nederland terminal can receive crude oil at each of its five ship docks and four barge berths. The five ship docks are capable of receiving over 2 million Bbls/d of crude oil. In addition to Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil pipelines, the terminal can also receive crude oil through a number of other pipelines, including the DOE. The DOE pipelines connect the terminal to the United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve’s West Hackberry caverns at Hackberry, Louisiana and Big Hill near Winnie, Texas, which have an aggregate storage capacity of approximately 395 million barrels.
The Nederland Terminal can deliver crude oil and other petroleum products via pipeline, barge and ship. The terminal has two ship docks and three barge berths that are capable of delivering crude oils for international transport. In total, the terminal is capable of delivering over 2 million Bbls/d of crude oil to Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil pipelines or a number of third-party pipelines including the DOE. The Nederland terminal generates crude oil revenues primarily by providing term or spot storage services and throughput capabilities to a number of customers.
Fort Mifflin. The Fort Mifflin terminal complex is located on the Delaware River in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and includes the Fort Mifflin terminal, the Hog Island wharf, the Darby Creek tank farm and connecting pipelines. Revenues are generated from the Fort Mifflin terminal complex by charging fees based on throughput.
The Fort Mifflin terminal contains two ship docks with freshwater drafts and a total storage capacity of approximately 570,000 Bbls. Crude oil and some refined products enter the Fort Mifflin terminal primarily from marine vessels on the Delaware River. One Fort Mifflin dock is designed to handle crude oil from very large crude carrier-class tankers and smaller crude oil vessels. The other dock can accommodate only smaller crude oil vessels.
The Hog Island wharf is located next to the Fort Mifflin terminal on the Delaware River and receives crude oil via two ship docks, one of which can accommodate crude oil tankers and smaller crude oil vessels, and the other of which can accommodate some smaller crude oil vessels.
The Darby Creek tank farm is a primary crude oil storage terminal for the Philadelphia refinery, which is operated by PES under a joint venture with Sunoco, Inc. This facility has a total storage capacity of approximately 3 million barrels. Darby Creek receives crude oil from the Fort Mifflin terminal and Hog Island wharf via Sunoco Logistics’ pipelines. The tank farm then stores the crude oil and transports it to the PES refinery via Sunoco Logistics’ pipelines.
Eagle Point. The Eagle Point terminal is located in Westville, New Jersey and consists of docks, truck loading facilities and a tank farm. The docks are located on the Delaware River and can accommodate three marine vessels (ships or barges) to receive and deliver crude oil, intermediate products and refined products to outbound ships and barges. The tank farm has a total active storage capacity of approximately 1 million barrels and can receive crude oil via barge and rail and deliver via barge, providing customers with access to various markets. The terminal generates revenue primarily by charging fees based on throughput, blending services and storage.
Midland. The Midland terminal is located in Midland, Texas and was acquired in November 2016 from Vitol. The facility includes approximately 2 million barrels of crude oil storage, a combined 14 lanes of truck loading and unloading, and will provide access to the Permian Express 2 transportation system.
Crude Oil Acquisition and Marketing
Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil acquisition and marketing activities include the gathering, purchasing, marketing and selling of crude oil primarily in the mid-continent United States. The operations are conducted using Sunoco Logistics’ assets, which include approximately 370 crude oil transport trucks and approximately 150 crude oil truck unloading facilities, as well as third-party truck, rail and marine assets. Specifically, the crude oil acquisition and marketing activities include:
purchasing crude oil at both the wellhead from producers, and in bulk from aggregators at major pipeline interconnections and trading locations;
storing inventory during contango market conditions (when the price of crude oil for future delivery is higher than current prices);
buying and selling crude oil of different grades, at different locations in order to maximize value;
transporting crude oil using the pipelines, terminals and trucks or, when necessary or cost effective, pipelines, terminals or trucks owned and operated by third parties; and
marketing crude oil to major integrated oil companies, independent refiners and resellers through various types of sale and exchange transactions.
In November 2016, Sunoco Logistics purchased a crude oil acquisition and marketing business from Vitol, with operations based in the Permian Basin, Texas. Included in the acquisition was a significant acreage dedication from an investment-grade Permian producer.
Natural Gas Liquids
Sunoco Logistics’ natural gas liquids operations transport, store, and execute acquisition and marketing activities utilizing an integrated network of pipeline assets, storage and blending facilities, and strategic off-take locations that provide access to multiple NGL markets.
Sunoco Logistics owns approximately 900 miles of NGLs pipelines, primarily related to the Mariner systems in the northeast and southwest United States.
The Mariner East pipeline transports NGLs from the Marcellus and Utica Shales areas in Western Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Eastern Ohio to destinations in Pennsylvania, including our Marcus Hook Industrial Complex on the Delaware River, where they are processed, stored and distributed to local, domestic and waterborne markets. The first phase of the project, referred to as Mariner East 1, consisted of interstate and intrastate propane and ethane service and commenced operations in the fourth quarter of 2014 and the first quarter of 2016, respectively. The second phase of the project, referred to as Mariner East 2, will expand the total takeaway capacity to 345,000 Bbls/d for interstate and intrastate propane, ethane and butane service, and is expected to commence operations in the third quarter of 2017.
The Mariner South pipeline is part of a joint project with Lone Star to deliver export-grade propane and butane products from Lone Star’s Mont Belvieu, Texas storage and fractionation complex to Sunoco Logistics’ marine terminal in Nederland, Texas. The pipeline has a capacity of approximately 200,000 Bbls/d and can be scaled depending on shipper interest.
The Mariner West pipeline provides transportation of ethane products from the Marcellus shale processing and fractionating areas in Houston, Texas, Pennsylvania to Marysville, Michigan and the Canadian border. Mariner West commenced operations in the fourth quarter 2013, with capacity to transport approximately 50,000 Bbls/d of NGLs and other products.
Nederland. In addition to crude oil activities, the Nederland terminal also provides approximately 1 million barrels of storage and distribution services for NGLs in connection with the Mariner South pipeline, which provides transportation of propane and butane products from the Mont Belvieu region to the Nederland terminal, where such products can be delivered via ship.
Marcus Hook Industrial Complex. In 2013, Sunoco Logistics acquired Sunoco, Inc.’s Marcus Hook Industrial Complex. The acquisition included terminalling and storage assets, with a capacity of approximately 3 million barrels of NGL storage capacity in underground caverns, and related commercial agreements. The facility can receive NGLs via marine vessel, pipeline, truck and rail, and can deliver via marine vessel, pipeline and truck. In addition to providing NGLs storage and terminalling services to both affiliates and third-party customers, the Marcus Hook Industrial Complex currently serves as an off-take outlet for the Mariner East 1 pipeline, and will provide similar off-take capabilities for the Mariner East 2 pipeline when it commences operations.
Inkster. The Inkster terminal, located near Detroit, Michigan, consists of multiple salt caverns with a total storage capacity of approximately 1 million barrels of NGLs. Sunoco Logistics uses the Inkster terminal's storage in connection with the Toledo North pipeline system and for the storage of NGLs from local producers and a refinery in Western Ohio. The terminal can receive and ship by pipeline in both directions and has a truck loading and unloading rack.
NGLs Acquisition & Marketing
Sunoco Logistics’ NGLs acquisition and marketing activities include the acquisition, blending, marketing and selling of such products at Sunoco Logistics’ various terminals and third-party facilities.
Sunoco Logistics’ refined products operations provide transportation and terminalling services using an integrated network of pipeline assets and refined products terminals, which are also utilized to facilitate acquisition and marketing activities. The operations also include equity ownership interests in four refined products pipelines.
Refined Products Pipelines
Sunoco Logistics owns and operates approximately 1,800 miles of refined products pipelines in several regions of the United States. The pipelines primarily provide transportation in the northeast, midwest, and southwest United States markets. These operations include Sunoco Logistics’ controlling financial interest in Inland Corporation (“Inland”).
The mix of products delivered varies seasonally, with gasoline demand peaking during the summer months, and demand for heating oil and other distillate fuels peaking in the winter. In addition, weather conditions in the areas served by the refined products pipelines affect both the demand for, and the mix of, the refined products delivered through the pipelines, although historically, any overall impact on the total volume shipped has been short-term.
The products transported in these pipelines include multiple grades of gasoline, and middle distillates, such as heating oil, diesel and jet fuel. Rates for shipments on these product pipelines are regulated by the FERC and other state regulatory agencies, as applicable.
Refined Products Terminals
Refined Products. Sunoco Logistics has approximately 40 refined products terminals with an aggregate storage capacity of approximately 8 million barrels that facilitate the movement of refined products to or from storage or transportation systems, such as a pipeline, to other transportation systems, such as trucks or other pipelines. Each facility typically consists of multiple storage tanks and is equipped with automated truck loading equipment that is operational 24 hours a day.
Eagle Point. In additional to crude oil service, the Eagle Point terminal can accommodate three marine vessels (ships or barges) to receive and deliver refined products to outbound ships and barges. The tank farm has a total active refined products storage capacity of approximately 6 million barrels, and provides customers with access to the facility via barge and pipeline. The terminal can deliver via barge, truck or pipeline, providing customers with access to various markets. The terminal generates revenue primarily by charging fees based on throughput, blending services and storage.
Marcus Hook Industrial Complex. The Marcus Hook Industrial Complex can receive refined products via marine vessel, pipeline, truck and rail, and can deliver via marine vessel, pipeline and truck. The terminal has a total active refined products storage capacity of approximately 2 million barrels.
Marcus Hook Tank Farm. The Marcus Hook Tank Farm has a total refined products storage capacity of approximately 2 million barrels of refined products storage. The tank farm historically served Sunoco Inc.'s Marcus Hook refinery and generated revenue from the related throughput and storage. In 2012, the main processing units at the refinery were idled in connection with Sunoco Inc.'s exit from its refining business. The terminal continues to receive and deliver refined products via pipeline and now primarily provides terminalling services to support movements on Sunoco Logistics’ refined products pipelines.
Refined Products Acquisition and Marketing
Sunoco Logistics’ refined products acquisition and marketing activities include the acquisition, marketing and selling of bulk refined products such as gasoline products and distillates. These activities utilize Sunoco Logistics’ refined products pipeline and terminal assets, as well as third-party assets and facilities.
Equity Method Investments
Sunoco LP. ETP has an equity method investment in limited partnership units of Sunoco LP consisting of 43.5 million units, representing 44.3% of Sunoco LP’s total outstanding common units.
PES. ETP has a non-controlling interest in PES, comprising 33% of PES’ outstanding common units.
Contract Services Operations
ETP owns and operates a fleet of equipment used to provide treating services, such as carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide removal, natural gas cooling, dehydration and BTU management. ETP’s contract treating services are primarily located in Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas.
ETP owns all of the outstanding equity interests of a natural gas compression equipment business with operations in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Texas.
ETP owns 100% of the membership interests of ETG, which owns all of the partnership interests of ETT. ETT provides compression services to customers engaged in the transportation of natural gas, including ETP’s other operations.
Natural Resources Operations
ETP’s Natural Resources operations primarily involve the management and leasing of coal properties and the subsequent collection of royalties. ETP also earns revenues from other land management activities, such as selling standing timber, leasing fee-based coal-related infrastructure facilities to certain lessees and end-user industrial plants, collecting oil and gas royalties and from coal transportation, or wheelage fees. As of December 31, 2016, ETP owned or controlled approximately 772 million tons of proven and probable coal reserves in central and northern Appalachia, properties in eastern Kentucky, Tennessee, southwestern Virginia and southern West Virginia, and in the Illinois Basin, properties in southern Illinois, Indiana, and western Kentucky and as the operator of end-user coal handling facilities. ETP’s subsidiary, Materials Handling Solutions, LLC, owns and operates facilities for industrial customers on a fee basis. During 2014, ETP’s coal reserves located in the San Juan basin were depleted and ETP’s associated coal royalties revenues ceased.
LCL, an entity whose parent is owned 60% by ETE and 40% by ETP, is in the process of developing the liquefaction project in conjunction with BG pursuant to a project development agreement entered into in September 2013 and scheduled to expire at the end of February 2017, subject to the partner right to mutually extend the term. Pursuant to this agreement, each of LCL and BG are obligated to pay 50% of the development expenses for the liquefaction project, subject to reimbursement by the other party if such party withdraws from the project prior to both parties making an affirmative FID to become irrevocably obligated to fully develop the project, subject to certain exceptions. The liquefaction project is expected to consist of three LNG trains with a combined design nameplate outlet capacity of 16.2 metric tonnes per annum. Once completed, the liquefaction project will enable LCL to liquefy domestically produced natural gas and export it as LNG. By adding the new liquefaction facility and integrating with the existing LNG regasification/import facility, the enhanced facility will become a bi-directional facility capable of exporting and importing LNG. BG is the sole customer for the existing regasification facility and is obligated to pay reservation fees for 100% of the regasification capacity regardless of whether it actually utilizes such capacity pursuant to a regasification services agreement that terminates in 2030. The liquefaction project will be constructed on 440 acres of land, of which 80 acres are owned by Lake Charles LNG and the remaining acres are to be leased by LCL under a long-term lease from the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District.
As currently provided in the Project Development Agreement, the construction of the liquefaction project is subject to each of LCL and BG making an affirmative FID to proceed with the project, which decision is in the sole discretion of each party. In the event an affirmative FID is made by both parties, LCL and BG will enter into several agreements related to the project, including a liquefaction services agreement pursuant to which BG will pay LCL for liquefaction services on a tolling basis for a minimum 25-year term with evergreen extension options for 20 years. In addition, a subsidiary of BG, a highly experienced owner and operator of LNG facilities, would oversee construction of the liquefaction facility and, upon completion of construction, manage the operations of the liquefaction facility on behalf of LCL. In the event that each of LCL and BG elect to make an affirmative FID, construction of the liquefaction project would commence promptly thereafter, and the first train would be expected to be placed in service about four years later.
The export of LNG produced by the liquefaction project from the U.S. will be undertaken under long-term export authorizations issued by the DOE to Lake Charles Exports, LLC (“LCE”), which is currently a jointly owned subsidiary of BG and ETP and following FID, will be 100% owned by BG. In July 2011, LCE obtained a DOE authorization to export LNG to countries with which the U.S. has or will have Free Trade Agreements (“FTA”) for trade in natural gas (the “FTA Authorization”). In August 2013, LCE obtained a conditional DOE authorization to export LNG to countries that do not have an FTA for trade in natural gas (the “Non-FTA Authorization”). The FTA Authorization and Non-FTA Authorization have 25- and 20-year terms, respectively. In January 2013, LCL filed for a secondary, non-cumulative FTA and Non-FTA Authorization to be held by LCL. FTA Authorization was granted in March 2013 and the Non-FTA Authorization was granted in July 2016.
ETP has received wetlands permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) to perform wetlands mitigation work and to perform modification and dredging work for the temporary and permanent dock facilities at the Lake Charles LNG facilities.
Investment in Sunoco LP
The following details the assets of Sunoco LP:
Susser Petroleum Operating Company LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, distributes motor fuel, propane and lubricating oils to Stripes’ retail locations, consignment locations, and third party customers in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Kansas.
Sunoco LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, primarily distributes motor fuel across more than 26 states throughout the East Coast, Midwest, and Southeast regions of the United States. Sunoco LLC also processes transmix and distributes refined product through its terminals in Alabama and the Greater Dallas, TX metroplex.
Southside Oil, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, distributes motor fuel primarily in Virginia, Maryland, Tennessee, and Georgia.
Aloha Petroleum LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, distributes motor fuel and operates terminal facilities on the Hawaiian Islands.
Susser Petroleum Property Company LLC , a Delaware limited liability company, primarily owns and leases convenience store properties.
Susser Holdings Corporation, a Delaware corporation, sells motor fuel and merchandise in Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma through Stripes-branded convenience stores.
Sunoco Retail, a Pennsylvania limited liability company, owns and operates convenience stores that sell motor fuel and merchandise primarily in Pennsylvania, New York, and Florida.
MACS Retail LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, owns and operates convenience stores in Virginia, Maryland, and Tennessee.
Aloha Petroleum, Ltd., a Hawaii corporation, owns and operates convenience stores on the Hawaiian Islands.
As of December 31, 2016, Sunoco LP’s retail operations operated approximately 1,345 convenience stores and retail fuel outlets. Sunoco LP’s retail convenience stores operate under several brands, including our proprietary brands Stripes, APlus, and Aloha Island Mart, and offer a broad selection of food, beverages, snacks, grocery and non-food merchandise, motor fuel and other services. Sunoco LP has company operated sites in more than 20 states, with a significant presence in Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, Florida, Virginia and Hawaii.
As of December 31, 2016, Sunoco LP operated 740 Stripes convenience stores in Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma. Each store offers a customized merchandise mix based on local customer demand and preferences. To further differentiate its merchandise offering, Stripes has developed numerous proprietary offerings and private label items unique to Stripes stores, including Laredo Taco Company® restaurants, Café de la Casa® custom blended coffee, Slush Monkey® frozen carbonated beverages, Quake® energy drink, Smokin’ Barrel® beef jerky and meat snacks, Monkey Loco® candies, Monkey Juice® and Royal® brand cigarettes. Stripes has built approximately 255 large-format convenience stores from January 2000 through December 31, 2016 and expects to construct and open 5 to 10 stores during 2017. Stripes has implemented its proprietary, in-house Laredo Taco Company restaurant concepts in over 470 Stripes convenience stores and intends to implement it in all newly constructed Stripes convenience stores. Stripes also owns and operates ATM and proprietary money order systems in most of its stores and also provides other services such as lottery, prepaid telephone cards, wireless services and car washes.
As of December 31, 2016, Sunoco LP operated approximately 445 retail convenience stores and fuel outlets, primarily under Sunoco’s proprietary and iconic Sunoco fuel brand, and principally located in Pennsylvania, New York and Florida, including approximately 400 APlus convenience stores. Sunoco Retail's convenience stores offer a broad selection of food, beverages, snacks, grocery, and non-food merchandise, as well as motor fuel and other services such as ATM's, money orders, lottery, prepaid telephone cards, and wireless services.
As of December 31, 2016, Sunoco LP operated approximately 160 MACS and Aloha convenience stores and fuel outlets in Virginia, Maryland, Tennessee, Georgia, and Hawaii offering merchandise, food service, motor fuel and other services. As of December
31, 2016, MACS operated 110 company-operated retail convenience stores and Aloha operated 50 Aloha, Shell, and Mahalo branded fuel stations.
Investment in Lake Charles LNG
Lake Charles LNG, a wholly-owned subsidiary of ETE, owns a LNG import terminal and regasification facility located on Louisiana’s Gulf Coast near Lake Charles, Louisiana. The import terminal has approximately 9.0 Bcf of above ground LNG storage capacity and the regasification facility has a run rate send out capacity of 1.8 Bcf/day.
LCL, an entity owned 60% by ETE and 40% by ETP, is in the process of developing the liquefaction project in conjunction with BG pursuant to a project development agreement entered into in September 2013 and scheduled to expire at the end of February 2017, subject to the parties’ right to mutually extend the term. Pursuant to this agreement, each of LCL and BG are obligated to pay 50% of the development expenses for the liquefaction project, subject to reimbursement by the other party if such party withdraws from the project prior to both parties making an affirmative FID to become irrevocably obligated to fully develop the project, subject to certain exceptions. The liquefaction project is expected to consist of three LNG trains with a combined design nameplate outlet capacity of 16.2 metric tonnes per annum. Once completed, the liquefaction project will enable LCL to liquefy domestically produced natural gas and export it as LNG. By adding the new liquefaction facility and integrating with the existing LNG regasification/import facility, the enhanced facility will become a bi-directional facility capable of exporting and importing LNG. BG is the sole customer for the existing regasification facility and is obligated to pay reservation fees for 100% of the regasification capacity regardless of whether it actually utilizes such capacity pursuant to a regasification services agreement that terminates in 2030. The liquefaction project is expected to be constructed on 440 acres of land, of which 80 acres are owned by Lake Charles LNG and the remaining acres are to be leased by LCL under a long-term lease from the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District.
Ac currently provided in the project development agreement, the construction of the liquefaction project is subject to each of LCL and BG making an affirmative FID to proceed with the project, which decision is in the sole discretion of each party. In the event an affirmative FID is made by both parties, LCL and BG will enter into several agreements related to the project, including a liquefaction services agreement pursuant to which BG will pay LCL for liquefaction services on a tolling basis for a minimum 25-year term with evergreen extension options for 20 years. In addition, a subsidiary of BG, a highly experienced owner and operator of LNG facilities, would oversee construction of the liquefaction facility and, upon completion of construction, manage the operations of the liquefaction facility on behalf of LCL. In the event that each of LCL and BG will make an affirmative FID in 2017, construction of the liquefaction project would commence immediately thereafter in order to place the first and second LNG trains in service in 2022 and the train in service in early 2023.
The export of LNG produced by the liquefaction project from the U.S. will be undertaken under long-term export authorizations issued by the DOE to Lake Charles Exports, LLC (“LCE”), which is currently a jointly owned subsidiary of BG and ETP and following FID, will be 100% owned by BG. In July 2011, LCE obtained a DOE authorization to export LNG to countries with which the U.S. has or will have Free Trade Agreements (“FTA”) for trade in natural gas (the “FTA Authorization”). In August 2013, LCE obtained a conditional DOE authorization to export LNG to countries that do not have an FTA for trade in natural gas (the “Non-FTA Authorization”). The FTA Authorization and Non-FTA Authorization have 25- and 20-year terms, respectively. In January 2013, LCL filed for a secondary, non-cumulative FTA and Non-FTA Authorization to be held by LCL. FTA Authorization was granted in March 2013 and we expect the DOE to issue the Non-FTA Authorization to LCL in due course.
In addition, we have received our wetlands permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) to perform wetlands mitigation work and to perform modification and dredging work for the temporary and permanent dock facilities at the Lake Charles LNG facilities.
The business of providing natural gas gathering, compression, treating, transporting, storing and marketing services is highly competitive. Since pipelines are generally the only practical mode of transportation for natural gas over land, the most significant competitors of our transportation and storage operations are other pipelines. Pipelines typically compete with each other based on location, capacity, price and reliability.
We face competition with respect to retaining and obtaining significant natural gas supplies under terms favorable to us for the gathering, treating and marketing portions of our business. Our competitors include major integrated oil companies, interstate
and intrastate pipelines and companies that gather, compress, treat, process, transport and market natural gas. Many of our competitors, such as major oil and gas and pipeline companies, have capital resources and control supplies of natural gas substantially greater than ours.
In marketing natural gas, we have numerous competitors, including marketing affiliates of interstate pipelines, major integrated oil companies, and local and national natural gas gatherers, brokers and marketers of widely varying sizes, financial resources and experience. Local utilities and distributors of natural gas are, in some cases, engaged directly, and through affiliates, in marketing activities that compete with our marketing operations.
In markets served by our NGL pipelines, we face competition with other pipeline companies, including those affiliated with major oil, petrochemical and natural gas companies, and barge, rail and truck fleet operations. In general, our NGL pipelines compete with these entities in terms of transportation fees, reliability and quality of customer service. We face competition with other storage facilities based on fees charged and the ability to receive and distribute the customer’s products. We compete with a number of NGL fractionators in Texas and Louisiana. Competition for such services is primarily based on the fractionation fee charged.
Crude Oil and Products
In markets served by our products and crude oil pipelines, we face competition with other pipelines. Generally, pipelines are the lowest cost method for long-haul, overland movement of products and crude oil. Therefore, the most significant competitors for large volume shipments in the areas served by our pipelines are other pipelines. In addition, pipeline operations face competition from trucks that deliver products in a number of areas that our pipeline operations serve. While their costs may not be competitive for longer hauls or large volume shipments, trucks compete effectively for incremental and marginal volume in many areas served by our pipelines.
We also face competition among common carrier pipelines carrying crude oil. This competition is based primarily on transportation charges, access to crude oil supply and market demand. Similar to pipelines carrying products, the high capital costs deter competitors for the crude oil pipeline systems from building new pipelines. Competitive factors in crude oil purchasing and marketing include price and contract flexibility, quantity and quality of services, and accessibility to end markets.
Our refined product terminals compete with other independent terminals with respect to price, versatility and services provided. The competition primarily comes from integrated petroleum companies, refining and marketing companies, independent terminal companies and distribution companies with marketing and trading operations.
Wholesale Fuel Distribution and Retail Marketing
In our wholesale fuel distribution business, we compete primarily with other independent motor fuel distributors. The markets for distribution of wholesale motor fuel and the large and growing convenience store industry are highly competitive and fragmented, which results in narrow margins. We have numerous competitors, some of which may have significantly greater resources and name recognition than we do. Significant competitive factors include the availability of major brands, customer service, price, range of services offered and quality of service, among others. We rely on our ability to provide value-added and reliable service and to control our operating costs in order to maintain our margins and competitive position.
In our retail business, we face strong competition in the market for the sale of retail gasoline and merchandise. Our competitors include service stations of large integrated oil companies, independent gasoline service stations, convenience stores, fast food stores, supermarkets, drugstores, dollar stores, club stores and other similar retail outlets, some of which are well-recognized national or regional retail systems. The number of competitors varies depending on the geographical area. It also varies with gasoline and convenience store offerings. The principal competitive factors affecting our retail marketing operations include gasoline and diesel acquisition costs, site location, product price, selection and quality, site appearance and cleanliness, hours of operation, store safety, customer loyalty and brand recognition. We compete by pricing gasoline competitively, combining our retail gasoline business with convenience stores that provide a wide variety of products, and using advertising and promotional campaigns.
Credit Risk and Customers
Credit risk refers to the risk that a counterparty may default on its contractual obligations resulting in a loss to the Partnership. Credit policies have been approved and implemented to govern the Partnership’s portfolio of counterparties with the objective of mitigating credit losses. These policies establish guidelines, controls and limits to manage credit risk within approved tolerances by mandating an appropriate evaluation of the financial condition of existing and potential counterparties, monitoring agency credit ratings, and by implementing credit practices that limit exposure according to the risk profiles of the counterparties.
Furthermore, the Partnership may, at times, require collateral under certain circumstances to mitigate credit risk as necessary. The Partnership also uses industry standard commercial agreements which allow for the netting of exposures associated with transactions executed under a single commercial agreement. Additionally, we utilize master netting agreements to offset credit exposure across multiple commercial agreements with a single counterparty or affiliated group of counterparties.
The Partnership’s counterparties consist of a diverse portfolio of customers across the energy industry, including petrochemical companies, commercial and industrials, oil and gas producers, municipalities, gas and electric utilities, midstream companies, independent power generators and fuel distributors. Our overall exposure may be affected positively or negatively by macroeconomic or regulatory changes that impact our counterparties to one extent or another. Currently, management does not anticipate a material adverse effect in our financial position or results of operations as a consequence of counterparty non-performance.
Natural gas transportation and midstream revenues are derived significantly from companies that engage in exploration and production activities. The discovery and development of new shale formations across the United States has created an abundance of natural gas and crude oil resulting in a negative impact on prices in recent years for natural gas and crude oil. As a result, some of our exploration and production customers have been adversely impacted; however, we are monitoring these customers and mitigating credit risk as necessary.
During the year ended December 31, 2016, none of our customers individually accounted for more than 10% of our consolidated revenues.
Regulation of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines. The FERC has broad regulatory authority over the business and operations of interstate natural gas pipelines. Under the Natural Gas Act (“NGA”), the FERC generally regulates the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce. For FERC regulatory purposes, “transportation” includes natural gas pipeline transmission (forwardhauls and backhauls), storage and other services. The Florida Gas Transmission, Transwestern, Panhandle Eastern, Trunkline Gas, Tiger, Fayetteville Express, Sea Robin, Gulf States and Midcontinent Express pipelines transport natural gas in interstate commerce and thus each qualifies as a “natural-gas company” under the NGA subject to the FERC’s regulatory jurisdiction. We also hold certain natural gas storage facilities that are subject to the FERC’s regulatory oversight under the NGA.
