UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015

or

TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from _____ to _____

Commission File Number: 001-34991

TARGA RESOURCES CORP.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware
 
20-3701075
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
 
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
 
1000 Louisiana St. Suite 4300, Houston, Texas
 
77002
(Address of principal executive offices)
 
(Zip Code)
 
(713) 584-1000
(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
Common Stock
 
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 ☑ 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 ☑

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 ☑ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ☑ No ☐

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of 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 ☑
Accelerated filer ☐
Non-accelerated filer ☐
Smaller reporting company ☐
 
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes ☐ No ☑.

The aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $2,119.3 million on June 30, 2015, based on $139.57 per share, the closing price of the common stock as reported on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on such date.

As of February 17, 2016, there were 160,563,464 shares of the registrant’s common stock, $0.001 par value, outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
 
None
 


TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I
 
4
   
36
   
56
   
56
   
57
   
59
   
PART II
 
60
   
64
   
65
   
110
   
116
   
117
   
117
   
118
   
PART III
 
119
   
125
   
154
   
155
   
159
   
PART IV
 
160
 
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT ABOUT FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Targa Resources Corp.’s (together with its subsidiaries, other than Targa Resources Partners LP (“the Partnership” or “TRP”), “we,” “us,” “Targa,” “TRC,” or the “Company”) reports, filings and other public announcements may from time to time contain statements that do not directly or exclusively relate to historical facts. Such statements are “forward-looking statements.” You can typically identify forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by the use of forward-looking statements, such as “may,” “could,” “project,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “expect,” “estimate,” “potential,” “plan,” “forecast” and other similar words.

All statements that are not statements of historical facts, including statements regarding our future financial position, business strategy, budgets, projected costs and plans and objectives of management for future operations, are forward-looking statements.

These forward-looking statements reflect our intentions, plans, expectations, assumptions and beliefs about future events and are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors, many of which are outside our control. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the expectations expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements include known and unknown risks. Known risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the following risks and uncertainties:

· the timing and extent of changes in natural gas, natural gas liquids (“NGL”), crude oil and other commodity prices, interest rates and demand for the Partnership’s services;

· the Partnership’s and our ability to access the capital markets, which will depend on general market conditions and the credit ratings for the Partnership’s and our debt obligations;

· the amount of collateral required to be posted from time to time in the Partnership’s transactions;

· our and the Partnership’s success in risk management activities, including the use of derivative instruments to hedge commodity price risks;

· the level of creditworthiness of counterparties to various transactions with the Partnership;

· changes in laws and regulations, particularly with regard to taxes, safety and protection of the environment;

· weather and other natural phenomena;

· industry changes, including the impact of consolidations and changes in competition;

· the Partnership’s ability to obtain necessary licenses, permits and other approvals;

· the level and success of crude oil and natural gas drilling around the Partnership’s assets, its success in connecting natural gas supplies to its gathering and processing systems, oil supplies to its gathering systems and NGL supplies to its logistics and marketing facilities and the Partnership’s success in connecting its facilities to transportation and markets;

· the Partnership’s and our ability to grow through acquisitions or internal growth projects and the successful integration and future performance of such assets, including with respect to the Atlas mergers (as defined below); which were completed on February 27, 2015 between Targa Resources Corp. (“Targa,” “Parent, ” “TRC” or “us”) and Atlas Energy, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“ATLS”) and between Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“APL”) and the Partnership;

· general economic, market and business conditions; and

· the risks described elsewhere in “Item 1A. Risk Factors.” in this Annual Report and our reports and registration statements filed from time to time with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).
 
Although we believe that the assumptions underlying our forward-looking statements are reasonable, any of the assumptions could be inaccurate, and, therefore, we cannot assure you that the forward-looking statements included in this Annual Report will prove to be accurate. Some of these and other risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from such forward-looking statements are more fully described in “Item 1A. Risk Factors.” in this Annual Report. Except as may be required by applicable law, we undertake no obligation to publicly update or advise of any change in any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

As generally used in the energy industry and in this Annual Report, the identified terms have the following meanings:

Bbl
Barrels (equal to 42 U.S. gallons)
Bcf
Billion cubic feet
Btu
British thermal units, a measure of heating value
BBtu
Billion British thermal units
/d
Per day
/hr
Per hour
gal
U.S. gallons
GPM
Liquid volume equivalent expressed as gallons per 1000 cu. ft. of natural gas
LPG
Liquefied petroleum gas
MBbl
Thousand barrels
MMBbl
Million barrels
MMBtu
Million British thermal units
MMcf
Million cubic feet
NGL(s)
Natural gas liquid(s)
NYMEX
New York Mercantile Exchange
GAAP
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America
LIBOR
London Interbank Offered Rate
NYSE
New York Stock Exchange
   
Price Index Definitions
 
IF-NGPL MC
Inside FERC Gas Market Report, Natural Gas Pipeline, Mid-Continent
IF-PB
Inside FERC Gas Market Report, Permian Basin
IF-WAHA
Inside FERC Gas Market Report, West Texas WAHA
NY-WTI
NYMEX, West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil
OPIS-MB
Oil Price Information Service, Mont Belvieu, Texas
NG-NYMEX
NYMEX, Natural Gas
 
PART I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

Targa Resources Corp. (NYSE: TRGP) is a publicly traded Delaware corporation formed in October 2005. As of December 31, 2015, Targa does not directly own any operating assets; our main source of future revenue therefore is from general and limited partner interests, including incentive distribution rights (“IDRs”), in the Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership (NYSE: NGLS), that is a leading provider of midstream natural gas and natural gas liquid services in the United States. The Partnership is engaged in the business of gathering, compressing, treating, processing and selling natural gas and storing, fractionating, treating, transporting, terminaling and selling NGLs, NGL products, and gathering, storing and terminaling crude oil and refined petroleum products.

On February 17, 2016, TRC completed the previously announced transactions contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “TRC/TRP Merger Agreement” or “Buy-in Transaction”), dated November 2, 2015, by and among TRC, TRP, the general partner of TRP and Spartan Merger Sub LLC, a subsidiary of TRC (“Merger Sub”) pursuant to which TRC acquired indirectly all of the outstanding TRP common units that TRC and its subsidiaries did not already own. Upon the terms and conditions set forth in the TRC/TRP Merger Agreement, Merger Sub merged with and into TRP (the “TRC/TRP Merger”), with TRP continuing as the surviving entity and as a subsidiary of TRC. As a result of the TRC/TRP Merger, TRC owns all of the outstanding TRP common units.

At the effective time of the TRC/TRP Merger, each outstanding TRP common unit not owned by TRC or its subsidiaries was converted into the right to receive 0.62 shares of our common stock. No fractional shares were issued in the TRC/TRP Merger, and TRP common unitholders instead received cash in lieu of fractional shares.
 
We believe that the TRC/TRP Merger provides immediate and long-term benefits to our investors, and best positions us to successfully manage through the current commodity price environment and for long-term success. Some of the benefits of the TRC/TRP Merger include: improved coverage and credit profile, simplified structure and lower cost of capital, resulting in a stronger long-term growth outlook.

Pursuant to the TRC/TRP Merger Agreement, TRC has agreed to cause the TRP common units to be delisted from the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) and deregistered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). As a result of the completion of the TRC/TRP Merger, the TRP common units are no longer publicly traded. The 9.00% Series A Fixed-to-Floating Rate Cumulative Redeemable Perpetual Preferred Units (the “Preferred Units”) remain outstanding as limited partner interests in TRP and continue to trade on the NYSE under the symbol “NGLS PRA.”

As we control the Partnership and continue to control it after the TRC/TRP Merger, the changes in our ownership interest in the Partnership will be accounted for as an equity transaction and no gain or loss will be recognized in our consolidated statements of income resulting from the TRC/TRP Merger. In addition, the tax effects of the TRC/TRP Merger will be reported as adjustments to our additional paid-in capital.

Financial Presentation

One of our indirect subsidiaries is the sole general partner of the Partnership. Because we control the general partner, under generally accepted accounting principles we must reflect our ownership interest in the Partnership on a consolidated basis. Accordingly, the Partnership’s financial results are included in our consolidated financial statements even though the distribution or transfer of Partnership assets are limited by the terms of the partnership agreement, as well as restrictive covenants in the Partnership’s lending agreements. The limited partner interests in the Partnership not owned by us on certain dates are reflected in our results of operations as net income attributable to noncontrolling interests. Throughout this Annual Report, we make a distinction where relevant between financial results and disclosures applicable to the Partnership versus those applicable to us as a standalone parent including our non-Partnership subsidiaries (“Non-Partnership”). In addition, we provide condensed Targa only financial statements as required by the SEC.
 
The Partnership files its own separate Annual Report. The financial results presented in our consolidated financial statements will differ from the financial statements of the Partnership primarily due to the effects of:
 
· our separate debt obligations;

· federal income taxes;

· certain retained general and administrative costs applicable to us as a public company;

· certain administrative assets and liabilities incumbent as a provider of operational and support services to the Partnership;

· certain non-operating assets and liabilities that we retained;

· Partnership distributions and earnings allocable  to third-party common and preferred unitholders which are included in non-controlling interest in our statements; and

· Partnership distributions applicable to our General Partner interest, IDRs and investment in Partnership common units. While these are eliminated when preparing our consolidated financial statements, they nonetheless are the primary source of cash flow that supports the payment of dividends to our stockholders.

Overview of the Business of Targa Resources Corp.

Our primary business objective is to increase our cash available for dividends to our stockholders by assisting the Partnership in executing its business strategy. We may potentially facilitate the Partnership’s growth through various forms of financial support, including, but not limited to, making loans, making capital contributions in exchange for yielding or non-yielding equity interests or providing other financial support to the Partnership to support its ability to make distributions. In addition, we may potentially acquire assets that could be candidates for acquisition by us or the Partnership, potentially after operational or commercial improvement or further development.

At February 1, 2016, our interests in the Partnership consist of the following:

· a 2% general partner interest, which we hold through our 100% ownership interest in the general partner;

· all of the outstanding IDRs; and

· 16,309,594 of the 184,899,602 outstanding common units of the Partnership, representing an 8.8% interest in the outstanding common units of the Partnership.

· a special general partnership interest  (the “Special GP Interest”) representing retained tax benefits related to the contribution to TRP by TRC of the general partner interest in TPL acquired in the merger where Targa GP Merger Sub LLC merged with and into ATLS, with ATLS continuing as the surviving entity and as a subsidiary of Targa (“ATLS merger”).

As a result of the TRC/TRP Merger, which was completed on February 17, 2016, we own all of the outstanding TRP common units.

Our cash flows are generated from the cash distributions we receive from the Partnership. After payment of preferred distributions to the preferred unitholders, the Partnership is required to distribute all available cash at the end of each quarter after establishing reserves to provide for the proper conduct of its business or to provide for future distributions. Our ownership of the general partner interest entitles us to receive 2% of all cash distributed in a quarter.

Our ownership of the IDRs of the Partnership entitles us to receive:

· 13% of all cash distributed in a quarter after $0.3881 has been distributed in respect of each common unit of the Partnership for that quarter;

· 23% of all cash distributed in a quarter after $0.4219 has been distributed in respect of each common unit of the Partnership for that quarter; and
 
· 48% of all cash distributed in a quarter after $0.50625 has been distributed in respect of each common unit of the Partnership for that quarter.

Our ownership of all of the Partnership common units as of February 17, 2016 entitles us to receive all of the quarterly declared distributions that are paid to common unitholders.

The Partnership Agreement between the Partnership and us governs our relationship regarding certain reimbursement and indemnification matters. So long as our only cash generating assets are our interests in the Partnership, we will continue to allocate to the Partnership substantially all of our general and administrative costs other than our direct costs of being a reporting company. See “Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.”

We employ approximately 1,870 people. See “Employees.” The Partnership does not have any employees to carry out its operations.

Overview of the Business of the Partnership

Targa Resources Partners LP (NYSE:NGLS) is a Delaware limited partnership formed in October 2006 by us to own, operate, acquire and develop a diversified portfolio of complementary midstream energy assets. The Partnership is a leading provider of midstream natural gas and NGL services in the United States, with a growing presence in crude oil gathering and petroleum terminaling.

The Partnership is engaged in the business of:

· gathering, compressing, treating, processing and selling natural gas;

· storing, fractionating, treating, transporting and selling NGLs and NGL products, including services to LPG exporters;

· gathering, storing and terminaling crude oil; and

· storing, terminaling and selling refined petroleum products.

To provide these services, the Partnership operates in two primary divisions: (i) Gathering and Processing, consisting of two reportable segments—(a) Field Gathering and Processing and (b) Coastal Gathering and Processing; and (ii) Logistics and Marketing (also referred to as the Partnership’s Downstream Business), consisting of two reportable segments—(a) Logistics Assets and (b) Marketing and Distribution. For a detailed description of these businesses, please see “—The Partnership’s Business Operations.”

The Partnership’s midstream natural gas and NGL services footprint was initially established through several acquisitions from us, totaling $3.1 billion, that occurred from 2007 through 2010, and was expanded through third-party acquisitions including the Partnership’s 2012 acquisition of Saddle Butte Pipeline LLC’s crude oil pipeline and terminal system and natural gas gathering and processing operations in North Dakota and the Partnership’s 2015 acquisition of Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P. (“APL”). In these transactions the Partnership acquired (1) natural gas gathering, processing and treating assets in North Texas, West Texas, South Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, New Mexico and the Louisiana Gulf Coast, (2) crude oil gathering and terminal assets in North Dakota and (3) NGL assets consisting of fractionation, transport, storage and terminaling facilities, low sulfur natural gasoline treating facilities (“LSNG”), pipeline transportation and distribution assets, propane storage and truck terminals primarily located near Houston, Texas and in Lake Charles, Louisiana.

Since the completion of the final acquisitions from us in 2010 and with the 2015 acquisition of APL, the Partnership has grown substantially, with large increases in a number of metrics as of year-end 2015, including its total assets (313%), adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (“EBITDA”) (201%), distributable cash flow (214%) and distributions per common unit to its common unitholders (51%). The expansion of the Partnership’s business has been fueled by a combination of major organic growth investments in the Partnership’s businesses and acquisitions.
 
Organic Growth Projects

The Partnership continues to invest significant capital to expand through organic growth projects. The Partnership has invested approximately $3.3 billion in growth capital expenditures since 2007, including approximately $0.7 billion in 2015. These expansion investments were distributed across its businesses, with 52% related to Logistics and Marketing and 48% to Gathering and Processing. The Partnership will continue to invest in both large and small organic growth projects in 2016, including the current fractionation expansion of its 88% owned Cedar Bayou Fractionator (“CBF”) in Mont Belvieu, Texas. The Partnership expects that the amount of capital expenditures will be less than previous years due to current market conditions, and the reduced level of drilling activity around its areas of operations. Depending on the ultimate level of industry activity, the Partnership currently estimates that it will invest $525 million or less in growth capital expenditures for announced projects in 2016.

Atlas Mergers

On February 27, 2015, Targa completed the acquisition of Atlas Energy LP (“ATLS”), a Delaware limited partnership and the Partnership completed the acquisition of APL, a Delaware limited partnership (the “Atlas mergers”). In connection with the Atlas mergers, APL changed its name to “Targa Pipeline Partners LP,” which we refer to as TPL, and ATLS changed its name to “Targa Energy LP.”

TPL is a provider of natural gas gathering, processing and treating services primarily in the Anadarko, Arkoma and Permian Basins located in the southwestern and mid-continent regions of the United States and in the Eagle Ford Shale play in south Texas. The Atlas mergers add TPL’s Woodford/South Central Oklahoma Oil Province (“SCOOP”), Mississippi Lime, Eagle Ford and additional Permian assets to the Partnership’s existing operations. In total, TPL adds 2,053 MMcf/d of processing capacity and 12,220 miles of additional pipeline. The results of TPL are reported in our Field Gathering and Processing segment.

Pursuant to the amendment to TRP’s partnership agreement entered into in by TRP’s general partner in conjunction with the Atlas mergers (the “IDR Giveback Agreement”), IDRs of $9.375 million were allocated to common unitholders for each quarter of 2015 commencing with the first quarter of 2015. The IDR Giveback Amendment covers sixteen quarters following the completion of the Atlas mergers on February 27, 2015 and resulted in reallocation of IDR payments to common unitholders at the following amounts - $9.375 million per quarter for 2015, and will result in reallocation of IDR payments to common unitholders in the amount of $6.25 million in the first quarter of 2016.

2015 Developments

Volatility of Commodity Prices

Fluctuations in energy prices can greatly affect production rates and investments by third parties in the development of new oil and natural gas reserves. Drilling and production activity generally decreases as crude oil and natural gas prices decrease below commercially acceptable levels. Prices of oil and natural gas have been historically volatile, and we expect this volatility to continue. The Partnership’s operations are affected by the level of crude, natural gas and NGL prices, the relationship between these prices and related reduced activity levels from the Partnership’s customers. The duration and magnitude of the decline in market prices cannot be predicted.

Logistics Assets Segment Expansions

Cedar Bayou Fractionator Train 5

In July 2014, the Partnership approved construction of a 100 MBbl/d fractionator at CBF. The 100 MBbl/d expansion will be fully integrated with the Partnership’s existing Gulf Coast NGL storage, terminaling and delivery infrastructure, which includes an extensive network of connections to key petrochemical and industrial customers as well as the Partnership’s LPG export terminal at Galena Park on the Houston Ship Channel. Construction has been underway and is continuing and the Partnership expects completion of construction in the second quarter of 2016. Construction of the expansion has proceeded without disruption to existing operations, and we estimate that total growth capital expenditures net to our 88% interest for the expansion and the related infrastructure enhancements at Mont Belvieu should approximate $340 million.
 
Channelview Splitter

On December 27,  2015, Targa Terminals LLC (“Targa Terminals”) and Noble Americas Corp., a subsidiary of Noble Group Ltd. (“Noble”) entered into a long-term, fee-based agreement (“Splitter Agreement”) under which Targa Terminals will build and operate a 35,000 barrel per day crude and condensate splitter at Targa Terminals’ Channelview Terminal on the Houston Ship Channel (“Channelview Splitter”). The Channelview Splitter will have the capability to split approximately 35,000 barrels per day of condensate into its various components, including naphtha, kerosene, gas oil, jet fuel, and liquefied petroleum gas and will provide segregated storage for the crude, condensate and components. The Channelview Splitter is expected to be completed by early 2018, and has an estimated total cost of approximately $130 million to $150 million. The Partnership’s current total project capital expenditures estimate is higher than the original announcement in March 2014 because of changes in project scope and anticipated increases in costs for engineering, procurement and construction services and/or materials, including labor costs. As contemplated by the agreement entered into on December 31, 2014 between Targa Terminals and Noble (the “December 2014 Agreement”), the Splitter Agreement completes and terminates the December 2014 Agreement while retaining the Partnership’s economic benefits from that agreement.

Field Gathering and Processing Segment Expansion

Badlands Little Missouri 3

In the first quarter of 2015, the Partnership completed the 40 MMcf/d Little Missouri 3 plant expansion in McKenzie County, North Dakota, that increased capacity to 90 MMcf/d.

Permian Basin Buffalo Plant

In April 2014, TPL announced plans to build a new plant and expand the gathering footprint of its WestTX system. This project includes the laying of a new high pressure gathering line into Martin and Andrews counties of Texas, as well as incremental compression and a new 200 MMcf/d cryogenic processing plant, known as the Buffalo plant. Although construction was suspended for a period of time to assess supply uncertainties, it is now expected to be completed during the second quarter of 2016. Total growth capital expenditures for the Buffalo plant should approximate $105 million.

Eagle Ford Shale Natural Gas Processing Joint Venture

In October 2015, the Partnership announced that it entered into joint venture agreements with Sanchez Energy Corporation (“Sanchez”) to construct a new 200MMcf/d cryogenic natural gas processing plant in La Salle County, Texas (the “Raptor Plant”) and approximately 45 miles of associated pipelines. The Partnership owns a 50% interest in the plant and the approximately 45 miles of high pressure gathering pipelines that will connect Sanchez’s Catarina gathering system to the plant. The Partnership holds a portion of the transportation capacity on the pipeline, and the gathering joint venture receives fees for transportation. The Partnership expects to invest approximately $125 million of growth capital expenditures related to the joint ventures.

The Raptor Plant will accommodate the growing production from Sanchez’s premier Eagle Ford Shale acreage position in Dimmit, La Salle and Webb Counties, Texas and from other third party producers. The plant and high pressure gathering lines are supported by long-term, firm, fee-based contracts and acreage dedications with Sanchez. The Partnership will manage construction and operations of the plant and high pressure gathering lines, and the plant is expected to begin operations in early 2017. Prior to the plant being placed in-service, the Partnership will benefit from Sanchez natural gas volumes that will be processed at our Silver Oak facilities in Bee County, Texas.

In addition to the major projects in process noted above, the Partnership potentially has other growth capital expenditures in 2016 related to the continued build out of its gathering and processing infrastructure and logistics capabilities. In the depressed commodity price environment, the Partnership will evaluate these potential projects based on return profile, capital requirements and strategic need and may choose to defer projects depending on expected activity levels.
 
Financing Activities

In connection with the closing of the Atlas mergers, we entered into a Credit Agreement (the “TRC Credit Agreement”), dated as of February 27, 2015, among us, each lender from time to time party thereto and Bank of America, N.A. as administrative agent, collateral agent, swing line lender and letter of credit issuer. The TRC Credit Agreement provides for a new five year revolving credit facility in an aggregate principal amount up to $670 million and a seven year term loan facility in an aggregate principal amount of $430 million. We used the net proceeds from the term loan issuance and the revolving credit facility to fund cash components of the ATLS merger, including cash merger consideration and approximately $160 million related to change of control payments made by ATLS, cash settlements of equity awards and transaction fees and expenses. In March 2015, we repaid $188.0 million of the term loan and wrote off $3.3 million of the discount and $5.7 million of debt issuance costs. In June 2015, we repaid $82.0 million of the term loan and wrote off $1.4 million of the discount and $2.4 million of debt issuance costs. The write-off of the discount and debt issuance costs are reflected as Loss from financing activities on the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2015.

Public Offering

During March 2015, we sold, to the public, 3,250,000 shares of our common stock under a registration statement on Form S-3 at a price to the public of $91 per share of common stock, providing net proceeds of $292.8 million to us. Pursuant to the exercise of the underwriters’ overallotment option, we also sold an additional 487,500 shares of our common stock, providing additional net proceeds of $43.9 million. The proceeds from this offering were used to repay a portion of the outstanding borrowings under our term loan facility and to make a capital contribution of $52.4 million to the Partnership to maintain our 2% general partnership interest in the Partnership and for general corporate purposes.

Financing Activities of the Partnership

In January 2015, the Partnership Issuers issued $1.1 billion in aggregate principal amount of 5% Notes resulting in approximately $1,089.8 million of net proceeds were used together with borrowings from the Partnership’s senior secured revolving credit facility (the “TRP Revolver”) to fund the APL Notes Tender Offers and the Change of Control Offer (both as defined herein).

In February 2015, the Partnership amended the TRP Revolver to increase available commitments to $1.6 billion from $1.2 billion while retaining the right to request up to an additional $300.0 million in commitment increases. In connection with the 58,614,157 common units issued in the Atlas mergers in February 2015, Targa contributed an additional $52.4 million to the Partnership to maintain its 2% general partner interest.

In May 2015, the Partnership entered into an equity distribution agreement (the “May 2015 EDA”)”, pursuant to which it may sell through its sales agents, at its option, up to an aggregate of $1.0 billion of common units. During the twelve months ended December 31, 2015, the Partnership issued 7,377,380 common units under its equity distribution agreements (“EDAs”), receiving proceeds of $316.1 million (net of commissions). As of December 31, 2015, approximately $4.2 million of capacity and $835.6 million of capacity remain under the Partnership’s 2014 equity distribution agreement (the “May 2014 EDA”) and May 2015 EDAs. During the twelve months ended December 31, 2015, pursuant to the issuance of the EDAs, we contributed $6.5 million to the Partnership to maintain our 2% general partner interest.

In May 2015, the Partnership Issuers issued $342.1 million aggregate principal amount of the 6% Notes due 2020 to holders of the APL 6% Notes due 2020, which were validly tendered for exchange.

In September 2015, the Partnership Issuers issued $600.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 6¾% Notes resulting in approximately $595.0 million of net proceeds, which were used to reduce borrowings under the TRP Revolver and for general partnership purposes.

In October 2015, the Partnership completed an offering of 4,400,000 Preferred Units at a price of $25.00 per unit. The Partnership sold an additional 600,000 Preferred Units pursuant to the exercise of the underwriters’ overallotment option. The Partnership received net proceeds of approximately $121.1 million. The Partnership used the net proceeds from this offering to reduce borrowings under the TRP Revolver and for general partnership purposes. As of December 31, 2015, the Partnership has paid preferred unit distributions of $1.5 million to its preferred unitholders. See Note 11 – Partnership Units and Related Matters.
 
In December 2015, the Partnership amended its account receivable securitization facility to extend the maturity to December 9, 2016 with a facility size of $225 million.

In December 2015, the Partnership repurchased on the open market a portion of its outstanding Senior Notes as follows (the “December 2015 note repurchases”):

· 5¼% Notes due 2023 (the “5¼% Notes”) paying $13.0 million plus accrued interest to repurchase $16.3 million of the outstanding balance of the 5¼% Notes.

· 4¼% Notes due 2023 (the “4¼% Notes”) paying $1.2 million plus accrued interest to repurchase $1.5 million of the outstanding balance of the 4¼% Notes.

· 6⅝% APL Notes due 2020 (the “6⅝% Notes”) paying $0.1 million plus accrued interest to repurchase $0.1 million of the outstanding balance of the 6⅝% Notes.

The December 2015 note repurchases resulted in a $3.6 million gain on debt repurchases and a corresponding write-off of $0.1 million in related deferred debt issuance costs.

Growth Drivers

We believe that the Partnership’s near-term growth will be driven by the level of producer activity in the basins where its gathering and processing infrastructure is located and by the level of demand for services for the Partnership’s Downstream Business. The Partnership believes its assets are not easily duplicated, and even in the current depressed commodity price environment, are located in many of the most attractive and active areas of exploration and production activity and are near key markets and logistics centers. Over the longer term, the Partnership expects its growth will continue to be driven by the strong position of the Partnership’s quality assets which will benefit from production from shale plays and by the deployment of shale exploration and production technologies in both liquids-rich natural gas and crude oil resource plays that will also provide additional opportunities for its Downstream Business. The Partnership expects that third-party acquisitions will also continue to be a focus of its growth strategy.

Attractive Asset Positions

The Partnership believes that, despite continued declines in market prices for crude oil, natural gas and NGLs that have led to declines in producer activity, its positioning in some of the most attractive basins will allow the Partnership to capture increased natural gas supplies for processing. As commodity prices have declined, producers have focused drilling activity on their most attractive acreage, especially in the Permian Basin where the Partnership has a large and well positioned footprint and expects to see continued, though lower level, activity even in the current commodity price environment.

The development of shale and resources plays has resulted in increasing NGL supplies that continue to generate demand for the Partnership’s fractionation services at the Mont Belvieu market hub and for LPG export services at its Galena Park Marine Terminal on the Houston Ship Channel. Since 2010, in response to increasing demand, the Partnership has added 178 MBbl/d of additional fractionation capacity with the additions of CBF Trains 3 and 4, and will complete construction of CBF Train 5 which is expected to add an additional 100 MBbl/d of fractionation capacity starting in the second quarter of 2016. The Partnership also funded its share of the NGL fractionation expansion at Gulf Coast Fractionators (“GCF”) in 2012. In periods of strong demand, fractionation service providers benefit from long-term, “take-or-pay” contracts for new and existing fractionation capacity. The Partnership believes that the higher volumes of fractionated NGLs will also result in increased demand for other related fee-based services provided by its Downstream Business. Continued long-term demand for fractionation capacity is expected to lead to other growth opportunities.

As domestic producers have focused their drilling in crude oil and liquids-rich areas, new gas processing facilities are being built to accommodate liquids-rich gas, which results in an increasing supply of NGLs. As drilling in these areas continues, supply of NGLs requiring transportation and fractionation to market hubs is expected to continue. As the supply of NGLs increases, the Partnership’s integrated Mont Belvieu and Galena Park Terminal assets allow it to provide the raw product, fractionation, storage, interconnected terminaling, refrigeration and ship loading capabilities to support exports by third party customers.
 
Drilling and production activity from liquids-rich natural gas shale plays and similar crude oil resource plays

The Partnership is actively pursuing natural gas gathering and processing and NGL fractionation opportunities associated with liquids-rich natural gas from shale and other resource plays and is also actively pursuing crude gathering and natural gas gathering and processing and NGL fractionation opportunities from active crude oil resource plays. We believe that the Partnership’s leadership position in the Downstream Business, which includes its fractionation and export services, provides it with a competitive advantage relative to other gathering and processing companies without these capabilities.

Bakken Shale / Three Forks opportunities

Although the declining commodity prices have reduced producer activity in the Bakken Shale and Three Forks plays in the Williston Basin, the Partnership has increased its volumes of crude oil gathered and natural gas gathered and processed. The Partnership continues to expand its infrastructure to capture additional volumes from wells that have already been drilled but that are not yet connected to the Partnership’s system.

Eagle Ford opportunities

As a result of the Partnership’s joint venture agreements with Sanchez in South Texas to construct a new 200 MMcf/d cryogenic processing plant and the associated infrastructure to connect to the Sanchez Catarina gathering system, the Partnership expects to benefit from increasing Sanchez production in the Eagle Ford play at the Partnership’s Silver Oak facilities prior to completion of the Raptor Plant and at the Raptor Plant thereafter.

Third party acquisitions

While the Partnership’s growth through 2010 was primarily driven by the implementation of a focused drop down strategy, the Partnership and Targa also have a record of completing third party acquisitions. Since its formation, its strategy included approximately $12.6 billion in acquisitions (including the APL merger) and growth capital expenditures of which approximately $6.2 billion was for acquisitions from third-parties. The Partnership expects that third-party acquisitions will continue to be a focus of its growth strategy.

Competitive Strengths and Strategies

We believe that the Partnership is well positioned to execute its business strategies due to the following competitive strengths:

Strategically located gathering and processing asset base

The Partnership’s gathering and processing businesses are strategically located in generally attractive oil and gas producing basins and are well positioned within each of those basins. Activity in the shale resource plays underlying its gathering assets is driven by the economics of oil, condensate, gas and NGL production from the particular reservoirs in each play. Activity levels for most of our gathering and processing asset are driven primarily by liquid hydrocarbon commodity prices. If drilling and production activities in these areas continue, the Partnership would likely increase the volumes of natural gas and crude oil available to its gathering and processing systems.

Leading fractionation, LPG export and NGL infrastructure position

The Partnership is one of the largest fractionators of NGLs in the Gulf Coast. Its primary fractionation assets are located in Mont Belvieu, Texas and to a lesser extent Lake Charles, Louisiana, which are key market centers for NGLs. The Partnership’s logistics operations at Mont Belvieu, the major U.S. hub of NGL infrastructure, include connection to a number of mixed NGL (“mixed NGLs” or “Y-grade”) supply pipelines, storage, interconnection and takeaway pipelines and other transportation infrastructure. Its Logistics assets, including fractionation facilities, storage wells, and its Galena Park marine export/import terminal and related pipeline systems and interconnects, are also located near and connected to key consumers of NGL products including the petrochemical and industrial markets. The location and interconnectivity of these assets are not easily replicated, and the Partnership has sufficient additional capability to expand their capacity. The Partnership has extensive experience in operating these assets and developing, permitting and constructing new midstream assets.
 
Comprehensive package of midstream services

The Partnership provides a comprehensive package of services to natural gas and crude oil producers. These services are essential to gather crude and to gather, process and treat wellhead gas to meet pipeline standards and to extract NGLs for sale into petrochemical, industrial, commercial and export markets. We believe that the Partnership’s ability to provide these integrated services provides an advantage in competing for new supplies because the Partnership can provide substantially all of the services producers, marketers and others require for moving natural gas and NGLs from wellhead to market on a cost-effective basis. Additionally, the Partnership believes the barriers to enter the midstream sector on a scale similar to the Partnership are reasonably high due to the high cost of replicating or acquiring assets in key strategic positions, the difficulty of permitting and constructing new midstream assets and the difficulty of developing the expertise necessary to operate them.

High quality and efficient assets

The Partnership’s gathering and processing systems and Logistics assets consist of high-quality, well-maintained facilities, resulting in low-cost, efficient operations. Advanced technologies have been implemented for processing plants (primarily cryogenic units utilizing centralized control systems), measurements (essentially all electronic and electronically linked to a central data-base) and operations and maintenance to manage work orders and implement preventative maintenance schedules (computerized maintenance management systems). These applications have allowed proactive management of its operations resulting in lower costs and minimal downtime. The Partnership has established a reputation in the midstream industry as a reliable and cost-effective supplier of services to its customers and has a track record of safe, efficient, and reliable operation of its facilities. The Partnership intends to continue to pursue new contracts, cost efficiencies and operating improvements of its assets. Such improvements in the past have included new production and acreage commitments, reducing fuel gas and flare volumes and improving facility capacity and NGL recoveries. The Partnership will also continue to optimize existing plant assets to improve and maximize capacity and throughput.

In addition to routine annual maintenance expenses, the Partnership’s maintenance capital expenditures have averaged approximately $83.2 million per year over the last four years, which included $20.4 million of maintenance capital from TPL in the last ten months of 2015. We believe that the Partnership’s assets are well-maintained and anticipate that a similar level of maintenance capital expenditures will be sufficient for the Partnership to continue to operate its existing assets in a prudent, safe and cost-effective manner.

Large, diverse business mix with favorable contracts and increasing fee-based business

The Partnership maintains gas gathering and processing positions in strategic oil and gas producing areas across multiple basins and provides services under attractive contract terms to a diverse mix of customers across its areas of operation. Consequently, the Partnership is not dependent on any one oil and gas basin or customer. The Partnership’s Logistics and Marketing assets are typically located near key market hubs and near most of its NGL customers. They also serve must-run portions of the natural gas value chain, are primarily fee-based and have a diverse mix of customers.

The Partnership’s contract portfolio has attractive rate and term characteristics including a significant fee-based component, especially in its Downstream Business. The Partnership’s expected continued growth of the fee-based Downstream Business may result in increasing fee-based cash flow.
 
Financial flexibility

The Partnership has historically maintained a conservative leverage ratio and ample liquidity and has funded its growth investments with a mix of equity and debt over time. Disciplined management of leverage, liquidity and commodity price volatility allows the Partnership to be flexible in its long-term growth strategy and enable it to pursue strategic acquisitions and large growth projects.

Experienced and long-term focused management team

Our current executive management team includes a number of individuals who formed us in 2004 and several others who managed many of our businesses prior to acquisition by Targa. They possess a breadth and depth of experience working in the midstream energy business. Other officers and key operational, commercial and financial employees provide significant experience in the industry and with its assets and businesses.

Attractive cash flow characteristics

The Partnership believes that its strategy, combined with its high-quality asset portfolio, allows it to generate attractive cash flows. Geographic, business and customer diversity enhances its cash flow profile. The Partnership’s Field Gathering and Processing segment has a contract mix that is primarily percent-of-proceeds, but also has increasing components of fee-based revenues, from some fee-based basins, from fees added to percent-of-proceeds contracts for natural gas treating and compression, from new/amended contracts with a combination of percent-of-proceeds and fee-based and from essentially fully fee-based crude oil gathering and gas gathering and processing in its Williston Basin and SouthTX assets. Contracts in its Coastal Gathering and Processing segment are primarily hybrid (percent-of-liquids with a fee floor) or percent-of-liquids contracts. Contracts in the Downstream Business are predominately fee-based based on volumes and contracted rates, with a large take-or-pay component. The Partnership’s contract mix, along with its commodity hedging program, serves to mitigate the impact of commodity price movements on cash flow.
 
The Partnership has hedged the commodity price risk associated with a portion of its expected natural gas, NGL and condensate equity volumes through 2018 by entering into financially settled derivative transactions. These transactions include swaps, futures, purchased puts (or floors) and costless collars. The primary purpose of its commodity risk management activities is to hedge its exposure to price risk and to mitigate the impact of fluctuations in commodity prices on cash flow. The Partnership has intentionally tailored its hedges to approximate specific NGL products and to approximate its actual NGL and residue natural gas delivery points. Although the degree of hedging will vary, the Partnership intends to continue to manage some of its exposure to commodity prices by entering into similar hedge transactions. The Partnership also monitors and manages its inventory levels with a view to mitigate losses related to downward price exposure.