The FERC’s NGA authority includes the power to:
approve the siting, construction and operation of new facilities;
review and approve transportation rates;
determine the types of services our regulated assets are permitted to perform;
regulate the terms and conditions associated with these services;
permit the extension or abandonment of services and facilities;
require the maintenance of accounts and records; and
authorize the acquisition and disposition of facilities.
Under the NGA, interstate natural gas companies must charge rates that are just and reasonable. In addition, the NGA prohibits natural gas companies from unduly preferring or unreasonably discriminating against any person with respect to pipeline rates or terms and conditions of service.
The maximum rates to be charged by NGA-jurisdictional natural gas companies and their terms and conditions for service are required to be on file with the FERC. Most natural gas companies are authorized to offer discounts from their FERC-approved maximum just and reasonable rates when competition warrants such discounts. Natural gas companies are also generally permitted to offer negotiated rates different from rates established in their tariff if, among other requirements, such companies’ tariffs offer a cost-based recourse rate available to a prospective shipper as an alternative to the negotiated rate. Natural gas companies must make offers of rate discounts and negotiated rates on a basis that is not unduly discriminatory. Existing tariff rates may be challenged by complaint or on FERC’s own motion, and if found unjust and unreasonable, may be altered on a prospective basis from no earlier than the date of the complaint or initiation of a proceeding by the FERC. The FERC must also approve all rate changes. We cannot guarantee that the FERC will allow us to charge rates that fully recover our costs or continue to pursue its approach of pro-competitive policies.
For two of our NGA-jurisdictional natural gas companies, Tiger and Fayetteville Express, the large majority of capacity in those pipelines is subscribed for lengthy terms under FERC-approved negotiated rates. However, as indicated above, cost-based recourse rates are also offered under their respective tariffs.
Pursuant to the FERC’s rules promulgated under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, it is unlawful for any entity, directly or indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of electric energy or natural gas or the purchase or sale of transmission or transportation services subject to FERC jurisdiction: (i) to defraud using any device, scheme or artifice; (ii) to make any untrue statement of material fact or omit a material fact; or (iii) to engage in any act, practice or course of business that operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) also holds authority to monitor certain segments of the physical and futures energy commodities market pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”). With regard to our physical purchases and sales of natural gas, NGLs or other energy commodities; our gathering or transportation of these energy commodities; and any related hedging activities that we undertake, we are required to observe these anti-market manipulation laws and related regulations enforced by the FERC and/or the CFTC. These agencies hold substantial enforcement authority, including the ability to assess or seek civil penalties of up to approximately $1 million per day per violation, to order disgorgement of profits and to recommend criminal penalties. Should we violate the anti-market manipulation laws and regulations, we could also be subject to related third-party damage claims by, among others, sellers, royalty owners and taxing authorities.
Failure to comply with the NGA, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the CEA and the other federal laws and regulations governing our operations and business activities can result in the imposition of administrative, civil and criminal remedies.
Regulation of Intrastate Natural Gas and NGL Pipelines. Intrastate transportation of natural gas and NGLs is largely regulated by the state in which such transportation takes place. To the extent that our intrastate natural gas transportation systems transport natural gas in interstate commerce, the rates and terms and conditions of such services are subject to FERC jurisdiction under Section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act (“NGPA”). The NGPA regulates, among other things, the provision of transportation services by an intrastate natural gas pipeline on behalf of a local distribution company or an interstate natural gas pipeline. The rates and terms and conditions of some transportation and storage services provided on the Oasis pipeline, HPL System, East Texas pipeline and ET Fuel System are subject to FERC regulation pursuant to Section 311 of the NGPA. Under Section 311, rates charged for intrastate transportation must be fair and equitable, and amounts collected in excess of fair and equitable rates are subject to refund with interest. The terms and conditions of service set forth in the intrastate facility’s statement of operating conditions are also subject to FERC review and approval. Should the FERC determine not to authorize rates equal to or greater than our currently approved Section 311 rates, our business may be adversely affected. Failure to observe the service limitations applicable to transportation and storage services under Section 311, failure to comply with the rates approved by the FERC for Section 311 service, and failure to comply with the terms and conditions of service established in the pipeline’s FERC-approved statement of operating conditions could result in an alteration of jurisdictional status, and/or the imposition of administrative, civil and criminal remedies.
Our intrastate natural gas operations are also subject to regulation by various agencies in Texas, principally the TRRC. Our intrastate pipeline and storage operations in Texas are also subject to the Texas Utilities Code, as implemented by the TRRC. Generally, the TRRC is vested with authority to ensure that rates, operations and services of gas utilities, including intrastate pipelines, are just and reasonable and not discriminatory. The rates we charge for transportation services are deemed just and reasonable under Texas law unless challenged in a customer or TRRC complaint. We cannot predict whether such a complaint will be filed against us or whether the TRRC will change its regulation of these rates. Failure to comply with the Texas Utilities Code can result in the imposition of administrative, civil and criminal remedies.
Our NGL pipelines and operations may also be or become subject to state public utility or related jurisdiction which could impose additional safety and operational regulations relating to the design, siting, installation, testing, construction, operation, replacement and management of NGL gathering facilities. In addition, the rates, terms and conditions for shipments of NGLs on our pipelines are subject to regulation by FERC under the Interstate Commerce Act (“ICA”) and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (the “EPAct of 1992”) if the NGLs are transported in interstate or foreign commerce whether by our pipelines or other means of transportation. Since we do not control the entire transportation path of all NGLs shipped on our pipelines, FERC regulation could be triggered by our customers’ transportation decisions.
Regulation of Sales of Natural Gas and NGLs. The price at which we buy and sell natural gas currently is not subject to federal regulation and, for the most part, is not subject to state regulation. The price at which we sell NGLs is not subject to federal or state regulation.
To the extent that we enter into transportation contracts with natural gas pipelines that are subject to FERC regulation, we are subject to FERC requirements related to the use of such capacity. Any failure on our part to comply with the FERC’s regulations and policies, or with an interstate pipeline’s tariff, could result in the imposition of civil and criminal penalties.
Our sales of natural gas are affected by the availability, terms and cost of pipeline transportation. As noted above, the price and terms of access to pipeline transportation are subject to extensive federal and state regulation. The FERC is continually proposing and implementing new rules and regulations affecting those operations of the natural gas industry. These initiatives also may affect the intrastate transportation of natural gas under certain circumstances. The stated purpose of many of these regulatory changes
is to promote competition among the various sectors of the natural gas industry and these initiatives generally reflect more light-handed regulation. We cannot predict the ultimate impact of these regulatory changes to our natural gas marketing operations, and we note that some of the FERC’s regulatory changes may adversely affect the availability and reliability of interruptible transportation service on interstate pipelines. We do not believe that we will be affected by any such FERC action in a manner that is materially different from other natural gas marketers with whom we compete.
Regulation of Gathering Pipelines. Section 1(b) of the NGA exempts natural gas gathering facilities from the jurisdiction of the FERC under the NGA. We own a number of natural gas pipelines in Texas, Louisiana and West Virginia that we believe meet the traditional tests the FERC uses to establish a pipeline’s status as a gathering pipeline not subject to FERC jurisdiction. However, the distinction between FERC-regulated transmission services and federally unregulated gathering services has been the subject of substantial litigation and varying interpretations, so the classification and regulation of our gathering facilities could be subject to change based on future determinations by the FERC, the courts and Congress. State regulation of gathering facilities generally includes various safety, environmental and, in some circumstances, nondiscriminatory take requirements and complaint-based rate regulation.
In Texas, our gathering facilities are subject to regulation by the TRRC under the Texas Utilities Code in the same manner as described above for our intrastate pipeline facilities. Louisiana’s Pipeline Operations Section of the Department of Natural Resources’ Office of Conservation is generally responsible for regulating intrastate pipelines and gathering facilities in Louisiana and has authority to review and authorize natural gas transportation transactions and the construction, acquisition, abandonment and interconnection of physical facilities.
Historically, apart from pipeline safety, Louisiana has not acted to exercise this jurisdiction respecting gathering facilities. In Louisiana, our Chalkley System is regulated as an intrastate transporter, and the Louisiana Office of Conservation has determined that our Whiskey Bay System is a gathering system.
We are subject to state ratable take and common purchaser statutes in all of the states in which we operate. The ratable take statutes generally require gatherers to take, without undue discrimination, natural gas production that may be tendered to the gatherer for handling. Similarly, common purchaser statutes generally require gatherers to purchase without undue discrimination as to source of supply or producer. These statutes are designed to prohibit discrimination in favor of one producer over another producer or one source of supply over another source of supply. These statutes have the effect of restricting the right of an owner of gathering facilities to decide with whom it contracts to purchase or transport natural gas.
Natural gas gathering may receive greater regulatory scrutiny at both the state and federal levels. For example, the TRRC has approved changes to its regulations governing transportation and gathering services performed by intrastate pipelines and gatherers, which prohibit such entities from unduly discriminating in favor of their affiliates. Many of the producing states have adopted some form of complaint-based regulation that generally allows natural gas producers and shippers to file complaints with state regulators in an effort to resolve grievances relating to natural gas gathering access and rate discrimination allegations. Our gathering operations could be adversely affected should they be subject in the future to the application of additional or different state or federal regulation of rates and services. Our gathering operations also may be or become subject to safety and operational regulations relating to the design, installation, testing, construction, operation, replacement and management of gathering facilities. Additional rules and legislation pertaining to these matters are considered or adopted from time to time. We cannot predict what effect, if any, such changes might have on our operations, but the industry could be required to incur additional capital expenditures and increased costs depending on future legislative and regulatory changes.
Regulation of Interstate Crude Oil, NGL and Products Pipelines. Interstate common carrier pipeline operations are subject to rate regulation by the FERC under the Interstate Commerce Act (“ICA”), the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (the “EPAct of 1992”), and related rules and orders. The ICA requires that tariff rates for petroleum pipelines be “just and reasonable” and not unduly discriminatory and that such rates and terms and conditions of service be filed with the FERC. This statute also permits interested persons to challenge proposed new or changed rates. The FERC is authorized to suspend the effectiveness of such rates for up to seven months, though rates are typically not suspended for the maximum allowable period. If the FERC finds that the new or changed rate is unlawful, it may require the carrier to pay refunds for the period that the rate was in effect. The FERC also may 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 a complaint.
The FERC generally has not investigated interstate rates on its own initiative when those rates, like those we charge, have not been the subject of a protest or a complaint by a shipper. However, the FERC could investigate our rates at the urging of a third party if the third party is either a current shipper or has a substantial economic interest in the tariff rate level. Although no assurance can be given that the tariff rates charged by us ultimately will be upheld if challenged, management believes that the tariff rates now in effect for our pipelines are within the maximum rates allowed under current FERC policies and precedents.
For many locations served by our product and crude pipelines, we are able to establish negotiated rates. Otherwise, we are permitted to charge cost-based rates, or in many cases, grandfathered rates based on historical charges or settlements with our customers. To the extent we rely on cost-of-service rate making to establish or support our rates, the issue of the proper allowance for federal and state income taxes could arise. In 2005, FERC issued a policy statement stating that it would permit common carriers, among others, to include an income tax allowance in cost-of-service rates to reflect actual or potential tax liability attributable to a regulated entity’s operating income, regardless of the form of ownership. Under FERC’s policy, a tax pass-through entity seeking such an income tax allowance must establish that its partners or members have an actual or potential income tax liability on the regulated entity’s income. Whether a pipeline’s owners have such actual or potential income tax liability is subject to review by FERC on a case-by-case basis. Although this policy is generally favorable for common carriers that are organized as pass-through entities, it still entails rate risk due to the FERC’s case-by-case review approach. The application of this policy, as well as any decision by FERC regarding our cost of service, may also be subject to review in the courts. On December 23, 2016, FERC issued an Inquiry Regarding the Commission’s Policy for Recovery of Income Tax Credits. FERC is seeking comment regarding how to address any double recovery resulting from the FERC’s current income tax allowance and rate of return policies. The comment period with respect to the proposed rules extends until April 7, 2017.
EPAct 1992 required FERC to establish a simplified and generally applicable methodology to adjust tariff rates for inflation for interstate petroleum pipelines. As a result, FERC adopted an indexing rate methodology which, as currently in effect, allows common carriers to change their rates within prescribed ceiling levels that are tied to changes in the Producer Price Index for Finished Goods, or PPIFG. FERC’s indexing methodology is subject to review every five years. During the five-year period commencing July 1, 2011 and ending June 30, 2016, common carriers charging indexed rates are permitted to adjust their indexed ceilings annually by PPIFG plus 2.65%. Beginning July 1, 2016, the indexing method provided for annual changes equal to the change in PPIFG plus 1.23%. The indexing methodology is applicable to existing rates, including grandfathered rates, with the exclusion of market-based rates. A pipeline is not required to raise its rates up to the index ceiling, but it is permitted to do so and rate increases made under the index are presumed to be just and reasonable unless a protesting party can demonstrate that the portion of the rate increase resulting from application of the index is substantially in excess of the pipeline’s increase in costs. Under the indexing rate methodology, in any year in which the index is negative, pipelines must file to lower their rates if those rates would otherwise be above the rate ceiling. In October 2016, FERC issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on a number of proposals, including: (1) whether the Commission should deny any increase in a rate ceiling or annual index-based rate increase if a pipeline’s revenues exceed total costs by 15% for the prior 2 years; (2) a new percentage comparison test that would deny a proposed increase to a pipeline’s rate or ceiling level greater than 5% above the barrel-mile cost changes; and (3) a requirement that all pipelines file indexed ceiling levels annually, with the ceiling levels subject to challenge and restricting the pipeline’s ability to carry forward the full indexed increase to a future period. The comment period with respect to the proposed rules extends until March 17, 2017.
Regulation of Intrastate Crude Oil, NGL and Products Pipelines. Some of our crude oil, NGL and products pipelines are subject to regulation by the TRRC, the PA PUC, and the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. The operations of our joint venture interests are also subject to regulation in the states in which they operate. The applicable state statutes require that pipeline rates be nondiscriminatory and provide no more than a fair return on the aggregate value of the pipeline property used to render services. State commissions generally have not initiated an investigation of rates or practices of petroleum pipelines in the absence of shipper complaints. Complaints to state agencies have been infrequent and are usually resolved informally. Although management cannot be certain that our intrastate rates ultimately would be upheld if challenged, we believe that, given this history, the tariffs now in effect are not likely to be challenged or, if challenged, are not likely to be ordered to be reduced.
In addition, as noted above, the rates, terms and conditions for shipments of crude oil, NGLs or products on our pipelines could be subject to regulation by FERC under the ICA and the EPAct of 1992 if the crude oil, NGLs or products are transported in interstate or foreign commerce whether by our pipelines or other means of transportation. Since we do not control the entire transportation path of all crude oil, NGLs or products shipped on our pipelines, FERC regulation could be triggered by our customers’ transportation decisions.
Regulation of Pipeline Safety. Our pipeline operations are subject to regulation by the DOT, through the PHMSA, pursuant to the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, as amended (“NGPSA”), with respect to natural gas and the Hazardous Liquids Pipeline Safety Act of 1979, as amended (“HLPSA”), with respect to crude oil, NGLs and condensates. The NGPSA and HLPSA, as amended, govern the design, installation, testing, construction, operation, replacement and management of natural gas as well as crude oil, NGL and condensate pipeline facilities. Pursuant to these acts, PHMSA has promulgated regulations governing pipeline wall thickness, design pressures, maximum operating pressures, pipeline patrols and leak surveys, minimum depth requirements, and emergency procedures, as well as other matters intended to ensure adequate protection for the public and to prevent accidents and failures. Additionally, PHMSA has established a series of rules requiring pipeline operators to develop and implement integrity management programs for certain gas and hazardous liquid pipelines that, in the event of a pipeline leak or rupture, could affect high consequence areas (“HCAs”), which are areas where a release could have the most significant adverse consequences, including high population areas, certain drinking water sources and unusually sensitive ecological areas. Failure
to comply with the pipeline safety laws and regulations may result in the assessment of sanctions, including administrative, civil or criminal penalties, the imposition of investigatory, remedial or corrective action obligations, the occurrence of delays in permitting or the performance of projects, or the issuance of injunctions limiting or prohibiting some or all of our operations in the affected area.
The NGPSA and HLPSA were amended by the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (“2011 Pipeline Safety Act”), which re-authorized the federal pipeline safety programs of PHMSA through 2015 and increased pipeline safety regulation. Among other things, the legislation doubled the maximum administrative fines for safety violations from $100,000 to $200,000 for a single violation and from $1 million to $2 million for a related series of violations, but provided that these maximum penalty caps do not apply to certain civil enforcement actions; permitted the DOT Secretary to mandate automatic or remote controlled shut off valves on new or entirely replaced pipelines; required the DOT Secretary to evaluate whether integrity management system requirements should be expanded beyond HCAs; and provided for regulation of carbon dioxide transported by pipeline in a gaseous state and requires the DOT Secretary to prescribe minimum safety regulations for such transportation. Effective August 1, 2016, those maximum civil penalties were increased to $205,638 per violation per day, with a maximum of approximately $2 million for a series of violations, to account for inflation. In addition, the Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2016 (“PIPES Act) reauthorized the federal pipeline safety programs of PHMSA through 2019.
In addition, states have adopted regulations, similar to existing PHMSA regulations, for intrastate gathering and transmission lines. The states in which we conduct operations typically have developed regulatory programs that parallel the federal regulatory scheme and are applicable to intrastate pipelines. Under such state regulatory programs, states have the authority to conduct pipeline inspections, to investigate accidents and to oversee compliance and enforcement, safety programs and record maintenance and reporting. Congress, PHMSA and individual states may pass or implement additional safety requirements that could result in increased compliance costs for us and other companies in our industry. For example, federal construction, maintenance and inspection standards under the NGPSA that apply to pipelines in relatively populated areas may not apply to gathering lines running through rural regions. This “rural gathering exemption” under the NGPSA presently exempts substantial portions of our gathering facilities located outside of cities, towns or any area designated as residential or commercial from jurisdiction under the NGPSA, but does not apply to our intrastate natural gas pipelines. In recent years, the PHMSA has considered changes to this rural gathering exemption, including publishing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking relating to gas pipelines in 2011, in which the agency sought public comment on possible changes to the definition of “high consequence areas” and “gathering lines” and the strengthening of pipeline integrity management requirements. In April 2016, pursuant to one of the requirements of the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act, PHMSA published a proposed rulemaking that would expand integrity management requirements and impose new pressure testing requirements on currently regulated gas transmission pipelines. The proposal would also significantly expand the regulation of gathering lines, subjecting previously unregulated pipelines to requirements regarding damage prevention, corrosion control, public education programs, maximum allowable operating pressure limits, and other requirements.
In January 2017, PHMSA issued a final rule amending federal safety standards for hazardous liquid pipelines. The final rule is the latest step in a lengthy rulemaking process that began in 2010 with a request for comments and continued with publication of a rulemaking proposal in October 2015. The general effective date of this final rule is six months from publication in the Federal Register, but it is currently subject to further administrative review in connection with the transition of Presidential administrations. The final rule addresses several areas including reporting requirements for gravity and unregulated gathering lines, inspections after weather or climatic events, leak detection system requirements, revisions to repair criteria and other integrity management revisions. In addition, PHMSA issued new regulations on January 23, 2017, on operator qualification, cost recovery, accident and incident notification and other pipeline safety changes. These new regulations are effective March 24, 2017. These regulations are also subject, however, to potential further review in connection with the transition of Presidential administrations. Historically our pipeline safety costs have not had a material adverse effect on our business or results of operations but there is no assurance that such costs will not be material in the future, whether due to elimination of the rural gathering exemption or otherwise due to changes in pipeline safety laws and regulations.
In another example of how future legal requirements could result in increased compliance costs, notwithstanding the applicability of the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) Process Safety Management (“PSM”) regulations and the EPA’s Risk Management Planning (“RMP”) requirements at regulated facilities, PHMSA and one or more state regulators, including the Texas Railroad Commission, have in the recent past, expanded the scope of their regulatory inspections to include certain in-plant equipment and pipelines found within NGL fractionation facilities and associated storage facilities, in order to assess compliance of such equipment and pipelines with hazardous liquid pipeline safety requirements. These recent actions by PHMSA are currently subject to judicial and administrative challenges by one or more midstream operators; however, to the extent that such legal challenges are unsuccessful, midstream operators of NGL fractionation facilities and associated storage facilities subject to such inspection may be required to make operational changes or modifications at their facilities to meet standards beyond current PSM and RMP requirements, which changes or modifications may result in additional capital costs, possible operational delays and increased costs of operation that, in some instances, may be significant.
General. Our operation of processing plants, pipelines and associated facilities, including compression, in connection with the gathering, processing, storage and transmission of natural gas and the storage and transportation of NGLs, crude oil and refined products, and underground storage tanks, is subject to stringent federal, tribal, state and local laws and regulations, including those governing, among other things, air emissions, wastewater discharges, the use, management and disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous materials and wastes, and the cleanup of contamination. Noncompliance with such laws and regulations, or incidents resulting in environmental releases, could cause us to incur substantial costs, penalties, fines and criminal sanctions, third-party claims for personal injury or property damage, capital expenditures to retrofit or upgrade our facilities and programs, or curtailment or cancellation of permits or operations. As with the industry generally, compliance with existing and anticipated environmental laws and regulations increases our overall cost of doing business, including our cost of planning, permitting, constructing and operating our plants, pipelines and other facilities. As a result of these laws and regulations our construction and operation costs include capital, operating and maintenance cost items necessary to maintain or upgrade our equipment and facilities.
We have implemented procedures to ensure that all governmental environmental approvals for both existing operations and those under construction are updated as circumstances require. Historically, our environmental compliance costs have not had a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition; however, there can be no assurance that such costs will not be material in the future. For example, we cannot be certain that identification of presently unidentified conditions, more rigorous enforcement by regulatory agencies, enactment of more stringent environmental laws and regulations or other unanticipated events will not arise in the future and give rise to environmental liabilities that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
Hazardous Substances and Waste Materials. To a large extent, the environmental laws and regulations affecting our operations relate to the release of hazardous substances and waste materials into soils, groundwater and surface water and include measures to prevent, minimize or remediate contamination of the environment. These laws and regulations generally regulate the generation, storage, treatment, transportation and disposal of hazardous substances and waste materials and may require investigatory and remedial actions at sites where such material has been released or disposed. For example, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended, (“CERCLA”), also known as the “Superfund” law, and comparable state laws, impose liability without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct on certain classes of persons that contributed to a release of a “hazardous substance” into the environment. These persons include the owner and operator of the site where a release occurred and companies that disposed or arranged for the disposal of the hazardous substance that has been released into the environment. Under CERCLA, these persons may be subject to strict, joint and several liability, without regard to fault, for, among other things, the costs of investigating and remediating the hazardous substances that have been released into the environment, for damages to natural resources and for the costs of certain health studies. CERCLA and comparable state law also authorize the federal EPA, its state counterparts, 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 from the responsible classes of persons the costs they incur. 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. Although “petroleum” as well as natural gas and NGLs are excluded from CERCLA’s definition of a “hazardous substance,” in the course of our ordinary operations we generate wastes that may fall within that definition or that may be subject to other waste disposal laws and regulations. We may be responsible under CERCLA or state laws for all or part of the costs required to clean up sites at which such substances or wastes have been disposed.
We also generate both hazardous and nonhazardous wastes that are subject to requirements of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, (“RCRA”), and comparable state statutes. We are not currently required to comply with a substantial portion of the RCRA hazardous waste requirements at many of our facilities because the minimal quantities of hazardous wastes generated there make us subject to less stringent nonhazardous management standards. From time to time, the EPA has considered or third parties have petitioned the agency on the adoption of stricter handling, storage and disposal standards for nonhazardous wastes, including certain wastes associated with the exploration, development and production of crude oil and natural gas. For example, following the filing of a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in May 2016 by several non-governmental environmental groups against the EPA for the agency’s failure to timely assess its RCRA Subtitle D criteria regulations for oil and gas wastes, EPA and the environmental groups entered into an agreement that was finalized in a consent decree issued by the District Court on December 28, 2016. Under the decree, the EPA is required to propose no later than March 15, 2019, a rulemaking for revision of certain Subtitle D criteria regulations pertaining to oil and gas wastes or sign a determination that revision of the regulations is not necessary. If EPA proposes a rulemaking for revised oil and gas waste regulations, the Consent Decree requires that the EPA take final action following notice and comment rulemaking no later than July 15, 2021. It is possible that some wastes generated by us that are currently classified as nonhazardous may in the future be designated as “hazardous wastes,” resulting in the wastes being subject to more rigorous and costly disposal requirements, or that the full complement of RCRA standards could be applied to facilities that generate lesser amounts of hazardous waste. Changes such as these examples in applicable regulations may result in a material increase in our capital expenditures or plant operating and maintenance expense
and, in the case of our oil and natural gas exploration and production customers, could result in increased operating costs for those customers and a corresponding decrease in demand for our processing, transportation and storage services.
We currently own or lease sites that have been used over the years by prior owners or lessees and by us for various activities related to gathering, processing, storage and transmission of natural gas, NGLs, crude oil and products. Waste disposal practices within the oil and gas industry have improved over the years with the passage and implementation of various environmental laws and regulations. Nevertheless, some hydrocarbons and wastes have been disposed of or otherwise released on or under various sites during the operating history of those facilities that are now owned or leased by us. Notwithstanding the possibility that these releases may have occurred during the ownership or operation of these assets by others, these sites may be subject to CERCLA, RCRA and comparable state laws. Under these laws, we could be required to remove or remediate previously disposed wastes (including wastes disposed of or released by prior owners or operators) or contamination (including soil and groundwater contamination) or to prevent the migration of contamination.
As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, accruals of $385 million and $368 million, respectively, were recorded in our consolidated balance sheets as accrued and other current liabilities and other non-current liabilities to cover estimated material environmental liabilities including, for example, certain matters assumed in connection with our acquisition of the HPL System, our acquisition of Transwestern, potential environmental liabilities for three sites that were formerly owned by Titan Energy Partners, L.P. or its predecessors, and the predecessor owner’s share of certain environmental liabilities of ETC OLP.
The Partnership is subject to extensive and frequently changing federal, tribal, state and local laws and regulations, including those relating to the discharge of materials into the environment or that otherwise relate to the protection of the environment, waste management and the characteristics and composition of fuels. These laws and regulations require environmental assessment and remediation efforts at many of Sunoco, Inc.’s facilities and at formerly owned or third-party sites. Accruals for these environmental remediation activities amounted to $324 million and $344 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, which is included in the total accruals above. These legacy sites that are subject to environmental assessments include formerly owned terminals and other logistics assets, retail sites that are no longer operated by Sunoco, Inc., closed and/or sold refineries and other formerly owned sites. In December 2013, a wholly-owned captive insurance company was established for these legacy sites that are no longer operating. The premiums paid to the captive insurance company include estimates for environmental claims that have been incurred but not reported, based on an actuarially determined fully developed claims expense estimate. In such cases, we accrue losses attributable to unasserted claims based on the discounted estimates that are used to develop the premiums paid to the captive insurance company. As of December 31, 2016 the captive insurance company held $226 million of cash and investments.
The Partnership’s accrual for environmental remediation activities reflects anticipated work at identified sites where an assessment has indicated that cleanup costs are probable and reasonably estimable. The accrual for known claims is undiscounted and is based on currently available information, estimated timing of remedial actions and related inflation assumptions, existing technology and presently enacted laws and regulations. It is often extremely difficult to develop reasonable estimates of future site remediation costs due to changing regulations, changing technologies and their associated costs, and changes in the economic environment. Engineering studies, historical experience and other factors are used to identify and evaluate remediation alternatives and their related costs in determining the estimated accruals for environmental remediation activities.