Asset base well-positioned for organic growth

We believe that the Partnership’s asset platform and strategic locations allow the Partnership to maintain and potentially grow its volumes and related cash flows as its supply areas benefit from continued exploration and development over time. Technology advances have resulted in increased domestic oil and liquids-rich gas drilling and production activity. While recent commodity price levels have impacted activity, the location of its assets provides the Partnership with access to natural gas and crude oil supplies and proximity to end-user markets and liquid market hubs while positioning the Partnership to capitalize on drilling and production activity in those areas. The Partnership’s existing infrastructure has the capacity to handle some incremental increases in volumes without significant investments as well as opportunities to leverage existing assets with meaningful expansions. We believe that as domestic supply and demand for natural gas, crude oil and NGLs, and services for each grows over the long term, the Partnership’s infrastructure will increase in value as such infrastructure takes on increasing importance in meeting that growing supply and demand.

While we have set forth the Partnership’s strategies and competitive strengths above, its business involves numerous risks and uncertainties which may prevent the Partnership from executing its strategies or impact the amount of distributions to limited partners. These risks include the adverse impact of changes in natural gas, NGL and condensate/crude oil prices or in the supply of or demand for these commodities, and its inability to access sufficient additional production to replace natural declines in production. For a more complete description of the risks associated with an investment in the Partnership, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors.”

The Partnership’s Relationship with Us

We have used the Partnership as a growth vehicle to pursue the acquisition and expansion of midstream natural gas, NGL, crude oil and other complementary energy businesses and assets as evidenced by the Partnership’s acquisitions of businesses from us. However, we are not prohibited from competing with the Partnership and may evaluate acquisitions and dispositions that do not involve the Partnership. In addition, through its relationship with us, the Partnership has access to a significant pool of management talent, strong commercial relationships throughout the energy industry and access to our broad operational, commercial, technical, risk management and administrative infrastructure.

As of December 31, 2015, we and our named executive officers and directors had a significant ownership interest in the Partnership through our ownership of approximately 9.1% limited partner interest and our 2% general partner interest. As a result of the TRC/TRP Merger, which was completed on February 17, 2016, Targa owns all of the outstanding TRP common units and the IDRs. The Partnership Agreement with us governs our relationship regarding certain reimbursement and indemnification matters. See “Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence.”

The Partnership does not have any employees to carry out its operations. We employ approximately 1,870 people. See “—Employees.” We charge the Partnership for all the direct costs of the employees assigned to its operations, as well as all general and administrative support costs other than our direct support costs of being a separate reporting company and our cost of providing management and support services to certain unaffiliated spun-off entities. The Partnership generally reimburses us for cost allocations to the extent that the Partnership has required a current cash outlay by us.
 
The Partnership’s Challenges

The Partnership faces a number of challenges in implementing its business strategy. For example:

· The Partnership has a substantial amount of indebtedness which may adversely affect its financial position.

· The Partnership’s cash flow is affected by supply and demand for crude oil, natural gas and NGL products and by natural gas, NGL and condensate prices, and decreases in these prices could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

· The Partnership’s growth strategy requires access to new capital. Volatile capital markets with uncertain access or increased competition for investment opportunities could impair the Partnership’s ability to grow.

· The Partnership’s long-term success depends on its ability to obtain new sources of supplies of natural gas, crude oil and NGLs, which is subject to certain factors beyond the Partnership’s control. Any decrease in supplies of natural gas, crude oil or NGLs could adversely affect its business and operating results.

· Although the Partnership believes it has a large, diverse customer base, the Partnership is subject to counterparty risk which could adversely affect our financial position.

· The Partnership’s hedging activities may not be effective in reducing the variability of the Partnership’s cash flows and may, in certain circumstances, increase the variability of the Partnership’s cash flows.

· If the Partnership does not successfully make acquisitions on economically acceptable terms or efficiently and effectively integrate assets from acquisitions, its results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

· The Partnership is subject to regulatory, environmental, political, legal and economic risks, which could adversely affect the Partnership’s results of operations and financial condition.

· The Partnership’s industry is highly competitive, and increased competitive pressure could adversely affect the Partnership’s business and operating results.

For a further discussion of these and other challenges the Partnership faces, please read “Item 1A. Risk Factors.”

The Partnership’s Business Operations

The Partnership’s operations are reported in two divisions: (i) Gathering and Processing, consisting of two segments—(a) Field Gathering and Processing and (b) Coastal Gathering and Processing; and (ii) Logistics and Marketing, consisting of two segments—(a) Logistics Assets and (b) Marketing and Distribution.

Gathering and Processing Division

The Partnership’s Gathering and Processing Division consists of gathering, compressing, dehydrating, treating, conditioning, processing, and marketing natural gas and gathering crude oil. The gathering of natural gas consists of aggregating natural gas produced from various wells through small diameter gathering lines to processing plants. Natural gas has a widely varying composition depending on the field, the formation and the reservoir from which it is produced. The processing of natural gas consists of the extraction of imbedded NGLs and the removal of water vapor and other contaminants to form (i) a stream of marketable natural gas, commonly referred to as residue gas, and (ii) a stream of mixed NGLs. Once processed, the residue gas is transported to markets through pipelines that are owned by either the gatherers and processors or third parties. End-users of residue gas include large commercial and industrial customers, as well as natural gas and electric utilities serving individual consumers. The Partnership sells its residue gas either directly to such end-users or to marketers into intrastate or interstate pipelines, which are typically located in close proximity or with ready access to its facilities. The gathering of crude oil consists of aggregating crude oil production primarily through gathering pipeline systems, which deliver crude oil to a combination of other pipelines, rail and truck.
 
The Partnership continually seeks new supplies of natural gas and crude oil, both to offset the natural decline in production from connected wells and to increase throughput volumes. The Partnership obtains additional natural gas and crude oil supply in its operating areas by contracting for production from new wells or by capturing existing production currently gathered by others. Competition for new natural gas and crude oil supplies is based primarily on location of assets, commercial terms including pre-existing contracts, service levels and access to markets. The commercial terms of natural gas gathering and processing arrangements and crude oil gathering are driven, in part, by capital costs, which are impacted by the proximity of systems to the supply source and by operating costs, which are impacted by operational efficiencies, facility design and economies of scale.

The Partnership believes its extensive asset base and scope of operations in the regions in which it operates provide it with significant opportunities to add both new and existing natural gas and crude oil production to its areas of operations. The Partnership believes its size and scope give it a strong competitive position through close proximity to a large number of existing and new producing wells in its areas of operations, allowing it to generate economies of scale and to provide its customers with access to its existing facilities and to end-use markets and market hubs. Additionally, the Partnership believes its ability to serve its customers’ needs across the natural gas and NGL value chain further augments its ability to attract new customers.

Field Gathering and Processing Segment

The Field Gathering and Processing segment’s assets are located in the Permian Basin of West Texas and Southeast New Mexico; the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas; the Barnett Shale in North Texas; the Anadarko, Ardmore, and Arkoma Basins in Oklahoma and South Central Kansas; and the Williston Basin in North Dakota.

The natural gas processed in this segment is supplied through its gathering systems which, in aggregate, consist of approximately 23,630 miles of natural gas pipelines and include 28 owned and operated processing plants. During 2015, the Partnership processed an average of 2,344.2 MMcf/d of natural gas and produced an average of 223.6 MBbl/d of NGLs. In addition to the Partnership’s natural gas gathering and processing, its Badlands operations include a crude oil gathering system and four terminals with crude oil operational storage capacity of 125 MBbl.

The Partnership believes it is well positioned as a gatherer and processor in the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, Barnett Shale, Anadarko, Ardmore, Arkoma and Williston Basins. The Partnership believes proximity to production and development activities allows it to compete for new supplies of natural gas and crude oil partially because of its lower competitive cost to connect new wells, process additional natural gas in its existing processing plants and because of its reputation for reliability. Additionally, because the Partnership operates all of its plants, which are often interconnected in these regions, it is often able to redirect natural gas among its processing plants, providing operational flexibility and allowing it to optimize processing efficiency and further improve the profitability of its operations.

The Field Gathering and Processing segment’s operations consist of SAOU, WestTX, Sand Hills, Versado, SouthTX, North Texas, SouthOK, WestOK and Badlands, each as described below

SAOU

SAOU includes approximately 1,650 miles of pipelines in the Permian Basin that gather natural gas for delivery to the Mertzon, Sterling, Conger and High Plains processing plants. SAOU is connected to thousands of producing wells and over 840 central delivery points. SAOU’s processing facilities are refrigerated cryogenic processing plants with an aggregate processing capacity of approximately 369 MMcf/d. These plants have residue gas connections to pipelines owned by affiliates of Atmos Energy Corporation (“Atmos”), Enterprise Products Partners L.P. (“EPD”), Kinder Morgan, Inc. (“Kinder Morgan”), Northern Natural Gas Company (“Northern”) and ONEOK, Inc. (“ONEOK”).
 
WestTX

The WestTX gathering system has approximately 4,050 miles of natural gas gathering pipelines located across nine counties within the Permian Basin in West Texas. The Partnership has an approximate 72.8% ownership in the WestTX system. Pioneer, the largest active driller in the Spraberry and Wolfberry Trends and a major producer in the Permian Basin, owns the remaining interest in the WestTX system.

The WestTX system includes five separate plants: the Consolidator, Driver, Midkiff, Benedum and Edward processing facilities. The WestTX processing operations have an aggregate processing name-plate capacity of approximately 655 MMcf/d. To facilitate increased Spraberry production, the Partnership is constructing a new 200 MMcf/d cryogenic processing plant, known as the Buffalo plant, which is expected to be placed in service during the second quarter of 2016. The Buffalo plant will increase the WestTX aggregate processing name-plate capacity to approximately 855 MMcf/d.

The WestTX system has access to natural gas take-away pipelines owned by Atmos; El Paso Natural Gas Company; Kinder Morgan; Enterprise Interstate, LLC; and Northern. On January 1, 2016, the Partnership began selling its NGL production at WestTX to its Downstream Business.

Sand Hills

The Sand Hills operations consist of the Sand Hills and Puckett gathering systems in West Texas. These systems consist of approximately 1,550 miles of natural gas gathering pipelines. These gathering systems are primarily low-pressure gathering systems with significant compression assets. The Sand Hills refrigerated cryogenic processing plant has a gross processing capacity of 165 MMcf/d and residue gas connections to pipelines owned by affiliates of EPD, Kinder Morgan and ONEOK.

Versado

Versado consists of the Saunders, Eunice and Monument gas processing plants and related gathering systems in Southeastern New Mexico and in West Texas. Versado includes approximately 3,450 miles of natural gas gathering pipelines. The Saunders, Eunice and Monument refrigerated cryogenic processing plants have aggregate processing capacity of 240 MMcf/d (151 MMcf/d, net to the Partnership’s ownership interest). These plants have residue gas connections to pipelines owned by affiliates of Kinder Morgan and MidAmerican Energy Company. The Partnership’s ownership in Versado is held through Versado Gas Processors, L.L.C., a consolidated joint venture that is 63% owned by the Partnership and 37% owned by Chevron U.S.A. Inc.

SouthTX

The SouthTX gathering system includes approximately 550 miles of gathering pipelines located in the Eagle Ford Shale in southern Texas. Included in the total SouthTX pipeline mileage is a 75% interest in T2 LaSalle Gathering Company L.L.C. (“T2 LaSalle”), which has approximately 60 miles of gathering pipelines, and a 50% interest in T2 Eagle Ford Gathering Company L.L.C. (“T2 Eagle Ford”), which has approximately 175 miles of gathering pipelines. T2 LaSalle and T2 Eagle Ford are operated by a subsidiary of Southcross Holdings, L.P. (“Southcross”), which owns the remaining interests.

The SouthTX system processes natural gas through the Silver Oak I and II processing plants. The Silver Oak I and II facilities are each 200 MMcf/d cryogenic plants located in Bee County, Texas. The Partnership owns 90% of the Silver Oak II processing plant and Sanchez owns the remaining interest. The SouthTX system includes a 50% interest in Carnero Gathering, LLC and a 50% interest in Carnero Processing, LLC (together, the “Carnero Joint Ventures”). Sanchez owns the remaining interest in the Carnero Joint Ventures. The Carnero Joint Ventures were formed in October 2015 for the purposes of constructing a 200 MMcf/d cryogenic plant and approximately 45 miles of high pressure gathering pipelines that will connect Sanchez’s Catarina gathering system to the new plant. The Partnership is currently constructing the Carnero processing and gathering facilities and will operate them after completion.

The SouthTX assets also include a 50% interest in T2 EF Cogeneration Holdings L.L.C. (“T2 Cogen”, together with T2 LaSalle and T2 Eagle Ford, the “T2 Joint Ventures”), which owns a cogeneration facility. T2 Cogen is operated by Southcross, which owns the remaining interest in T2 Cogen.

The SouthTX system has access to natural gas take-away pipelines owned by Enterprise Intrastate, LLC; Kinder Morgan; Tejas Pipeline LLC, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC; and Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line. The Partnership sells a portion of its NGL production at SouthTX to DCP Midstream Partners LP (“DCP”) under a legacy Atlas exchange contract, which expires in 2029. The remaining portion of NGL production at SouthTX is purchased by the Partnership’s Downstream Business.
 
North Texas

North Texas includes two interconnected gathering systems in the Fort Worth Basin, including the Barnett Shale and Marble Falls plays, with approximately 4,550 miles of pipelines gathering wellhead natural gas for the Chico, Shackelford and Longhorn natural gas processing facilities. These plants have residue gas connections to pipelines owned by affiliates of Atmos, Energy Transfer Fuel LP and EPD.

The Chico gathering system consists of approximately 2,550 miles of gathering pipelines located in the Montague, Wise and Clay Counties in North Texas. Wellhead natural gas is either gathered for the Chico or Longhorn plants located in Wise County, Texas, and then compressed for processing, or it is compressed in the field at numerous compressor stations and then moved via one of several high-pressure gathering pipelines to the Chico or Longhorn plants. The Chico plant has an aggregated processing capacity of 265 MMcf/d and an integrated fractionation capacity of 15 MBbl/d. The Longhorn plant has a capacity of 200 MMcf/d. The Shackelford gathering system includes approximately 2,000 miles of gathering pipelines and gathers wellhead natural gas largely for the Shackelford plant in Albany, Texas. Natural gas gathered from the northern and eastern portions of the Shackelford gathering system is typically compressed in the field at numerous compressor stations and then transported to the Chico plant for processing. The Shackelford plant has an aggregate processing capacity of 13 MMcf/d.

SouthOK

The SouthOK gathering system is located in the Ardmore and Anadarko Basins and includes the Golden Trend, SCOOP, and Woodford Shale areas of southern Oklahoma. The gathering system has approximately 1,500 miles of active pipelines.

The SouthOK system includes six separate processing plants: Velma, Velma V-60, Coalgate, Atoka, Stonewall and Tupelo. The SouthOK processing operations have a total name-plate capacity of 580 MMcf/d. The Coalgate, Atoka and Stonewall facilities are owned by Centrahoma Processing, LLC (“Centrahoma”), a joint venture that the Partnership operates, and in which it has a 60% ownership interest; the remaining 40% ownership interest is held by MPLX, LP.

The SouthOK system has access to natural gas take-away pipelines owned by Enable Oklahoma Intrastate Transmission, LLC; MPLX, LP; Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; ONEOK and Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. The Partnership sells its NGL production at SouthOK to ONEOK under two separate agreements. The Velma agreement has a primary term expiring at the end of 2016. A portion of the Arkoma agreement has a term expiring in 2018, with the remainder having a primary term that expires in 2024. The Partnership will sell its NGL production from the Velma processing facilities to its Downstream Business upon the expiration of the Velma ONEOK agreement. These NGL sales agreements were assumed as part of the Atlas mergers.

WestOK

The WestOK gathering system is located in north central Oklahoma and southern Kansas’ Anadarko Basin. The gathering system has approximately 6,100 miles of natural gas gathering pipelines.

The WestOK system processes natural gas through three separate cryogenic natural gas processing plants at the Waynoka I and II and the Chester facilities; and one refrigeration plant at the Chaney Dell facility. The WestOK system has access to natural gas take-away pipelines owned by Enogex LLC; Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP; and Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. On January 1, 2016, the Partnership began selling its NGL production at WestOK to its Downstream Business.

Badlands

The Badlands operations are located in the Bakken and Three Forks Shale plays of the Williston Basin in North Dakota and include approximately 350 miles of crude oil gathering pipelines, 40 MBbl of operational crude storage capacity at the Johnsons Corner Terminal, 30 MBbl of operational crude storage capacity at the Alexander Terminal, 30 MBbl of operational crude oil storage at New Town and 25 MBbl of operational crude oil storage at Stanley. The Badlands assets also includes approximately 180 miles of natural gas gathering pipelines and the Little Missouri natural gas processing plant with a gross processing capacity of approximately 90 MMcf/d. A third train was installed at the Little Missouri plant site which increased processing capacity by an incremental 40 MMcf/d and was completed in January 2015 bringing total processing capacity to approximately 90 MMcf/d.
 
The following table lists the Field Gathering and Processing segment’s processing plants and related volumes for the year ended December 31, 2015:

Facility
 
% Owned
 
Location
 
Estimated
Gross
Processing
Capacity
(MMcf/d)(1)
   
Reported Plant
Natural Gas Inlet
Throughput
Volume (MMcf/d)
 (2) (3)
   
Gross NGL
Production
(MBbl/d) (2)
(3)
 
Process Type
(4)
 
SAOU
                                    
Mertzon
   
100.0
 
Irion, TX
   
52.0
             
  Cryo
Operated
Sterling
   
100.0
 
Sterling, TX
   
92.0
             
  Cryo
Operated
Conger (3)
   
100.0
 
Sterling, TX
   
25.0
             
  Cryo
Operated
High Plains
   
100.0
 
Midland, TX
   
200.0
             
  Cryo
Operated
         
Area Total
   
369.0
     
234.0
     
27.3
      
WestTX (5)
                                            
Consolidator plant
   
72.8
 
Midkiff, TX
   
150.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
Driver plant
   
72.8
 
Midland, TX
   
200.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
Midkiff plant
   
72.8
 
Midkiff, TX
   
60.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
Benedum plant (6)
   
72.8
 
Midkiff, TX
   
45.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
Edward plant
   
72.8
 
Midkiff, TX
   
200.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
         
Area Total
   
655.0
     
374.0
     
43.4
      
Sand Hills
                                            
Sand Hills
   
100.0
 
Crane, TX
   
165.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
         
Area Total
   
165.0
     
163.0
     
17.4
      
Versado (7) (8)
                                            
Saunders
   
63.0
 
Lea, NM
   
60.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
Eunice
   
63.0
 
Lea, NM
   
95.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
Monument
   
63.0
 
Lea, NM
   
85.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
         
Area Total
   
240.0
     
183.2
     
23.4
      
SouthTX
                                            
Silver Oak I
   
100.0
 
Tuleta, TX
   
200.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
Silver Oak II
   
90.0
 
Tuleta, TX
   
200.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
         
Area Total
   
400.0
     
120.0
     
13.8
      
North Texas
                                            
Chico (9)
   
100.0
 
Wise, TX
   
265.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
Shackelford
   
100.0
 
Shackelford, TX
   
13.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
Longhorn
   
100.0
 
Wise, TX
   
200.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
         
Area Total
   
478.0
     
347.6
     
39.6
      
SouthOK (10)
                                            
Atoka plant (11)
   
60.0
 
Atoka County, OK
   
20.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
Coalgate plant
   
60.0
 
Coalgate, OK
   
80.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
Stonewall plant
   
60.0
 
Coalgate, OK
   
200.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
Tupelo plant
   
100.0
 
Coalgate, OK
   
120.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
Velma plant
   
100.0
 
Velma, OK
   
100.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
Velma V-60 plant
   
100.0
 
Velma, OK
   
60.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
         
Area Total
   
580.0
     
401.5
     
28.1
      
WestOK (10)
                                            
Waynoka I plant
   
100.0
 
Waynoka, OK
   
200.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
Waynoka II plant
   
100.0
 
Waynoka, OK
   
200.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
Chaney Dell plant (12)
   
100.0
 
Ringwood, OK
   
30.0
                 
  RA
Operated
Chester plant
   
100.0
 
Seiling, OK
   
28.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
         
Area Total
   
458.0
     
471.7
     
23.8
      
Badlands
                                            
Little Missouri (13)
   
100.0
 
McKenzie, ND
   
90.0
     
49.2
     
6.8
 
(14)
Operated
   
Segment System Total
   
3,435.0
     
2,344.2
     
223.6
      
Badlands crude oil gathered for 2015 was 106.3 MBbl/d.


(1) Gross processing capacity represents 100% of ownership interests and may differ from nameplate processing capacity due to multiple factors including items such as compression limitations, and quality and composition of the gas being processed.
(2) Plant natural gas inlet represents the volume of natural gas passing through the meter located at the inlet of the natural gas processing plant, except for Badlands which represents the total wellhead gathered volume.
(3) Per day Gross Plant Natural Gas Inlet and NGL Production statistics for plants listed above are based on the number of days operational during 2015. The plants associated with the APL Merger are ten months of input based on 365 days. The Conger plant was idled due to market conditions in September 2014.
(4) Cryo – Cryogenic; RA – Refrigerated Absorption Processing.
(5) Gross plant natural gas inlet throughput volumes and gross NGL production volumes for WestTX are presented on a pro-rata net basis representing the Partnership’s undivided ownership interest in WestTX, which it proportionately consolidates in its financial statements.
 
(6) The Benedum plant was idled in September 2014 after the start-up of the Edward plant.
(7) Plant natural gas inlet and NGL production volumes represent 100% of ownership interests for the Partnership’s consolidated Versado joint venture.
(8) Includes throughput other than plant inlet, primarily from compressor stations.
(9) The Chico plant has fractionation capacity of approximately 15 MBbl/d.
(10) Certain processing facilities in these business units are capable of processing more than their name-plate capacity and when capacity is exceeded the facilities will off-load volumes to other processors, as needed. The gross plant natural gas inlet throughput volume includes these off-loaded volumes.
(11) The Atoka plant was idled due to the start-up of the Stonewall Plant in May 2014.
(12)
The Chaney Dell plant was temporarily idled in December 2015 due to lower volumes in the WestOK system.
(13)
Additional residue compression was added in 2014, bringing the nominal gas plant throughput capacity to 50 MMcf/d. An additional 40 MMcf/d expansion was added in January 2015, bringing the nominal capacity to 90 MMcf/d.
(14)
Little Missouri I and II are Straight Refrigeration plants and Little Missouri III is a Cryo plant

Coastal Gathering and Processing Segment

The Partnership’s Coastal Gathering and Processing segment assets are located in the onshore region of the Louisiana Gulf Coast, accessing natural gas from the Gulf Coast and the Gulf of Mexico. With the strategic location of its assets in Louisiana, the Partnership has access to the Henry Hub, the largest natural gas hub in the U.S., and to a substantial NGL distribution system with access to markets throughout Louisiana and the southeast U.S. The Coastal Gathering and Processing segment’s assets consist of LOU and the Coastal Straddles, each as described below. For the year ended 2015, the Partnership processed an average of 897.0 MMcf/d of plant natural gas inlet and produced an average of 41.8 MBbl/d of NGLs.

LOU

LOU consists of approximately 900 miles of onshore gathering system pipelines in Southwest Louisiana. The gathering system is connected to numerous producing wells, central delivery points and/or pipeline interconnects in the area between Lafayette and Lake Charles, Louisiana. The gathering system is a high-pressure gathering system that delivers natural gas for processing to either the Acadia or Gillis plants via three main trunk lines. The processing facilities include the Gillis and Acadia processing plants, both of which are cryogenic plants. The Big Lake plant, also cryogenic, is located near the LOU gathering system. These processing plants have an aggregate processing capacity of approximately 440 MMcf/d. In addition, the Gillis plant has integrated fractionation with operating capacity of approximately 11 MBbl/d which is interconnected with the Lake Charles Fractionator.  The LOU gathering system is also interconnected with the Lowry gas plant, allowing receipt or delivery of gas.

Coastal Straddles

Coastal Straddles process natural gas produced from shallow-water central and western Gulf of Mexico natural gas wells and from deep shelf and deep-water Gulf of Mexico production via connections to third-party pipelines or through pipelines owned by the Partnership. Coastal Straddles has access to markets across the U.S. through the interstate natural gas pipelines to which they are interconnected. The industry continues to rationalize gas processing capacity along the Gulf Coast by moving gas from older, less efficient plants to higher efficiency cryogenic plants. For example, in the last two years, the Yscloskey, Stingray and Calumet plants have been shut-down, with most of the producer volumes going to more efficient Targa plants such as its Venice, Lowry and Barracuda plants.

VESCO

Through the Partnership’s 76.8% ownership interest in Venice Energy Services Company, L.L.C., it operates the Venice gas plant, which has an aggregate processing capacity of 750 MMcf/d and the Venice Gathering System (“VGS”) that is approximately 150 miles in length and has a nominal capacity of 320 MMcf/d (collectively “VESCO”). VESCO receives unprocessed gas directly or indirectly from seven offshore pipelines and gas gathering systems including the VGS system. VGS gathers natural gas from the shallow waters of the eastern Gulf of Mexico and supplies the VESCO gas plant.
 
Other Coastal Straddles

Other Coastal Straddles consists of two wholly owned and operated gas processing plants (one now idled) and three partially owned plants which are not operated by the Partnership. These plants, having an aggregate processing capacity of approximately 3,255 MMcf/d, are generally situated on mainline natural gas pipelines near the coastline and process volumes of natural gas collected from multiple offshore gathering systems and pipelines throughout the Gulf of Mexico. Coastal Straddles also has ownership in two offshore gathering systems that are operated by the Partnership. The Pelican and Seahawk gathering systems have a combined length of approximately 200 miles and a combined capacity of approximately 230 MMcf/d. These systems gather natural gas from the shallow waters of the central Gulf of Mexico and supply a portion of the natural gas delivered to the Barracuda and Lowry processing facilities.

The following table lists the Coastal Gathering and Processing segment’s natural gas processing plants and related volumes for the year ended December 31, 2015:

Facility
 
% Owned
 
Location
 
Estimated Gross
Processing
Capacity
(MMcf/d) (1)
   
Plant Natural Gas Inlet
Throughput Volume
 (MMcf/d) (2) (3) (4)
   
NGL Production
 (MBbl/d) (3) (4)
 
Process
Type (5)
 
                                      
LOU
                                   
Gillis (6)
   
100.0
 
Calcasieu, LA
   
180.0
             
  Cryo
Operated
 Acadia (7)
   
100.0
 
Acadia, LA
   
80.0
             
  Cryo
Operated
Big Lake
   
100.0
 
Calcasieu, LA
   
180.0
             
  Cryo
Operated
         
Area Total
   
440.0
     
200.1
     
7.2
      
                                              
VESCO (8)
   
76.8
 
Plaquemines, LA
   
750.0
     
442.4
     
26.6
 
Cryo
Operated
                                              
Coastal Straddles (9)
                               
Barracuda
   
100.0
%
Cameron, LA
   
190.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
Lowry (10)
   
100.0
%
Cameron, LA
   
265.0
                 
  Cryo
Operated
Terrebone
   
11.1
%
Terrebonne, LA
   
950.0
                 
  RA
Non-operated
Toca
   
4.0
%
St. Bernard, LA
   
1,150.0
                 
Cryo/RA
Non-operated
Sea Robin
   
1.0
%
Vermillion, LA
   
700.0
                 
  Cryo
Non-operated
         
Area Total
   
3,255.0
     
254.5
     
8.0
      
                                              
   
Consolidated System Total
   
4,445.0
     
897.0
     
41.8
      

(1) Gross processing capacity represents 100% of ownership interests and may differ from nameplate processing capacity due to multiple factors including items such as compression limitations, and quality and composition of the gas being processed.
(2) Plant natural gas inlet represents the volume of natural gas passing through the meter located at the inlet of the natural gas processing plant.
(3) Plant natural gas inlet and NGL production volumes represent 100% of ownership interests for the Partnership’s consolidated VESCO joint venture and the Partnership’s ownership share of volumes for other partially owned plants which the Partnership proportionately consolidate based on its ownership interest which is adjustable subject to an annual redetermination based on its proportionate share of plant production.
(4) Per day Gross Plant Natural Gas Inlet and NGL Production statistics for certain plants listed above are based on the number of days operational during 2015. The Big Lake facility was idled in November 2014 due to narrow processing spreads, restarted in September 2015 and idled again in December 2015, but is available and operates on the LOU system as market conditions allow.
(5) Cryo – Cryogenic Processing; RA – Refrigerated Absorption Processing.
(6) The Gillis plant has fractionation capacity of approximately 11 MBbl/d.
(7) The Acadia Plant is available and operates on the LOU system as market conditions allow.
(8) VESCO also includes an offshore gathering system with a combined length of approximately 150 miles.
(9) Coastal Straddles also includes three offshore gathering systems which have a combined length of approximately 300 miles.
(10) The Lowry facility was idled in June 2015, but is available as market conditions allow.

Logistics and Marketing Division

The Partnership’s Logistics and Marketing Division is also referred to as the Downstream Business. It includes the activities necessary to convert mixed NGLs into NGL products and provide certain value-added services such as the fractionation, storage, terminaling, transportation, exporting, distribution and marketing of NGLs and NGL products; the storing and terminaling of refined petroleum products and crude oil; and certain natural gas supply and marketing activities in support of the Partnership’s other businesses. These products are delivered to end-users through pipelines, barges, ships, trucks and rail cars. End-users of NGL products include petrochemical, refining companies, export markets for propane and butane, and propane markets for heating, cooking or agricultural applications.
 
Logistics Assets Segment

The Logistics Assets segment uses its platform of integrated assets to receive, fractionate, store, treat, transport and deliver NGLs typically under fee-based arrangements. For NGLs to be used by refineries, petrochemical manufacturers, propane distributors, international export markets and other industrial end-users, they must be fractionated into their component products and delivered to various points throughout the U.S. The Partnership’s logistics assets are generally connected to, and supplied in part by, its’ gathering and processing assets and are primarily located at Mont Belvieu and Galena Park near Houston, Texas and in Lake Charles, Louisiana. This segment also contains refined petroleum product and crude oil storage and terminaling facilities in Texas (the Channelview and Patriot Terminals; both on the Houston Ship Channel), Maryland (the Baltimore Terminal) and Washington (the Sound Terminal, located in Tacoma).

Fractionation

After being extracted in the field, mixed NGLs, sometimes referred to as “Y-grade” or “raw NGL mix,” are typically transported to a centralized facility for fractionation where the mixed NGLs are separated into discrete NGL products: ethane, ethane-propane mix, propane, normal butane, iso-butane and natural gasoline.

The Partnership’s fractionation assets include ownership interests in three stand-alone fractionation facilities that are located on the Gulf Coast, two that it operates, one at Mont Belvieu, Texas and the other at Lake Charles, Louisiana. The Partnership has an equity investment in the third fractionator, GCF, also located at Mont Belvieu. The Partnership is subject to a consent decree with the Federal Trade Commission, issued December 12, 1996, that, among other things, prevents it from participating in commercial decisions regarding rates paid by third parties for fractionation services at GCF. This restriction on the Partnership’s activity at GCF will terminate on December 12, 2016. In addition to the three stand-alone facilities in the Logistics Assets segment, see the description of fractionation assets in the North Texas System and LOU in the Gathering and Processing division.

The Partnership expanded the fractionation capacity of its assets during the last three years with the following projects:

· CBF Train 4. In August 2013, the Partnership commissioned 100 MBbl/d of additional fractionation capacity, Train 4, at CBF, in Mont Belvieu, Texas, at a gross cost of approximately $385 million (the Partnership’s net cost was approximately $345 million). Train 4 is supported by long-term contracts that have certain guaranteed volume commitments or provisions for deficiency payments.
· CBF Train 5. This expansion is currently under construction and will add 100 MBbl/d of fractionation capacity. We expect completion of Train 5 in mid-2016. The net cost to the Partnership of Train 5 is expected to be approximately $340 million and will be supported by supply from Targa’s Gas Processing Division and by long-term contracts with third parties.

The Partnership’s NGL fractionation business is under fee-based arrangements. These fees are subject to adjustment for changes in certain fractionation expenses, including energy costs. The operating results of the Partnership’s NGL fractionation business are dependent upon the volume of mixed NGLs fractionated, the level of fractionation fees charged and product gains/losses from fractionation.

The Partnership believes that sufficient volumes of mixed NGLs will be available for fractionation in commercially viable quantities for the foreseeable future due to historical increases in NGL production from shale plays and other shale-technology-driven resource plays in areas of the U.S. that include North Texas, South Texas, the Permian Basin, Oklahoma and the Rockies and certain other basins accessed by pipelines to Mont Belvieu, as well as from conventional production of NGLs in areas such as the Permian Basin, Mid-Continent, East Texas, South Louisiana and shelf and deep-water Gulf of Mexico. Hydrocarbon dew point specifications implemented by individual natural gas pipelines and the Policy Statement on Provisions Governing Natural Gas Quality and Interchangeability in Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Company Tariffs enacted in 2006 by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) should result in volumes of mixed NGLs being available for fractionation because natural gas requires processing or conditioning to meet pipeline quality specifications. These requirements establish a base volume of mixed NGLs during periods when it might be otherwise uneconomical to process certain sources of natural gas. Furthermore, significant volumes of mixed NGLs are contractually committed to the Partnership’s NGL fractionation facilities.
 
Although competition for NGL fractionation services is primarily based on the fractionation fee, the ability of an NGL fractionator to obtain mixed NGLs and distribute NGL products is also an important competitive factor. This ability is a function of the existence of storage infrastructure and supply and market connectivity necessary to conduct such operations. The Partnership believes that the location, scope and capability of the Partnership’s logistics assets, including its transportation and distribution systems, gives the Partnership access to both substantial sources of mixed NGLs and a large number of end-use markets.

The Partnership also has a natural gasoline hydrotreater at Mont Belvieu, Texas that removes sulfur from natural gasoline, allowing customers to meet new, more stringent environmental standards. The facility has a capacity of 30 MBbl/d and is supported by long-term fee-based contracts that have certain guaranteed volume commitments or provisions for deficiency payments.

The following table details the Logistics Assets segment’s fractionation and treating facilities:

Facility
 
% Owned
   
Gross Capacity
(MBbl/d) (1)
   
Gross Throughput for
2015 (MBbl/d)
 
Operated Facilities:
                 
Lake Charles Fractionator (Lake Charles, LA)
   
100.0
     
55.0
     
23.1
 
Cedar Bayou Fractionator (Mont Belvieu, TX) (2)
   
88.0
     
393.0
     
319.2
 
Targa LSNG Hydrotreater (Mont Belvieu, TX)
   
100.0
     
30.0
         
LSNG treating volumes
                   
22.4
 
Benzene treating volumes
                   
22.4
 
Non-operated Facilities:
                       
Gulf Coast Fractionators (Mont Belvieu, TX)
   
38.8
     
125.0
     
114.5
 
 

(1) Actual fractionation capacities may also vary due to the Y-grade composition of the gas being processed and does not contemplate ethane rejection.
(2) Gross capacity represents 100% of the volume. Capacity includes 40 MBbl/d of additional butane/gasoline fractionation capacity.

Storage, Terminaling and Petroleum Logistics

In general, the Partnership’s NGL storage assets provide warehousing of mixed NGLs, NGL products and petrochemical products in underground wells, which allows for the injection and withdrawal of such products at various times in order to meet supply and demand cycles. Similarly, the Partnership’s terminaling operations provide the inbound/outbound logistics and warehousing of mixed NGLs, NGL products and petrochemical products in above-ground storage tanks. The Partnership’s NGL underground storage and terminaling facilities serve single markets, such as propane, as well as multiple products and markets. For example, the Mont Belvieu and Galena Park facilities have extensive pipeline connections for mixed NGL supply and delivery of component NGLs. In addition, some of the Partnership’s facilities are connected to marine, rail and truck loading and unloading facilities that provide services and products to customers. The Partnership provides long and short-term storage and terminaling services and throughput capability to third-party customers for a fee.

The Partnership’s Petroleum Logistics business owns and operates storage and terminaling facilities in Texas, Maryland and Washington. These facilities not only serve the refined petroleum products and crude oil markets, but also include LPGs and biofuels.

Across the Logistics Assets segment, the Partnership owns or operates a total of 39 storage wells at its facilities with a net storage capacity of approximately 64 MMBbl, the usage of which may be limited by brine handling capacity, which is utilized to displace NGLs from storage.