Under various environmental laws, including the RCRA, the Partnership has initiated corrective remedial action at certain of its facilities and formerly owned facilities and at certain third-party sites. At the Partnership’s major manufacturing facilities, we have typically assumed continued industrial use and a containment/remediation strategy focused on eliminating unacceptable risks to human health or the environment. The remediation accruals for these sites reflect that strategy. Accruals include amounts designed to prevent or mitigate off-site migration and to contain the impact on the facility property, as well as to address known, discrete areas requiring remediation within the plants. Remedial activities include , for example, closure of RCRA waste management units, recovery of hydrocarbons, handling of impacted soil, mitigation of surface water impacts and prevention or mitigation of off-site migration. A change in this approach as a result of changing the intended use of a property or a sale to a third party could result in a comparatively higher cost remediation strategy in the future.
The Partnership currently owns or operates certain retail gasoline outlets where releases of petroleum products have occurred. Federal and state laws and regulations require that contamination caused by such certain of releases at these sites and at formerly owned sites be assessed and remediated to meet the applicable standards. Our obligation to remediate this type of contamination varies, depending on the extent of the release and the applicable laws and regulations. If the Partnership is eligible to participate, a portion of the remediation costs may be recoverable from the reimbursement fund of the applicable state, after any deductible has been met.
In general, a remediation site or issue is typically evaluated on an individual basis based upon information available for the site or issue and no pooling or statistical analysis is used to evaluate an aggregate risk for a group of similar items (for example, service station sites) in determining the amount of probable loss accrual to be recorded. The estimates of environmental remediation costs
also frequently involve evaluation of a range of estimates. In many cases, it is difficult to determine that one point in the range of loss estimates is more likely than any other. In these situations, existing accounting guidance allows us the minimum amount of the range to accrue. Accordingly, the low end of the range often represents the amount of loss which has been recorded.
In addition to the probable and estimable losses which have been recorded, management believes it is reasonably possible (that is, it is less than probable but greater than remote) that additional environmental remediation losses will be incurred. At December 31, 2016, the aggregate of such additional estimated maximum reasonably possible losses, which relate to numerous individual sites, totaled approximately $5 million, which amount is in excess of the $345 million in environmental accruals recorded on December 31, 2016. This estimate of reasonably possible losses comprises estimates for remediation activities at current logistics and retail assets, and in many cases, reflects the upper end of the loss ranges which are described above. Such estimates include potentially higher contractor costs for expected remediation activities, the potential need to use more costly or comprehensive remediation methods and longer operating and monitoring periods, among other things.
In summary, total future costs for environmental remediation activities will depend upon, among other things, the identification of any additional sites, the determination of the extent of the contamination at each site, the timing and nature of required remedial actions, the nature of operations at each site, the technology available and needed to meet the various existing legal requirements, the nature and terms of cost-sharing arrangements with other potentially responsible parties, the availability of insurance coverage, the nature and extent of future environmental laws and regulations, inflation rates, terms of consent agreements or remediation permits with regulatory agencies and the determination of the Partnership’s liability at the sites, if any, in light of the number, participation level and financial viability of the other parties. The recognition of additional losses, if and when they were to occur, would likely extend over many years, but management can provide no assurance that it would be over many years. If changes in environmental laws or regulations occur or the assumptions used to estimate losses at multiple sites are adjusted, such changes could materially and adversely impact multiple facilities, formerly owned facilities and third-party sites at the same time. As a result, from time to time, significant charges against income for environmental remediation may occur. And while management does not believe that any such charges would have a material adverse impact on the Partnership’s consolidated financial position, it can provide no assurance.
Transwestern conducts soil and groundwater remediation at a number of its facilities. Some of the cleanup activities include remediation of several compressor sites on the Transwestern system for contamination by PCBs, and the costs of this work are not eligible for recovery in rates. The total accrued future estimated cost of remediation activities expected to continue through 2025 is $7 million, which is included in the total environmental accruals mentioned above. Transwestern received FERC approval for rate recovery of projected soil and groundwater remediation costs not related to PCBs effective April 1, 2007. Transwestern, as part of ongoing arrangements with customers, continues to incur costs associated with containing and removing potential PCB contamination. Future costs cannot be reasonably estimated because remediation activities are undertaken as potential claims are made by customers and former customers. Such future costs are not expected to have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows, but management can provide no assurance.
Underground Storage Tanks. We are required to make financial expenditures to comply with regulations governing underground storage tanks adopted by federal, state and local regulatory agencies. Pursuant to the RCRA, the EPA has established a comprehensive regulatory program for the detection, prevention, investigation and cleanup of leaking underground storage tanks. State or local agencies are often delegated the responsibility for implementing the federal program or developing and implementing equivalent state or local regulations. We have a comprehensive program in place for performing routine tank testing and other compliance activities which are intended to promptly detect and investigate any potential releases. We believe we are in compliance in all material respects with requirements applicable to our underground storage tanks.
Air Emissions. Our operations are subject to the federal Clean Air Act, as amended, and comparable state laws and regulations. These laws and regulations regulate emissions of air pollutants from various industrial sources, including our processing plants, 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, such as our processing plants and compression facilities, expected to produce air emissions or to result in the increase of existing air emissions, that we obtain and strictly comply with air permits containing various emissions and operational limitations, or that we utilize specific emission control technologies to limit emissions. We will incur capital expenditures in the future for air pollution control equipment in connection with obtaining and maintaining operating permits and approvals for air emissions. In addition, our processing plants, pipelines and compression facilities are subject to increasingly stringent regulations, including regulations that require the installation of control technology or the implementation of work practices to control hazardous air pollutants. Moreover, the Clean Air Act requires an operating permit for major sources of emissions and this requirement applies to some of our facilities. Historically, our costs for compliance with existing Clean Air Act and comparable state law requirements have not had a material adverse effect on our results of operations; however, there can be no assurance that such costs will not be material in the future. The EPA and state agencies are often considering, proposing or finalizing new regulations that could impact our existing operations and the costs and timing of new infrastructure development. For example, in October 2015, the EPA published a final rule under the Clean Air Act, lowering
the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”) for ground-level ozone to 70 parts per billion for the 8-hour primary and secondary ozone standards. The EPA anticipates designating new non-attainment areas by October 1, 2017, and requiring states to revise implementation plans by October 1, 2020, with compliance dates anticipated between 2021 and 2037 determined by the degree of non-attainment. Compliance with this or other new regulations could, among other things, require installation of new emission controls on some of our equipment, result in longer permitting timelines, and significantly increase our capital expenditures and operating costs, which could adversely impact our business.
Clean Water Act. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended, (“Clean Water Act”) and comparable state laws impose restrictions and strict controls regarding the discharge of pollutants, including hydrocarbon-bearing wastes, into state waters and waters of the United States. Pursuant to the Clean Water Act and similar state laws, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or state permit, or both, must be obtained to discharge pollutants into federal and state waters. In addition, the Clean Water Act and comparable state laws require that individual permits or coverage under general permits be obtained by subject facilities for discharges of storm water runoff. The Clean Water Act also prohibits the discharge of dredge and fill material in regulated waters, including wetlands, unless authorized by permit. In May 2015, the EPA issued a final rule that attempts to clarify the federal jurisdictional reach over waters of the United States but this rule has been stayed nationwide by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as that appellate court and numerous district courts ponder lawsuits opposing implementation of the rule. In January 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted review of the rule to determine whether jurisdiction rests with the federal district or appellate courts. To the extent the rule expands the scope of the CWA’s jurisdiction, we could face increased costs and delays with respect to obtaining permits for dredge and fill activities in wetland areas.
Spills. Our operations can result in the discharge of regulated substances, including NGLs, crude oil or other products. The Clean Water Act, as amended by the federal Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as amended, (“OPA”), and comparable state laws impose restrictions and strict controls regarding the discharge of regulated substances into state waters or waters of the United States. The Clean Water Act and comparable state laws can impose substantial administrative, civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance including spills and other non-authorized discharges. The OPA subjects owners of covered facilities to strict joint and potentially unlimited liability for removal costs and other consequences of a release of oil, where the release is into navigable waters, along shorelines or in the exclusive economic zone of the United States. Spill prevention control and countermeasure requirements of the Clean Water Act and some state laws require that containment dikes and similar structures be installed to help prevent the impact on navigable waters in the event of a release of oil. The PHMSA, the EPA, or various state regulatory agencies, has approved our oil spill emergency response plans that are to be used in the event of a spill incident.
In addition, some states maintain groundwater protection programs that require permits for discharges or operations that may impact groundwater conditions. Our management believes that compliance with existing permits and compliance with foreseeable new permit requirements will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or expected cash flows.
Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act, as amended, restricts activities that may affect endangered or threatened species or their habitat. Similar protections are offered to migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We may operate in areas that are currently designated as a habitat for endangered or threatened species or where the discovery of previously unidentified endangered species, or the designation of additional species as endangered or threatened may occur in which event such one or more developments could cause us to incur additional costs, to develop habitat conservation plans, to become subject to expansion or operating restrictions, or bans in the affected areas. Moreover, such designation of previously unprotected species as threatened or endangered in areas where our oil and natural gas exploration and production customers operate could cause our customers to incur increased costs arising from species protection measures and could result in delays or limitations in our customers’ performance of operations, which could reduce demand for our services.
Climate Change. Climate change continues to attract considerable public and scientific attention. As a result, numerous proposals have been made and are likely to continue to be made at the international, national, regional and state levels of government to monitor and limit emissions of GHGs. These efforts have included consideration of cap-and-trade programs, carbon taxes and GHG reporting and tracking programs, and regulations that directly limit GHG emissions from certain sources. At the federal level, no comprehensive climate change legislation has been implemented to date. The EPA has, however, adopted rules under authority of the Clean Air Act that, among other things, establish Potential for Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) construction and Title V operating permit reviews for GHG emissions from certain large stationary sources that are also potential major sources of certain principal, or criteria, pollutant emissions, which reviews could require securing PSD permits at covered facilities emitting GHGs and meeting "best available control technology" standards for those GHG emissions. In addition, the EPA has adopted rules requiring the monitoring and annual reporting of GHG emissions from certain petroleum and natural gas system sources in the U.S., including, among others, onshore processing, transmission, storage and distribution facilities. In October 2015, the EPA amended and expanded the GHG reporting requirements to all segments of the oil and natural gas industry, including gathering and boosting facilities and blowdowns of natural gas transmission pipelines.
Federal agencies also have begun directly regulating emissions of methane, a GHG, from oil and natural gas operations. In June 2016, the EPA published New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”), known as Subpart OOOOa, that require certain new, modified or reconstructed facilities in the oil and natural gas sector to reduce these methane gas and volatile organic compound emissions. These Subpart OOOOa standards will expand previously issued NSPS published by the EPA in 2012 and known as Subpart OOOO, by using certain equipment-specific emissions control practices, requiring additional controls for pneumatic controllers and pumps as well as compressors, and imposing leak detection and repair requirements for natural gas compressor and booster stations. Moreover, in November 2016, the EPA began seeking information about methane emissions from facilities and operators in the oil and natural gas industry that could be used to develop Existing Source Performance Standards. Additionally, in December 2015, the United States joined the international community at the 21st Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris, France preparing an agreement requiring member countries to review and “represent a progression” in their intended nationally determined contributions, which set GHG emission reduction goals every five years beginning in 2020. This “Paris agreement” was signed by the United States in April 2016 and entered into force in November 2016; however, this agreement does not create any binding obligations for nations to limit their GHG emissions, but rather includes pledges to voluntarily limit or reduce future emissions.
The adoption and implementation of any international, federal or state legislation or regulations that require reporting of GHGs or otherwise restrict emissions of GHGs could result in increased compliance costs or additional operating restrictions, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, demand for our services, results of operations, and cash flows. Finally, some scientists have concluded that increasing concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere may produce climate changes that have significant physical effects, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, droughts, and floods and other climate events that could have an adverse effect on our assets.
Some have suggested that one consequence of climate change could be increased severity of extreme weather, such as increased hurricanes and floods. If such effects were to occur, our operations could be adversely affected in various ways, including damages to our facilities from powerful winds or rising waters, or increased costs for insurance. Another possible consequence of climate change is increased volatility in seasonal temperatures. The market for our NGLs and natural gas is generally improved by periods of colder weather and impaired by periods of warmer weather, so any changes in climate could affect the market for the fuels that we produce. Despite the use of the term “global warming” as a shorthand for climate change, some studies indicate that climate change could cause some areas to experience temperatures substantially colder than their historical averages. As a result, it is difficult to predict how the market for our products could be affected by increased temperature volatility, although if there is an overall trend of warmer temperatures, it would be expected to have an adverse effect on our business.
Other Government Regulation. The Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, or “PMPA”, is a federal law that governs the relationship between a refiner and a distributor, as well as between a distributor and branded dealer, pursuant to which the refiner or distributor permits a distributor or dealer to use a trademark in connection with the sale or distribution of motor fuel. Under the PMPA, we may not terminate or fail to renew a branded distributor contract unless certain enumerated preconditions or grounds for termination or nonrenewal are met and we also comply with the prescribed notice requirements. Additionally, we are subject to state petroleum franchise laws as well as laws specific to gasoline retailers and dealers, including state laws that regulate our relationships with third parties to whom we lease sites and supply motor fuels.
Employee Health and Safety. We are subject to the requirements of the federal OSHA and comparable state laws that regulate the protection of the health and safety of workers. In addition, the OSHA hazard communication standard requires that information be maintained about hazardous materials used or produced in operations and that this information be provided to employees, state and local government authorities and citizens. We believe that our past costs for OSHA required activities, including general industry standards, recordkeeping requirements, and monitoring of occupational exposure to regulated substances, have not had a material adverse effect on our results of operations but there is no assurance that such costs will not be material in the future.
As of December 31, 2016, ETE and its consolidated subsidiaries employed an aggregate of 30,992 employees, 1,760 of which are represented by labor unions. We and our subsidiaries believe that our relations with our employees are satisfactory.
We file or furnish annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and any related amendments and supplements thereto with the SEC. From time to time, we may also file registration and related statements pertaining to equity or debt offerings. You may read and copy any materials we file or furnish with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. You may obtain information regarding the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-732-0330. In addition, the SEC maintains an internet website at http://www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC.
We provide electronic access, free of charge, to our periodic and current reports, and amendments to these reports, on our internet website located at http://www.energytransfer.com. These reports are available on our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such materials with the SEC. Information contained on our website is not part of this report.
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
In addition to risks and uncertainties in the ordinary course of business that are common to all businesses, important factors that are specific to our structure as a limited partnership, our industry and our company could materially impact our future performance and results of operations. We have provided below a list of these risk factors that should be reviewed when considering an investment in our securities. ETP, Panhandle, PennTex, Sunoco Logistics and Sunoco LP file Annual Reports on Form 10-K that include risk factors that can be reviewed for further information. The risk factors set forth below, and those included in ETP’s, Panhandle’s, PennTex’s, Sunoco Logistics’ and Sunoco LP’s Annual Reports, are not all the risks we face and other factors currently considered immaterial or unknown to us may impact our future operations.
Risks Inherent in an Investment in Us
Cash distributions are not guaranteed and may fluctuate with our performance or other external factors.
The source of our earnings and cash flow is cash distributions from ETP, PennTex, Sunoco LP and Sunoco Logistics via the Class H Units. Therefore, the amount of distributions we are currently able to make to our Unitholders may fluctuate based on the level of distributions ETP, PennTex, Sunoco LP or Sunoco Logistics makes to their partners. ETP, PennTex, Sunoco LP or Sunoco Logistics may not be able to continue to make quarterly distributions at their current level or increase their quarterly distributions in the future. In addition, while we would expect to increase or decrease distributions to our Unitholders if ETP, PennTex, Sunoco LP or Sunoco Logistics increases or decreases distributions to us, the timing and amount of such increased or decreased distributions, if any, will not necessarily be comparable to the timing and amount of the increase or decrease in distributions made by ETP, PennTex, Sunoco LP or Sunoco Logistics to us.
Our ability to distribute cash received from ETP, PennTex, Sunoco LP and Sunoco Logistics to our Unitholders is limited by a number of factors, including:
interest expense and principal payments on our indebtedness;
restrictions on distributions contained in any current or future debt agreements;
our general and administrative expenses;
expenses of our subsidiaries other than ETP, PennTex, Sunoco LP and Sunoco Logistics, including tax liabilities of our corporate subsidiaries, if any; and
reserves our General Partner believes prudent for us to maintain for the proper conduct of our business or to provide for future distributions.
We cannot guarantee that in the future we will be able to pay distributions or that any distributions we do make will be at or above our current quarterly distribution. The actual amount of cash that is available for distribution to our Unitholders will depend on numerous factors, many of which are beyond our control or the control of our General Partner.
Our cash flow depends primarily on the cash distributions we receive from our partnership interests, including the incentive distribution rights, in ETP and Sunoco LP and, therefore, our cash flow is dependent upon the ability of ETP and Sunoco LP to make distributions in respect of those partnership interests.
We do not have any significant assets other than our partnership interests in ETP and Sunoco LP and our LNG business. Our interest in ETP includes Class H Units, for which distributions to us are based on a percentage of the general partner interest and incentive distribution right in Sunoco Logistics. As a result, our cash flow depends on the performance of ETP, PennTex, Sunoco LP and Sunoco Logistics and their respective subsidiaries and ETP’s and Sunoco LP’s ability to make cash distributions to us, which is dependent on the results of operations, cash flows and financial condition of ETP, PennTex, Sunoco LP and Sunoco Logistics.
The amount of cash that ETP, PennTex, Sunoco LP and Sunoco Logistics can distribute to their partners, including us, each quarter depends upon the amount of cash they generate from their operations, which will fluctuate from quarter to quarter and will depend upon, among other things:
the amount of natural gas, crude oil and products transported through ETP’s and Sunoco Logistics’ transportation pipelines and gathering systems;
the level of throughput in processing and treating operations;
the fees charged and the margins realized by ETP, PennTex, Sunoco LP and Sunoco Logistics for their services;
the price of natural gas, NGLs, crude oil and products;
the relationship between natural gas, NGL and crude oil prices;
the amount of cash distributions ETP receives with respect to the PennTex, Sunoco Logistics and Sunoco LP common units that ETP or its subsidiaries own;
the weather in their respective operating areas;
the level of competition from other midstream, transportation and storage and retail marketing companies and other energy providers;
the level of their respective operating costs and maintenance and integrity capital expenditures;
the tax profile on any blocker entities treated as corporations for federal income tax purposes that are owned by any of our subsidiaries;
prevailing economic conditions; and
the level and results of their respective derivative activities.
In addition, the actual amount of cash that ETP, PennTex, Sunoco LP and Sunoco Logistics will have available for distribution will also depend on other factors, such as:
the level of capital expenditures they make;
the level of costs related to litigation and regulatory compliance matters;
the cost of acquisitions, if any;
the levels of any margin calls that result from changes in commodity prices;
debt service requirements;
fluctuations in working capital needs;
their ability to borrow under their respective revolving credit facilities;
their ability to access capital markets;
restrictions on distributions contained in their respective debt agreements; and
the amount, if any, of cash reserves established by the board of directors and their respective general partners in their discretion for the proper conduct of their respective businesses.
ETE does not have any control over many of these factors, including the level of cash reserves established by the board of directors and ETP’s General Partners. Accordingly, we cannot guarantee that ETP, PennTex, Sunoco LP or Sunoco Logistics will have sufficient available cash to pay a specific level of cash distributions to its partners.
Furthermore, Unitholders should be aware that the amount of cash that ETP and Sunoco LP have available for distribution depends primarily upon cash flow and is not solely a function of profitability, which is affected by non-cash items. As a result, ETP and Sunoco LP may declare and/or pay cash distributions during periods when they record net losses. Please read “Risks Related to the Businesses of Energy Transfer Partners” included in this Item 1A for a discussion of further risks affecting ETP’s ability to generate distributable cash flow.
We may issue an unlimited number of limited partner interests without the consent of our Unitholders, which will dilute Unitholders’ ownership interest in us and may increase the risk that we will not have sufficient available cash to maintain or increase our per unit distribution level.
Our partnership agreement allows us to issue an unlimited number of additional limited partner interests, including securities senior to the Common Units, without the approval of our Unitholders. The issuance of additional Common Units or other equity securities by us will have the following effects:
our Unitholders’ current proportionate ownership interest in us will decrease;
the amount of cash available for distribution on each Common Unit or partnership security may decrease;
the ratio of taxable income to distributions may increase;
the relative voting strength of each previously outstanding Common Unit may be diminished; and
the market price of our Common Units may decline.
In addition, ETP and Sunoco LP may sell an unlimited number of limited partner interests without the consent of the respective Unitholders, which will dilute existing interests of the respective Unitholders, including us. The issuance of additional Common Units or other equity securities by ETP will have essentially the same effects as detailed above.
ETP, PennTex, Sunoco LP, and Sunoco Logistics may issue additional Common Units, which may increase the risk that each Partnership will not have sufficient available cash to maintain or increase its per unit distribution level.
The partnership agreements of ETP, Sunoco Logistics, PennTex and Sunoco LP allow each partnership to issue an unlimited number of additional limited partner interests. The issuance of additional common units or other equity securities by each respective partnership will have the following effects:
Unitholders’ current proportionate ownership interest in the respective partnerships will decrease;
the amount of cash available for distribution on each common unit or partnership security may decrease;
the ratio of taxable income to distributions may increase;
the relative voting strength of each previously outstanding common unit may be diminished; and
the market price of the respective partnerships common units may decline.
The payment of distributions on any additional units issued by ETP, PennTex, Sunoco LP and Sunoco Logistics may increase the risk that either partnership may not have sufficient cash available to maintain or increase its per unit distribution level, which in turn may impact the available cash that we have to meet our obligations.
Unitholders have limited voting rights and are not entitled to elect the General Partner or its directors. In addition, even if Unitholders are dissatisfied, they cannot easily remove the 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 management’s decisions regarding our business. Unitholders did not elect our General Partner and will have no right to elect our General Partner or the officers or directors of our General Partner on an annual or other continuing basis.
Furthermore, if our Unitholders are dissatisfied with the performance of our General Partner, they may be unable to remove our General Partner. Our General Partner may not be removed except, among other things, upon the vote of the holders of at least 66 2/3% of our outstanding units. As of December 31, 2016, our directors and executive officers directly or indirectly own approximately 27% of our outstanding Common Units. It will be particularly difficult for our General Partner to be removed without the consent of our directors and executive officers. As a result, the price at which our Common Units will trade may be lower because of the absence or reduction of a takeover premium in the trading price.
Furthermore, Unitholders’ voting rights are further restricted by the partnership agreement provision providing that any units held by a person that owns 20% or more of any class of units then outstanding, other than the General Partner and its affiliates, cannot be voted on any matter.
Our General Partner may, in its sole discretion, approve the issuance of partnership securities and specify the terms of such partnership securities.
Pursuant to our partnership agreement, our General Partner has the ability, in its sole discretion and without the approval of the Unitholders, to approve the issuance of securities by the Partnership at any time and to specify the terms and conditions of such securities. The securities authorized to be issued may be issued in one or more classes or series, with such designations, preferences, rights, powers and duties (which may be senior to existing classes and series of partnership securities), as shall be determined by our General Partner, including:
the right to share in the Partnership’s profits and losses;
the right to share in the Partnership’s distributions;
the rights upon dissolution and liquidation of the Partnership;
whether, and the terms upon which, the Partnership may redeem the securities;
whether the securities will be issued, evidenced by certificates and assigned or transferred; and
the right, if any, of the security to vote on matters relating to the Partnership, including matters relating to the relative rights, preferences and privileges of such security.
Please see “—We may issue an unlimited number of limited partner interests without the consent of our Unitholders, which will dilute Unitholders’ ownership interest in us and may increase the risk that we will not have sufficient available cash to maintain or increase our per unit distribution level.” above.
The control of our General Partner may be transferred to a third party without Unitholder consent.
The General Partner may transfer its general partner interest to a third party without the consent of the Unitholders. Furthermore, the members of our General Partner may transfer all or part of their ownership interest in our General Partner to a third party without the consent of the Unitholders. Any new owner or owners of our General Partner or the general partner of the General Partner would be in a position to replace the directors and officers of our General Partner with its own choices and to control the decisions made and actions taken by the board of directors and officers.
We are dependent on third parties, including key personnel of ETP under a shared services agreement, to provide the financial, accounting, administrative and legal services necessary to operate our business.
We rely on the services of key personnel of ETP, including the ongoing involvement and continued leadership of Kelcy L. Warren, one of the founders of ETP’s midstream business. Mr. Warren has been integral to the success of ETP’s midstream and intrastate transportation and storage businesses because of his ability to identify and develop strategic business opportunities. Losing the leadership of Mr. Warren could make it difficult for ETP to identify internal growth projects and accretive acquisitions, which could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s ability to increase the cash distributions paid on its partnership interests.
ETP’s executive officers that provide services to us pursuant to a shared services agreement allocate their time between us and ETP. To the extent that these officers face conflicts regarding the allocation of their time, we may not receive the level of attention from them that the management of our business requires. If ETP is unable to provide us with a sufficient number of personnel with the appropriate level of technical accounting and financial expertise, our internal accounting controls could be adversely impacted.
Cost reimbursements due to our General Partner may be substantial and may reduce our ability to pay the distributions to our Unitholders.
Prior to making any distributions to our Unitholders, we will reimburse our General Partner for all expenses it has incurred on our behalf. In addition, our General Partner and its affiliates may provide us with services for which we will be charged reasonable fees as determined by our General Partner. The reimbursement of these expenses and the payment of these fees could adversely affect our ability to make distributions to our Unitholders. Our General Partner has sole discretion to determine the amount of these expenses and fees.
In addition, under Delaware partnership law, our General Partner has unlimited liability for our obligations, such as our debts and environmental liabilities, except for our contractual obligations that are expressly made without recourse to our General Partner. To the extent our General Partner incurs obligations on our behalf, we are obligated to reimburse or indemnify it. If we are unable or unwilling to reimburse or indemnify our General Partner, our General Partner may take actions to cause us to make payments of these obligations and liabilities. Any such payments could reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our Unitholders and cause the value of our Common Units to decline.
A reduction in ETP’s, Sunoco LP’s or Sunoco Logistics’ distributions will disproportionately affect the amount of cash distributions to which ETE is entitled.
ETE indirectly owns all of the IDRs of ETP and Sunoco LP. Additionally, through its ownership of ETP Class H units and a 0.1% interest in Sunoco Logistics’ general partner, ETE is entitled to receive 90.15% of the cash distributions related to the IDRs of Sunoco Logistics, while ETP is entitled to receive the remaining 9.85% of such cash distributions. These IDRs entitle the holder to receive increasing percentages of total cash distributions made by each of ETP, Sunoco LP and Sunoco Logistics as such entity reaches established target cash distribution levels as specified in its partnership agreement. ETE currently receives its pro rata share of cash distributions from ETP and Sunoco LP based on the highest sharing level of 48% and 50% in respect of the ETP IDRs and Sunoco LP IDRs, respectively. ETE and ETP currently receive their pro rata share of cash distributions from Sunoco Logistics based on the highest sharing level of 48% in respect of the Sunoco Logistics IDRs.
A decrease in the amount of distributions by ETP to ETE to less than $0.4125 per unit per quarter would reduce ETE’s percentage of the incremental cash distributions from ETP above $0.3175 per unit per quarter from 48% to 23%, and a decrease in the amount
of distributions by Sunoco LP to ETE to less than $0.6563 per unit per quarter would reduce ETE’s percentage of the incremental cash distributions from Sunoco LP above $0.5469 per unit per quarter from 50% to 25%. Likewise, a decrease in the amount of distributions from Sunoco Logistics to less than $0.5275 per unit per quarter would reduce the percentage of the incremental cash distributions received by ETE and ETP from Sunoco Logistics above $0.1917 per unit per quarter from 48% to 35%. As a result, any such reduction in quarterly cash distributions from the ETP, Sunoco LP or Sunoco Logistics would have the effect of disproportionately reducing the amount of all distributions that ETE and ETP receive, based on their ownership interest in the IDRs as compared to cash distributions they receive from their general partner interest and common units in such entity.
The consolidated debt level and debt agreements of ETP, PennTex, Sunoco Logistics and Sunoco LP and those of their subsidiaries may limit the distributions we receive from ETP, PennTex, Sunoco Logistics and Sunoco LP, as well as our future financial and operating flexibility.