The Partnership operates its storage and terminaling facilities to support its key fractionation facilities at Mont Belvieu and Lake Charles for receipt of mixed NGLs and storage of fractionated NGLs to service the petrochemical, refinery, export and heating customers/markets as well as its wholesale domestic terminals that focus on logistics to service its heating market customer base. In September 2013, the Partnership commissioned Phase I of the international export expansion project that includes facilities at both Mont Belvieu and the Galena Park Marine Terminal near Houston, Texas. Phase I of the project expanded its export capability to approximately 3.5 to 4 MMBbl per month of propane and/or butane. Included in the Phase I expansion was the capability to export international grade low ethane propane. With the completion of Phase I, the Partnership also added capabilities to load VLGC vessels alongside the small and medium sized export vessels that it loads for export. The Partnership completed Phase II of the international export expansion project in the third quarter of 2014, which added approximately 3 MMBbl per month of export capacity. The Partnership continues to experience demand growth for US-based NGLs (both propane and butane) for export into international markets.
 
The Partnership’s fractionation, storage and terminaling business is supported by approximately 900 miles of company-owned pipelines to transport mixed NGLs and specification products.

The following table details the Logistics Assets NGL storage facilities at December 31, 2015:

Facility
 
% Owned
 
Location
 
Number of
Permitted Wells
   
Gross Storage
Capacity (MMBbl)
 
Hackberry Storage (Lake Charles)
   
100
 
Cameron, LA
   
12
(1)
   
20.0
 
Mont Belvieu Storage
   
100
 
Chambers, TX
   
21
(2)
   
46.5
 
 

(1) Five of 12 owned wells leased to Citgo Petroleum Corporation under long-term leases.
(2) Excludes five non-owned wells the Partnership operates on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LLC (“CPC”). Includes the first of four new permitted wells, which became operational in June 2015. The second new well, which has been drilled and is in the process of being washed.

The following table details the Logistics Assets NGL and Petroleum Terminal Facilities for the year ended December 31, 2015:

Facility
 
%
Owned
 
Location
 
Description
 
Throughput for
2015 (Million
gallons)
   
Usable Storage
Capacity
(MMBbl)
 
Galena Park Terminal (1)
   
100
 
Harris, TX
 
NGL import/export terminal, chemicals
   
3,585.9
     
0.7
 
Mont Belvieu Terminal
   
100
 
Chambers, TX
 
Transport and storage terminal
   
17,039.2
     
41.7
 
Hackberry Terminal
   
100
 
Cameron, LA
 
Storage terminal
   
982.5
     
17.8
 
Channelview Terminal
   
100
 
Harris, TX
 
Refined products, crude - transport and storage terminal
   
249.0
     
0.6
 
Baltimore Terminal
   
100
 
Baltimore, MD
 
Refined products - transport and storage terminal
   
25.0
     
0.5
 
Sound Terminal
   
100
 
Pierce, WA
 
Refined products, crude oil/propane - transport and storage terminal
   
460.0
     
1.4
 
Patriot
   
100
 
Harris, TX
 
Dock and land for expansion (Not in service)
   
N/A
 
   
N/A
 
 

(1) Volumes reflect total import and export across the dock/terminal and may also include volumes that have also been handled at the Mont Belvieu Terminal.

Marketing and Distribution Segment

The Marketing and Distribution segment transports, distributes and markets NGLs via terminals and transportation assets across the U.S. The Partnership owns or commercially manages terminal facilities in a number of states, including Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arizona, Nevada, California, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, New Jersey and Washington. The geographic diversity of the Partnership’s assets provide direct access to many NGL customers as well as markets via trucks, barges, ships, rail cars and open-access regulated NGL pipelines owned by third parties. The Marketing and Distribution segment consists of (i) NGL Distribution and Marketing, (ii) Wholesale Domestic Marketing, (iii) Refinery Services, (iv) Commercial Transportation, (v) Natural Gas Marketing and (vi) Terminal Facilities, each as described below.

NGL Distribution and Marketing

The Partnership markets its own NGL production and also purchases component NGL products from other NGL producers and marketers for resale. Additionally, the Partnership also purchases product for resale in its Logistics segment, including exports. During the year ended December 31, 2015, its distribution and marketing services business sold an average of approximately 432.3 MBbl/d of NGLs.

The Partnership generally purchases mixed NGLs at a monthly pricing index less applicable fractionation, transportation and marketing fees and resell these component products to petrochemical manufacturers, refineries and other marketing and retail companies. This is primarily a physical settlement business in which the Partnership earns margins from purchasing and selling NGL products from customers under contract. The Partnership also earns margins by purchasing and reselling NGL products in the spot and forward physical markets. To effectively serve its Distribution and Marketing customers, the Partnership contracts for and uses many of the assets included in its Logistics Assets segment.
 
Wholesale Domestic Marketing

The Partnership’s wholesale domestic propane marketing operations primarily sell propane and related logistics services to major multi-state retailers, independent retailers and other end-users. The Partnership’s propane supply primarily originates from both its refinery/gas supply contracts and other owned or managed logistics and marketing assets. The Partnership sells propane at a fixed posted price or at a market index basis at the time of delivery and in some circumstances, it earns margin on a netback basis.

The wholesale propane marketing business is significantly impacted by seasonal and weather-driven demand, particularly in the winter, which can impact the price and volume of propane sold in the markets the Partnership serves.

Refinery Services

In the Partnership’s refinery services business, it typically provides NGL balancing services via contractual arrangements with refiners to purchase and/or market propane and to supply butanes. The Partnership uses its commercial transportation assets (discussed below) and contracts for and uses the storage, transportation and distribution assets included in its Logistics Assets segment to assist refinery customers in managing their NGL product demand and production schedules. This includes both feedstocks consumed in refinery processes and the excess NGLs produced by other refining processes. Under typical netback purchase contracts, the Partnership generally retains a portion of the resale price of NGL sales or receives a fixed minimum fee per gallon on products sold. Under netback sales contracts, fees are earned for locating and supplying NGL feedstocks to the refineries based on a percentage of the cost to obtain such supply or a minimum fee per gallon.

Key factors impacting the results of the Partnership’s refinery services business include production volumes, prices of propane and butanes, as well as its ability to perform receipt, delivery and transportation services in order to meet refinery demand.

Commercial Transportation

The Partnership’s NGL transportation and distribution infrastructure includes a wide range of assets supporting both third-party customers and the delivery requirements of its marketing and asset management business. The Partnership provides fee-based transportation services to refineries and petrochemical companies throughout the Gulf Coast area. The Partnership’s assets are also deployed to serve its wholesale distribution terminals, fractionation facilities, underground storage facilities and pipeline injection terminals. These distribution assets provide a variety of ways to transport products to and from the Partnership’s customers.

The Partnership’s transportation assets, as of December 31, 2015, include approximately 700 railcars that the Partnership leases and manages; approximately 80 owned and leased transport tractors and 20 company-owned pressurized NGL barges.

Natural Gas Marketing

The Partnership also markets natural gas available to it from the Gathering and Processing segments, purchases and resells natural gas in selected U.S. markets and manages the scheduling and logistics for these activities.
 
The following table details the Marketing and Distribution segment’s Terminal Facilities:

Facility
 
% Owned
 
Location
 
Description
 
Throughput for
2015 (Million
gallons) (1)
   
Usable Storage
Capacity
(Million gallons)
 
Calvert City Terminal
   
100
 
Marshall, KY
 
Propane terminal
   
9.9
     
0.1
 
Greenville Terminal
   
100
 
Washington, MS
 
Marine propane terminal
   
19.9
     
1.5
 
Port Everglades Terminal
   
100
 
Broward, FL
 
Marine propane terminal
   
7.2
     
1.6
 
Tyler Terminal
   
100
 
Smith, TX
 
Propane terminal
   
7.5
     
0.2
 
Abilene Transport (2)
   
100
 
Taylor, TX
 
Raw NGL transport terminal
   
-
     
0.1
 
Bridgeport Transport (2)
   
100
 
Jack, TX
 
Raw NGL transport terminal
   
-
     
0.1
 
Gladewater Transport (2)
   
100
 
Gregg, TX
 
Raw NGL transport terminal
   
-
     
0.3
 
Chattanooga Terminal
   
100
 
Hamilton, TN
 
Propane terminal
   
10.2
     
0.9
 
Sparta Terminal
   
100
 
Sparta, NJ
 
Propane terminal
   
14.0
     
0.2
 
Hattiesburg Terminal (3)
   
50
 
Forrest, MS
 
Propane terminal
   
363.1
     
302.0
 
Winona Terminal
   
100
 
Flagstaff, AZ
 
Propane terminal
   
16.0
     
0.3
 
Sound Terminal (4)
   
100
 
Pierce, WA
 
Propane terminal
   
6.0
     
0.2
 
Eagle Lake Transload (5)
   
100
 
Polk, FL
 
Propane terminal
   
5.8
     
-
 
 

(1) Throughputs include volumes related to exchange agreements and third party storage agreements.
(2) Volumes reflect total transport and injection volumes.
(3) Throughput volume reflects 100% of the facility capacity.
(4) Included in the Logistics Assets segment.
(5) Rail-to-truck transload equipment.

Operational Risks and Insurance

The Partnership is subject to all risks inherent in the midstream natural gas, crude oil and petroleum logistics businesses. These risks include, but are not limited to, explosions, fires, mechanical failure, terrorist attacks, product spillage, weather, nature and inadequate maintenance of rights-of-way and could result in damage to or destruction of operating assets and other property, or could result in personal injury, loss of life or environmental pollution, as well as curtailment or suspension of operations at the affected facility. We maintain, on behalf of ourselves and our subsidiaries, including the Partnership, general public liability, property, boiler and machinery and business interruption insurance in amounts that we consider to be appropriate for such risks. Such insurance is subject to deductibles that we consider reasonable and not excessive given the current insurance market environment. For example, following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, insurance premiums, deductibles and co-insurance requirements increased substantially, and terms were generally less favorable than terms that could be obtained prior to such hurricanes. Insurance market conditions worsened as a result of the losses sustained from Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in September 2008. As a result, the Partnership experienced further increases in deductibles and premiums, and further reductions in coverage and limits, with some coverage unavailable at any cost.

The occurrence of a significant loss that is not fully insured or indemnified against, or the failure of a party to meet its indemnification obligations, could materially and adversely affect the Partnership’s operations and the Partnership’s and our financial condition. While we currently maintain levels and types of insurance that we believe to be prudent under current insurance industry market conditions, our inability to secure these levels and types of insurance in the future could negatively impact the Partnership business operations and the Partnership’s and our financial stability, particularly if an uninsured loss were to occur. No assurance can be given that we will be able to maintain these levels of insurance in the future at rates considered commercially reasonable, particularly named windstorm coverage and contingent business interruption coverage for our onshore operations.

Competition

The Partnership faces strong competition in acquiring new natural gas or crude oil supplies. Competition for natural gas and crude oil supplies is primarily based on the location of gathering and processing facilities, pricing arrangements, reputation, efficiency, flexibility, reliability and access to end-use markets or liquid marketing hubs. Competitors to the Partnership’s gathering and processing operations include other natural gas gatherers and processors, such as major interstate and intrastate pipeline companies, master limited partnerships and oil and gas producers. The Partnership’s major competitors for natural gas supplies in our current operating regions include Kinder Morgan, WTG Gas Processing, L.P. (“WTG”), DCP, Devon Energy Corporation (“Devon”), Enbridge Inc., Enlink Midstream Partners, Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., ONEOK, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, Hanlon Gas Processing, Ltd., J-W Operating Company, Louisiana Intrastate Gas Company L.L.C. and several other interstate pipeline companies. The Partnership’s competitors for crude oil gathering services in North Dakota include Crestwood Equity Partners LP, Kinder Morgan, Great Northern Midstream LLC, Caliber Midstream Partners, L.P. and Bridger Pipeline LLC. The Partnership’s competitors may have greater financial resources than it possesses.
 
The Partnership also competes for NGL products to market through its Logistics and Marketing division. The Partnership’s competitors include major oil and gas producers who market NGL products for their own account and for others. Additionally, the Partnership competes with several other NGL marketing companies, including EPD, DCP, ONEOK and BP p.l.c.

Additionally, the Partnership faces competition for mixed NGLs supplies at its fractionation facilities. Its competitors include large oil, natural gas and petrochemical companies. The fractionators in which the Partnership owns an interest in the Mont Belvieu region compete for volumes of mixed NGLs with other fractionators also located at Mont Belvieu, Texas. Among the primary competitors are EPD, ONEOK and LoneStar NGL LLC. In addition, certain producers fractionate mixed NGLs for their own account in captive facilities. The Mont Belvieu fractionators also compete on a more limited basis with fractionators in Conway, Kansas and a number of decentralized, smaller fractionation facilities in Texas, Louisiana and New Mexico. The Partnership’s other fractionation facilities compete for mixed NGLs with the fractionators at Mont Belvieu as well as other fractionation facilities located in Louisiana. The Partnership’s customers who are significant producers of mixed NGLs and NGL products or consumers of NGL products may develop their own fractionation facilities in lieu of using the Partnerships’ services. Its primary competitor in providing export services to its customers is EPD.

Regulation of Operations

Regulation of pipeline gathering and transportation services, natural gas sales and transportation of NGLs may affect certain aspects of the Partnership’s business and the market for its products and services.

Regulation of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines

VGS is regulated by FERC under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (“NGA”), and the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (“NGPA”). VGS operates under a FERC-approved, open-access tariff that establishes the rates and the terms and conditions under which the system provides services to its customers. Pursuant to FERC’s jurisdiction, existing pipeline rates and/or terms and conditions of service may be challenged by customer complaint or by FERC and proposed rate changes or changes in the terms and conditions of service may be challenged by protest. Generally, FERC’s authority extends to: transportation of natural gas; rates and charges for natural gas transportation; certification and construction of new facilities; extension or abandonment of services and facilities; maintenance of accounts and records; commercial relationships and communications between pipelines and certain affiliates; terms and conditions of service and service contracts with customers; depreciation and amortization policies; and acquisition and disposition of facilities.

VGS holds a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by FERC permitting the construction, ownership, and operation of its interstate natural gas pipeline facilities and the provision of transportation services. This certificate authorization requires VGS to provide on a nondiscriminatory basis open-access services to all customers who qualify under its FERC gas tariff. FERC has the power to prescribe the accounting treatment of items for regulatory purposes. Thus, the books and records of VGS may be periodically audited by FERC.

The maximum recourse rates that may be charged by VGS for its services are established through FERC’s ratemaking process. Generally, the maximum filed recourse rates for interstate pipelines are based on the cost of service, including recovery of and a return on the pipeline’s investment. Key determinants in the ratemaking process are costs of providing service, allowed rate of return and volume throughput and contractual capacity commitment assumptions. VGS is permitted to discount its firm and interruptible rates without further FERC authorization down to the variable cost of performing service, provided they do not “unduly discriminate.” The applicable recourse rates and terms and conditions for service are set forth in each pipeline’s FERC-approved tariff. Rate design and the allocation of costs also can impact a pipeline’s profitability. On August 31, 2015, VGS filed a revised tariff sheet with FERC, seeking to increase the rates for service on VGS. Several of VGS’s customers protested the proposed increase, and the ratemaking proceeding remains pending. A hearing before a FERC administrative law judge on the proposed increase is schedule to begin on July 20, 2016.
 
The Partnership also owns (in conjunction with Pioneer) and operates the Driver Residue Pipeline, a gas transmission pipeline extending from the Partnership’s Driver processing plant in WestTX just over ten miles to points of interconnection with intrastate and interstate natural gas transmission pipelines. The Partnership has obtained a limited jurisdiction certificate of public convenience and necessity under the Natural Gas Act for the Driver Residue Pipeline. In the certificate order, among other things, FERC waived requirements pertaining to the filing of an initial rate for service, the filing of a tariff and compliance with specified accounting and reporting requirements. As such, the Driver Residue Pipeline is not currently subject to conventional rate regulation; to requirements FERC imposes on “open access” interstate natural gas pipelines; to the obligation to file and maintain a tariff; or to the obligation to conform to certain business practices and to file certain reports. If, however, the Partnership is unable to receive a bona fide request for firm service on the Driver Residue Pipeline from a third party, FERC would reexamine the waivers it has granted the Partnership and would require the Partnership to file for authorization to offer “open access” transportation under its regulations, which would impose additional costs upon the Partnership.

Gathering Pipeline Regulation

The Partnership’s natural gas gathering operations are typically subject to ratable take and common purchaser statutes in the states in which it operates. The common purchaser statutes generally require gathering pipelines to purchase or take without undue discrimination as to source of supply or producer. These statutes are designed to prohibit discrimination in favor of one producer over another or one source of supply over another. The regulations under these statutes can have the effect of imposing some restrictions on the Partnership’s ability as an owner of gathering facilities to decide with whom it contracts to gather natural gas. The states in which the Partnership operates have adopted complaint-based regulation of natural gas gathering activities, which allows natural gas producers and shippers to file complaints with state regulators in an effort to resolve grievances relating to gathering access and rate discrimination. The rates the Partnership charges for gathering are deemed just and reasonable unless challenged in a complaint. We cannot predict whether such a complaint will be filed against the Partnership in the future. Failure to comply with state regulations can result in the imposition of administrative, civil and criminal penalties.

Section 1(b) of the NGA exempts natural gas gathering facilities from regulation as a natural gas company by FERC under the NGA. The Partnership believes that the natural gas pipelines in its gathering systems, including the gas gathering systems that are part of the Badlands and of the Pelican and Seahawk gathering systems, meet the traditional tests FERC has used to establish a pipeline’s status as a gatherer not subject to regulation as a natural gas company. However, to the extent the Partnership’s gathering systems buy and sell natural gas, such gatherers, in their capacity as buyers and sellers of natural gas, are now subject to Order No. 704. See “—Other Federal Laws and Regulations Affecting Our Industry—FERC Market Transparency Rules.”

Intrastate Pipeline Regulation

Though the Partnership’s natural gas intrastate pipelines are not subject to regulation by FERC as natural gas companies under the NGA, the Partnership’s intrastate pipelines may be subject to certain FERC-imposed reporting requirements depending on the volume of natural gas purchased or sold in a given year. See “—Other Federal Laws and Regulations Affecting Our Industry—FERC Market Transparency Rules.”