ETP’s, PennTex’s, Sunoco Logistics’ and Sunoco LP’s levels of indebtedness affect their operations in several ways, including, among other things:
a significant portion of ETP’s, PennTex’s, Sunoco Logistics’ and Sunoco LP’s and their subsidiaries’ cash flows from operations will be dedicated to the payment of principal and interest on outstanding debt and will not be available for other purposes, including payment of distributions to us;
covenants contained in ETP’s, PennTex’s, Sunoco Logistics’ and Sunoco LP’s and their subsidiaries’ existing debt agreements require ETP, Sunoco LP and their subsidiaries, as applicable, to meet financial tests that may adversely affect their flexibility in planning for and reacting to changes in their respective businesses;
ETP’s, PennTex’s, Sunoco Logistics’ and Sunoco LP’s and their subsidiaries’ ability to obtain additional financing for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions and general partnership, corporate or limited liability company purposes, as applicable, may be limited;
ETP, PennTex, Sunoco Logistics and Sunoco LP may be at a competitive disadvantage relative to similar companies that have less debt;
ETP and Sunoco LP may be more vulnerable to adverse economic and industry conditions as a result of their significant debt levels;
failure by ETP, Sunoco LP or their subsidiaries to comply with the various restrictive covenants of the respective debt agreements could negatively impact ETP’s and Sunoco LP’s ability to incur additional debt, including their ability to utilize the available capacity under their revolving credit facilities, and to pay distributions to us and their unitholders.
We do not have the same flexibility as other types of organizations to accumulate cash, which may limit cash available to service our debt or to repay debt at maturity.
Unlike a corporation, our partnership agreement requires us to distribute, on a quarterly basis, 100% of our Available Cash (as defined in our partnership agreement) to our Unitholders of record and our General Partner. Available Cash is generally all of our cash on hand as of the end of a quarter, adjusted for cash distributions and net changes to reserves. Our General Partner will determine the amount and timing of such distributions and has broad discretion to establish and make additions to our reserves or the reserves of our operating subsidiaries in amounts it determines in its reasonable discretion to be necessary or appropriate:
to provide for the proper conduct of our business and the businesses of our operating subsidiaries (including reserves for future capital expenditures and for our anticipated future credit needs);
to provide funds for distributions to our Unitholders and our General Partner for any one or more of the next four calendar quarters; or
to comply with applicable law or any of our loan or other agreements.
A downgrade of our credit ratings could impact our and our subsidiaries’ liquidity, access to capital and costs of doing business, and maintaining credit ratings is under the control of independent third parties.
A downgrade of our credit ratings might increase our and our subsidiaries’ cost of borrowing and could require us to post collateral with third parties, negatively impacting our available liquidity. Our and our subsidiaries’ ability to access capital markets could also be limited by a downgrade of our credit ratings and other disruptions. Such disruptions could include:
deteriorating capital market conditions;
declining market prices for natural gas, NGLs and other commodities;
terrorist attacks or threatened attacks on our facilities or those of other energy companies; and
the overall health of the energy industry, including the bankruptcy or insolvency of other companies.
Our subsidiaries are not prohibited from competing with us.
Neither our partnership agreement nor the partnership agreements of our subsidiaries, including ETP, Sunoco Logistics, PennTex and Sunoco LP, prohibit our subsidiaries from owning assets or engaging in businesses that compete directly or indirectly with us. In addition, our subsidiaries may acquire, construct or dispose of any assets in the future without any obligation to offer us the opportunity to purchase or construct any of those assets.
Capital projects will require significant amounts of debt and equity financing, which may not be available to ETP on acceptable terms, or at all.
ETP plans to fund its growth capital expenditures, including any new future pipeline construction projects and improvements or repairs to existing facilities that ETP may undertake, with proceeds from sales of ETP’s debt and equity securities and borrowings under its revolving credit facility; however, ETP cannot be certain that it will be able to issue debt and equity securities on terms satisfactory to it, or at all. In addition, ETP may be unable to obtain adequate funding under its current revolving credit facility because ETP’s lending counterparties may be unwilling or unable to meet their funding obligations. If ETP is unable to finance its expansion projects as expected, ETP could be required to seek alternative financing, the terms of which may not be attractive to ETP, or to revise or cancel its expansion plans.
A significant increase in ETP’s indebtedness that is proportionately greater than ETP’s issuance of equity could negatively impact ETP’s credit ratings or its ability to remain in compliance with the financial covenants under its revolving credit agreement, which could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
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 changes in interest rates. Approximately $11.60 billion of our consolidated debt as of December 31, 2016 bears interest at variable interest rates and the remainder bears interest at fixed rates. To the extent that we have debt with floating interest rates, our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition could be materially adversely affected by increases in interest rates. We manage a portion of our interest rate exposures by utilizing interest rate swaps.
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.
Unitholders may have liability to repay distributions.
Under certain circumstances, Unitholders may have to repay us amounts wrongfully distributed to them. Under Delaware law, we may not make a distribution to Unitholders if the distribution causes our liabilities to exceed the fair value of our assets. Liabilities to partners on account of their partnership interests and non-recourse liabilities are not counted for purposes of determining whether a distribution is permitted. Delaware law provides that a limited partner who receives such a distribution and knew at the time of the distribution that the distribution violated Delaware law, will be liable to the limited partnership for the distribution amount for three years from the distribution date. Under Delaware law, an assignee who becomes a substituted limited partner of a limited partnership is liable for the obligations of the assignor to make contributions to the partnership. However, such an assignee is not obligated for liabilities unknown to him at the time he or she became a limited partner if the liabilities could not be determined from the partnership agreement.
We have a holding company structure in which our subsidiaries conduct our operations and own our operating assets.
We are a holding company, and our subsidiaries conduct all of our operations and own all of our operating assets. We do not have significant assets other than the partnership interests and the equity in our subsidiaries. As a result, our ability to pay distributions to our Unitholders and to service our debt depends on the performance of our subsidiaries and their ability to distribute funds to us. The ability of our subsidiaries to make distributions to us may be restricted by, among other things, credit facilities and applicable state partnership laws and other laws and regulations. If we are unable to obtain funds from our subsidiaries we may not be able to pay distributions to our Unitholders or to pay interest or principal on our debt when due.
Unitholders may not have limited liability if a court finds that unitholder actions constitute control of our business.
Under Delaware law, a unitholder could be held liable for our obligations to the same extent as a general partner if a court determined that the right of unitholders to remove our general partner or to take other action under our partnership agreement constituted participation in the “control” of our business.
Our general partner generally has unlimited liability for our obligations, such as our debts and environmental liabilities, except for those contractual obligations that are expressly made without recourse to our general partner. Our partnership agreement allows the general partner to incur obligations on our behalf that are expressly non-recourse to the general partner. The general partner has entered into such limited recourse obligations in most instances involving payment liability and intends to do so in the future.
In addition, Section 17-607 of the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act provides that under some circumstances, a unitholder may be liable to us for the amount of a distribution for a period of three years from the date of the distribution.
Our debt level and debt agreements may limit our ability to make distributions to Unitholders and may limit our future financial and operating flexibility and may require asset sales.
As of December 31, 2016, we had approximately $6.36 billion of debt on a stand-alone basis and approximately $43.80 billion of consolidated debt, excluding the debt of our joint ventures. Our level of indebtedness affects our operations in several ways, including, among other things:
a significant portion of our and our subsidiaries’ cash flow from operations will be dedicated to the payment of principal and interest on outstanding debt and will not be available for other purposes, including payment of distributions;
covenants contained in our and our subsidiaries’ existing debt agreements require us and them, as applicable, to meet financial tests that may adversely affect our flexibility in planning for and reacting to changes in our business;
our and our subsidiaries’ ability to obtain additional financing for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions and general partnership, corporate or limited liability company purposes, as applicable, may be limited;
we may be at a competitive disadvantage relative to similar companies that have less debt;
we may be more vulnerable to adverse economic and industry conditions as a result of our significant debt level; and
failure by us or our subsidiaries to comply with the various restrictive covenants of our respective debt agreements could negatively impact our ability to incur additional debt, including our ability to utilize the available capacity under our revolving credit facility, and our ability to pay our distributions.
In order for us to manage our debt levels, we may need to sell assets, issue additional equity securities, reduce the cash distributions we pay to our unitholders or a combination thereof. In the event that we sell assets, the future cash generating capacity of our remaining asset base may be diminished. In the event that we issue additional equity securities, we may need to issue these securities at a time when our common unit price is depressed and therefore we may not receive favorable prices for our common units or favorable prices or terms for other types of equity securities. In the event we reduce cash distributions on our common units, the public trading price of our common units could decline significantly.
Our General Partner has a limited call right that may require Unitholders to sell their units at an undesirable time or price.
If at any time our General Partner and its affiliates own more than 90% of our outstanding units, our General Partner 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 units held by unaffiliated persons at a price not less than their then-current market price. As a result, Unitholders may be required to sell their units at an undesirable time or price and may not receive any return on their investment. Unitholders may also incur a tax liability upon a sale of their units. As of December 31, 2016, the directors and executive officers of our General Partner owned approximately 27% of our Common Units.
Litigation commenced by WMB against ETE and its affiliates could cause ETE to incur substantial costs, may present material distractions and, if decided adverse to ETE, could negatively impact ETE’s financial position and credit ratings.
WMB filed a complaint against ETE and its affiliates in the Delaware Court of Chancery, alleging that the defendants breached the merger agreement between WMB, ETE, and several of ETE’s affiliates. Following a ruling by the Court on June 24, 2016, which allowed for the subsequent termination of the merger agreement by ETE on June 29, 2016, WMB filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Delaware. WMB filed an amended complaint on September 16, 2016 and seeks a $410 million termination fee and additional damages of up to $10 billion based on the purported lost value of the merger consideration. These damages claims are based on the alleged breaches of the Merger Agreement, as well as new allegations that the ETE Defendants breached an additional representation and warranty in the Merger Agreement. The ETE Defendants filed amended counterclaims and
affirmative defenses on September 23, 2016 and seek a $1.48 billion termination fee under the Merger Agreement and additional damages caused by WMB’s misconduct. These damages claims are based on the alleged breaches of the Merger Agreement, as well as new allegations that WMB breached the Merger Agreement by failing to disclose material information that was required to be disclosed in the Form S-4. On September 29, 2016, WMB filed a motion to dismiss the ETE Defendants’ amended counterclaims and to strike certain of the ETE Defendants’ affirmative defenses. Following briefing by the parties on WMB’s motion, the Delaware Court of Chancery held oral arguments on November 30, 2016. The parties are awaiting the Court’s decision. On January 11, 2017, the parties held oral argument before the Delaware Supreme Court on WMB’s appeal of the June 24 ruling. The Delaware Supreme Court has taken the matter under advisement. These lawsuits could result in substantial costs to ETE, including litigation costs and settlement costs. ETE believes that the time required by the management of ETE and its counsel to defend against the allegations made by WMB in the litigation against ETE and its affiliates is likely to be substantial and the time required by the officers and employees of LE GP, assuming WMB actively pursues such litigation, is also likely to be substantial. The defense or settlement of any lawsuit or claim that remains unresolved may result in negative media attention, and may adversely affect ETE’s business, reputation, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and market price.
Risks Related to Conflicts of Interest
Although we control ETP and Sunoco LP through our ownership of their general partners, ETP’s and Sunoco LP’s general partners owe fiduciary duties to ETP and ETP’s unitholders and Sunoco LP and Sunoco LP’s unitholders, respectively, which may conflict with our interests.
Conflicts of interest exist and may arise in the future as a result of the relationships between us and our affiliates, on the one hand, and ETP and Sunoco LP and their respective limited partners, on the other hand. The directors and officers of ETP’s and Sunoco LP’s General Partners have fiduciary duties to manage ETP and Sunoco LP, respectively, in a manner beneficial to us. At the same time, the General Partners have fiduciary duties to manage ETP and Sunoco LP in a manner beneficial to ETP and Sunoco LP and their respective limited partners. The boards of directors of ETP’s and Sunoco LP’s General Partner will resolve any such conflict and have broad latitude to consider the interests of all parties to the conflict. The resolution of these conflicts may not always be in our best interest.
For example, conflicts of interest with ETP and Sunoco LP may arise in the following situations:
the allocation of shared overhead expenses to ETP, Sunoco LP and us;
the interpretation and enforcement of contractual obligations between us and our affiliates, on the one hand, and ETP and Sunoco LP, on the other hand;
the determination of the amount of cash to be distributed to ETP’s and Sunoco LP’s partners and the amount of cash to be reserved for the future conduct of ETP’s and Sunoco LP’s businesses;
the determination whether to make borrowings under ETP’s and Sunoco LP’s revolving credit facilities to pay distributions to their respective partners;
the determination of whether a business opportunity (such as a commercial development opportunity or an acquisition) that we may become aware of independently of ETP and Sunoco LP is made available for ETP and Sunoco LP to pursue; and
any decision we make in the future to engage in business activities independent of ETP and Sunoco LP.
The fiduciary duties of our General Partner’s officers and directors may conflict with those of ETP’s or Sunoco LP’s respective general partners.
Conflicts of interest may arise because of the relationships among ETP, Sunoco LP, their general partners and us. Our general partner’s directors and officers have fiduciary duties to manage our business in a manner beneficial to us and our Unitholders. Some of our General Partner’s directors are also directors and officers of ETP’s general partner or Sunoco LP’s general partner, and have fiduciary duties to manage the respective businesses of ETP and Sunoco LP in a manner beneficial to ETP, Sunoco LP and their respective Unitholders. The resolution of these conflicts may not always be in our best interest or that of our Unitholders.
Potential conflicts of interest may arise among our General Partner, its affiliates and us. Our General Partner and its affiliates have limited fiduciary duties to us, which may permit them to favor their own interests to the detriment of us.
Conflicts of interest may arise among our General Partner and its affiliates, on the one hand, and us, on the other hand. As a result of these conflicts, our General Partner may favor its own interests and the interests of its affiliates over our interests. These conflicts include, among others, the following:
Our General Partner is allowed to take into account the interests of parties other than us, including ETP and their respective affiliates and any General Partners and limited partnerships acquired in the future, in resolving conflicts of interest, which has the effect of limiting its fiduciary duties to us.
Our General Partner has limited its liability and reduced its fiduciary duties under the terms of our partnership agreement, while also restricting the remedies available for actions that, without these limitations, might constitute breaches of fiduciary duty. As a result of purchasing our units, Unitholders consent to various actions and conflicts of interest that might otherwise constitute a breach of fiduciary or other duties under applicable state law.
Our General Partner determines the amount and timing of our investment transactions, borrowings, issuances of additional partnership securities and reserves, each of which can affect the amount of cash that is available for distribution.
Our General Partner determines which costs it and its affiliates have incurred are reimbursable by us.
Our partnership agreement does not restrict our General Partner from causing us to pay it or its affiliates for any services rendered, or from entering into additional contractual arrangements with any of these entities on our behalf, so long as the terms of any such payments or additional contractual arrangements are fair and reasonable to us.
Our General Partner controls the enforcement of obligations owed to us by it and its affiliates.
Our General Partner decides whether to retain separate counsel, accountants or others to perform services for us.
Our partnership agreement limits our General Partner’s fiduciary duties to us and restricts the remedies available for actions taken by our General Partner that might otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary duty.
Our partnership agreement contains provisions that reduce the standards to which our General Partner would otherwise be held by state fiduciary duty law. For example, our partnership agreement:
permits our General Partner to make a number of decisions in its individual capacity, as opposed to in its capacity as our General Partner. This entitles our General Partner to consider only the interests and factors that it desires, and it has no duty or obligation to give any consideration to any interest of, or factors affecting, us, our affiliates or any limited partner;
provides that our General Partner is entitled to make other decisions in “good faith” if it reasonably believes that the decisions are in our best interests;
generally provides that affiliated transactions and resolutions of conflicts of interest not approved by the Audit and Conflicts Committee of the board of directors of our General Partner and not involving a vote of Unitholders must be on terms no less favorable to us than those generally being provided to or available from unrelated third parties or be “fair and reasonable” to us and that, in determining whether a transaction or resolution is “fair and reasonable,” our General Partner may consider the totality of the relationships among the parties involved, including other transactions that may be particularly advantageous or beneficial to us;
provides that unless our General Partner has acted in bad faith, the action taken by our General Partner shall not constitute a breach of its fiduciary duty;
provides that our General Partner may resolve any conflicts of interest involving us and our General Partner and its affiliates, and any resolution of a conflict of interest by our General Partner that is “fair and reasonable” to us will be deemed approved by all partners, including the Unitholders, and will not constitute a breach of the partnership agreement;
provides that our General Partner may, but is not required, in connection with its resolution of a conflict of interest, to seek “special approval” of such resolution by appointing a conflicts committee of the General Partner’s board of directors composed of two or more independent directors to consider such conflicts of interest and to recommend action to the board of directors, and any resolution of the conflict of interest by the conflicts committee shall be conclusively deemed “fair and reasonable” to us; and
provides that our General Partner and its officers and directors will not be liable for monetary damages to us, our limited partners or assignees for any acts or omissions unless there has been a final and non-appealable judgment entered by a court of competent jurisdiction determining that the General Partner or those other persons acted in bad faith or engaged in fraud, willful misconduct or gross negligence.
The general partner’s absolute discretion in determining the level of cash reserves may adversely affect our ability to make cash distributions to our Unitholders.
Our partnership agreement requires the general partner to deduct from operating surplus cash reserves that in its reasonable discretion are necessary to fund our future operating expenditures. In addition, our partnership agreement permits the general partner to reduce available cash by establishing cash reserves for the proper conduct of our business, to comply with applicable
law or agreements to which we are a party or to provide funds for future distributions to partners. These cash reserves will affect the amount of cash available for distribution to unitholders.
Risks Related to the Businesses of ETP and Sunoco LP
Since our cash flows consist exclusively of distributions from ETP and Sunoco LP, risks to the businesses of ETP and Sunoco LP are also risks to us. We have set forth below risks to the businesses of ETP and Sunoco LP, the occurrence of which could have a negative impact on their respective financial performance and decrease the amount of cash they are able to distribute to us.
ETP and Sunoco Logistics do not control, and therefore may not be able to cause or prevent certain actions by, certain of their joint ventures.
Certain of ETP’s and Sunoco Logistics’ joint ventures have their own governing boards, and ETP or Sunoco Logistics may not control all of the decisions of those boards. Consequently, it may be difficult or impossible for ETP or Sunoco Logistics to cause the joint venture entity to take actions that ETP or Sunoco Logistics believes would be in their or the joint venture’s best interests. Likewise, ETP or Sunoco Logistics may be unable to prevent actions of the joint venture.
ETP and Sunoco LP are exposed to the credit risk of their respective customers and derivative counterparties, and an increase in the nonpayment and nonperformance by their respective customers or derivative counterparties could reduce their respective ability to make distributions to their Unitholders, including to us.
The risks of nonpayment and nonperformance by ETP’s and Sunoco LP’s respective customers are a major concern in their respective businesses. Participants in the energy industry have been subjected to heightened scrutiny from the financial markets in light of past collapses and failures of other energy companies. ETP and Sunoco LP are subject to risks of loss resulting from nonpayment or nonperformance by their respective customers, especially during the current low commodity price environment impacting many oil and gas producers. As a result, the current commodity price volatility and the tightening of credit in the financial markets may make it more difficult for customers to obtain financing and, depending on the degree to which this occurs, there may be a material increase in the nonpayment and nonperformance by ETP’s and Sunoco LP’s customers. To the extent one or more of our customers is in financial distress or commences bankruptcy proceedings, contracts with these customers may be subject to renegotiation or rejection under applicable provisions of the United States Bankruptcy Code. In addition, our risk management activities are subject to the risks that a counterparty may not perform its obligation under the applicable derivative instrument, the terms of the derivative instruments are imperfect, and our risk management policies and procedures are not properly followed. Any material nonpayment or nonperformance by our customers or our derivative counterparties could reduce our ability to make distributions to our Unitholders. Any substantial increase in the nonpayment and nonperformance by ETP’s or Sunoco LP’s customers could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s or Sunoco LP’s respective results of operations and operating cash flows.
The use of derivative financial instruments could result in material financial losses by ETP and Sunoco LP.
From time to time, ETP and Sunoco LP have sought to reduce our exposure to fluctuations in commodity prices and interest rates by using derivative financial instruments and other risk management mechanisms and by their trading, marketing and/or system optimization activities. To the extent that either ETP or Sunoco LP hedges its commodity price and interest rate exposures, it foregoes the benefits it would otherwise experience if commodity prices or interest rates were to change favorably. In addition, even though monitored by management, ETP’s and Sunoco LP’s derivatives activities can result in losses. Such losses could occur under various circumstances, including if a counterparty does not perform its obligations under the derivative arrangement, the hedge is imperfect, commodity prices move unfavorably related to ETP’s or Sunoco LP’s physical or financial positions, or internal hedging policies and procedures are not followed.
The accounting standards regarding hedge accounting are very complex, and even when we engage in hedging transactions that are effective economically (whether to mitigate our exposure to fluctuations in commodity prices, or to balance our exposure to fixed and variable interest rates), these transactions may not be considered effective for accounting purposes. Accordingly, our consolidated financial statements may reflect some volatility due to these hedges, even when there is no underlying economic impact at that point. It is also not always possible for us to engage in a hedging transaction that completely mitigates our exposure to commodity prices. Our consolidated financial statements may reflect a gain or loss arising from an exposure to commodity prices for which we are unable to enter into a completely effective hedge.
In addition, even though monitored by management, our derivatives activities can result in losses. Such losses could occur under various circumstances, including if a counterparty does not perform its obligations under the derivative arrangement, the hedge is imperfect, commodity prices move unfavorably related to our physical or financial positions or hedging policies and procedures are not followed.
The inability to continue to access lands owned by third parties, including tribal lands, could adversely affect ETP’s and Sunoco LP’s ability to operate and adversely affect their financial results.
ETP’s ability to operate its pipeline systems and terminal facilities on certain lands owned by third parties, including lands held in trust by the United States for the benefit of a Native American tribe, will depend on their success in maintaining existing rights-of-way and obtaining new rights-of-way on those lands. Securing extensions of existing and any additional rights-of-way is also critical to ETP’s ability to pursue expansion projects. ETP cannot provide any assurance that they will be able to acquire new rights-of-way or maintain access to existing rights-of-way upon the expiration of the current grants or that all of the rights-of-way will be obtainable in a timely fashion. Transwestern’s existing right-of-way agreements with the Navajo Nation, Southern Ute, Pueblo of Laguna and Fort Mojave tribes extend through November 2029, September 2020, December 2022 and April 2019, respectively. ETP’s financial position could be adversely affected if the costs of new or extended right-of-way grants cannot be recovered in rates.
Further, whether ETP has the power of eminent domain for its pipelines varies from state to state, depending upon the type of pipeline and the laws of the particular state. In either case, ETP must compensate landowners for the use of their property and, in eminent domain actions, such compensation may be determined by a court. The inability to exercise the power of eminent domain could negatively affect ETP’s business if they were to lose the right to use or occupy the property on which their pipelines are located.
In addition, Sunoco LP does not own all of the land on which their retail service stations are located. Sunoco LP has rental agreements for approximately 34.7% of the company-operated retail service stations where Sunoco LP currently controls the real estate and has rental agreements for certain logistics facilities. As such, Sunoco LP is subject to the possibility of increased costs under rental agreements with landowners, primarily through rental increases and renewals of expired agreements. Sunoco LP is also subject to the risk that such agreements may not be renewed. Additionally, certain facilities and equipment (or parts thereof) used by Sunoco LP are leased from third parties for specific periods. Sunoco LP’s inability to renew leases or otherwise maintain the right to utilize such facilities and equipment on acceptable terms, or the increased costs to maintain such rights, could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
ETP and Sunoco LP may not be able to fully execute their growth strategies if they encounter increased competition for qualified assets.
ETP and Sunoco LP have strategies that contemplate growth through the development and acquisition of a wide range of midstream, retail and wholesale fuel distribution assets and other energy infrastructure assets while maintaining strong balance sheets. These strategies include constructing and acquiring additional assets and businesses to enhance their ability to compete effectively and diversify their respective asset portfolios, thereby providing more stable cash flow. ETP and Sunoco LP regularly consider and enter into discussions regarding the acquisition of additional assets and businesses, stand-alone development projects or other transactions that ETP and Sunoco LP believe will present opportunities to realize synergies and increase cash flow.
Consistent with their strategies, managements of ETP and Sunoco LP may, from time to time, engage in discussions with potential sellers regarding the possible acquisition of additional assets or businesses. Such acquisition efforts may involve ETP and Sunoco LP management’s participation in processes that involve a number of potential buyers, commonly referred to as “auction” processes, as well as situations in which ETP and Sunoco LP believe it is the only party or one of a very limited number of potential buyers in negotiations with the potential seller. We cannot assure that ETP’s or Sunoco LP’s acquisition efforts will be successful or that any acquisition will be completed on favorable terms.
In addition, ETP and Sunoco LP are experiencing increased competition for the assets they purchase or contemplate purchasing. Increased competition for a limited pool of assets could result in ETP or Sunoco LP losing to other bidders more often or acquiring assets at higher prices, both of which would limit ETP’s and Sunoco LP’s ability to fully execute their respective growth strategies. Inability to execute their respective growth strategies may materially adversely impact ETP’s and Sunoco LP’s results of operations.
An impairment of goodwill and intangible assets could reduce our earnings.
As of December 31, 2016, our consolidated balance sheets reflected $6.74 billion of goodwill and $5.99 billion of intangible assets. Goodwill is recorded when the purchase price of a business exceeds the fair value of the tangible and separately measurable intangible net assets. Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States 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 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’ capital and balance sheet leverage as measured by debt to total capitalization.
During the fourth quarter of 2016, we performed goodwill impairment tests on our reporting units and recognized goodwill impairments at both ETP and Sunoco LP. The goodwill impairments recognized at ETP consisted of $638 million related to ETP’s interstate transportation and storage operations and $32 million related to ETP’s midstream operations. These impairments are primarily due to decreases in projected future revenues and cash flows driven by reduced volumes as a result of overall declining commodity prices and changes in the markets that these assets serve. During the fourth quarter of 2016, Sunoco LP recognized a goodwill impairment of $642 million in its retail reporting unit primarily due to changes in assumptions related to projected future revenues and cash flows from the dates this goodwill was originally recorded. During the fourth quarter of 2016, Sunoco LP also recognized a $32 million impairment on its Laredo Taco brand name intangible asset primarily due to changes in Sunoco LP’s construction plan for new-to-industry sites and decreases in sales volume in oil field producing regions where Sunoco LP has operations.
If ETP and Sunoco LP do not make acquisitions on economically acceptable terms, their future growth could be limited.
ETP’s and Sunoco LP’s results of operations and their ability to grow and to increase distributions to Unitholders will depend in part on their ability to make acquisitions that are accretive to their respective distributable cash flow.
ETP and Sunoco LP may be unable to make accretive acquisitions for any of the following reasons, among others:
inability to identify attractive acquisition candidates or negotiate acceptable purchase contracts with them;
inability to raise financing for such acquisitions on economically acceptable terms; or
inability to outbid by competitors, some of which are substantially larger than ETP or Sunoco LP and may have greater financial resources and lower costs of capital.
Furthermore, even if ETP or Sunoco LP consummates acquisitions that it believes will be accretive, those acquisitions may in fact adversely affect its results of operations or result in a decrease in distributable cash flow per unit. Any acquisition involves potential risks, including the risk that ETP or Sunoco LP may:
fail to realize anticipated benefits, such as new customer relationships, cost-savings or cash flow enhancements;
decrease its liquidity by using a significant portion of its available cash or borrowing capacity to finance acquisitions;
significantly increase its interest expense or financial leverage if the acquisition is financed with additional debt;
encounter difficulties operating in new geographic areas or new lines of business;
incur or assume unanticipated liabilities, losses or costs associated with the business or assets acquired for which there is no indemnity or the indemnity is inadequate;
be unable to hire, train or retrain qualified personnel to manage and operate its growing business and assets;
less effectively manage its historical assets, due to the diversion of management’s attention from other business concerns; or
incur other significant charges, such as impairment of goodwill or other intangible assets, asset devaluation or restructuring charges.