The Partnership’s intrastate pipelines located in Texas are regulated by the Railroad Commission of Texas (the “RRC”). Our Texas intrastate pipeline, Targa Intrastate Pipeline LLC (“Targa Intrastate”), owns the intrastate pipeline that transports natural gas from its Shackelford processing plant to an interconnect with Atmos Pipeline-Texas that in turn delivers gas to the West Texas Utilities Company’s Paint Creek Power Station. Targa Intrastate also owns a 1.65-mile, ten-inch diameter intrastate pipeline that transports natural gas from a third-party gathering system into the Chico system in Denton County, Texas. Targa Intrastate is a gas utility subject to regulation by the RRC and has a tariff on file with such agency. Our other Texas intrastate pipeline, Targa Gas Pipeline LLC, owns a multi-county intrastate pipeline that transports gas in Crane, Ector, Midland, and Upton Counties, Texas, as well as some lines in North Texas. Targa Gas Pipeline LLC is a gas utility subject to regulation by the RRC.
 
The Partnership’s Louisiana intrastate pipeline, Targa Louisiana Intrastate LLC owns an approximately 60-mile intrastate pipeline system that receives all of the natural gas it transports within or at the boundary of the State of Louisiana. Because all such gas ultimately is consumed within Louisiana, and since the pipeline’s rates and terms of service are subject to regulation by the Office of Conservation of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”), the pipeline qualifies as a Hinshaw pipeline under Section 1(c) of the NGA and thus is exempt from most FERC regulation.

We have an ownership interest of 50% of the capacity in a 50-mile long intrastate natural gas transmission pipeline, which extends from the tailgate of three natural gas processing plants located near Pettus, Texas to interconnections with existing intrastate and interstate natural gas pipelines near Refugio, Texas. The capacity is held by our subsidiary, TPL SouthTex Transmission Company LP (“TPL SouthTex Transmission”), which is entitled to transport natural gas through its capacity on behalf of third parties to both intrastate and interstate markets. Because the jointly owned pipeline system was initially interconnected only with intrastate markets, each of the capacity holders qualified as an “intrastate pipeline” within the meaning of the NGPA and therefore are able to provide transportation of natural gas to interstate markets under Section 311 of the NGPA. Under Sections 311 and 601 of the NGPA, an intrastate pipeline may transport natural gas in interstate commerce without becoming subject to FERC regulation as a “natural-gas company” under the Natural Gas Act. Transportation of natural gas under authority of Section 311 must be filed with FERC and must be shown to be “fair and equitable.” TPL SouthTex Transmission has a Statement of Operating Conditions on file with FERC, and FERC has accepted the rates, which TPL SouthTex Transmission’s predecessor filed, as being in accordance with the “fair and equitable” standard. TPL SouthTex Transmission is required to file, on or before November 6, 2017, a petition for approval of its then-existing rates, or to propose a new rate, applicable to NGPA Section 311 service.

The Partnership also operates natural gas pipelines that extend from some of its processing plants to interconnections with both intrastate and interstate natural gas pipelines. Those facilities, known in the industry as “plant tailgate” pipelines, typically operate at transmission pressure levels and may transport “pipeline quality” natural gas. Because the Partnership’s plant tailgate pipelines are relatively short, the Partnership treats them as “stub” lines, which are exempt from FERC’s jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act. FERC’s treatment of the “stub” line exemption has varied over time, but, absent other factors, FERC generally limits the length of the lines that qualify for the “stub” line exemption. To the extent the Partnership’s plant tailgate pipelines do not qualify for the “stub” line exemption, the Partnership will consider whether it needs to obtain FERC authorization to operate its tailgate pipelines or whether they can be reconfigured or otherwise modified to eliminate the possibility that they could be subject to FERC jurisdiction. If the Partnership concludes that FERC authorization is necessary, the Partnership would expect to seek regulatory treatment similar to the treatment FERC has accorded to the Driver Residue Pipeline. The Partnership cannot, however, be assured that FERC would agree to assert only limited jurisdiction. If FERC were to find that it must assert comprehensive jurisdiction, the Partnership’s operating costs would increase and the Partnership could be subject to enforcement actions under the Domenici-Barton Energy Policy Act of 2005 (“EP Act of 2005”).

Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Kansas have adopted complaint-based regulation of intrastate natural gas transportation activities, which allows natural gas producers and shippers to file complaints with state regulators in an effort to resolve grievances relating to pipeline access and rate discrimination. The rates the Partnership charges for intrastate transportation are deemed just and reasonable unless challenged in a complaint. We cannot predict whether such a complaint will be filed against the Partnership in the future. Failure to comply with state regulations can result in the imposition of administrative, civil and criminal penalties.

The Partnership’s intrastate NGL pipelines in Louisiana gather mixed NGLs streams that the Partnership owns from processing plants in Louisiana and deliver such streams to the Gillis fractionators in Lake Charles, Louisiana, where the mixed NGLs streams are fractionated into various products. The Partnership delivers such refined petroleum products (ethane, propane, butanes and natural gasoline) out of its fractionator to and from Targa-owned storage, to other third-party facilities and to various third-party pipelines in Louisiana. These pipelines are not subject to FERC regulation or rate regulation by the DNR, but are regulated by United States Department of Transportation (“DOT”) safety regulations.

The Partnership’s intrastate pipelines in North Dakota are subject to the various regulations of the State of North Dakota. In addition, various federal agencies within the U.S. Department of the Interior, particularly the Bureau of Land Management, Office of Natural Resources Revenue (formerly the Minerals Management Service) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, as well as the Three Affiliated Tribes, promulgate and enforce regulations pertaining to operations on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. Please see “-Other State and Local Regulation of Operations” below.
 
Natural Gas Processing

The Partnership’s natural gas gathering and processing operations are not presently subject to FERC regulation.  However, since May 2009 the Partnership has been required to report to FERC information regarding natural gas sale and purchase transactions for some of its operations depending on the volume of natural gas transacted during the prior calendar year. See “—Other Federal Laws and Regulations Affecting Our Industry—FERC Market Transparency Rules.” There can be no assurance that the Partnership’s processing operations will continue to be exempt from other FERC regulation in the future.

Sales of Natural Gas and NGLs

The price at which the Partnership buys and sells natural gas and NGLs is currently not subject to federal rate regulation and, for the most part, is not subject to state regulation. However, with regard to the Partnership’s physical purchases and sales of these energy commodities and any related hedging activities that the Partnership undertakes, it is required to observe anti-market manipulation laws and related regulations enforced by FERC and/or the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). See “—Other Federal Laws and Regulations Affecting Our Industry—EP Act of 2005”).” Since May 2009, the Partnership has been required to report to FERC information regarding natural gas sale and purchase transactions for some of the Partnership’s operations depending on the volume of natural gas transacted during the prior calendar year. See “—Other Federal Laws and Regulations Affecting Our Industry—FERC Market Transparency Rules.” Should the Partnership violate the anti-market manipulation laws and regulations, it could also be subject to related third-party damage claims by, among others, market participants, sellers, royalty owners and taxing authorities.

Other State and Local Regulation of Operations

The Partnership’s business activities are subject to various state and local laws and regulations, as well as orders of regulatory bodies pursuant thereto, governing a wide variety of matters, including marketing, production, pricing, community right-to-know, protection of the environment, safety and other matters. In addition, the Three Affiliated Tribes promulgate and enforce regulations pertaining to operations on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, on which the Partnership operates a significant portion of its Badlands gathering and processing assets. The Three Affiliated Tribes is a sovereign nation having the right to enforce certain laws and regulations independent from federal, state and local statutes and regulations. For additional information regarding the potential impact of federal, state, tribal or local regulatory measures on the Partnership’s business, see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business.”

Interstate Common Carrier Liquids Pipeline Regulation

Targa NGL Pipeline Company LLC (“Targa NGL”) has interstate NGL pipelines that are considered common carrier pipelines subject to regulation by FERC under the Interstate Commerce Act (the “ICA”). More specifically, Targa NGL owns a regulated twelve-inch diameter pipeline that runs between Lake Charles, Louisiana and Mont Belvieu, Texas. This pipeline can move mixed NGLs and purity NGL products. Targa NGL also owns an eight-inch diameter pipeline and a twenty-inch diameter pipeline, each of which run between Mont Belvieu, Texas and Galena Park, Texas. The eight-inch and the twenty-inch pipelines are also regulated and are part of an extensive mixed NGL and purity NGL pipeline receipt and delivery system that provides services to domestic and foreign import and export customers. The ICA requires that we maintain tariffs on file with FERC for each of these pipelines. Those tariffs set forth the rates we charge for providing transportation services as well as the rules and regulations governing these services. The ICA requires, among other things, that rates on interstate common carrier pipelines be “just and reasonable” and non-discriminatory. All shippers on these pipelines are the Partnership’s subsidiaries.

The crude oil pipeline system that is part of the Badlands assets has qualified for a temporary waiver of applicable FERC regulatory requirements under the ICA based on current circumstances. Such waivers are subject to revocation, however, should the pipeline’s circumstances change. FERC could, either at the request of other entities or on its own initiative, assert that some or all of the transportation on this pipeline system is within its jurisdiction.  In the event that FERC were to determine that this pipeline system no longer qualified for waiver, we would likely be required to file a tariff with FERC, provide a cost justification for the transportation charge, and provide service to all potential shippers without undue discrimination.  Such a change in the jurisdictional status of transportation on this pipeline could adversely affect the Partnership’s results of operations.
 
Other Federal Laws and Regulations Affecting Our Industry

EP Act of 2005

The EP Act of 2005 is a comprehensive compilation of tax incentives, authorized appropriations for grants and guaranteed loans, and significant changes to the statutory policy that affects all segments of the energy industry. Among other matters, the EP Act of 2005 amends the NGA to add an anti-market manipulation provision which makes it unlawful for any entity to engage in prohibited behavior to be prescribed by FERC, and furthermore provides FERC with additional civil penalty authority. The EP Act of 2005 provides FERC with the power to assess civil penalties of up to $1 million per day for violations of the NGA and $1 million per violation per day for violations of the NGPA. The civil penalty provisions are applicable to entities that engage in the sale of natural gas for resale in interstate commerce, including VGS. In 2006, FERC issued Order No. 670 to implement the anti-market manipulation provision of the EP Act of 2005. Order No. 670 does not apply to activities that relate only to intrastate or other non-jurisdictional sales or gathering, but does apply to activities of gas pipelines and storage companies that provide interstate services, as well as otherwise non-jurisdictional entities to the extent the activities are conducted “in connection with” gas sales, purchases or transportation subject to FERC jurisdiction, which includes the annual reporting requirements under a final rule on the annual natural gas transaction reporting requirements, as amended by subsequent orders on rehearing (Order No. 704), and the quarterly reporting requirement under Order No. 735. The anti-market manipulation rule and enhanced civil penalty authority reflect an expansion of FERC’s NGA enforcement authority.

FERC Market Transparency Rules

Beginning in 2007, FERC has issued a number of rules intended to provide for greater marketing transparency in the natural gas industry, including Order Nos. 704, 720, and 735. Under Order No. 704, wholesale buyers and sellers of more than 2.2 Bcf of physical natural gas in the previous calendar year, including interstate and intrastate natural gas pipelines, natural gas gatherers, natural gas processors and natural gas marketers, are now required to report, on May 1 of each year, aggregate volumes of natural gas purchased or sold at wholesale in the prior calendar year to the extent such transactions utilize, contribute to, or may contribute to the formation of price indices.

Under Order No. 720, certain non-interstate pipelines delivering, on an annual basis, more than an average of 50 million MMBtu of gas over the previous three calendar years, are required to post on a daily basis certain information regarding the pipeline’s capacity and scheduled flows for each receipt and delivery point that has a design capacity equal to or greater than 15,000 MMBtu/d and interstate pipelines are required to post information regarding the provision of no-notice service. In October 2011, Order No. 720 as clarified was vacated by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. We take the position that, at this time, all of the Partnership’s entities are exempt from Order No. 720 as currently effective.

Under Order No. 735, intrastate pipelines providing transportation services under Section 311 of the NGPA and “Hinshaw” pipelines operating under Section 1(c) of the NGA are required to report on a quarterly basis more detailed transportation and storage transaction information, including: rates charged by the pipeline under each contract; receipt and delivery points and zones or segments covered by each contract; the quantity of natural gas the shipper is entitled to transport, store, or deliver; the duration of the contract; and whether there is an affiliate relationship between the pipeline and the shipper. Order No. 735 also extends FERC’s periodic review of the rates charged by the subject pipelines from three years to five years. On rehearing, FERC reaffirmed Order No. 735 with some modifications.  As currently written, this rule does not apply to the Partnership’s Hinshaw pipelines.

Additional proposals and proceedings that might affect the natural gas industry are pending before Congress, FERC and the courts. We cannot predict the ultimate impact of these or the above regulatory changes to the Partnership’s natural gas operations. We do not believe that the Partnership would be affected by any such FERC action materially differently than other midstream natural gas companies with whom it competes.
 
Environmental and Operational Health and Safety Matters

General

The Partnership’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, or otherwise relating to environmental protection. As with the industry generally, compliance with current and anticipated environmental laws and regulations increases the Partnership’s overall cost of business, including its capital costs to construct, maintain and upgrade equipment and facilities. The Partnership has implemented programs and policies designed to keep its pipelines, plants and other facilities in compliance with existing environmental laws and regulations. The recent trend in environmental regulation is to place more restrictions and limitations on activities that may affect the environment and thus, any changes in environmental laws and regulations or reinterpretation of enforcement policies that result in more stringent and costly waste management or disposal, pollution control or remediation requirements could have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s operations and financial position. The Partnership may be unable to pass on such increased compliance costs to our customers. See Risk Factor “Failure to comply with environmental laws or regulations or an accidental release into the environment may cause us to incur significant costs and liabilities” under Item 1A of this Form 10-K for further discussion on environmental compliance matters. See “Item 3. Legal Proceedings – Environmental Proceedings” for a discussion of certain recent or pending proceedings related to environmental matters.
 
Historically, the Partnership’s environmental compliance costs have not had a material adverse effect on its results of operations; however, there can be no assurance that such costs will not become material in the future. The following is a summary of the more significant existing environmental and worker health and safety laws and regulations, as amended from time to time, to which our business operations are subject and for which compliance may have a material adverse impact on our capital expenditures, results of operations or financial position.

Hazardous Substances and Waste

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), and comparable state laws impose joint and several, strict liability on certain classes of persons who are considered to be responsible for the release of a “hazardous substance” into the environment. These persons include current and prior owners or operators of the site where the release occurred and entities that disposed or arranged for the disposal of the hazardous substances found at the site. Liability of these “responsible persons” under CERCLA may include the costs of cleaning up the hazardous substances that have been released into the environment, for damages to natural resources and for the costs of certain health studies. CERCLA also authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and, in some instances, third-parties to act in response to threats to the public health or the environment and to seek to recover from these responsible 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 the release of hazardous substances or other pollutants into the environment. The Partnership generates materials in the course of its operations that are regulated as “hazardous substances” under CERCLA or similar state statutes and, as a result, may be jointly and severally liable under CERCLA or such statutes for all or part of the costs required to clean up releases of hazardous substance into the environment.

The Partnership also generates solid wastes, including hazardous wastes that are subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) and comparable state statutes. While RCRA regulates both solid and hazardous wastes, it imposes strict requirements on the generation, storage, treatment, transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes. In the course of its operations, the Partnership generates petroleum product wastes and ordinary industrial wastes such as paint wastes, waste solvents and waste compressor oils that are regulated as hazardous wastes. Although certain materials generated in the exploration, development or production of crude oil and natural gas are excluded from RCRA’s hazardous waste regulations, it is possible that future changes in law or regulation could result in these wastes, including wastes currently generated during its operations, being designated as “hazardous wastes” and therefore subject to more rigorous and costly disposal requirements, which could have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s capital expenditures and operating expenses.

The Partnership currently owns or leases, and has in the past owned or leased, properties that for many years have been used for midstream natural gas and NGL activities and refined petroleum product and crude oil storage and terminaling activities. Hydrocarbons or other substances and wastes may have been released on or under the properties owned or leased by the Partnership or on or under the other locations where these hydrocarbons or other substances and wastes have been taken for treatment or disposal. In addition, certain of these properties have been operated by third parties whose treatment and release of hydrocarbons or other substances and wastes was not under the Partnership’s control. These properties and any hydrocarbons, substances and wastes released thereon may be subject to CERCLA, RCRA and analogous state laws. Under these laws, the Partnership could be required to remove or remediate previously disposed wastes (including wastes released by prior owners or operators), to clean up contaminated property (including contaminated groundwater) and to perform remedial operations to prevent future contamination.
 
Air Emissions

The federal Clean Air Act and comparable state laws and regulations restrict the emission of air pollutants from many sources, including processing plants and compressor stations and also impose various monitoring and reporting requirements. These laws and regulations may require the Partnership to obtain pre-approval for the construction or modification of certain projects or facilities expected to produce or significantly increase air emissions, obtain and strictly comply with stringent air permit requirements or utilize specific equipment or technologies to control emissions. The need to obtain permits has the potential to delay the development of oil and natural gas related projects. Over the next several years, the Partnership may be required to incur certain capital expenditures for air pollution control equipment or other air emissions related issues. For example, in October 2015, the EPA issued 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 under both the primary and secondary standards to provide requisite protection of public health and welfare, respectively.  The final rule became effective on December 28, 2015, and EPA is expected to make final geographical attainment designations by late 2017. Such reclassification may make it more difficult to construct new or modified sources of air pollution in newly designated non-attainment areas. Also, states are expected to implement more stringent regulations, which could apply to our operations. Additionally, on August 18, 2015, the EPA proposed four new rules related to air emissions from the oil and gas industry, including (1) New Source Performance Standards for emissions of methane and VOCs from new and modified oil and natural gas production and natural gas gathering, processing, and transmission facilities; (2) suggested control technique guidelines for existing oil and gas sources for states to consider adopting in certain ozone non-attainment areas; (3) a rule intended to more clearly define, and possibly expand, the definition of a “source” for purposes of determining applicability of air emissions permitting for oil and gas sources; and (4) a Federal Implementation Plan to govern minor new source review air emissions permitting for oil and gas sources on certain Indian Reservations, including the Forth Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota.  Compliance with these or other new regulations could, among other things, require installation of new emission controls on some of the Partnership’s equipment, result in longer permitting timelines, and significantly increase the Partnership’s capital expenditures and operating costs, which could adversely impact on the Partnership’s business.

Climate Change

The EPA has determined that greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions endanger public health and the environment because emissions of such gases are contributing to warming of the earth’s atmosphere and other climatic changes. Based on these findings, the EPA has adopted regulations under the Clean Air Act related to GHG emissions. See Risk Factor “The adoption of climate change legislation and regulations restricting emissions of GHGs could result in increased operating costs and reduced demand for the products and services we provide” under Item 1A of this Form 10-K for further discussion on climate change and regulation of GHG emissions.