If ETP and Sunoco LP consummate future acquisitions, their respective capitalization and results of operations may change significantly. As ETP and Sunoco LP determine the application of their funds and other resources, Unitholders will not have an opportunity to evaluate the economic, financial and other relevant information that ETP and Sunoco LP will consider.
Protests and legal actions against the Dakota Access pipeline project have caused construction delays and may further delay the completion of the pipeline project.
During the summer of 2016, individuals affiliated with, or sympathetic to, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (the “SRST”) began gathering near a construction site on the Dakota Access pipeline project in North Dakota to protest the development of the pipeline project. Some of the protesters eventually trespassed on to the construction site, tampered with equipment, and disrupted construction activity at the site. At this time, we are working with the various authorities to mitigate the effects of this largely unlawful protest. We believe that Dakota Access now has the necessary permits and approvals to perform all work on the pipeline project. In response to the protests, Dakota Access filed a lawsuit in federal court in North Dakota to restrain protestors from disrupting construction and also requested a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against the Chairman of the SRST and the protestors. The U.S. District Court granted Dakota Access’s request for a TRO, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case and dissolve the TRO. The Court later granted the defendants’ motions to dissolve the TRO. Dakota Access filed a response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and the Court has yet to rule. At this time, we cannot determine how long the protest will continue, how the legal action will be resolved. Construction work on the pipeline is ongoing, and, barring legal delays, we expect
the final portion of the pipeline to be completed in March or April. Additional protests or legal actions may arise in connection with our Dakota Access project or other projects. Trespass on to construction sites or our physical facilities, or other disruptions, could result in further damage to our assets, safety incidents, potential liability or project delays.
In July 2016, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) issued permits to Dakota Access consistent with environmental and historic preservation statutes for the pipeline to make two crossings of the Missouri River in North Dakota, including a crossing of the Missouri River at Lake Oahe. The USACE has also issued an easement to allow the pipeline to cross land owned by the USACE adjacent to the Missouri River in two locations. The SRST filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the USACE challenging the legality of the permits issued for the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline across those waterways and claiming violations of the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”). The SRST also sought a preliminary injunction to rescind the USACE permits while the case is pending. Dakota Access’ moved to intervene in the case and that motion was granted by the Court. The SRST has also sought an emergency TRO to stop construction on the pipeline project. On September 9, 2016, the Court denied SRST’s motion for a preliminary injunction. After that decision, the Department of the Army, the Department of Justice, and the Department of the Interior released a joint statement stating that the USACE would not grant the easement for the land adjacent to Lake Oahe until the federal departments completed a review of the SRST’s claims in its lawsuit with respect to the USACE’s compliance with certain federal statutes in connection with its activities related to the granting of the permits. The SRST appealed the denial of the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and filed an emergency motion for an injunction pending the appeal to the U.S. District Court. The U.S. District Court denied SRST’s emergency motion for an injunction pending the appeal. The SRST filed an amended complaint and added claims based on treaties between the tribes and the United States and statues governing the use of government property. The D.C. Circuit denied the SRST’s application for a stay pending appeal and later dismissed the SRST’s appeal of the denied TRO.
In December 2016, the Department of the Army announced that, although its prior actions complied with the law, it intended to conduct further environmental review of the crossing at Lake Oahe. In January 2017, pursuant to a presidential memorandum, the Department the Department of the Army decided that no further environmental review was necessary and delivered Dakota Access an easement to cross Lake Oahe. Construction at the site is ongoing. In the fall of 2016, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe intervened alongside the SRST. After USACE gave Dakota Access its final easement, the Cheyenne River Sioux moved for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order blocking construction. These motions raised, for the first time, claims based on the religious rights of the Tribe. The district court denied the TRO and has yet to decide whether to grant a preliminary injunction. The SRST has also moved for summary judgment on its claims against the government based on its treaty rights and the National Environmental Policy Act, and the district court is still considering this motion. Briefing is ongoing.
In addition, the Oglala and Yankton Sioux tribes have filed related lawsuits in an effort to prevent construction of the Dakota Access pipeline project.
While we believe that the pending lawsuits are unlikely to block construction or operation of the pipeline and that construction on the land adjacent to Lake Oahe will be completed in a timely manner, we cannot assure this outcome. Any significant delay imposed by the court will delay the receipt of revenue from this project. We cannot determine when or how these lawsuits will be resolved or the impact they may have on the Dakota Access project.
Income from ETP’s midstream, transportation, terminalling and storage operations is exposed to risks due to fluctuations in the demand for and price of natural gas, NGLs and oil that are beyond our control.
The prices for natural gas, NGLs and oil (including refined petroleum products) reflect market demand that fluctuates with changes in global and U.S. economic conditions and other factors, including:
the level of domestic natural gas, NGL, and oil production;
the level of natural gas, NGL, and oil imports and exports, including liquefied natural gas;
actions taken by natural gas and oil producing nations;
instability or other events affecting natural gas and oil producing nations;
the impact of weather and other events of nature on the demand for natural gas, NGLs and oil;
the availability of storage, terminal and transportation systems, and refining, processing and treating facilities;
the price, availability and marketing of competitive fuels;
the demand for electricity;
the cost of capital needed to maintain or increase production levels and to construct and expand facilities
the impact of energy conservation and fuel efficiency efforts; and
the extent of governmental regulation, taxation, fees and duties.
In the past, the prices of natural gas, NGLs and oil have been extremely volatile, and we expect this volatility to continue.
Any loss of business from existing customers or our inability to attract new customers due to a decline in demand for natural gas, NGLs, or oil could have a material adverse effect on our revenues and results of operations. In addition, significant price fluctuations for natural gas, NGL and oil commodities could materially affect our profitability
ETP is affected by competition from other midstream, transportation and storage and retail marketing companies.
We experience competition in all of our business segments. With respect to ETP’s midstream operations, ETP competes for both natural gas supplies and customers for its services. Competitors include major integrated oil companies, interstate and intrastate pipelines and companies that gather, compress, treat, process, transport, store and market natural gas.
ETP’s natural gas and NGL transportation pipelines and storage facilities compete with other interstate and intrastate pipeline companies and storage providers in the transportation and storage of natural gas and NGLs. The principal elements of competition among pipelines are rates, terms of service, access to sources of supply and the flexibility and reliability of service. Natural gas and NGLs also competes with other forms of energy, including electricity, coal, fuel oils and renewable or alternative energy. Competition among fuels and energy supplies is primarily based on price; however, non-price factors, including governmental regulation, environmental impacts, efficiency, ease of use and handling, and the availability of subsidies and tax benefits also affects competitive outcomes.
In markets served by our NGL pipelines, we compete with other pipeline companies and barge, rail and truck fleet operations. We also face competition with other storage and fractionation facilities based on fees charged and the ability to receive, distribute and/or fractionate the customer’s products.
ETP’s crude oil and refined products pipeline operations face significant competition from other pipelines for large volume shipments. These operations also face competition from trucks for incremental and marginal volumes in areas served by Sunoco Logistics’ pipelines. Further, our refined product terminals compete with terminals owned by integrated petroleum companies, refining and marketing companies, independent terminal companies and distribution companies with marketing and trading operations.
ETP may be unable to retain or replace existing midstream, transportation, terminalling and storage customers or volumes due to declining demand or increased competition in oil, natural gas and NGL markets, which would reduce revenues and limit future profitability.
The retention or replacement of existing customers and the volume of services that ETP provides at rates sufficient to maintain or increase current revenues and cash flows depends on a number of factors beyond our control, including the price of and demand for oil, natural gas, and NGLs in the markets we serve and competition from other service providers.
A significant portion of ETP’s sales of natural gas are to industrial customers and utilities. As a consequence of the volatility of natural gas prices and increased competition in the industry and other factors, industrial customers, utilities and other gas customers are increasingly reluctant to enter into long-term purchase contracts. Many customers purchase natural gas from more than one supplier and have the ability to change suppliers at any time. Some of these customers also have the ability to switch between gas and alternate fuels in response to relative price fluctuations in the market. Because there are many companies of greatly varying size and financial capacity that compete with us in the marketing of natural gas, we often compete in natural gas sales markets primarily on the basis of price.
ETP also receives a substantial portion of revenues by providing natural gas gathering, processing, treating, transportation and storage services. While a substantial portion of their services are sold under long-term contracts for reserved service, they also provide service on an unreserved or short-term basis. Demand for our services may be substantially reduced due to changing market prices. Declining prices may result in lower rates of natural gas production resulting in less use of services, while rising prices may diminish consumer demand and also limit the use of services. In addition, our competitors may attract our customers’ business. If demand declines or competition increases, we may not be able to sustain existing levels of unreserved service or renew or extend long-term contracts as they expire or we may reduce our rates to meet competitive pressures.
Revenue from ETP’s NGL transportation systems and refined products storage is also exposed to risks due to fluctuations in demand for transportation and storage service as a result of unfavorable commodity prices, competition from nearby pipelines, and other factors. ETP receives substantially all of their transportation revenues through dedicated contracts under which the customer agrees to deliver the total output from particular processing plants that are connected only to their transportation system. Reduction in demand for natural gas or NGLs due to unfavorable prices or other factors, however, may result lower rates of production under dedicated contracts and lower demand for our services. In addition, ETP’s refined products storage revenues
are primarily derived from fixed capacity arrangements between us and our customers, a portion of its revenue is derived from fungible storage and throughput arrangements, under which ETP’s revenue is more dependent upon demand for storage from its customers.
The volume of crude oil and products transported through ETP’s oil pipelines and terminal facilities depends on the availability of attractively priced crude oil and refined products in the areas serviced by our assets. A period of sustained price reductions for crude oil or products could lead to a decline in drilling activity, production and refining of crude oil, or import levels in these areas. A period of sustained increases in the price of crude oil or products supplied from or delivered to any of these areas could materially reduce demand for crude oil or products in these areas. In either case, the volumes of crude oil or products transported in our oil pipelines and terminal facilities could decline.
The loss of existing customers by ETP’s midstream, transportation, terminalling and storage facilities or a reduction in the volume of the services customers purchase from them, or their inability to attract new customers and service volumes would negatively affect revenues, be detrimental to growth, and adversely affect results of operations.
ETP’s midstream facilities and transportation pipelines are attached to basins with naturally declining production, which it may not be able to replace with new sources of supply.
In order to maintain or increase throughput levels on ETP’s gathering systems and transportation pipeline systems and asset utilization rates at our treating and processing plants, ETP must continually contract for new natural gas supplies and natural gas transportation services.
A substantial portion of ETP’s assets, including its gathering systems and processing and treating plants, are connected to natural gas reserves and wells that experience declining production over time. ETP’s gas transportation pipelines are also dependent upon natural gas production in areas served by our gathering systems or in areas served by other gathering systems or transportation pipelines that connect with our transportation pipelines. ETP may not be able to obtain additional contracts for natural gas supplies for its natural gas gathering systems, and may be unable to maintain or increase the levels of natural gas throughput on its transportation pipelines. The primary factors affecting our ability to connect new supplies of natural gas to our gathering systems include our success in contracting for existing natural gas supplies that are not committed to other systems and the level of drilling activity and production of natural gas near our gathering systems or in areas that provide access to its transportation pipelines or markets to which ETP’s systems connect. ETP has no control over the level of drilling activity in its areas of operation, the amount of reserves underlying the wells and the rate at which production from a well will decline. In addition, ETP has no control over producers or their production and contracting decisions.
While a substantial portion of ETP’s services are provided under long-term contracts for reserved service, it also provides service on an unreserved basis. The reserves available through the supply basins connected to our gathering, processing, treating, transportation and storage facilities may decline and may not be replaced by other sources of supply. A decrease in development or production activity could cause a decrease in the volume of unreserved services ETP provides and a decrease in the number and volume of its contracts for reserved transportation service over the long run, which in each case would adversely affect revenues and results of operations.
If we are unable to replace any significant volume declines with additional volumes from other sources, our results of operations and cash flows could be materially and adversely affected.
The profitability of certain activities in ETP’s natural gas gathering, processing, transportation and storage operations is largely dependent upon natural gas commodity prices, price spreads between two or more physical locations and market demand for natural gas and NGLs.
For a portion of the natural gas gathered on ETP’s systems, they purchase natural gas from producers at the wellhead and then gather and deliver the natural gas to pipelines where they typically resell the natural gas under various arrangements, including sales at index prices. Generally, the gross margins realized under these arrangements decrease in periods of low natural gas prices.
ETP also enters into percent-of-proceeds arrangements, keep-whole arrangements, and processing fee agreements pursuant to which they agree to gather and process natural gas received from the producers.
Under percent-of-proceeds arrangements, ETP generally sells the residue gas and NGLs at market prices and remit to the producers an agreed upon percentage of the proceeds based on an index price. In other cases, instead of remitting cash payments to the producer, ETP delivers an agreed upon percentage of the residue gas and NGL volumes to the producer and sell the volumes kept to third parties at market prices. Under these arrangements, ETP’s revenues and gross margins decline when natural gas prices and NGL prices decrease. Accordingly, a decrease in the price of natural gas or NGLs could have an adverse effect on ETP’s revenues and results of operations.
Under keep-whole arrangements, ETP generally sells the NGLs produced from their gathering and processing operations at market prices. Because the extraction of the NGLs from the natural gas during processing reduces the Btu content of the natural gas, ETP must either purchase natural gas at market prices for return to producers or make a cash payment to producers equal to the value of this natural gas. Under these arrangements, gross margins generally decrease when the price of natural gas increases relative to the price of NGLs.
When ETP processes the gas for a fee under processing fee agreements, they may guarantee recoveries to the producer. If recoveries are less than those guaranteed to the producer, ETP may suffer a loss by having to supply liquids or its cash equivalent to keep the producer whole.
ETP also receives fees and retains gas in kind from natural gas transportation and storage customers. The fuel retention fees and the value of gas that ETP retains in kind are directly affected by changes in natural gas prices. Decreases in natural gas prices tend to decrease these fuel retention fees and the value of retained gas.
In addition, ETP receives revenue from their off-gas processing and fractionating system in south Louisiana primarily through customer agreements that are a combination of keep-whole and percent-of-proceeds arrangements, as well as from transportation and fractionation fees. Consequently, a large portion of ETP’s off-gas processing and fractionation revenue is exposed to risks due to fluctuations in commodity prices. In addition, a decline in NGL prices could cause a decrease in demand for their off-gas processing and fractionation services and could have an adverse effect on their results of operations.
For ETP’s midstream operations, gross margin is generally analyzed based on fee-based margin (which includes revenues from processing fee arrangements) and non fee-based margin (which includes gross margin earned on percent-of-proceeds and keep-whole arrangements). For the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, gross margin from ETP’s midstream operations totaled $1.80 billion, $1.79 billion, and $1.93 billion, respectively, of which fee-based revenues constituted 86%, 88% and 66%, respectively, and non fee-based margin constituted 14%, 12% and 34%, respectively. The amount of gross margin earned by ETP’s midstream operations from fee-based and non fee-based arrangements (individually and as a percentage of total revenues) will be impacted by the volumes associated with both types of arrangements, as well as commodity prices; therefore, the dollar amounts and the relative magnitude of gross margin from fee-based and non fee-based arrangements in future periods may be significantly different from results reported in previous periods.
ETP’s natural gas and NGL revenues depend on its customers’ ability to use ETP’s pipelines and third-party pipelines over which we have no control.
ETP’s natural gas transportation, storage and NGL businesses depend, in part, on their customers’ ability to obtain access to pipelines to deliver gas to and receive gas from ETP. Many of these pipelines are owned by parties not affiliated with us. Any interruption of service on our pipelines or third-party pipelines due to testing, line repair, reduced operating pressures, or other causes or adverse change in terms and conditions of service could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s ability, and the ability of their customers, to transport natural gas to and from their pipelines and facilities and a corresponding material adverse effect on their transportation and storage revenues. In addition, the rates charged by interconnected pipelines for transportation to and from ETP’s s facilities affect the utilization and value of their storage services. Significant changes in the rates charged by those pipelines or the rates charged by other pipelines with which the interconnected pipelines compete could also have a material adverse effect on storage revenues.
Shippers using ETP’s oil pipelines and terminals are also dependent upon their pipelines and connections to third-party pipelines to receive and deliver crude oil and products. Any interruptions or reduction in the capabilities of these pipelines due to testing, line repair, reduced operating pressures, or other causes could result in reduced volumes transported in ETP’s pipelines or through their terminals. Similarly, if additional shippers begin transporting volume over interconnecting oil pipelines, the allocations of pipeline capacity to ETP existing shippers on these interconnecting pipelines could be reduced, which also could reduce volumes transported in their pipelines or through their terminals. Allocation reductions of this nature are not infrequent and are beyond our control. Any such interruptions or allocation reductions that, individually or in the aggregate, are material or continue for a sustained period of time could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.
If ETP does not continue to construct new pipelines, their future growth could be limited.
ETP’s results of operations and their ability to grow and to increase distributable cash flow per unit will depend, in part, on their ability to construct pipelines that are accretive to their respective distributable cash flow. ETP may be unable to construct pipelines that are accretive to distributable cash flow for any of the following reasons, among others:
inability to identify pipeline construction opportunities with favorable projected financial returns;
inability to raise financing for its identified pipeline construction opportunities; or
inability to secure sufficient transportation commitments from potential customers due to competition from other pipeline construction projects or for other reasons.
Furthermore, even if ETP constructs a pipeline that it believes will be accretive, the pipeline may in fact adversely affect its results of operations or fail to achieve results projected prior to commencement of construction.
Expanding ETP’s business by constructing new pipelines and related facilities subjects ETP to risks.
One of the ways that ETP has grown their business is through the construction of additions to existing gathering, compression, treating, processing and transportation systems. The construction of a new pipeline and related facilities (or the improvement and repair of existing facilities) involves numerous regulatory, environmental, political and legal uncertainties beyond ETP’s control and requires the expenditure of significant amounts of capital to be financed through borrowings, the issuance of additional equity or from operating cash flow. If ETP undertakes these projects, they may not be completed on schedule or at all or at the budgeted cost. A variety of factors outside ETP’s control, such as weather, natural disasters and difficulties in obtaining permits and rights-of-way or other regulatory approvals, as well as the performance by third-party contractors may result in increased costs or delays in construction. Cost overruns or delays in completing a project could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s results of operations and cash flows. Moreover, revenues may not increase immediately following the completion of a particular project. For instance, if ETP builds a new pipeline, the construction will occur over an extended period of time, but ETP may not materially increase its revenues until long after the project’s completion. In addition, the success of a pipeline construction project will likely depend upon the level of oil and natural gas exploration and development drilling activity and the demand for pipeline transportation in the areas proposed to be serviced by the project as well as ETP’s ability to obtain commitments from producers in the area to utilize the newly constructed pipelines. In this regard, ETP may construct facilities to capture anticipated future growth in oil or natural gas production in a region in which such growth does not materialize. As a result, new facilities may be unable to attract enough throughput or contracted capacity reservation commitments to achieve ETP’s expected investment return, which could adversely affect its results of operations and financial condition.
ETP depends on certain key producers for a significant portion of their supplies of natural gas. The loss of, or reduction in, any of these key producers could adversely affect ETP’s business and operating results.
ETP relies on a limited number of producers for a significant portion of their natural gas supplies. These contracts have terms that range from month-to-month to life of lease. As these contracts expire, ETP will have to negotiate extensions or renewals or replace the contracts with those of other suppliers. ETP may be unable to obtain new or renewed contracts on favorable terms, if at all. The loss of all or even a portion of the volumes of natural gas supplied by these producers and other customers, as a result of competition or otherwise, could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s business, results of operations, and financial condition.
ETP depends on key customers to transport natural gas through their pipelines.
ETP relies on a limited number of major shippers to transport certain minimum volumes of natural gas on their respective pipelines. The failure of the major shippers on ETP’s or their joint ventures’ pipelines or of other key customers to fulfill their contractual obligations under these contracts could have a material adverse effect on the cash flow and results of operations of us, ETP or their joint ventures, as applicable, were unable to replace these customers under arrangements that provide similar economic benefits as these existing contracts.
ETP’s contract compression operations depend on particular suppliers and are vulnerable to parts and equipment shortages and price increases, which could have a negative impact on results of operations.
The principal manufacturers of components for ETP’s natural gas compression equipment include Caterpillar, Inc. for engines, Air-X-Changers for coolers and Ariel Corporation for compressors and frames. ETP’s reliance on these suppliers involves several risks, including price increases and a potential inability to obtain an adequate supply of required components in a timely manner. ETP also relies primarily on two vendors, Spitzer Industries Corp. and Standard Equipment Corp., to package and assemble its compression units. ETP does not have long-term contracts with these suppliers or packagers, and a partial or complete loss of certain of these sources could have a negative impact on our results of operations and could damage our customer relationships.
A material decrease in demand or distribution of crude oil available for transport through Sunoco Logistics’ pipelines or terminal facilities could materially and adversely affect our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.
The volume of crude oil transported through Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil pipelines and terminal facilities depends on the availability of attractively priced crude oil produced or received in the areas serviced by its assets. A period of sustained crude oil price declines could lead to a decline in drilling activity, production and import levels in these areas. Similarly, a period of sustained increases in the price of crude oil supplied from any of these areas, as compared to alternative sources of crude oil available to Sunoco Logistics’ customers, could materially reduce demand for crude oil in these areas. In either case, the volumes of crude oil transported
in Sunoco Logistics’ crude oil pipelines and terminal facilities could decline, and it could likely be difficult to secure alternative sources of attractively priced crude oil supply in a timely fashion or at all. If Sunoco Logistics is unable to replace any significant volume declines with additional volumes from other sources, its results of operations, financial position, or cash flows could be materially and adversely affected.
An interruption of supply of crude oil to Sunoco Logistics’ facilities could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and revenues.
While Sunoco Logistics is well positioned to transport and receive crude oil by pipeline, marine transport and trucks, rail transportation also serves as a critical link in the supply of domestic crude oil production to U.S. refiners, especially for crude oil from regions such as the Bakken that are not sourced near pipelines or waterways that connect to all of the major U.S. refining centers. Federal regulators have issued a safety advisory warning that Bakken crude oil may be more volatile than many other North American crude oils and reinforcing the requirement to properly test, characterize, classify, and, if applicable, sufficiently degasify hazardous materials prior to and during transportation. Much of the domestic crude oil received by our facilities, especially from the Bakken region, may be transported by railroad. If the ability to transport crude oil by rail is disrupted because of accidents, weather interruptions, governmental regulation, congestion on rail lines, terrorism, other third-party action or casualty or other events, then Sunoco Logistics could experience an interruption of supply or delivery or an increased cost of receiving crude oil, and could experience a decline in volumes received. Recent railcar accidents in Quebec, Alabama, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Virginia, in each case involving trains carrying crude oil from the Bakken region, have led to increased legislative and regulatory scrutiny over the safety of transporting crude oil by rail. In 2015, the DOT, through the PHMSA, issued a rule implementing new rail car standards and railroad operating procedures. Changing operating practices, as well as new regulations on tank car standards and shipper classifications, could increase the time required to move crude oil from production areas of facilities, increase the cost of rail transportation, and decrease the efficiency of transportation of crude oil by rail, any of which could materially reduce the volume of crude oil received by rail and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.
A portion of Sunoco Logistics’ general and administrative services have been outsourced to third-party service providers. Fraudulent activity or misuse of proprietary data involving its outsourcing partners could expose us to additional liability.
Sunoco Logistics utilizes both affiliate entities and third parties in the processing of its information and data. Breaches of its security measures or the accidental loss, inadvertent disclosure or unapproved dissemination of proprietary information or sensitive or confidential data about Sunoco Logistics or its customers, including the potential loss or disclosure of such information or data as a result of fraud or other forms of deception, could expose Sunoco Logistics to a risk of loss or misuse of this information, result in litigation and potential liability for Sunoco Logistics, lead to reputational damage, increase compliance costs, or otherwise harm its business.
Sunoco LP is entirely dependent upon third parties for the supply of refined products such as gasoline and diesel for its retail marketing business.
Sunoco LP is required to purchase refined products from third party sources, including the joint venture that acquired Sunoco, Inc.’s Philadelphia refinery. Sunoco LP may also need to contract for new ships, barges, pipelines or terminals which it has not historically used to transport these products to its markets. The inability to acquire refined products and any required transportation services at favorable prices may adversely affect Sunoco LP’s business and results of operations.
A significant decrease in demand for motor fuel, including increased consumer preference for alternative motor fuels or improvements in fuel efficiency, in the areas Sunoco LP serves would reduce their ability to make distributions to unitholders.
Sales of refined motor fuels account for approximately 84% of Sunoco LP’s total revenues and 55% of gross profit. A significant decrease in demand for motor fuel in the areas Sunoco LP serves could significantly reduce revenues and their ability to make or increase distributions to unitholders. Sunoco LP revenues are dependent on various trends, such as trends in commercial truck traffic, travel and tourism in their areas of operation, and these trends can change. Regulatory action, including government imposed fuel efficiency standards, may also affect demand for motor fuel. Because certain of Sunoco LP’s operating costs and expenses are fixed and do not vary with the volumes of motor fuel distributed, their costs and expenses might not decrease ratably or at all should they experience such a reduction. As a result, Sunoco LP may experience declines in their profit margin if fuel distribution volumes decrease.
Any technological advancements, regulatory changes or changes in consumer preferences causing a significant shift toward alternative motor fuels could reduce demand for the conventional petroleum based motor fuels Sunoco LP currently sells. Additionally, a shift toward electric, hydrogen, natural gas or other alternative-power vehicles could fundamentally change customers' shopping habits or lead to new forms of fueling destinations or new competitive pressures.
New technologies have been developed and governmental mandates have been implemented to improve fuel efficiency, which may result in decreased demand for petroleum-based fuel. Any of these outcomes could result in fewer visits to Sunoco LP’s convenience stores, a reduction in demand from their wholesale customers, decreases in both fuel and merchandise sales revenue, or reduced profit margins, any of which could have a material adverse effect on Sunoco LP’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to unitholders.
The industries in which Sunoco LP operates are subject to seasonal trends, which may cause our operating costs to fluctuate, affecting our cash flow.
Sunoco LP experiences more demand for our merchandise, food and motor fuel during the late spring and summer months than during the fall and winter. Travel, recreation and construction are typically higher in these months in the geographic areas in which we operate, increasing the demand for the products that we sell and distribute. Additionally, Sunoco LP’s retail fuel margins have historically been higher in the second and third quarters of the year. Therefore, Sunoco LP’s revenues and cash flows are typically higher in the second and third quarters of our fiscal year. As a result, Sunoco LP’s results from operations may vary widely from period to period, affecting Sunoco LP’s cash flow.
Sunoco LP’s financial condition and results of operations are influenced by changes in the prices of motor fuel, which may adversely impact margins, customers’ financial condition and the availability of trade credit.
Sunoco LP’s operating results are influenced by prices for motor fuel. General economic and political conditions, acts of war or terrorism and instability in oil producing regions, particularly in the Middle East and South America, could significantly impact crude oil supplies and petroleum costs. Significant increases or high volatility in petroleum costs could impact consumer demand for motor fuel and convenience merchandise. Such volatility makes it difficult to predict the impact that future petroleum costs fluctuations may have on Sunoco LP’s operating results and financial condition. Sunoco LP is subject to dealer tank wagon pricing structures at certain locations further contributing to margin volatility. A significant change in any of these factors could materially impact both wholesale and retail fuel margins, the volume of motor fuel distributed or sold at retail, and overall customer traffic, each of which in turn could have a material adverse effect on Sunoco LP’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to unitholders.
Significant increases in wholesale motor fuel prices could impact Sunoco LP as some of their customers may have insufficient credit to purchase motor fuel from us at their historical volumes. Higher prices for motor fuel may also reduce access to trade credit support or cause it to become more expensive.
The dangers inherent in the storage and transportation of motor fuel could cause disruptions in Sunoco LP’s operations and could expose them to potentially significant losses, costs or liabilities.
Sunoco LP stores motor fuel in underground and aboveground storage tanks. Sunoco LP transports the majority of its motor fuel in its own trucks, instead of by third-party carriers. Sunoco LP’s operations are subject to significant hazards and risks inherent in transporting and storing motor fuel. These hazards and risks include, but are not limited to, traffic accidents, fires, explosions, spills, discharges, and other releases, any of which could result in distribution difficulties and disruptions, environmental pollution, governmentally-imposed fines or clean-up obligations, personal injury or wrongful death claims, and other damage to its properties and the properties of others. Any such event not covered by Sunoco LP’s insurance could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to unitholders.
Sunoco LP’s fuel storage terminals are subject to operational and business risks which, if occur, may adversely affect their financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make distributions to unitholders.
Sunoco LP’s fuel storage terminals are subject to operational and business risks, the most significant of which include the following:
the inability to renew a ground lease for certain of their fuel storage terminals on similar terms or at all;
the dependence on third parties to supply their fuel storage terminals;
outages at their fuel storage terminals or interrupted operations due to weather-related or other natural causes;
the threat that the nation’s terminal infrastructure may be a future target of terrorist organizations;
the volatility in the prices of the products stored at their fuel storage terminals and the resulting fluctuations in demand for storage services;
the effects of a sustained recession or other adverse economic conditions;
the possibility of federal and/or state regulations that may discourage their customers from storing gasoline, diesel fuel, ethanol and jet fuel at their fuel storage terminals or reduce the demand by consumers for petroleum products;
competition from other fuel storage terminals that are able to supply their customers with comparable storage capacity at lower prices; and
climate change legislation or regulations that restrict emissions of GHGs could result in increased operating and capital costs and reduced demand for our storage services.
The occurrence of any of the above situations, amongst others, may affect operations at their fuel storage terminals and may adversely affect Sunoco LP’s business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to make distributions to unitholders.
Sunoco LP’s concentration of convenience stores along the U.S.-Mexico border increases their exposure to certain cross-border risks that could adversely affect its business and financial condition by lowering sales revenues.
Approximately 18% of Sunoco LP’s convenience stores are located in close proximity to Mexico. These stores rely heavily upon cross-border traffic and commerce to drive sales volumes. Sales volumes at these stores could be impaired by a number of cross-border risks, any one of which could have a material adverse effect on Sunoco LP’s business, financial condition and results of operations, including the following:
A devaluation of the Mexican peso could negatively affect the exchange rate between the peso and the U.S. dollar, which would result in reduced purchasing power in the U.S. on the part of Sunoco LP’s customers who are citizens of Mexico;
The imposition of tighter restrictions by the U.S. government on the ability of citizens of Mexico to cross the border into the United States, or the imposition of tariffs upon Mexican goods entering the United States or other restrictions upon Mexican-borne commerce, could reduce revenues attributable to Sunoco LP’s convenience stores regularly frequented by citizens of Mexico;
Future subsidies for motor fuel by the Mexican government could lead to wholesale cost and retail pricing differentials between the U.S. and Mexico that could divert fuel customer traffic to Mexican fuel retailers; and
The escalation of drug-related violence along the border could deter tourist and other border traffic, which could likely cause a decline in sales revenues at these locations.
The wholesale motor fuel distribution industry and convenience store industry are characterized by intense competition and fragmentation and impacted by new entrants. Failure to effectively compete could result in lower margins.
The market for distribution of wholesale motor fuel is highly competitive and fragmented, which results in narrow margins. Sunoco LP has numerous competitors, some of which may have significantly greater resources and name recognition than it does. Sunoco LP relies on its ability to provide value-added, reliable services and to control its operating costs in order to maintain our margins and competitive position. If Sunoco LP fails to maintain the quality of its services, certain of its customers could choose alternative distribution sources and margins could decrease. While major integrated oil companies have generally continued to divest retail sites and the corresponding wholesale distribution to such sites, such major oil companies could shift from this strategy and decide to distribute their own products in direct competition with Sunoco LP, or large customers could attempt to buy directly from the major oil companies. The occurrence of any of these events could have a material adverse effect on Sunoco LP’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution to unitholders.
The geographic areas in which Sunoco LP operates are highly competitive and marked by ease of entry and constant change in the number and type of retailers offering products and services of the type sold in their stores. Sunoco LP competes with other convenience store chains, independently owned convenience stores, motor fuel stations, supermarkets, drugstores, discount stores, dollar stores, club stores, mass merchants and local restaurants. Over the past two decades, several non-traditional retailers, such as supermarkets, hypermarkets, club stores and mass merchants, have impacted the convenience store industry, particularly in the geographic areas in which Sunoco LP operates, by entering the motor fuel retail business. These non-traditional motor fuel retailers have captured a significant share of the motor fuels market, and Sunoco LP expects their market share will continue to grow.
In some of Sunoco LP’s markets, its competitors have been in existence longer and have greater financial, marketing, and other resources than they do. As a result, Sunoco LP’s competitors may be able to better respond to changes in the economy and new opportunities within the industry. To remain competitive, Sunoco LP must constantly analyze consumer preferences and competitors’ offerings and prices to ensure that they offer a selection of convenience products and services at competitive prices to meet consumer demand. Sunoco LP must also maintain and upgrade our customer service levels, facilities and locations to remain competitive and attract customer traffic to our stores. Sunoco LP may not be able to compete successfully against current and future competitors, and competitive pressures faced by Sunoco LP could have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations and cash available for distribution to unitholders.
Wholesale cost increases in tobacco products, including excise tax increases on cigarettes, could adversely impact Sunoco LP’s revenues and profitability.
Significant increases in wholesale cigarette costs and tax increases on cigarettes may have an adverse effect on unit demand for cigarettes. Cigarettes are subject to substantial and increasing excise taxes at both a state and federal level. Sunoco LP cannot predict whether this trend will continue into the future. Increased excise taxes may result in declines in overall sales volume and reduced gross profit percent, due to lower consumption levels and to a shift in consumer purchases from the premium to the non-premium or discount segments or to other lower-priced tobacco products or to the import of cigarettes from countries with lower, or no, excise taxes on such items.
Currently, major cigarette manufacturers offer rebates to retailers. Sunoco LP includes these rebates as a component of its gross margin from sales of cigarettes. In the event these rebates are no longer offered, or decreased, Sunoco LP’s wholesale cigarette costs will increase accordingly. In general, Sunoco LP attempts to pass price increases on to its customers. However, due to competitive pressures in our markets, it may not be able to do so. These factors could materially impact Sunoco LP’s retail price of cigarettes, cigarette unit volume and revenues, merchandise gross profit and overall customer traffic, which could in turn have a material adverse effect on Sunoco LP’s business and results of operations.
Failure to comply with state laws regulating the sale of alcohol and cigarettes may result in the loss of necessary licenses and the imposition of fines and penalties, which could have a material adverse effect on Sunoco LP’s business.
State laws regulate the sale of alcohol and cigarettes. A violation of or change in these laws could adversely affect Sunoco LP’s business, financial condition and results of operations because state and local regulatory agencies have the power to approve, revoke, suspend or deny applications for, and renewals of, permits and licenses relating to the sale of these products and can also seek other remedies. Such a loss or imposition could have a material adverse effect on Sunoco LP’s business and results of operations.
Sunoco LP currently depends on a limited number of principal suppliers in each of its operating areas for a substantial portion of its merchandise inventory and its products and ingredients for its food service facilities. A disruption in supply or a change in either relationship could have a material adverse effect on its business.
Sunoco LP currently depends on a limited number of principal suppliers in each of its operating areas for a substantial portion of its merchandise inventory and its products and ingredients for its food service facilities. If any of Sunoco LP’s principal suppliers elect not to renew their contracts, Sunoco LP may be unable to replace the volume of merchandise inventory and products and ingredients currently purchased from them on similar terms or at all in those operating areas. Further, a disruption in supply or a significant change in Sunoco LP’s relationship with any of these suppliers could have a material adverse effect on Sunoco LP’s business, financial condition and results of operations and cash available for distribution to unitholders.
Sunoco LP may be subject to adverse publicity resulting from concerns over food quality, product safety, health or other negative events or developments that could cause consumers to avoid its retail locations.
Sunoco LP may be the subject of complaints or litigation arising from food-related illness or product safety which could have a negative impact on its business. Negative publicity, regardless of whether the allegations are valid, concerning food quality, food safety or other health concerns, food service facilities, employee relations or other matters related to its operations may materially adversely affect demand for its food and other products and could result in a decrease in customer traffic to its retail stores.
It is critical to Sunoco LP’s reputation that they maintain a consistent level of high quality at their food service facilities and other franchise or fast food offerings. Health concerns, poor food quality or operating issues stemming from one store or a limited number of stores could materially and adversely affect the operating results of some or all of their stores and harm the company-owned brands, continuing favorable reputation, market value and name recognition.
We have outsourced various functions related to our retail marketing business to third-party service providers, which decreases our control over the performance of these functions. Disruptions or delays of our third-party outsourcing partners could result in increased costs, or may adversely affect service levels. Fraudulent activity or misuse of proprietary data involving our outsourcing partners could expose us to additional liability.
Sunoco LP has previously outsourced various functions related to its retail marketing business to third parties and expects to continue this practice with other functions in the future.
While outsourcing arrangements may lower our cost of operations, they also reduce our direct control over the services rendered. It is uncertain what effect such diminished control will have on the quality or quantity of products delivered or services rendered, on our ability to quickly respond to changing market conditions, or on our ability to ensure compliance with all applicable domestic and foreign laws and regulations. We believe that we conduct appropriate due diligence before entering into agreements with our
outsourcing partners. We rely on our outsourcing partners to provide services on a timely and effective basis. Although we continuously monitor the performance of these third parties and maintain contingency plans in case they are unable to perform as agreed, we do not ultimately control the performance of our outsourcing partners. Much of our outsourcing takes place in developing countries and, as a result, may be subject to geopolitical uncertainty. The failure of one or more of our third-party outsourcing partners to provide the expected services on a timely basis at the prices we expect, or as required by contract, due to events such as regional economic, business, environmental or political events, information technology system failures, or military actions, could result in significant disruptions and costs to our operations, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, operating results and cash flow.
Our failure to generate significant cost savings from these outsourcing initiatives could adversely affect our profitability and weaken Sunoco LP’s competitive position. Additionally, if the implementation of our outsourcing initiatives is disruptive to our retail marketing business, we could experience transaction errors, processing inefficiencies, and the loss of sales and customers, which could cause our business and results of operations to suffer.
As a result of these outsourcing initiatives, more third parties are involved in processing our retail marketing information and data. Breaches of security measures or the accidental loss, inadvertent disclosure or unapproved dissemination of proprietary information or sensitive or confidential data about our retail marketing business or our clients, including the potential loss or disclosure of such information or data as a result of fraud or other forms of deception, could expose us to a risk of loss or misuse of this information, result in litigation and potential liability for us, lead to reputational damage to the Sunoco, Inc. brand, increase our compliance costs, or otherwise harm our business.
ETP’s interstate natural gas pipelines are subject to laws, regulations and policies governing the rates they are allowed to charge for their services, which may prevent us from fully recovering our costs.
Laws, regulations and policies governing interstate natural gas pipeline rates could affect the ability of ETP’s interstate pipelines to establish rates, to charge rates that would cover future increases in its costs, or to continue to collect rates that cover current costs.
ETP is required to file tariff rates (also known as recourse rates) with the FERC that shippers may elect to pay for interstate natural gas transportation services. We may also agree to discount these rates on a not unduly discriminatory basis or negotiate rates with shippers who elect not to pay the recourse rates. ETP must also file with the FERC all negotiated rates that do not conform to our tariff rates and all changes to our tariff or negotiated rates. The FERC must approve or accept all rate filings for us to be allowed to charge such rates.
The FERC may review existing tariffs rates on its own initiative or upon receipt of a complaint filed by a third party. The FERC may, on a prospective basis, order refunds of amounts collected if it finds the rates to have been shown not to be just and reasonable or to have been unduly discriminatory. The FERC has recently exercised this authority with respect to several other pipeline companies. If the FERC were to initiate a proceeding against ETP and find that its rates were not just and reasonable or unduly discriminatory, the maximum rates customers could elect to pay ETP may be reduced and the reduction could have an adverse effect on our revenues and results of operations.
The costs of ETP’s interstate pipeline operations may increase and ETP may not be able to recover all of those costs due to FERC regulation of its rates. If ETP proposes to change its tariff rates, its proposed rates may be challenged by the FERC or third parties, and the FERC may deny, modify or limit ETP’s proposed changes if ETP is unable to persuade the FERC that changes would result in just and reasonable rates that are not unduly discriminatory. ETP also may be limited by the terms of rate case settlement agreements or negotiated rate agreements with individual customers from seeking future rate increases, or ETP may be constrained by competitive factors from charging their tariff rates.
To the extent ETP’s costs increase in an amount greater than its revenues increase, or there is a lag between its cost increases and ability to file for and obtain rate increases, ETP’s operating results would be negatively affected. Even if a rate increase is permitted by the FERC to become effective, the rate increase may not be adequate. ETP cannot guarantee that its interstate pipelines will be able to recover all of their costs through existing or future rates.
The ability of interstate pipelines held in tax-pass-through entities, like ETP, to include an allowance for income taxes as a cost-of-service element in their regulated rates has been subject to extensive litigation before the FERC and the courts for a number of years. It is currently the FERC’s policy to permit pipelines to include in cost-of-service a tax allowance to reflect actual or potential income tax liability on their public utility income attributable to all partnership or limited liability company interests, to the extent that the ultimate owners have an actual or potential income tax liability on such income. Whether a pipeline’s owners have such actual or potential income tax liability will be reviewed by the FERC on a case-by-case basis. Under the FERC’s policy, ETP thus remains eligible to include an income tax allowance in the tariff rates ETP charges for interstate natural gas transportation. On December 15, 2016, FERC issued a Notice of Inquiry requesting energy industry input on how FERC should address income tax
allowances in cost-based rates proposed by pipeline companies organized as part of a master limited partnership. FERC issued the Notice of Inquiry in response to a remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in United Airlines v. FERC, in which the court determined that FERC had not justified its conclusion that an oil pipeline organized as a partnership would not “double recover” its taxes under the current policy by both including a tax allowance in its cost-based rates and earning a return on equity calculated on a pre-tax basis. ETP cannot predict whether FERC will successfully justify its conclusion that there is no double recovery of taxes under these circumstances or whether FERC will modify its current policy on either income tax allowances or return on equity calculations for pipeline companies organized as part of a master limited partnership. However, any modification that reduces or eliminates an income tax allowance for pipeline companies organized as a part of a master limited partnership or decreases the return on equity for such pipelines could result in an adverse impact on ETP’s revenues associated with the transportation and storage services ETP provides pursuant to cost-based rates. On December 23, 2016, FERC issued an Inquiry Regarding the Commission’s Policy of Recovery of Income Tax Credits. FERC is seeking comment regarding how to address any double recovery resulting from the Commission’s current income tax allowance and rate of return policies. The comment period with respect to the proposed rules extends until April 7, 2017.
The interstate natural gas pipelines are subject to laws, regulations and policies governing terms and conditions of service, which could adversely affect their business and operations.
In addition to rate oversight, the FERC’s regulatory authority extends to many other aspects of the business and operations of ETP’s interstate natural gas pipelines, including:
operating terms and conditions of service;
the types of services interstate pipelines may or must offer their customers;
construction of new facilities;
acquisition, extension or abandonment of services or facilities;
reporting and information posting requirements;
accounts and records; and
relationships with affiliated companies involved in all aspects of the natural gas and energy businesses.
Compliance with these requirements can be costly and burdensome. In addition, we cannot guarantee that the FERC will authorize tariff changes and other activities we might propose to undertake in a timely manner and free from potentially burdensome conditions. Future changes to laws, regulations, policies and interpretations thereof may impair the ability of ETP’s interstate pipelines to compete for business, may impair their ability to recover costs or may increase the cost and burden of operation.
Rate regulation or market conditions may not allow ETP to recover the full amount of increases in the costs of its crude oil, NGL and products pipeline operations.
Transportation provided on ETP’s common carrier interstate crude oil, NGL and products pipelines is subject to rate regulation by the FERC, which requires that tariff rates for transportation on these oil pipelines be just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory. If ETP proposes new or changed rates, the FERC or interested persons may challenge those rates and the FERC is authorized to suspend the effectiveness of such rates for up to seven months and to investigate such rates. If, upon completion of an investigation, the FERC finds that the proposed rate is unjust or unreasonable, it is authorized to require the carrier to refund revenues in excess of the prior tariff during the term of the investigation. The FERC also may 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 a complaint.
The primary ratemaking methodology used by the FERC to authorize increases in the tariff rates of petroleum pipelines is price indexing. The FERC’s ratemaking methodologies may limit our ability to set rates based on our costs or may delay the use of rates that reflect increased costs. In October 2016, FERC issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on a number of proposals, including: (1) whether the Commission should deny any increase in a rate ceiling or annual index-based rate increase if a pipeline’s revenues exceed total costs by 15% for the prior two years; (2) a new percentage comparison test that would deny a proposed increase to a pipeline’s rate or ceiling level greater than 5% above the barrel-mile cost changes; and (3) a requirement that all pipelines file indexed ceiling levels annually, with the ceiling levels subject to challenge and restricting the pipeline’s ability to carry forward the full indexed increase to a future period. The comment period with respect to the proposed rules extends until March 17, 2017. If the FERC’s indexing methodology changes, the new methodology could materially and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Under the EPAct of 1992, certain interstate pipeline rates were deemed just and reasonable or “grandfathered.” Revenues are derived from such grandfathered rates on most of our FERC-regulated pipelines. A person challenging a grandfathered rate must,
as a threshold matter, establish a substantial change since the date of enactment of the Energy Policy Act, in either the economic circumstances or the nature of the service that formed the basis for the rate. If the FERC were to find a substantial change in circumstances, then the existing rates could be subject to detailed review and there is a risk that some rates could be found to be in excess of levels justified by the pipeline’s costs. In such event, the FERC could order us to reduce pipeline rates prospectively and to pay refunds to shippers.
If the FERC’s petroleum pipeline ratemaking methodologies procedures changes, the new methodology or procedures could adversely affect our business and results of operations.
State regulatory measures could adversely affect the business and operations of ETP’s midstream and intrastate pipeline and storage assets.
ETP’s midstream and intrastate transportation and storage operations are generally exempt from FERC regulation under the NGA, but FERC regulation still significantly affects their business and the market for their products. The rates, terms and conditions of service for the interstate services they provide in their intrastate gas pipelines and gas storage are subject to FERC regulation under Section 311 of the NGPA. ETP’s HPL System, East Texas pipeline, Oasis pipeline and ET Fuel System provide such services. Under Section 311, rates charged for transportation and storage must be fair and equitable. Amounts collected in excess of fair and equitable rates are subject to refund with interest, and the terms and conditions of service, set forth in the pipeline’s statement of operating conditions, are subject to FERC review and approval. Should the FERC determine not to authorize rates equal to or greater than ETP’s costs of service, their cash flow would be negatively affected.
ETP’s midstream and intrastate gas and oil transportation pipelines and their intrastate gas storage operations are subject to state regulation. All of the states in which they operate midstream assets, intrastate pipelines or intrastate storage facilities have adopted some form of complaint-based regulation, which allow producers and shippers to file complaints with state regulators in an effort to resolve grievances relating to the fairness of rates and terms of access. The states in which ETP operates have ratable take statutes, which generally require gatherers to take, without undue discrimination, production that may be tendered to the gatherer for handling. Similarly, common purchaser statutes generally require gatherers to purchase without undue discrimination as to source of supply or producer. These statutes have the effect of restricting our right as an owner of gathering facilities to decide with whom we contract to purchase or transport natural gas. Should a complaint be filed in any of these states or should regulation become more active, ETP’s businesses may be adversely affected.
ETP’s intrastate transportation operations located in Texas are also subject to regulation as gas utilities by the TRRC. Texas gas utilities must publish the rates they charge for transportation and storage services in tariffs filed with the TRRC, although such rates are deemed just and reasonable under Texas law unless challenged in a complaint.
ETP is subject to other forms of state regulation, including requirements to obtain operating permits, reporting requirements, and safety rules (see description of federal and state pipeline safety regulation below). Violations state laws, regulations, orders and permit conditions can result in the modification, cancellation or suspension of a permit, civil penalties and other relief.
Certain of ETP’s assets may become subject to regulation.
The distinction between federally unregulated gathering facilities and FERC-regulated transmission pipelines under the NGA has been the subject of extensive litigation and may be determined by the FERC on a case-by-case basis, although the FERC has made no determinations as to the status of our facilities. Consequently, the classification and regulation of our gathering facilities could change based on future determinations by the FERC, the courts or Congress. If our gas gathering operations become subject to FERC jurisdiction, the result may adversely affect the rates we are able to charge and the services we currently provide, and may include the potential for a termination of our gathering agreements with our customers.
Intrastate transportation of NGLs is largely regulated by the state in which such transportation takes place. Lone Star’s NGL Pipeline transports NGLs within the state of Texas and is subject to regulation by the TRRC. This NGLs transportation system offers services pursuant to an intrastate transportation tariff on file with the TRRC. Lone Star’s NGL pipeline also commenced the interstate transportation of NGLs in 2013, which is subject to FERC’s jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce Act and the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Both intrastate and interstate NGL transportation services must be provided in a manner that is just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. The tariff rates established for interstate services were based on a negotiated agreement; however, if FERC’s rate making methodologies were imposed, they may, among other things, delay the use of rates that reflect increased costs and subject us to potentially burdensome and expensive operational, reporting and other requirements. In addition, the rates, terms and conditions for shipments of crude oil, petroleum products and NGLs on our pipelines are subject to regulation by FERC if the NGLs are transported in interstate or foreign commerce whether by our pipelines or other means of transportation. Since we do not control the entire transportation path of all crude oil, petroleum products and NGLs on our pipelines, FERC regulation could be triggered by our customers’ transportation decisions.
In addition, if any of our pipelines were found to have provided services or otherwise operated in violation of the NGA, NGPA, or ICA, this could result in the imposition of administrative and criminal remedies and civil penalties, as well as a requirement to disgorge charges collected for such services in excess of the rate established by the FERC. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect revenues and cash flow related to these assets.
The absence of a quorum at FERC, if it persists, could limit our ability to construct new facilities and/or expand certain existing facilities, which could have a material and adverse impact on our business and result of operations.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or the “Commission”) oversees, among other matters, the interstate sale at wholesale and transportation of natural gas, crude oil and refined petroleum products, as well as the construction and siting of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, facilities. FERC’s authority includes reviewing proposals to site, construct, expand and/or retire interstate natural gas pipeline facilities. As set forth in the Department of Energy Authorization Act (“DOE Act”), the Commission is composed of up to five Commissioners, who are to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The DOE Act requires that at least three Commissioners be present “for the transaction of business.” Without such a quorum of three or more Commissioners, FERC is unable to act on matters that require a vote of its Commissioners. Norman Bay, a FERC Commissioner and former Chairman of the Commission, resigned effective February 3, 2017. With Commissioner Bay’s departure, only two FERC Commissioners remained in office, as there were already two vacancies prior to Commissioner Bay’s resignation. FERC has therefore lacked the quorum required for its Commissioners to issues orders and take other actions since February 3. While FERC staff may still issue certain routine or uncontested orders under authority delegated by the Commission while it had a quorum, and such delegated authority was broadened immediately prior to Commissioner Bay’s departure, FERC is currently unable to resolve contested cases or issue major new orders, such as certificates of public convenience and necessity for new interstate natural gas pipelines or the expansion of existing FERC-certificated pipelines. The current limitations on FERC’s ability to act have not had a material effect on our operations, but if the absence of a quorum continues for a long enough period of time, our ability to construct new facilities and/or expand the capacity of our pipelines could be materially affected. The absence of a quorum will continue until a new FERC Commissioner is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, provided the two remaining FERC Commissioners remain in office. The President has not yet nominated any new FERC Commissioners to fill the vacancies.
ETP may incur significant costs and liabilities resulting from performance of pipeline integrity programs and related repairs.
Pursuant to authority under the NGPSA and HLPSA, as amended, PHMSA has established a series of rules requiring pipeline operators to develop and implement integrity management programs for natural gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines that, in the event of a pipeline leak or rupture, could affect HCAs which are areas where a release could have the most significant adverse consequences, including high population areas, certain drinking water sources, and unusually sensitive ecological areas.
These regulations require operators of covered pipelines to:
perform ongoing assessments of pipeline integrity;
identify and characterize applicable threats to pipeline operations that could impact a high consequence area;
improve data collection, integration and analysis;
repair and remediate the pipeline as necessary; and
implement preventive and mitigating actions.
In addition, states have adopted regulations similar to existing PHMSA regulations for intrastate gathering and transmission lines. At this time, we cannot predict the ultimate cost of compliance with applicable pipeline integrity management regulations, as the cost will vary significantly depending on the number and extent of any repairs found to be necessary as a result of the pipeline integrity testing. 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. Any changes to pipeline safety laws by Congress and regulations by PHMSA that result in more stringent or costly safety standards could have a significant adverse effect on us and similarly situated midstream operators. For example, in January 2017, PHMSA issued a final rule for hazardous liquid pipelines that significantly expands the reach of certain PHMSA integrity management requirements, such as, for example, periodic assessments, leak detection and repairs, regardless of the pipeline’s proximity to a HCA. The final rule also imposes new reporting requirements for certain unregulated pipelines, including all hazardous liquid gathering lines. However, the date of implementation of this final rule by publication in the Federal Register is uncertain given the recent change in Presidential Administrations. In a second example, in March 2016, PHMSA announced a proposed rulemaking that would impose new or more stringent requirements for certain natural gas lines and gathering lines including, among other things, expanding certain of PHMSA’s current regulatory safety programs for natural gas pipelines in newly defined “moderate consequence areas” that contain as few as 5 dwellings within
a potential impact area; requiring gas pipelines installed before 1970 and thus excluded from certain pressure testing obligations to be tested to determine their MAOP; and requiring certain onshore and offshore gathering lines in Class I areas to comply with damage prevention, corrosion control, public education, MAOP limits, line markers and emergency planning standards. Additional requirements proposed by this proposed rulemaking would increase PHMSA’s integrity management requirements and also require consideration of seismicity in evaluating threats to pipelines. The changes adopted or proposed by these rulemakings or made in future legal requirements could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s results of operations and costs of transportation services.
Federal and state legislative and regulatory initiatives relating to pipeline safety that require the use of new or more stringent safety controls or result in more stringent enforcement of applicable legal requirements could subject us to increased capital costs, operational delays and costs of operation.
The NGPSA and HLPSA were amended by the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act. Among other things, the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act increased the penalties for safety violations and directed the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate rules or standards relating to expanded integrity management requirements, automatic or remote-controlled valve use, excess flow valve use, leak detection system installation, testing to confirm that the material strength of certain pipelines are above 30% of specified minimum yield strength, and operator verification of records confirming the MAOP of certain interstate natural gas transmission pipelines. More recently, in June 2016, the 2016 Pipeline Safety Act was passed, extending PHMSA’s statutory mandate through 2019 and, among other things, requiring PHMSA to complete certain of its outstanding mandates under the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act and developing new safety standards for natural gas storage facilities by June 22, 2018. The 2016 Pipeline Safety Act also empowers PHMSA to address imminent hazards by imposing emergency restrictions, prohibitions and safety measures on owners and operators of natural gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facilities without prior notice or an opportunity for a hearing. PHMSA issued interim regulations in October 2016 to implement the agency's expanded authority to address unsafe pipeline conditions or practices that pose an imminent hazard to life, property, or the environment. The safety enhancement requirements and other provisions of the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act as further amended by the 2016 Pipeline Safety Act as well as any implementation of PHMSA rules thereunder or any issuance or reinterpretation of guidance by PHMSA or any state agencies with respect thereto could require ETP to install new or modified safety controls, pursue additional capital projects, or conduct maintenance programs on an accelerated basis, any or all of which tasks could result in ETP incurring increased operating costs that could be significant and have a material adverse effect on ETP’s results of operations or financial condition.