Water Discharges

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (“Clean Water Act” or “CWA”) and analogous state laws impose restrictions and strict controls regarding the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters. Pursuant to the CWA and analogous state laws, permits must be obtained to discharge pollutants into state waters or waters of the United States. Any such discharge of pollutants into regulated waters must be performed in accordance with the terms of the permit issued by the EPA or the analogous state agency. Spill prevention, control and countermeasure requirements under federal law require appropriate containment berms and similar structures to help prevent the contamination of navigable waters in the event of a petroleum hydrocarbon tank spill, rupture or leak. In addition, the CWA and analogous state laws require individual permits or coverage under general permits for discharges of storm water runoff from certain types of facilities and such permits may require us to monitor and sample the storm water runoff. The CWA also prohibits the discharge of dredge and fill material in regulated waters, including wetlands, unless authorized by permit. The CWA and analogous state laws also may impose substantial civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance including spills and other non-authorized discharges.

In May 2015, the EPA released a final rule that attempted to clarify the meaning of the definition of “waters of the United States” under the CWA but several judicial challenges to this rule have been initiated, with plaintiffs’ generally objecting to the perceived broadening of the definition of waters of the United States under a rule that allegedly did not comply with appropriate procedural requirements. On August 27, 2015, one day prior to the rule going into effect, a federal district judge in North Dakota enjoined implementation of the rule in 13 states, and, on October 9, 2015 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the rule nationwide, as there are currently cases in more than a dozen district courts as well as the Sixth Circuit that may affect the rule and its implementation. Any expansion to CWA jurisdiction in areas where the Partnership or its customers operate could impose additional permitting obligations on the Partnership or its customers.
 
The Federal Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA”) which amends the CWA, establishes strict liability for owners and operators of facilities that are the site of a release of oil into waters of the United States. The OPA and its associated regulations impose a variety of requirements on responsible parties related to the prevention of oil spills and liability for damages resulting from such spills. A “responsible party” under the OPA includes owners and operators of onshore facilities, such as our plants and our pipelines. Under the OPA, owners and operators of facilities that handle, store, or transport oil are required to develop and implement oil spill response plans, and establish and maintain evidence of financial responsibility sufficient to cover liabilities related to an oil spill for which such parties could be statutorily responsible.
 
Hydraulic Fracturing

Hydraulic fracturing involves the injection of water, sand and chemical additives under pressure into rock formations to stimulate gas production. The process is typically regulated by state oil and gas commissions, but several federal agencies have asserted regulatory authority over aspects of the process, including the EPA and the federal Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”). In addition, Congress has from time to time considered the adoption of legislation to federally regulate hydraulic fracturing. At the state level, a growing number of states have adopted or are considering adopting legal requirements that could impose more stringent permitting, disclosure or well construction requirements on hydraulic fracturing activities, and states could elect to prohibit hydraulic fracturing altogether. In addition, local governments may seek to adopt ordinances within their jurisdictions regulating the time, place and manner of drilling activities in general or hydraulic fracturing activities in particular. Further, several federal governmental agencies are conducting reviews and studies on the environmental aspects of hydraulic fracturing activities, including the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the EPA, which released a draft report for public and Scientific Advisory Board review in June 2015. These studies, depending on their degree of pursuit and any meaningful results obtained, could spur initiatives to further regulate hydraulic fracturing. While the Partnership does not conduct hydraulic fracturing, if new or more stringent federal, state, or local legal restrictions or prohibitions relating to the hydraulic fracturing process are adopted in areas where the Partnership’s oil and natural gas exploration and production customers operate, those customers could incur potentially significant added costs to comply with such requirements and experience delays or curtailment in the pursuit of exploration, development or production activities, which could reduce demand for the Partnership’s gathering, processing and fractionation services. See Risk Factor “Increased regulation of hydraulic fracturing could result in reductions or delays in drilling and completing new oil and natural gas wells, which could adversely impact our revenues by decreasing the volumes of natural gas, NGLs or crude oil through our facilities and reducing the utilization of our assets” under Item 1A of this Form 10-K for further discussion on hydraulic fracturing.

Endangered Species Act Considerations

The federal Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) restricts activities that may affect endangered or threatened species or their habitats. Some of the Partnership’s facilities may be located in areas that are designated as habitat for endangered or threatened species. If endangered species are located in areas of the underlying properties where we wish to conduct development activities, such work could be prohibited or delayed or expensive mitigation may be required. Moreover, as a result of a settlement approved by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in September 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) is required to make a determination on the listing of numerous species as endangered or threatened under the ESA before the completion of the agency’s 2017 fiscal year. The designation of previously unprotected species as threatened or endangered in areas where we or our oil and natural gas exploration and production customers operate could cause us or 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 midstream services.
 
Employee Health and Safety

We are subject to a number of federal and state laws and regulations, including the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”) and comparable state statutes, whose purpose is to protect the health and safety of workers, both generally and within the pipeline industry. In addition, the OSHA hazard communication standard, the EPA community right-to-know regulations under Title III of the Federal Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act and comparable state statutes require that information be maintained concerning hazardous materials used or produced in our operations and that this information be provided to employees, state and local government authorities and citizens. We and the entities in which we own an interest are also subject to OSHA Process Safety Management regulations, which are designed to prevent or minimize the consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable or explosive chemicals. The regulations apply to any process that (1) involves a listed chemical in a quantity at or above the threshold quantity specified in the regulation for that chemical, or (2) involves certain flammable gases or flammable liquids present on site in one location in a quantity of 10,000 pounds or more. Flammable liquids stored in atmospheric tanks below their normal boiling point without the benefit of chilling or refrigeration are exempt. We have an internal program of inspection designed to monitor and enforce compliance with worker safety requirements.

Pipeline Safety

Many of the Partnership’s natural gas, NGL and crude pipelines are subject to regulation by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”) of the DOT (or state analogs) under the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (“NGPSA”) with respect to natural gas, and the Hazardous Liquids Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 (“HLPSA”) with respect to crude oil, NGLs and condensates. Both the NGPSA and the HLPSA were amended by the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (“PSI Act”) and the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006 (“PIPES Act”). The NGPSA and HLPSA govern the design, installation, testing, construction, operation, replacement and management of natural gas, crude oil, NGL and condensate pipeline facilities. Pursuant to these acts, PHMSA has promulgated regulations governing, among other things, pipeline wall thicknesses, 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 promulgated regulations requiring pipeline operators to develop and implement integrity management programs for certain gas and hazardous liquids pipelines that, in the event of a pipeline leak or rupture, could affect “high consequence areas,” 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. The Partnership’s past compliance with the NGPSA and HLPSA has not had a material adverse effect on its results of operations; however, future compliance with these pipeline safety laws could result in increased costs.

These pipeline safety laws were amended by the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (“2011 Pipeline Safety Act”), which requires increased safety measures for gas and hazardous liquids transportation pipelines. Among other things, the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act directs the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate regulations relating to expanded integrity management requirements, automatic or remote-controlled valve use, excess flow valve use, leak detection system installation, testing to confirm the material strength of certain pipelines, and operator verification of records confirming the maximum allowable pressure of certain intrastate gas transmission pipelines. The 2011 Pipeline Safety Act also increases the maximum penalty for violation of pipeline safety regulations from $100,000 to $200,000 per violation per day of violation and also from $1 million to $2 million for a related series of violations. The safety enhancement requirements and other provisions of the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act as well as any implementation of PHMSA regulations thereunder or any issuance or reinterpretation of PHMSA guidance with respect thereto could require us to install new or modified safety controls, pursue additional capital projects or conduct maintenance programs on an accelerated basis, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s results of operations or financial position.

In addition, states have adopted regulations, similar to existing PHMSA regulations, for intrastate gathering and transmission lines. Texas, Louisiana and New Mexico, for example, have developed regulatory programs that parallel the federal regulatory scheme and are applicable to intrastate pipelines transporting natural gas and NGLs. North Dakota has similarly implemented regulatory programs applicable to intrastate natural gas pipelines. The Partnership currently estimates an annual average cost of $5.0 million for the years 2016 through 2018 to perform necessary integrity management program testing on its pipelines required by existing PHMSA and state regulations. This estimate does not include the costs, if any, of any repair, remediation, or preventative or mitigating actions that may be determined to be necessary as a result of the testing program, which costs could be substantial. However, we do not expect that any such costs would be material to the Partnership’s financial condition or results of operations.
 
The Partnership, or the entities in which it owns an interest, inspects its pipelines regularly in compliance with state and federal maintenance requirements. Nonetheless, the adoption of new or amended regulations by PHMSA or the states that result in more stringent or costly pipeline integrity management or safety standards could have a significant adverse effect on us and similarly situated midstream operators. For example, federal construction, maintenance and inspection standards that apply to pipelines in relatively populated areas generally do not apply to gathering lines running through rural regions. In recent years, the PHSMA has considered changes to this “rural gathering exemption, including publishing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 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. More recently, in response to an August 2014 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the PHMSA stated that it is developing revisions to its pipeline safety regulations, including consideration of the need to adopt safety requirements for gas gathering pipelines that are not currently subject to regulation. In the absence of the PHMSA pursuing any legal requirements, state agencies, to the extent authorized, may pursue state standards, including standards for rural gathering lines. For example, in 2013 the Texas Legislature authorized the Texas Railroad Commission to adopt and implement safety standards applicable to the intrastate transportation of hazardous liquids and natural gas in rural locations by gathering pipeline. See Risk Factor “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 the Partnership to increased capital costs, operational delays and costs of operation” under Item 1A of this Form 10-K for further discussion on pipeline safety standards.

Title to Properties and Rights-of-Way

The Partnership’s real property falls into two categories: (1) parcels that it owns in fee and (2) parcels in which its interest derives from leases, easements, rights-of-way, permits or licenses from landowners or governmental authorities permitting the use of such land for its operations. Portions of the land on which the Partnership’s plants and other major facilities are located are owned by the Partnership in fee title and we believe that the Partnership has satisfactory title to these lands. The remainder of the land on which the Partnership plant sites and major facilities are located is held by the Partnership pursuant to ground leases between the Partnership, as lessee, and the fee owner of the lands, as lessors. The Partnership and its predecessors have leased these lands for many years without any material challenge known to the Partnership relating to the title to the land upon which the assets are located, and we believe that the Partnership has satisfactory leasehold estates to such lands. We have no knowledge of any challenge to the underlying fee title of any material lease, easement, right-of-way, permit, lease or license; and we believe that the Partnership has satisfactory title to all of its material leases, easements, rights-of-way, permits, leases and licenses.

Employees

Through a wholly-owned subsidiary of ours, we employ approximately 1,870 people who primarily support the Partnership’s operations. None of those employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our employee relations to be good.

Financial Information by Reportable Segment

See “Segment Information” included under Note 24 of the “Consolidated Financial Statements” for a presentation of financial results by reportable segment and see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations– Results of Operations– By Reportable Segment” for a discussion of our and the Partnership’s financial results by segment.

Available Information

We make certain filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), including our Annual Report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments and exhibits to those reports. We make such filings available free of charge through our website, http://www.targaresources.com, as soon as reasonably practicable after they are filed with the SEC. The filings are also available through the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549 or by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Also, these filings are available on the internet at http://www.sec.gov. Our press releases and recent analyst presentations are also available on our website.
 
Item 1A.
Risk Factors.

The nature of our business activities subjects us to certain hazards and risks. You should consider carefully the following risk factors together with all of the other information contained in this report. If any of the following risks were actually to occur, then our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Risks Related to Our Business

Our cash flow is dependent upon the ability of the Partnership to make cash distributions to us.

Our cash flow consists entirely of cash distributions from the Partnership. The amount of cash that the Partnership will be able to distribute to its partners, including us, each quarter principally depends upon the amount of cash it generates from its business. For a description of certain factors that can cause fluctuations in the amount of cash that the Partnership generates from its business, please read “—Risks Inherent in the Partnership’s Business” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Factors That Significantly Affect Our Results.” The Partnership may not have sufficient available cash each quarter to continue paying distributions at their current level or at all. If the Partnership reduces its per unit distribution, because of reduced operating cash flow, higher expenses, capital requirements or otherwise, we will have less cash available to pay dividends to our stockholders and may be required to reduce the dividend per share of common stock. The amount of cash the Partnership has available for distribution depends primarily upon the Partnership’s cash flow, including cash flow from the release of reserves as well as borrowings, and is not solely a function of profitability, which will be affected by non-cash items. As a result, the Partnership may make cash distributions during periods when it records losses and may not make cash distributions during periods when it records profits.

Once we receive cash from the Partnership and the general partner, our ability to distribute the cash received to our stockholders is limited by a number of factors, including:

· our obligation to satisfy tax obligations associated with previous sales of assets to the Partnership;

· interest expense and principal payments on any indebtedness we incur;

· restrictions on distributions contained in any existing or future debt agreements;

· our general and administrative expenses, including expenses we incur as a result of being a public company as well as other operating expenses;

· expenses of the general partner;

· income taxes;

· reserves we establish in order for us to maintain our 2% general partner interest in the Partnership upon the issuance of additional partnership securities by the Partnership; and

· reserves our board of directors establishes for the proper conduct of our business, to comply with applicable law or any agreement binding on us or our subsidiaries or to provide for future dividends by us.

The actual amount of cash that is available for dividends to our stockholders will depend on numerous factors, many of which are beyond our control.

In the future, we may not have sufficient cash to pay estimated dividends.

Because our only source of operating cash flow consists of cash distributions from the Partnership, the amount of dividends we are able to pay to our stockholders may fluctuate based on the level of distributions the Partnership makes to its partners, including us. In addition, the timing and amount of such changes in distributions, if any, will not necessarily be comparable to the timing and amount of any changes in dividends made by us. Factors such as reserves established by our board of directors for our estimated general and administrative expenses as well as other operating expenses, reserves to satisfy our debt service requirements, if any, and reserves for future dividends by us may affect the dividends we make to our stockholders. The actual amount of cash that is available for dividends to our stockholders will depend on numerous factors, many of which are beyond our control.
 
Our cash dividend policy limits our ability to grow.

Because we plan on distributing a substantial amount of our cash flow, our growth may not be as fast as the growth of businesses that reinvest their available cash to expand ongoing operations. In fact, because currently our only cash-generating assets are common units and general partner interests in the Partnership, our growth will be substantially dependent upon the Partnership. If we issue additional shares of common stock or we incur debt, the payment of dividends on those additional shares or interest on that debt could increase the risk that we will be unable to maintain or increase our cash dividend levels.

We have a credit facility that contains various restrictions on our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders, borrow additional funds or capitalize on business opportunities.

We have a credit facility that contains various operating and financial restrictions and covenants. Our ability to comply with these restrictions and covenants may be affected by events beyond our control, including prevailing economic, financial and industry conditions. If we are unable to comply with these restrictions and covenants, any future indebtedness under this credit facility may become immediately due and payable and our lenders’ commitments to make further loans to us may terminate. We might not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient funds to make these accelerated payments.

Our credit facility limits our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders during an event of default or if an event of default would result from such dividend. In addition, any future borrowings may:

· adversely affect our ability to obtain additional financing for future operations or capital needs;

· limit our ability to pursue acquisitions and other business opportunities;

· make our results of operations more susceptible to adverse economic or operating conditions; or

· limit our ability to pay dividends.

Our payment of any principal and interest will reduce our cash available for dividends to our stockholders. In addition, we are able to incur substantial additional indebtedness in the future. If we incur additional debt, the risks associated with our leverage would increase. For more information regarding our credit facility, please see Note 9 of the “Consolidated Financial Statements” beginning on page F-1 in this Form 10-K.

If dividends on our shares of common stock are not paid with respect to any fiscal quarter, our stockholders will not be entitled to receive that quarter’s payments in the future.

Dividends to our stockholders are not cumulative. Consequently, if dividends on our shares of common stock are not paid with respect to any fiscal quarter, our stockholders will not be entitled to receive that quarter’s payments in the future.

Restrictions in the TRP Revolver and indentures could limit its ability to make distributions to us.

The TRP Revolver and indentures contain covenants limiting the Partnership’s ability to incur indebtedness, grant liens, engage in transactions with affiliates and make distributions. The TRP Revolver also contains covenants requiring the Partnership to maintain certain financial ratios. The Partnership is prohibited from making any distribution to unitholders if such distribution would cause an event of default or otherwise violate a covenant under the TRP Revolver or the indentures, which in turn may impact the cash available for dividends to our stockholders.
 
If we lose any of our named executive officers, our business may be adversely affected.

Our success is dependent upon the efforts of the named executive officers. Our named executive officers are responsible for executing our and the Partnership’s business strategies and, when appropriate to our primary business objective, facilitating the Partnership’s growth through various forms of financial support provided by us, including, but not limited to, modifying the Partnership’s IDRs, exercising the Partnership’s IDR reset provision contained in its partnership agreement, making loans, making capital contributions in exchange for yielding or non-yielding equity interests or providing other financial support to the Partnership. There is substantial competition for qualified personnel in the midstream natural gas industry. We may not be able to retain our existing named executive officers or fill new positions or vacancies created by expansion or turnover. We have not entered into employment agreements with any of our named executive officers. In addition, we do not maintain “key man” life insurance on the lives of any of our named executive officers. A loss of one or more of our named executive officers could harm our and the Partnership’s business and prevent us from implementing our and the Partnership’s business strategies.

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. In addition, potential changes in accounting standards might cause us to revise our financial results and disclosure in the future.

Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide timely and reliable financial reports and effectively prevent fraud. If we cannot provide timely and reliable financial reports or prevent fraud, our reputation and operating results would be harmed. We continue to enhance our internal controls and financial reporting capabilities. These enhancements require a significant commitment of resources, personnel and the development and maintenance of formalized internal reporting procedures to ensure the reliability of our financial reporting. Our efforts to update and maintain our internal controls may not be successful, and we may be unable to maintain adequate controls over our financial processes and reporting in the future, including future compliance with the obligations under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Any failure to maintain effective controls or difficulties encountered in the effective improvement of our internal controls could prevent us from timely and reliably reporting our financial results and may harm our operating results. Ineffective internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information. In addition, the Financial Accounting Standards Board or the SEC could enact new accounting standards that might impact how we or the Partnership are required to record revenues, expenses, assets and liabilities. Any significant change in accounting standards or disclosure requirements could have a material effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and ability to comply with our and the Partnership’s debt obligations.

An increase in interest rates may cause the market price of our common stock to decline.