ETP’s business involves the generation, handling and disposal of hazardous substances, hydrocarbons and wastes, which activities are subject to environmental and worker health and safety laws and regulations that may cause ETP to incur significant costs and liabilities.
ETP’s operations are subject to stringent federal, tribal, state and local laws and regulations governing the discharge of materials into the environment, worker health and safety and protection of the environment. These laws and regulations may require the acquisition of permits for ETP’s operations, result in capital expenditures to manage, limit, or prevent emissions, discharges or releases of various materials from ETP’s pipelines, plants and facilities, impose specific health and safety standards addressing worker protection, and impose substantial liabilities for pollution resulting from ETP’s operations. Several governmental authorities, such as the EPA and analogous state agencies have the power to enforce compliance with these laws and regulations and the permits issued under them and frequently mandate difficult and costly remediation measures and other actions. Failure to comply with these laws, regulations and permits may result in the assessment of significant administrative, civil and criminal penalties, the imposition of investigatory remedial and corrective obligations, the occurrence of delays in permitting and performance of projects, and the issuance of injunctive relief. Certain environmental laws impose strict, joint and several liability for costs required to clean up and restore sites where hazardous substances, hydrocarbons or wastes have been disposed or released, even under circumstances where the substances, hydrocarbons or wastes have been released by a predecessor operator. Moreover, it is not uncommon for neighboring landowners and other third parties to file claims for personal injury and property and natural resource damage allegedly caused by noise, odor or the release of hazardous substances, hydrocarbons or wastes into the environment.
ETP may incur substantial environmental costs and liabilities because of the underlying risk arising out of its operations. Although we have established financial reserves for our estimated environmental remediation liabilities, additional contamination or conditions may be discovered, resulting in increased remediation costs, liabilities or natural resource damages that could substantially increase our costs for site remediation projects. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that our current reserves are adequate to cover all future liabilities, even for currently known contamination.
Changes in environmental laws and regulations occur frequently, and any such changes that result in more stringent and costly waste handling, emission standards, or storage, transport, disposal or remediation requirements could have a material adverse effect on our operations or financial position. For example, in October 2015, the EPA published a final rule under the Clean Air Act, lowering the NAAQS for ground-level ozone to 70 parts per billion for the 8-hour primary and secondary ozone standards. Compliance with this final rule or any other new regulations could, among other things, require installation of new emission
controls on some of our equipment, result in longer permitting timelines or new restrictions or prohibitions with respect to permits or projects, and significantly increase our capital expenditures and operating costs, which could adversely impact our business. Historically, we have been able to satisfy the more stringent nitrogen oxide emission reduction requirements that affect our compressor units in ozone non-attainment areas at reasonable cost, but there is no assurance that we will not incur material costs in the future to meet the new, more stringent ozone standard.
Product liability claims and litigation could adversely affect our business and results of operations.
Product liability is a significant commercial risk. Substantial damage awards have been made in certain jurisdictions against manufacturers and resellers based upon claims for injuries caused by the use of or exposure to various products. There can be no assurance that product liability claims against us would not have a material adverse effect on our business or results of operations.
Along with other refiners, manufacturers and sellers of gasoline, Sunoco, Inc. is a defendant in numerous lawsuits that allege methyl tertiary butyl ether (“MTBE”) contamination in groundwater. Plaintiffs, who include water purveyors and municipalities responsible for supplying drinking water and private well owners, are seeking compensatory damages (and in some cases injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees) for claims relating to the alleged manufacture and distribution of a defective product (MTBE-containing gasoline) that contaminates groundwater, and general allegations of product liability, nuisance, trespass, negligence, violation of environmental laws and deceptive business practices. There has been insufficient information developed about the plaintiffs’ legal theories or the facts that would be relevant to an analysis of the ultimate liability to Sunoco, Inc. These allegations or other product liability claims against Sunoco, Inc. could have a material adverse effect on our business or results of operations.
Climate change legislation or regulations restricting emissions of “greenhouse gases” could result in increased operating costs and reduced demand for the services we provide.
Climate change continues to attract considerable public and scientific attention. As a result, numerous proposals have been made and are likely to continue to be made at the international, national, regional and state levels of government to monitor and limit emissions of GHGs. These efforts have included consideration of cap-and-trade programs, carbon taxes and GHG reporting and tracking programs, and regulations that directly limit GHG emissions from certain sources. At the federal level, no comprehensive climate change legislation has been implemented to date. The EPA has, however, adopted rules under authority of the Clean Air Act that, among other things, establish PSD construction and Title V operating permit reviews for GHG emissions from certain large stationary sources that are also potential major sources of certain principal, or criteria, pollutant emissions, which reviews could require securing PSD permits at covered facilities emitting GHGs and meeting "best available control technology" standards for those GHG emissions. In addition, the EPA has adopted rules requiring the monitoring and annual reporting of GHG emissions from certain petroleum and natural gas system sources in the U.S., including, among others, onshore processing, transmission, storage and distribution facilities. In October 2015, the EPA amended and expanded the GHG reporting requirements to all segments of the oil and natural gas industry, including gathering and boosting facilities and blowdowns of natural gas transmission pipelines.
Federal agencies also have begun directly regulating emissions of methane, a GHG, from oil and natural gas operations. In June 2016, the EPA published NSPS Subpart OOOOa standards that require certain new, modified or reconstructed facilities in the oil and natural gas sector to reduce these methane gas and volatile organic compound emissions. These Subpart OOOOa standards will expand previously issued NSPS Subpart OOOO standards by using certain equipment-specific emissions control practices, requiring additional controls for pneumatic controllers and pumps as well as compressors, and imposing leak detection and repair requirements for natural gas compressor and booster stations. Moreover, in November 2016, the EPA began seeking information about methane emissions from facilities and operators in the oil and natural gas industry that could be used to develop Existing Source Performance Standards. Additionally, in December 2015, the United States joined the international community at the 21st Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris, France preparing an agreement requiring member countries to review and “represent a progression” in their intended nationally determined contributions, which set GHG emission reduction goals every five years beginning in 2020. This “Paris agreement” was signed by the United States in April 2016 and entered into force in November 2016; however, this agreement does not create any binding obligations for nations to limit their GHG emissions, but rather includes pledges to voluntarily limit or reduce future emissions. The adoption and implementation of any international, federal or state legislation or regulations that require reporting of GHGs or otherwise restrict emissions of GHGs could result in increased compliance costs or additional operating restrictions, and could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s business, financial condition, demand for ETP’s services, results of operations, and cash flows. Finally, some scientists have concluded that increasing concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere may produce climate changes that have significant physical effects, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, droughts, and floods and other climate events that could have an adverse effect ETP’s our assets.
The adoption of the Dodd-Frank Act could have an adverse effect on our ability to use derivative instruments to reduce the effect of commodity price, interest rate and other risks associated with our business, resulting in our operations becoming more volatile and our cash flows less predictable.
Congress has adopted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), a comprehensive financial reform legislation that establishes federal oversight and regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market and entities, such as us, that participate in that market. This legislation was signed into law by President Obama on July 21, 2010 and requires the Commodities Futures Training Commission (“CFTC”), the SEC and other regulators to promulgate rules and regulations implementing the new legislation. While certain regulations have been promulgated and are already in effect, the rulemaking and implementation process is still ongoing, and we cannot yet predict the ultimate effect of the rules and regulations on our business.
The Dodd-Frank Act expanded the types of entities that are required to register with the CFTC and the SEC as a result of their activities in the derivatives markets or otherwise become specifically qualified to enter into derivatives contracts. We will be required to assess our activities in the derivatives markets, and to monitor such activities on an ongoing basis, to ascertain and to identify any potential change in our regulatory status.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements also could significantly increase operating costs and expose us to penalties for non-compliance, and require additional compliance resources. Added public transparency as a result of the reporting rules may also have a negative effect on market liquidity which could also negatively impact commodity prices and our ability to hedge.
In October 2011, the CFTC has also issued regulations to set position limits for certain futures and option contracts in the major energy markets and for swaps that are their economic equivalents. However, in September 2012, the CFTC’s position limits rules were vacated by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In November 2013, the CFTC proposed new rules that would place limits on positions in certain core futures and equivalent swaps contracts for or linked to certain physical commodities, subject to exceptions for certain bona fide hedging transactions. As these new position limit rules are not yet final, the impact of those provisions on us is uncertain at this time.
The CFTC has designated certain interest rate swaps and credit default swaps for mandatory clearing and exchange trading. The associated rules require us, in connection with covered derivative activities, to comply with such requirements or take steps to qualify for an exemption to such requirements. We must obtain approval from the board of directors of our General Partner and make certain filings in order to rely on the end-user exception from the mandatory clearing requirements for swaps entered into to hedge our commercial risks. The application of mandatory clearing and trade execution requirements to other market participants, such as swap dealers, may change the cost and availability of the swaps that we use for hedging. The CFTC has not yet proposed rules designating any other classes of swaps, including physical commodity swaps, for mandatory clearing and exchange trading.
In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires that regulators establish margin rules for uncleared swaps. The application of such requirements to other market participants, such as swap dealers, may change the cost and availability of the swaps we use for hedging. If any of our swaps do not qualify for the commercial end-user exception, posting of collateral could impact our liquidity and reduce cash available to us for capital expenditures, reducing our ability to execute hedges to reduce risk and protect cash flow.
Rules promulgated under the Dodd-Frank Act further defined forwards as well as instances where forwards may become swaps. Because the CFTC rules, interpretations, no-action letters, and case law are still developing, it is possible that some arrangements that previously qualified as forwards or energy service contracts may fall in the regulatory category of swaps or options. In addition, the CFTC’s rules applicable to trade options may further impose burdens on our ability to conduct our traditional hedging operations and could become subject to CFTC investigations in the future.
The new legislation and any new regulations could significantly increase the cost of derivative contracts, materially alter the terms of derivative contracts, reduce the availability of derivatives to protect against risks we encounter, or reduce our ability to monetize or restructure existing derivative contracts. If we reduce our use of derivatives as a result of the legislation and regulations, our results of operations may become more volatile and our cash flows may be less predictable. Finally, if we fail to comply with applicable laws, rules or regulations, we may be subject to fines, cease-and-desist orders, civil and criminal penalties or other sanctions.
A natural disaster, catastrophe or other event could result in severe personal injury, property damage and environmental damage, which could curtail ETP’s operations and otherwise materially adversely affect their cash flow.
Some of ETP’s operations involve risks of personal injury, property damage and environmental damage, which could curtail its operations and otherwise materially adversely affect its cash flow. For example, natural gas facilities operate at high pressures, sometimes in excess of 1,100 pounds per square inch. Virtually all of ETP’s operations are exposed to potential natural disasters, including hurricanes, tornadoes, storms, floods and/or earthquakes.
If one or more facilities that are owned by ETP or that deliver natural gas or other products to ETP are damaged by severe weather or any other disaster, accident, catastrophe or event, ETP’s operations could be significantly interrupted. Similar interruptions could result from damage to production or other facilities that supply ETP’s facilities or other stoppages arising from factors beyond its 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. Any event that interrupts the revenues generated by ETP’s operations, or which causes it to make significant expenditures not covered by insurance, could reduce ETP’s cash available for paying distributions to its Unitholders, including us.
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. As a result, ETP may not be able to renew existing insurance policies or procure other desirable insurance on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. If ETP were to incur a significant liability for which it was not fully insured, it could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s financial position and results of operations, as applicable. 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.
Terrorist attacks aimed at our facilities could adversely affect its business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.
The United States government has issued warnings that energy assets, including the nation’s pipeline infrastructure, may be the future target of terrorist organizations. Some of our facilities are subject to standards and procedures required by the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards. We believe we are in compliance with all material requirements; however, such compliance may not prevent a terrorist attack from causing material damage to our facilities or pipelines. Any such terrorist attack on ETP’s facilities or pipelines, those of their customers, or in some cases, those of other pipelines could have a material adverse effect on ETP’s business, financial condition and results of operations.
Additional deepwater drilling laws and regulations, delays in the processing and approval of drilling permits and exploration and oil spill-response plans, and other related restrictions arising after the Deepwater Horizon incident in the Gulf of Mexico may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations.
In recent years, the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”) and the federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (“BSEE”), each agencies of the U.S. Department of the Interior, have imposed more stringent permitting procedures and regulatory safety and performance requirements for new wells to be drilled in federal waters. Compliance with these more stringent regulatory requirements and with existing environmental and oil spill regulations, together with any uncertainties or inconsistencies in decisions and rulings by governmental agencies, delays in the processing and approval of drilling permits or exploration, development, oil spill-response and decommissioning plans, and possible additional regulatory initiatives could result in difficult and more costly actions and adversely affect or delay new drilling and ongoing development efforts.
In addition, new regulatory initiatives may be adopted or enforced by the BOEM or the BSEE in the future that could result in additional costs, delays, restrictions, or obligations with respect to oil and natural gas exploration and production operations conducted offshore by certain of ETP’s customers. For example, in April 2016, the BOEM published a proposed rule that would update existing air-emissions requirements relating to offshore oil and natural-gas activity on federal Outer Continental Shelf waters. In addition, in September 2016, the BOEM issued a Notice to Lessees and Operators that would bolster supplemental bonding procedures for the decommissioning of offshore wells, platforms, pipelines, and other facilities. These regulatory actions, or any new rules, regulations, or legal initiatives could delay or disrupt our customers operations, increase the risk of expired leases due to the time required to develop new technology, result in increased supplemental bonding and costs, limit activities in certain areas, or cause our customers’ to incur penalties, or shut-in production or lease cancellation. Also, if material spill events were to occur in the future, the United States or other countries could elect to issue directives to temporarily cease drilling activities offshore and, in any event, may from time to time issue further safety and environmental laws and regulations regarding offshore oil and gas exploration and development. The overall costs imposed on ETP’s customers to implement and complete any such spill response activities or any decommissioning obligations could exceed estimated accruals, insurance limits, or supplemental bonding amounts, which could result in the incurrence of additional costs to complete. We cannot predict with any certainty the full impact of any new laws or regulations on ETP’s customers’ drilling operations or on the cost or availability of insurance to cover some or all of the risks associated with such operations. The occurrence of any one or more of these developments could result in decreased demand for ETP’s services, which could have a material adverse effect on its business as well as its financial position, results of operation and liquidity.
Our business is subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations that govern the product quality specifications of the petroleum products that we store and transport.
The petroleum products that we store and transport through Sunoco Logistics’ operations are sold by our customers for consumption into the public market. Various federal, state and local agencies have the authority to prescribe specific product quality specifications to commodities sold into the public market. Changes in product quality specifications could reduce our throughput volume, require us to incur additional handling costs or require the expenditure of significant capital. In addition, different product specifications for different markets impact the fungibility of products transported and stored in our pipeline systems and terminal facilities and could require the construction of additional storage to segregate products with different specifications. We may be unable to recover these costs through increased revenues.
In addition, our butane blending services are reliant upon gasoline vapor pressure specifications. Significant changes in such specifications could reduce butane blending opportunities, which would affect our ability to market our butane blending service licenses and which would ultimately affect our ability to recover the costs incurred to acquire and integrate our butane blending assets.
Our business could be affected adversely by union disputes and strikes or work stoppages by Panhandle’s and Sunoco LP’s unionized employees.
As of December 31, 2016, approximately 6% of our workforce is covered by a number of collective bargaining agreements with various terms and dates of expiration. There can be no assurances that Panhandle or Sunoco, Inc. will not experience a work stoppage in the future as a result of labor disagreements. Any work stoppage could, depending on the affected operations and the length of the work stoppage, have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Governmental regulations and policies, particularly in the areas of taxation, energy and the environment, have a significant impact on our retail marketing business.
Federally mandated standards for use of renewable biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel in the production of refined products, are transforming traditional gasoline and diesel markets in North America. These regulatory mandates present production and logistical challenges for both the petroleum refining and ethanol industries, and may require us to incur additional capital expenditures or expenses particularly in our retail marketing business. We may have to enter into arrangements with other parties to meet our obligations to use advanced biofuels, with potentially uncertain supplies of these new fuels. If we are unable to obtain or maintain sufficient quantities of ethanol to support our blending needs, our sale of ethanol blended gasoline could be interrupted or suspended which could result in lower profits. There also will be compliance costs related to these regulations. We may experience a decrease in demand for refined petroleum products due to new federal requirements for increased fleet mileage per gallon or due to replacement of refined petroleum products by renewable fuels. In addition, tax incentives and other subsidies making renewable fuels more competitive with refined petroleum products may reduce refined petroleum product margins and the ability of refined petroleum products to compete with renewable fuels. A structural expansion of production capacity for such renewable biofuels could lead to significant increases in the overall production, and available supply, of gasoline and diesel in markets that we supply. In addition, a significant shift by consumers to more fuel-efficient vehicles or alternative fuel vehicles (such as ethanol or wider adoption of gas/electric hybrid vehicles), or an increase in vehicle fuel economy, whether as a result of technological advances by manufacturers, legislation mandating or encouraging higher fuel economy or the use of alternative fuel, or otherwise, also could lead to a decrease in demand, and reduced margins, for the refined petroleum products that we market and sell.
It is possible that any, or a combination, of these occurrences could have a material adverse effect on Sunoco, Inc.’s business or results of operations.
Our operations could be disrupted if our information systems fail, causing increased expenses and loss of sales.
Our business is highly dependent on financial, accounting and other data processing systems and other communications and information systems, including our enterprise resource planning tools. We process a large number of transactions on a daily basis and rely upon the proper functioning of computer systems. If a key system was to fail or experience unscheduled downtime for any reason, even if only for a short period, our operations and financial results could be affected adversely. Our systems could be damaged or interrupted by a security breach, fire, flood, power loss, telecommunications failure or similar event. We have a formal disaster recovery plan in place, but this plan may not entirely prevent delays or other complications that could arise from an information systems failure. Our business interruption insurance may not compensate us adequately for losses that may occur.
Cybersecurity breaches and other disruptions could compromise our information and operations, and expose us to liability, which would cause our business and reputation to suffer.
In the ordinary course of our business, we collect and store sensitive data, including intellectual property, our proprietary business information and that of our customers, suppliers and business partners, and personally identifiable information of our employees, in our data centers and on our networks. The secure processing, maintenance and transmission of this information is critical to our operations and business strategy. Despite our security measures, our information technology and infrastructure may be vulnerable to attacks by hackers or breached due to employee error, malfeasance or other disruptions. Any such breach could compromise our networks and the information stored there could be accessed, publicly disclosed, lost or stolen. Any such access, disclosure or other loss of information could result in legal claims or proceedings, liability under laws that protect the privacy of personal information, regulatory penalties for divulging shipper information, disruption of our operations, damage to our reputation, and loss of confidence in our products and services, which could adversely affect our business.
Our information technology infrastructure is critical to the efficient operation of our business and essential to our ability to perform day-today operations. Breaches in our information technology infrastructure or physical facilities, or other disruptions, could result in damage to our assets, safety incidents, damage to the environment, potential liability or the loss of contracts, and have a material adverse effect on our operations, financial position and results of operations.
The costs of providing pension and other postretirement health care benefits and related funding requirements are subject to changes in pension fund values, changing demographics and fluctuating actuarial assumptions and may have a material adverse effect on our financial results.
Certain of our subsidiaries provide pension plan and other postretirement healthcare benefits to certain of their employees. The costs of providing pension and other postretirement health care benefits and related funding requirements are subject to changes in pension and other postretirement fund values, changing demographics and fluctuating actuarial assumptions that may have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s future consolidated financial results. While certain of the costs incurred in providing such pension and other postretirement healthcare benefits are recovered through the rates charged by the Partnership’s regulated businesses, the Partnership’s subsidiaries may not recover all of the costs and those rates are generally not immediately responsive to current market conditions or funding requirements. Additionally, if the current cost recovery mechanisms are changed or eliminated, the impact of these benefits on operating results could significantly increase.
Mergers among customers and competitors could result in lower volumes being shipped on our pipelines or products stored in or distributed through our terminals, or reduced crude oil marketing margins or volumes.
Mergers between existing customers could provide strong economic incentives for the combined entities to utilize their existing systems instead of our systems in those markets where the systems compete. As a result, we could lose some or all of the volumes and associated revenues from these customers and could experience difficulty in replacing those lost volumes and revenues, which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.
LCL is dependent on project financing to fund the costs necessary to construct the liquefaction project. If project financing is unavailable to supply the funding necessary to complete the liquefaction project, LCL may not be able to secure alternative funding and affirmative FID may not be achieved.
LCL, an entity whose parent is owned 60% by ETE and 40% by ETP, is in the process of developing a liquefaction project in conjunction with BG Group plc (“BG”) pursuant to a project development agreement entered into in September 2013 and scheduled to expire at the end of February 2017, subject to the parties’ right to mutually extend the term. Pursuant to this agreement, each of LCL and BG are obligated to pay 50% of the development expenses for the liquefaction project, subject to reimbursement by the other party if such party withdraws from the project prior to both parties making a final investment decision (“FID”) to become irrevocably obligated to fully develop the project, subject to certain exceptions. Through December 31, 2016, LCL had incurred $110 million of development costs associated with the liquefaction project that were funded by ETE and ETP, and ETE and ETP have indicated that they intend to provide the funding necessary to complete the current development projects, but they have no obligation to do so. If ETE and ETP are unwilling or unable to provide funding to LCL for their share of the remaining development costs, or if BG is unwilling or unable to provide funding for its share of the remaining development costs, the liquefaction project could be delayed or cancelled.
The liquefaction project is subject to the right of each of LCL and BG to withdraw from the project in its sole discretion at any time prior to an affirmative FID.
The project development agreement provides that either LCL or BG may withdraw from the liquefaction project at any time prior to each party making an affirmative FID. LCL’s determination of whether to reach an affirmative FID is expected to be based upon a number of factors, including the expected cost to construct the liquefaction facility, the expected revenue to be generated
by LCL pursuant to the terms of the liquefaction services agreement anticipated to be entered into between LCL and BG in connection with both parties reaching an affirmative FID, and the terms and conditions of the financing for the construction of the liquefaction facility. BG’s determination of whether to reach an affirmative FID is expected be based on a number of factors, including the expected tolling charges it would be required to pay under the terms of the liquefaction services agreement, the costs anticipated to be incurred by BG to purchase natural gas for delivery to the liquefaction facility, the costs to transport natural gas to the liquefaction facility, the costs to operate the liquefaction facility and the costs to transport LNG from the liquefaction facility to customers in foreign markets (particularly Europe and Asia) over the expected 25-year term of the liquefaction services agreement. As currently provided, the tolling charges payable to LCL under the liquefaction services agreement are anticipated to be based on a rate of return formula tied to the construction costs for the liquefaction facility, these costs are anticipated to also have a significant bearing with respect to BG’s determination whether to reach an affirmative FID. As these costs fluctuate based on a variety of factors, including supply and demand factors affecting the price of natural gas in the United States, supply and demand factors affecting the price of LNG in foreign markets, supply and demand factors affecting the costs for construction services for large infrastructure projects in the United States, and general economic conditions, there can be no assurance that both LCL and BG will reach an affirmative FID to construct the liquefaction facility.
The construction of the liquefaction project remains subject to further approvals and some approvals may be subject to further conditions, review and/or revocation.
While a subsidiary of BG and LCL have received authorization from the DOE to export LNG to non-FTA countries, the non-FTA authorization is subject to review, and the DOE may impose additional approval and permit requirements in the future or revoke the non-FTA authorization should the DOE conclude that such export authorization is inconsistent with the public interest. The failure by LCL to timely maintain the approvals necessary to complete and operate the liquefaction project could have a material adverse effect on its operations and financial condition.
Tax Risks to Common Unitholders
Our tax treatment depends on our continuing status as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, as well as our not being subject to a material amount of additional entity-level taxation by individual states. If the IRS were to treat us or ETP as a corporation for federal income tax purposes or if we or ETP become subject to a material amount of entity-level taxation for state tax purposes, then our cash available for distribution 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 IRS on this matter. The value of our investments in ETP depends largely on ETP being treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes.
Despite the fact that we and ETP are each a limited partnership under Delaware law, we would each be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes unless we satisfy a “qualifying income” requirement. Based upon our current operations, we believe we and ETP satisfy the qualifying income requirement. Failing to meet the qualifying income requirement or a change in current law could cause us or ETP to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes or otherwise subject us or ETP to taxation as an entity.
If we or ETP were treated as a corporation, we would pay federal income tax on our taxable income at the corporate tax rate and we would likely pay additional state income taxes at varying rates. Distributions to Unitholders would generally be taxed again as corporate distributions, and none of our income, gains, losses or deductions would flow through to Unitholders. Because a tax would then be imposed upon us as a corporation, our cash available for distribution to Unitholders would be substantially reduced. Therefore, treatment of us as a corporation would result in a material reduction in the anticipated cash flow and after-tax return to the Unitholders, likely causing a substantial reduction in the value of our Common Units.
At the state level, several states have been evaluating ways to subject partnerships to entity-level taxation through the imposition of state income, franchise, or other forms of taxation. Imposition of a similar tax on us in the jurisdictions in which we operate or in other jurisdictions to which we may expand could substantially reduce our case available for distribution to our Unitholders. Our partnership agreement provides that if a law is enacted or existing law is modified or interpreted in a manner that subjects us to taxation as a corporation or to additional taxation as an entity for federal, state or local income tax purposes, the minimum quarterly distribution amount and the target distribution amounts may be adjusted to reflect the impact of that law on us.
The present U.S. federal income tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships, including us, or an investment in our common units may be modified by administrative, legislative or judicial changes or differing interpretations at any time. From time to time, members of Congress propose and consider substantive changes to the existing U.S. federal income tax laws that affect publicly traded partnerships. Although there is no current legislative proposal, a prior legislative proposal would have eliminated the qualifying income exception to the treatment of all publicly traded partnerships as corporations upon which we rely for our treatment as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
In addition, on January 24, 2017, final regulations regarding which activities give rise to qualifying income within the meaning of Section 7704 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Final Regulations”) were published in the Federal Register. The Final Regulations are effective as of January 19, 2017, and apply to taxable years beginning on or after January 19, 2017. We do not believe the Final Regulations affect our ability to be treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
However, any modification to the U.S. federal income tax laws may be applied retroactively and could make it more difficult or impossible for us to meet the exception for certain publicly traded partnerships to be treated as partnerships for U.S. federal income tax purposes. We are unable to predict whether any of these changes or other proposals will ultimately be enacted. Any similar or future legislative changes could negatively impact the value of an investment in our common units.
We have subsidiaries that will be treated as corporations for federal income tax purposes and subject to corporate-level income taxes.
Even though we (as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes) are not subject to U.S. federal income tax, some of our operations are conducted through subsidiaries that are organized as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The taxable income, if any, of subsidiaries that are treated as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes, is subject to corporate-level U.S. federal income taxes, which may reduce the cash available for distribution to us and, in turn, to our unitholders. If the IRS or other state or local jurisdictions were to successfully assert that these corporations have more tax liability than we anticipate or legislation was enacted that increased the corporate tax rate, the cash available for distribution could be further reduced. The income tax return filings positions taken by these corporate subsidiaries require significant judgment, use of estimates, and the interpretation and application of complex tax laws. Significant judgment is also required in assessing the timing and amounts of deductible and taxable items. Despite our belief that the income tax return positions taken by these subsidiaries are fully supportable, certain positions may be successfully challenged by the IRS, state or local jurisdictions.
If the IRS makes audit adjustments to our income tax returns for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, it (and some states) may assess and collect any taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) resulting from such audit adjustment directly from us, in which case our cash available for distribution to our Unitholders might be substantially reduced.
Pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, if the IRS makes audit adjustments to our income tax returns, it (and some states) may assess and collect any taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) resulting from such audit adjustment directly from us. To the extent possible under the new rules, our general partner may elect to either pay the taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) directly to the IRS or, if we are eligible, issue a revised Schedule K-1 to each unitholder with respect to an audited and adjusted return. Although our general partner may elect to have our Unitholders take such audit adjustment into account in accordance with their interests in us during the tax year under audit, there can be no assurance that such election will be practical, permissible or effective in all circumstances. As a result, our current Unitholders may bear some or all of the tax liability resulting from such audit adjustment, even if such Unitholders did not own units in us during the tax year under audit. If, as a result of any such audit adjustment, we are required to make payments of taxes, penalties and interest, our cash available for distribution to our Unitholders might be substantially reduced. These rules are not applicable for tax years beginning on or prior to December 31, 2017.
We treat each purchaser of Common Units as having the same tax benefits without regard to the actual Common Units purchased. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could result in a Unitholder owing more tax and may adversely affect the value of the Common Units.
Because we cannot match transferors and transferees of Common Units and because of other reasons, we will adopt depreciation, depletion and amortization positions that may not conform to all aspects of existing Treasury Regulations. A successful IRS challenge to those positions could adversely affect the amount of tax benefits available to our Unitholders. It also could affect the timing of these tax benefits or the amount of gain from the sale of Common Units and could have a negative impact on the value of our Common Units or result in audit adjustments to tax returns of our Unitholders. Moreover, because we have subsidiaries that are organized as C corporations for federal income tax purposes owns units in us, a successful IRS challenge could result in this subsidiary having a greater tax liability than we anticipate and, therefore, reduce the cash available for distribution to our partnership and, in turn, to our Unitholders.
We prorate our items of income, gain, loss and deduction between transferors and transferees of our units each month based upon the ownership of our units on the first business day of each month, instead of on the basis of the date a particular unit is transferred. The IRS may challenge aspects of our proration method, and if successful, we would be required to change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss and deduction among our Unitholders.
We generally prorate our items of income, gain, loss and deduction between transferors and transferees of our units each month based upon the ownership of our units on the first business day of each month (the “Allocation Date”), instead of on the basis of the date a particular unit is transferred. Similarly, we generally allocate certain deductions for depreciation of capital additions,
gain or loss realized on a sale or other disposition of our assets and, in the discretion of the general partner, any other extraordinary item of income, gain, loss or deduction based upon ownership on the Allocation Date. Treasury Regulations allow a similar monthly simplifying convention, but such regulations do not specifically authorize all aspects of the proration method we have adopted. If the IRS were to challenge our proration method, we may be required to change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss and deduction among our Unitholders.
A Unitholder whose units are the subject of a securities loan (e.g. a loan to a “short seller”) to cover a short sale of units may be considered as having disposed of those units. If so, the Unitholder would no longer be treated for tax purposes as a partner with respect to those units during the period of the loan and may recognize gain or loss from the disposition.
Because there are no specific rules governing the federal income tax consequences of loaning a partnership interest, a Unitholder whose units are the subject of a securities loan may be considered as having disposed of the loaned units. In that case, the Unitholder may no longer be treated for tax purposes as a partner with respect to those units during the period of the loan and may recognize gain or loss from such disposition. Moreover, during the period of the loan, any of our income, gain, loss or deduction with respect to those units may not be reportable by the Unitholder and any cash distributions received by the Unitholder as to those units could be fully taxable as ordinary income. Unitholders desiring to assure their status as partners and avoid the risk of gain recognition from a loan of their units are urged to modify any applicable brokerage account agreements to prohibit their brokers from borrowing their units.
ETP and Sunoco LP have adopted certain valuation methodologies in determining unitholder’s allocations of income, gain, loss and deduction. The IRS may challenge these methods or the resulting allocations, and such a challenge could adversely affect the value of ETP’s and Sunoco LP’s Common Units and our Common Units.
In determining the items of income, gain, loss and deduction allocable to our, Sunoco LP’s or ETP’s unitholders, we must routinely determine the fair market value of our respective assets. Although we may from time to time consult with professional appraisers regarding valuation matters, we make many fair market value estimates using a methodology based on the market value of our, Sunoco LP’s or ETP’s common units as a means to measure the fair market value of our respective assets. The IRS may challenge these valuation methods and the resulting allocations of income, gain, loss and deduction.
A successful IRS challenge to these methods or allocations could adversely affect the amount, character, and timing of taxable income or loss being allocated to our Unitholders, Sunoco LP’s Unitholders or the ETP Unitholders. It also could affect the amount of gain on the sale of Common Units by our Unitholders, Sunoco LP’s Unitholders or ETP’s Unitholders and could have a negative impact on the value of our Common Units or those of Sunoco LP and ETP or result in audit adjustments to the tax returns of our, Sunoco LP’s or ETP’s Unitholders without the benefit of additional deductions.
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 technically terminated as a partnership 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. For purposes of determining whether the 50% threshold has been met, multiple sales of the same unit during the applicable twelve-month period will be counted only once. Our technical termination would, among other things, result in the closing of our taxable year for all Unitholders which would require us to file two federal partnership tax returns (and our Unitholders could receive two Schedules K-1 if relief was not available, as described below) for one fiscal year, and could result in a deferral of depreciation deductions allowable in computing our taxable income. In the case of a Unitholder reporting on a taxable year other than a calendar year, the closing of our taxable year may also result in more than twelve months of our taxable income or loss being includable in such Unitholder’s taxable income for the year of termination. A technical termination currently would not affect our classification as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, but it would result in our being treated as a new partnership for tax purposes on the technical termination date, and would be required to make new tax elections and could be subject to penalties if we were unable to determine in a timely manner that a termination occurred. The IRS has announced a relief procedure whereby a publicly traded partnership that has technically terminated requests and the IRS grants special relief, among other things, the partnership may be permitted to provide only a single Schedule K-1 to unitholders for the two tax years within the fiscal year in which the termination occurs.
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 investing in our Common Units.
In addition to federal income taxes, the Unitholders may be subject to other taxes, including state and local taxes, unincorporated business taxes and estate, inheritance or intangible taxes that are imposed by the various jurisdictions in which we or ETP conduct business or own property now or in the future, even if they do not live in any of those jurisdictions. We currently own property or conduct business in many states, most of which impose an income tax on individuals, corporations and other entities. As we make acquisitions or expand our business, we may control assets or conduct business in additional states that impose a personal
or corporate income tax. Unitholders may be required to file state and local income tax returns and pay state and local income taxes in some or all of the jurisdictions. Further, Unitholders may be subject to penalties for failure to comply with those requirements. It is the responsibility of each Unitholder to file all federal, state and local tax returns.
Risks Related to the Pending MLP Merger
The completion of the MLP Merger is subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions to closing, and the date that the MLP Merger would be consummated is uncertain.
The completion of the MLP Merger is subject to the absence of a material adverse change to the business or results of operation of Sunoco Logistics and ETP, the receipt of necessary regulatory approvals, the approval of the MLP Merger by a majority of the outstanding ETP common units and the satisfaction or waiver of other conditions specified in the merger agreement related to the MLP Merger. In the event those conditions to closing are not satisfied or waived, we would not complete the MLP Merger.
Failure to complete the MLP Merger, or significant delays in completing the MLP Merger, could negatively affect the trading price of our common units and our future business and financial results.
Completion of the MLP Merger is not assured and is subject to risks, including the risks that approval of the merger by ETP’s unitholders or governmental agencies is not obtained or that other closing conditions are not satisfied. If the merger is not completed, or if there are significant delays in completing the merger, it could negatively affect the trading price of Sunoco Logistics’ and ETP’s respective common units and their future business and financial results, and Sunoco Logistics and ETP will be subject to several risks, including the following:
liability for damages under the terms and conditions of the merger agreement;
negative reactions from the financial markets, including declines in the price of Sunoco Logistics’ and ETP’s common units due to the fact that current prices may reflect a market assumption that the merger will be completed; and
the attention of Sunoco Logistics’ and ETP’s management will have been diverted to the merger rather than its own operations and pursuit of other opportunities that could have been beneficial to Sunoco Logistics or ETP.
Sunoco Logistics and ETP may have difficulty attracting, motivating and retaining executives and other employees in light of the merger.
Uncertainty about the effect of the merger on Sunoco Logistics’ and ETP’s respective employees may have an adverse effect on us and the combined organization. This uncertainty may impair Sunoco Logistics’ and ETP’s ability to attract, retain and motivate personnel until the merger is completed. Employee retention may be particularly challenging during the pendency of the merger, as employees may feel uncertain about their future roles with the combined organization. In addition, Sunoco Logistics and ETP may have to provide additional compensation in order to retain employees. If employees depart because of issues relating to the uncertainty and difficulty of integration or a desire not to become employees of the combined organization, the ability of Sunoco Logistics and ETP to realize the anticipated benefits of the merger could be reduced. Also, if the MLP merger is not completed, it may be difficult and expensive for Sunoco Logistics and ETP to recruit and hire replacements for such employees.
Sunoco Logistics and ETP are each subject to contractual restrictions while the merger is pending, which could materially and adversely affect their respective business and operations, and, pending the completion of the transaction, our business and operations could be materially and adversely affected.
Under the terms of the merger agreement for the MLP Merger, each of Sunoco Logistics and ETP is subject to certain restrictions on the conduct of business prior to completing the transaction, which may adversely affect its respective ability to execute certain business strategies without first obtaining consent from the other party, including its ability in certain cases to enter into contracts, incur capital expenditures or grow its business. The merger agreement also restricts ETP’s ability to solicit, initiate or encourage alternative acquisition proposals with any third party and may deter a potential acquirer from proposing an alternative transaction or may limit our ability to pursue any such proposal. Such limitations could negatively affect our business and operations prior to the completion of the proposed transaction.
Furthermore, the process of planning to integrate two businesses and organizations for the post-merger period can divert management attention and resources and could ultimately have an adverse effect on us.
In connection with the pending merger, it is possible that some customers, suppliers and other persons with whom ETP has business relationships may delay or defer certain business decisions or might decide to seek to terminate, change or renegotiate their relationship as a result of the transaction, which could negatively affect our revenues, earnings and cash flows, as well as the market price of our common units, regardless of whether the transaction is completed.
Sunoco Logistics and ETP will incur substantial transaction-related costs in connection with the merger.
Sunoco Logistics and ETP expects to incur a number of non-recurring merger-related costs associated with completing the merger, combining the operations of the two companies, and achieving desired synergies. These fees and costs will be substantial. Non-recurring transaction costs include, but are not limited to, fees paid to legal, financial and accounting advisors, filing fees and printing costs. Additional unanticipated costs may be incurred in the integration of Sunoco Logistics’ and ETP’s businesses. There can be no assurance that the elimination of certain duplicative costs, as well as the realization of other efficiencies related to the integration of the two businesses, will offset the incremental transaction-related costs over time. Thus, any net benefit may not be achieved in the near term, the long term or at all.
The number of outstanding Sunoco Logistics common units will increase as a result of the merger, which could make it more difficult for Sunoco Logistics to pay the current level of quarterly distributions.
As of February 22, 2017, there were more than 322 million Sunoco Logistics common units outstanding. Sunoco Logistics will issue approximately 827 million common units in connection with the merger. Accordingly, the aggregate dollar amount required to pay the current per unit quarterly distribution on all Sunoco Logistics common units will increase, which could increase the likelihood that Sunoco Logistics will not have sufficient funds to pay the current level of quarterly distributions to all Sunoco Logistics unitholders. Using a $0.52 per Sunoco Logistics common unit distribution (the amount Sunoco Logistics paid with respect to the fourth fiscal quarter of 2016 on February 14, 2017 to holders of record as of February 7, 2017), the aggregate cash distribution paid to Sunoco Logistics unitholders totaled approximately $272 million, including a distribution of $105 million to Sunoco Logistics GP in respect of its general partner interest and ownership of incentive distribution rights. Using the same $0.52 per Sunoco Logistics common unit distribution, the combined pro forma Sunoco Logistics distribution with respect to the fourth fiscal quarter of 2016, had the merger been completed prior to such distribution, would have resulted in total cash distributions of approximately $796 million, including a distribution of $233 million to Sunoco Logistics GP in respect of its general partner interest and incentive distribution rights. Through our ownership of ETP Class H units and a 0.1% interest in Sunoco Logistics’ general partner, we are entitled to receive 90.15% of the cash distributions related to the IDRs of Sunoco Logistics, while ETP is entitled to receive the remaining 9.85% of such cash distributions.
ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
ITEM 2. PROPERTIES
A description of our properties is included in “Item 1. Business.” In addition, we own office buildings for our executive offices in Dallas, Texas and office buildings in Newton Square, Pennsylvania and Houston, Corpus Christi and San Antonio, Texas. While we may require additional office space as our business expands, we believe that our existing facilities are adequate to meet our needs for the immediate future, and that additional facilities will be available on commercially reasonable terms as needed.
We believe that we have satisfactory title to or valid rights to use all of our material properties. Although some of our properties are subject to liabilities and leases, liens for taxes not yet due and payable, encumbrances securing payment obligations under non-competition agreements and immaterial encumbrances, easements and restrictions, we do not believe that any such burdens will materially interfere with our continued use of such properties in our business, taken as a whole. In addition, we believe that we have, or are in the process of obtaining, all required material approvals, authorizations, orders, licenses, permits, franchises and consents of, and have obtained or made all required material registrations, qualifications and filings with, the various state and local government and regulatory authorities which relate to ownership of our properties or the operations of our business.
Substantially all of our subsidiaries’ pipelines, which are described in “Item 1. Business” are constructed on rights-of-way granted by the apparent record owners of the property. Lands over which pipeline rights-of-way have been obtained may be subject to prior liens that have not been subordinated to the right-of-way grants. Our subsidiaries have obtained, where necessary, easement agreements from public authorities and railroad companies to cross over or under, or to lay facilities in or along, watercourses, county roads, municipal streets, railroad properties and state highways, as applicable. In some cases, properties on which our subsidiaries’ pipelines were built were purchased in fee. ETP also owns and operates multiple natural gas and NGL storage facilities and owns or leases other processing, treating and conditioning facilities in connection with its midstream operations.
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Sunoco, Inc. and/or Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), along with other refiners, manufacturers and sellers of gasoline, are defendants in lawsuits alleging MTBE contamination of groundwater. The plaintiffs typically include water purveyors and municipalities responsible for supplying drinking water and governmental authorities. The plaintiffs primarily assert product liability claims and additional claims
including nuisance, trespass, negligence, violation of environmental laws and deceptive business practices. The plaintiffs in all of the cases seek to recover compensatory damages, and in some cases also seek natural resource damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.
As of December 31, 2016, Sunoco, Inc. is a defendant in six cases, including cases initiated by the States of New Jersey, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and two others by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico with the more recent Puerto Rico action being a companion case alleging damages for additional sites beyond those at issue in the initial Puerto Rico action. Four of these cases are venued in a multidistrict litigation proceeding in a New York federal court. The New Jersey, Puerto Rico, Vermont, and Pennsylvania cases assert natural resource damage claims.
Fact discovery has concluded with respect to an initial set of 19 sites each that will be the subject of the first trial phase in the New Jersey case and the initial Puerto Rico case. The initial set of 19 New Jersey trial sites are now pending before the United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey, the Hon. Freda L. Wolfson for the pre-trial and trial phases. Judge Wolfson then referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge for the District of New Jersey, the Hon. Lois H. Goodman. Judge Goodman conducted a status conference with all of the parties and inquired whether the parties will engage in a global mediation and instructed the parties to exchange possible mediator names. All parties agreed to participate in global settlement discussions in a global mediation forum before Hon. Garrett Brown (Ret.), a Judicial Arbitration Mediation Service mediator. The remaining portion of the New Jersey case remains in the multidistrict litigation. The first mediation session with Judge Brown is scheduled for November 2 through November 3, 2016. In early 2017, Sunoco, Inc. and two other co-defendants reached a settlement in principle with the State of New Jersey, subject to the parties agreeing on the terms and conditions of a Settlement and Release agreement. It is reasonably possible that a loss may be realized in the remaining cases; however, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued. Management believes that an adverse determination with respect to one or more of the MTBE cases could have a significant impact on results of operations during the period in which any said adverse determination occurs, but does not believe that any such adverse determination would have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s consolidated financial position.
In January 2012, Sunoco Logistics experienced a release on its products pipeline in Wellington, Ohio. In connection with this release, the PHMSA issued a Corrective Action Order under which Sunoco Logistics is obligated to follow specific requirements in the investigation of the release and the repair and reactivation of the pipeline. Sunoco Logistics also entered into an Order on Consent with the EPA regarding the environmental remediation of the release site. All requirements of the Order on Consent with the EPA have been fulfilled and the Order has been satisfied and closed. Sunoco Logistics has also received a "No Further Action" approval from the Ohio EPA for all soil and groundwater remediation requirements. In May 2016, Sunoco Logistics received a proposed penalty from the EPA and U.S. Department of Justice associated with this release, and continues to work with the involved parties to bring this matter to closure. The timing and outcome of this matter cannot be reasonably determined at this time. However, Sunoco Logistics does not expect there to be a material impact to its results of operations, cash flows or financial position.
In 2012, the EPA issued a proposed consent agreement related to the releases that occurred at Sunoco Logistics’ pump station/tank farm in Barbers Hill, Texas and pump station/tank farm located in Cromwell, Oklahoma in 2010 and 2011, respectively. These matters were referred to the DOJ by the EPA. In November 2012, Sunoco Logistics received an initial assessment of $1.4 million associated with these releases. Sunoco Logistics is in discussions with the EPA and the DOJ on this matter to resolve the issue. The timing or outcome of this matter cannot be reasonably determined at this time. Sunoco Logistics does not expect there to be a material impact to its results of operations, cash flows or financial position.
In April 2015 and October 2016, the PHMSA issued separate Notices of Probable Violation ("NOPVs") and a Proposed Compliance Order ("PCO") related to Sunoco Logistics’ West Texas Gulf pipeline in connection with repairs being carried out on the pipeline and other administrative and procedural findings. The proposed penalties are in excess of $100,000. Sunoco Logistics does not expect there to be a material impact to its results of operations, cash flows or financial position.
In April 2016, the PHMSA issued a NOPV, PCO and Proposed Civil Penalty related to certain procedures carried out during construction of Sunoco Logistics’ Permian Express 2 pipeline system in Texas. The proposed penalties are in excess of $100,000. Sunoco Logistics does not expect there to be a material impact to its results of operations, cash flows or financial position.
In June 2016, the PHMSA issued NOPVs and a PCO in connection with alleged violations on Sunoco Logistics’ Texas crude oil pipeline system. The proposed penalties are in excess of $100,000. Sunoco Logistics does not expect there to be a material impact to its results of operations, cash flows or financial position.
In July 2016, the PHMSA issued a NOPV and PCO in connection with inspection and maintenance activities related to a 2013 incident on Sunoco Logistics' crude oil pipeline near Wortham, Texas. The proposed penalties are in excess of $100,000, and Sunoco Logistics is currently in discussions with PHMSA to resolve these matters. The timing or outcome of these matters cannot be reasonably determined at this time, however, Sunoco Logistics does not expect there to be a material impact to its results of operations, cash flows, or financial position.
Additionally, we have received notices of violations and potential fines under various federal, state and local provisions relating to the discharge of materials into the environment or protection of the environment. While we believe that even if any one or more of the environmental proceedings listed above were decided against us, it would not be material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows, we are required to report environmental governmental proceedings if we reasonably believe that such proceedings will result in monetary sanctions in excess of $0.1 million.
On April 6, 2016, WMB filed a complaint against ETE and LE GP in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “First Delaware WMB Litigation”). This lawsuit is styled The Williams Companies, Inc. v. Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., C.A. No. 12168-VCG. WMB alleged that Defendants breached the merger agreement between WMB, ETE, and several of ETE’s affiliates (the “Merger Agreement”) by issuing ETE’s Series A Convertible Preferred Units. According to WMB, the issuance of Convertible Units (the “Issuance”) violates various contractual restrictions on ETE’s actions between the execution and closing of the merger. WMB sought, among other things, to (a) rescind the Issuance and (b) invalidate an amendment to ETE’s partnership agreement that was adopted on March 8, 2016 as part of the Issuance.
On May 3, 2016, ETE and LE GP filed an answer and counterclaim in the First Delaware WMB Litigation. The counterclaim asserts in general that WMB materially breached its obligations under the Merger Agreement by (a) blocking ETE’s attempts to complete a public offering of the Convertible Units, including, among other things, by declining to allow WMB’s independent registered public accounting firm to provide the auditor consent required to be included in the registration statement for a public offering and (b) bringing the Texas WMB Litigation against Mr. Warren in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas.
On May 13, 2016, WMB filed a second lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against ETE and LE GP and added Energy Transfer Corp LP, ETE Corp GP, LLC, and Energy Transfer Equity GP, LLC as additional defendants (the “Second Delaware WMB Litigation”). This lawsuit is styled The Williams Companies, Inc. v. Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., et al., C.A. No. 12337-VCG. In general, WMB alleged that the defendants breached the Merger Agreement by (a) failing to use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain from Latham & Watkins LLP (“Latham”) the delivery of a tax opinion under Section 721 of the Tax Code (“721 Opinion”), a condition precedent to the closing of the merger, and (b) taking actions that allegedly delayed the SEC in declaring the Form S-4 filed in connection with the merger (the “Form S-4”) effective. WMB asked the Court, in general, to (a) issue a declaratory judgment that ETE breached the Merger Agreement, (b) enjoin ETE from terminating the Merger Agreement on the basis that it failed to obtain a 721 Opinion, (c) enjoin ETE from terminating the Merger Agreement on the basis that the transaction failed to close by the outside date, and (d) force ETE to close the merger or take various other affirmative actions. WMB sought to expedite the second lawsuit, and ETE agreed to expedite both Delaware actions.
ETE also filed an answer and counterclaim in the Second Delaware WMB Litigation. In addition to the counterclaims previously asserted, ETE asserted that WMB materially breached the Merger Agreement by, among other things, (a) modifying or qualifying the WMB board of directors’ recommendation to its stockholders regarding the merger, (b) failing to provide material information to ETE for inclusion in the Form S-4 related to the merger necessary to prevent the Form S-4 from being materially misleading, (c) failing to facilitate the financing of the merger, (d) failing to be reasonable with respect to its withholding of its consent to ETE’s offering of Series A Convertible Preferred Units, and (e) failing to use its reasonable best efforts to consummate the merger. ETE sought, among other things, a declaration that it could validly terminate the Merger Agreement after June 28, 2016 in the event that Latham was unable to deliver the 721 Opinion on or prior to June 28, 2016.
After expedited discovery and a two-day trial on June 20 and 21, 2016, the Court ruled in favor of ETE and issued a declaratory judgment that ETE could terminate the merger after June 28, 2016 because of Latham’s inability to provide the required 721 Opinion. The Court also denied WMB’s requests for injunctive relief. WMB filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Delaware on June 27, 2016. The appeal is styled The Williams Companies, Inc. v. Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., No. 330, 2016.
Williams filed an amended complaint on September 16, 2016. In the amended complaint, Williams abandons its request for injunctive relief, including its request that the Court order the ETE Defendants to consummate the merger. Instead, Williams seeks a $410 million termination fee and additional damages of up to $10 billion based on the purported lost value of the merger consideration. These damages claims are based on the alleged breaches of the Merger Agreement detailed above, as well as new allegations that the ETE Defendants breached an additional representation and warranty in the Merger Agreement.
The ETE Defendants filed amended counterclaims and affirmative defenses on September 23, 2016. In the amended counterclaim, the ETE Defendants seek a $1.48 billion termination fee under the Merger Agreement and additional damages caused by Williams’ misconduct. These damages claims are based on the alleged breaches of the Merger Agreement detailed above, as well as new allegations that Williams breached the Merger Agreement by failing to disclose material information that was required to be disclosed in the Form S-4. On September 29, 2016, Williams filed a motion to dismiss the ETE Defendants’ amended counterclaims and to strike certain of the ETE Defendants’ affirmative defenses. Following briefing by the parties on Williams’ motion, the Delaware Court of Chancery held oral arguments on November 30, 2016. The parties are awaiting the Court’s decision.
On January 11, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court held oral arguments on Williams’ appeal of the June 2016 trial. The parties are awaiting the Court’s decision.
The parties are currently engaging in discovery in connection with their amended claims and counterclaims.
For a description of legal proceedings, see Note 11 to our consolidated financial statements.
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON UNITS, RELATED UNITHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
Market Price of and Distributions on Common Units and Related Unitholder Matters
The Parent Company’s common units are listed on the NYSE under the symbol “ETE.” The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low sales prices per ETE Common Unit, as reported on the NYSE Composite Tape, and the amount of cash distributions paid per ETE Common Unit for the periods indicated.
Price Range (1)
Fiscal Year 2016:
Fiscal Year 2015:
Prices and distributions have been adjusted to reflect the effect of the two-for-one splits of ETE Common Units completed in July 2015. See Note 8 to our consolidated financial statements.
Distributions are shown in the quarter with respect to which they relate. Please see “Cash Distribution Policy” below for a discussion of our policy regarding the payment of distributions.
For a description of cash distributions paid by ETE dating back to the fourth quarter of 2013, see “Cash Distributions Paid by the Parent Company” in Item 7 below.
Description of Units
As of February 17, 2017, there were approximately 255,000 individual common unitholders, which includes common units held in street name. Common units represent limited partner interest in us that entitle the holders to the rights and privileges specified in the Parent Company’s Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership, as amended to date (the “Partnership Agreement”).
As of December 31, 2016, limited partners owns an aggregate 97.7% limited partner interest in us. Our General Partner owns an aggregate 0.3% General Partner interest in us. Our common units are registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and are listed for trading on the NYSE. Each holder of a common unit is entitled to one vote per unit on all matters presented to the limited partners for a vote. In addition, if at any time any person or group (other than our General Partner and its affiliates) owns beneficially 20% or more of all common units, any Common Units owned by that person or group may not be voted on any matter and are not considered to be outstanding when sending notices of a meeting of unitholders (unless otherwise required by law), calculating required votes, determining the presence of a quorum or for other similar purposes under our Partnership Agreement. The common units are entitled to distributions of Available Cash as described below under “Cash Distribution Policy.”
Cash Distribution Policy
General. The Parent Company will distribute all of its “Available Cash” to its unitholders and its General Partner within 50 days following the end of each fiscal quarter.
Definition of Available Cash. Available Cash is defined in the Parent Company’s Partnership Agreement and generally means, with respect to any calendar quarter, all cash on hand at the end of such quarter less the amount of cash reserves that are necessary or appropriate in the reasonable discretion of the General Partner to:
provide for the proper conduct of its business;
comply with applicable law and/or debt instrument or other agreement; and
provide funds for distributions to unitholders and its General Partner in respect of any one or more of the next four quarters.
The total amount of distributions declared is reflected in Note 8 to our consolidated financial statements.
Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans
For information on the securities authorized for issuance under ETE’s equity compensation plans, see Item 12.
ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
The selected historical financial data should be read in conjunction with “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the historical consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes thereto included elsewhere in this report. The amounts in the table below, except per unit data, are in millions.
Years Ended December 31,
Statement of Operations Data:
Income from continuing operations
Basic income from continuing operations per limited partner unit
Diluted income from continuing operations per limited partner unit
Cash distribution per unit
Balance Sheet Data (at period end):
Long-term debt, less current maturities
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
(Tabular dollar and unit amounts, except per unit data, are in millions)
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership whose common units are publicly traded on the NYSE under the ticker symbol “ETE.” ETE was formed in September 2002 and completed its initial public offering in February 2006.
The following is a discussion of our historical consolidated financial condition and results of operations, and should be read in conjunction with our historical consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes thereto included in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” of this report. This discussion includes forward-looking statements that are subject to risk and uncertainties. Actual results may differ substantially from the statements we make in this section due to a number of factors that are discussed in “Item 1A. Risk Factors” of this report.