Like all equity investments, an investment in our common stock is subject to certain risks. In exchange for accepting these risks, investors may expect to receive a higher rate of return than would otherwise be obtainable from lower-risk investments. Accordingly, as interest rates rise, the ability of investors to obtain higher risk-adjusted rates of return by purchasing government-backed debt securities may cause a corresponding decline in demand for riskier investments generally, including yield-based equity investments. Reduced demand for our common stock resulting from investors seeking other more favorable investment opportunities may cause the trading price of our common stock to decline.

Future sales of our common stock in the public market could lower our stock price, and any additional capital raised by us through the sale of equity or convertible securities may dilute your ownership in us.

We or our stockholders may sell shares of common stock in subsequent public offerings. We may also issue additional shares of common stock or convertible securities. As of December 31, 2015, we have 56,020,266 outstanding shares of common stock. Certain of our existing stockholders, including our executive officers, and certain of our directors are party to a registration rights agreement with us which requires us to affect the registration of their shares in certain circumstances no earlier than the expiration of the lock-up period contained in the underwriting agreement of our initial public offering.

We cannot predict the size of future issuances of our common stock or the effect, if any, that future issuances and sales of shares of our common stock will have on the market price of our common stock. Sales of substantial amounts of our common stock (including shares issued in connection with an acquisition), or the perception that such sales could occur, may adversely affect prevailing market prices of our common stock.
 
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws, as well as Delaware law, contain provisions that could discourage acquisition bids or merger proposals, which may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation authorizes our board of directors to issue preferred stock without stockholder approval. If our board of directors elects to issue preferred stock, it could be more difficult for a third-party to acquire us. In addition, some provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws could make it more difficult for a third-party to acquire control of us, even if the change of control would be beneficial to our stockholders, including provisions which require:

· a classified board of directors, so that only approximately one-third of our directors are elected each year;

· limitations on the removal of directors; and

· limitations on the ability of our stockholders to call special meetings and establish advance notice provisions for stockholder proposals and nominations for elections to the board of directors to be acted upon at meetings of stockholders.

Delaware law prohibits us from engaging in any business combination with any “interested stockholder,” meaning generally that a stockholder who beneficially owns more than 15% of our stock cannot acquire us for a period of three years from the date this person became an interested stockholder, unless various conditions are met, such as approval of the transaction by our board of directors. Please read “Description of Our Capital Stock—Anti-Takeover Effects of Provisions of Our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, Our Amended and Restated Bylaws and Delaware Law.”

The duties of our officers and directors may conflict with those owed to the Partnership and these officers and directors may face conflicts of interest in the allocation of administrative time among our business and the Partnership’s business.

Substantially all of our officers and certain members of our board of directors are officers and/or directors of the general partner and, as a result, have separate duties that govern their management of the Partnership’s business. These officers and directors may encounter situations in which their obligations to us, on the one hand, and the Partnership, on the other hand, are in conflict. The resolution of these conflicts may not always be in our best interest or that of our stockholders.

In addition, our officers who also serve as officers of the general partner may face conflicts in allocating their time spent on our behalf and on behalf of the Partnership. These time allocations may adversely affect our or the Partnership’s results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. For a discussion of our officers and directors that will serve in the same capacity for the general partner and the amount of time we expect them to devote to our business, please read “Management.”

Risks Inherent in the Partnership’s Business

Because we are directly dependent on the distributions we receive from the Partnership, risks to the Partnership’s operations are also risks to us. We have set forth below risks to the Partnership’s business and operations, the occurrence of which could negatively impact the Partnership’s financial performance and decrease the amount of cash it is able to distribute to us.

The Partnership has a substantial amount of indebtedness which may adversely affect its financial position.

The Partnership has a substantial amount of indebtedness. As of December 31, 2015, the Partnership had $4,832.9 million outstanding under its senior unsecured notes and $67.5 million of outstanding APL Notes, excluding $16.4 million of unamortized net discounts and premiums. The Partnership also had $219.3 million outstanding under its accounts receivable securitization facility (the “Securitization Facility”). In addition, the Partnership had $280 million of borrowings outstanding, $12.9 million of letters of credit outstanding and $1,307.1 million of additional borrowing capacity available under the TRP Revolver. The $1.6 billion TRP Revolver allows it to request increases in commitments up to an additional $300 million. For the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, the Partnership’s consolidated interest expense, net was $231.9 million, $143.8 million and $131.0 million, respectively.
 
This substantial level of indebtedness increases the possibility that the Partnership may be unable to generate cash sufficient to pay, when due, the principal of, interest on or other amounts due in respect of indebtedness. This substantial indebtedness, combined with lease and other financial obligations and contractual commitments, could have other important consequences to the Partnership, including the following:

· the Partnership’s ability to obtain additional financing, if necessary, for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions or other purposes may be impaired or such financing may not be available on favorable terms;

· satisfying the Partnership’s obligations with respect to indebtedness may be more difficult and any failure to comply with the obligations of any debt instruments could result in an event of default under the agreements governing such indebtedness;

· the Partnership will need a portion of cash flow to make interest payments on debt, reducing the funds that would otherwise be available for operations and future business opportunities;

· the Partnership’s debt level will make it more vulnerable to competitive pressures or a downturn in its business or the economy generally; and

· the Partnership’s debt level may limit flexibility in planning for, or responding to, changing business and economic conditions.

The Partnership’s long-term debt is currently rated by Standard & Poor’s Corporation (“S&P”) and Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody’s”). As of December 31, 2015, the Partnership’s senior debt was rated “BB+” by S&P, until February 4, 2016, when S&P announced that it lowered the rating to “BB-”. On February, 4, 2016, S&P also downgraded the Company’s general corporate credit rating from “B+” to “B-”. As of December 31, 2016, the Partnership’s senior debt was rated “Ba2” by Moody’s. Any future downgrades in the Partnership’s credit ratings could negatively impact the cost of raising capital, and a downgrade could also adversely affect the Partnership’s ability to effectively execute aspects of its strategy and to access capital in the public markets.

The Partnership’s ability to service its debt will depend upon, among other things, its future financial and operating performance, which will be affected by prevailing economic conditions and financial, business, regulatory and other factors, some of which are beyond its control. If the Partnership’s operating results are not sufficient to service its current or future indebtedness, it will be forced to take actions such as reducing or delaying business activities, acquisitions, investments or capital expenditures, selling assets, restructuring or refinancing debt, or seeking additional equity capital, and such results may adversely affect our ability to make cash distributions. The Partnership may not be able to affect any of these actions on satisfactory terms, or at all.

Increases in interest rates could adversely affect the Partnership’s business.

The Partnership has significant exposure to increases in interest rates. As of December 31, 2015, its total indebtedness was $5,399.7 million, excluding $16.4 million of unamortized net discounts and premiums, of which $4,900.4 million was at fixed interest rates and $499.3 million was at variable interest rates. A one percentage point increase in the interest rate on the Partnership’s variable interest rate debt would have increased its consolidated annual interest expense by approximately $5.0 million. As a result of this amount of variable interest rate debt, the Partnership’s financial condition could be negatively affected by increases in interest rates.

Despite current indebtedness levels, the Partnership may still be able to incur substantially more debt. This could increase the risks associated with the Partnership’s substantial leverage.

The Partnership may be able to incur substantial additional indebtedness in the future. As of December 31, 2015, the Partnership had $219.3 million of borrowings outstanding under its Securitization Facility. In addition, the Partnership had $280.0 million of borrowings outstanding, $12.9 million of letters of credit outstanding and $1,307.1 million of additional borrowing capacity available under the TRP Revolver. The Partnership may be able to increase the borrowing capacity under the TRP Revolver by an additional $300 million if the Partnership requests and is able to obtain commitments from lenders for such additional amounts. Although the TRP Revolver contains restrictions on the incurrence of additional indebtedness, these restrictions are subject to a number of significant qualifications and exceptions, and any indebtedness incurred in compliance with these restrictions could be substantial. If the Partnership incurs additional debt, the risks associated with its substantial leverage would increase.
 
The terms of the TRP Revolver and indentures may restrict the Partnership’s current and future operations, particularly its ability to respond to changes in business or to take certain actions.

The credit agreement governing the TRP Revolver, the agreements governing the Securitization Facility and the indentures governing the Partnership’s senior notes contain, and any future indebtedness the Partnership incurs will likely contain, a number of restrictive covenants that impose significant operating and financial restrictions, including restrictions on its ability to engage in acts that may be in its best long-term interests. These agreements include covenants that, among other things, restrict the Partnership’s ability to:

· incur or guarantee additional indebtedness or issue preferred stock;

· pay distributions on its equity securities or to its equity holders or redeem, repurchase or retire its equity securities or subordinated indebtedness;

· make investments  and certain acquisitions;

· pay distributions to its equity holders;

· sell or transfer assets, including equity securities of its subsidiaries;

· engage in affiliate transactions,

· consolidate or merge;

· incur liens;

· prepay, redeem and repurchase certain debt, other than loans under the TRP Revolver;

· enter into sale and lease-back transactions or take-or-pay contracts; and

· change business activities conducted by it.

In addition, the TRP Revolver requires the Partnership to satisfy and maintain specified financial ratios and other financial condition tests. The Partnership’s ability to meet those financial ratios and tests can be affected by events beyond its control, and we cannot assure you that the Partnership will meet those ratios and tests.

A breach of any of these covenants could result in an event of default under the TRP Revolver, the indentures, or the Securitization Facility, as applicable. Upon the occurrence of such an event of default, all amounts outstanding under the applicable debt agreements could be declared to be immediately due and payable and all applicable commitments to extend further credit could be terminated. If the Partnership is unable to repay the accelerated debt under the TRP Revolver, the lenders under the TRP Revolver could proceed against the collateral granted to them to secure that indebtedness. If the Partnership is unable to repay the accelerated debt under the Securitization Facility, the lenders under the Securitization Facility could proceed against the collateral granted to them to secure the indebtedness. The Partnership has pledged substantially all of its assets as collateral under the TRP Revolver and the accounts receivables of Targa Receivables LLC under the Securitization Facility. If the indebtedness under the TRP Revolver, the indentures, or the Securitization Facility is accelerated, we cannot assure you that the Partnership will have sufficient assets to repay the indebtedness. The operating and financial restrictions and covenants in these debt agreements and any future financing agreements may adversely affect the Partnership’s ability to finance future operations or capital needs or to engage in other business activities.
 
The Partnership’s cash flow is affected by supply and demand for natural gas and NGL products and by natural gas, NGL, crude oil and condensate prices, and decreases in these prices could adversely affect its results of operations and financial condition.
 
The Partnership’s operations can be affected by the level of natural gas and NGL prices and the relationship between these prices. The prices of crude oil, natural gas and NGLs have been volatile and we expect this volatility to continue. Beginning in the third quarter of 2014, crude oil and natural gas prices significantly declined and continued to decline during 2015. The duration and magnitude of the recent decline in oil, gas and NGLs prices can not be predicted. The Partnership’s future cash flow may be materially adversely affected if it experiences significant, prolonged price deterioration. The markets and prices for natural gas and NGLs depend upon factors beyond the Partnership’s control. These factors include demand for these commodities, which fluctuates with changes in market and economic conditions, and other factors, including:

· the impact of seasonality and weather;

· general economic conditions and economic conditions impacting the Partnership’s primary markets;

· the economic conditions of the Partnership’s customers;

· the level of domestic crude oil and natural gas production and consumption;

· the availability of imported natural gas, liquefied natural gas, NGLs and crude oil;

· actions taken by foreign oil and gas producing nations;

· the availability of local, intrastate and interstate transportation systems and storage for residue natural gas and NGLs;

· the availability and marketing of competitive fuels and/or feedstocks;

· the impact of energy conservation efforts; and

· the extent of governmental regulation and taxation.

The Partnership’s primary natural gas gathering and processing arrangements that expose it to commodity price risk are its percent-of-proceeds arrangements. For the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, the Partnership’s percent-of-proceeds arrangements accounted for approximately 60% and 51%, respectively, of its gathered natural gas volume. Under these arrangements, the Partnership generally processes natural gas from producers and remits to the producers an agreed percentage of the proceeds from the sale of residue gas and NGL products at market prices or a percentage of residue gas and NGL products at the tailgate of the Partnership’s processing facilities. In some percent-of-proceeds arrangements, the Partnership remits to the producer a percentage of an index-based price for residue gas and NGL products, less agreed adjustments, rather than remitting a portion of the actual sales proceeds. Under these types of arrangements, the Partnership’s revenues and cash flows increase or decrease, whichever is applicable, as the prices of natural gas, NGLs and crude oil fluctuates. Please see “Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.”

Changes in future business conditions could cause recorded goodwill to become further impaired, and our financial condition and results of operations could suffer if there is an additional impairment of goodwill or other intangible assets with indefinite lives.

Under purchase accounting for the Atlas mergers, we recorded goodwill of $707.0 million. We evaluate goodwill for impairment at least annually, as of November 30th, as well as whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate it is more likely than not the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. During 2015, global oil and natural gas commodity prices, particularly crude oil, significantly decreased as compared to 2014. This decrease in commodity prices has had, and is expected to continue to have, a negative impact on the demand for our services and our market capitalization. Based on the results of our November 30 evaluation, we have recorded a provisional goodwill impairment of $290.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2015 which is included in impairment expense in our Consolidated Statements of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2015 and reduced the carrying value of goodwill to $417.0 million as of December 31, 2015.

Should energy industry conditions further deteriorate, there is a possibility that goodwill may be impaired in a future period. Any additional impairment charges that we may take in the future could be material to our financial statements. We cannot accurately predict the amount and timing of any impairment of goodwill. For a further discussion of our goodwill impairments, see Note 4 of the “Consolidated Financial Statements” included in this Annual Report.
 
The Partnership is exposed to credit risks of its customers, and any material nonpayment or nonperformance by its key customers could adversely affect its cash flow and results of operations.

Many of the Partnership’s customers may experience financial problems that could have a significant effect on their creditworthiness, especially in the current depressed commodity price environment. The recent decline in natural gas, NGL and crude oil prices may adversely affect the business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects of some of the Partnership’s customers. Severe financial problems encountered by the Partnership’s customers could limit its ability to collect amounts owed to its, or to enforce performance of obligations under contractual arrangements. In addition, many of its customers finance their activities through cash flow from operations, the incurrence of debt or the issuance of equity. The combination of reduction of cash flow resulting from the recent decline in commodity prices, a reduction in borrowing bases under reserve-based credit facilities and the lack of availability of debt or equity financing may result in a significant reduction of its customers’ liquidity and limit their ability to make payment or perform on their obligations to the Partnership. Additionally, a decline in the share price of some of the Partnership’s public customers may place them in danger of becoming delisted from a public securities exchange, limiting their access to the public capital markets and further restricting their liquidity. Furthermore, some of the Partnership’s customers may be highly leveraged and subject to their own operating and regulatory risks, which increases the risk that they may default on their obligations to the Partnership. To the extent one or more of our key 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. Financial problems experienced by our customers could result in the impairment of our assets, reduction of our operating cash flows and may also reduce or curtail their future use of our products and services, which could reduce our revenues. Any material nonpayment or nonperformance by our key customers or our derivative counterparties could reduce our ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

Because of the natural decline in production in the Partnership’s operating regions and in other regions from which it sources NGL supplies, its long-term success depends on its ability to obtain new sources of supplies of natural gas, NGLs and crude oil which depends on certain factors beyond its control. Any decrease in supplies of natural gas, NGLs or crude oil could adversely affect the Partnership’s business and operating results.

The Partnership’s gathering systems are connected to crude oil and natural gas wells from which production will naturally decline over time, which means that the cash flows associated with these sources of natural gas and crude oil will likely also decline over time. The Partnership’s logistics assets are similarly impacted by declines in NGL supplies in the regions in which it operates as well as other regions from which it sources NGLs. To maintain or increase throughput levels on the Partnership’s gathering systems and the utilization rate at its processing plants and its treating and fractionation facilities, the Partnership must continually obtain new natural gas, NGL and crude oil supplies. A material decrease in natural gas or crude oil production from producing areas on which the Partnership relies, as a result of depressed commodity prices or otherwise, could result in a decline in the volume of natural gas or crude oil that it processes, NGL products delivered to its fractionation facilities or crude oil that the Partnership gathers. The Partnership’s ability to obtain additional sources of natural gas, NGLs and crude oil depends, in part, on the level of successful drilling and production activity near its gathering systems and, in part, on the level of successful drilling and production in other areas from which it sources NGL and crude oil supplies. The Partnership has no control over the level of such activity in the areas of its operations, the amount of reserves associated with the wells or the rate at which production from a well will decline. In addition, the Partnership has no control over producers or their drilling or production decisions, which are affected by, among other things, prevailing and projected energy prices, demand for hydrocarbons, the level of reserves, geological considerations, governmental regulations, the availability of drilling rigs, other production and development costs and the availability and cost of capital.

Fluctuations in energy prices can greatly affect production rates and investments by third parties in the development of new oil and natural gas reserves. Drilling and production activity generally decreases as crude oil and natural gas prices decrease. Prices of crude oil and natural gas have been historically volatile, and we expect this volatility to continue. Beginning in the third quarter of 2014, crude oil and natural gas prices significantly declined and continued to decline during 2015. Consequently, even if new natural gas or crude oil reserves are discovered in areas served by the Partnership’s assets, producers may choose not to develop those reserves. For example, current low prices for natural gas combined with relatively high levels of natural gas in storage could result in curtailment or shut-in of natural gas production. Reductions in exploration and production activity, competitor actions or shut-ins by producers in the areas in which the Partnership operates may prevent it from obtaining supplies of natural gas or crude oil to replace the natural decline in volumes from existing wells, which could result in reduced volumes through its facilities and reduced utilization of its gathering, treating, processing and fractionation assets.
 
If the Partnership does not make acquisitions or develop growth projects for expanding existing assets or constructing new midstream assets on economically acceptable terms or fails to efficiently and effectively integrate acquired or developed assets with its asset base, its future growth will be limited. In addition, any acquisitions the Partnership completes are subject to substantial risks that could adversely affect its financial condition and results of operations and reduce its ability to make distributions to limited partners.

The Partnership’s ability to grow depends, in part, on its ability to make acquisitions or develop growth projects that result in an increase in cash generated from operations. The Partnership is unable to acquire businesses from us in order to grow because our only assets are the interests in the Partnership that we own. As a result, the Partnership will need to focus on third-party acquisitions and organic growth. If the Partnership is unable to make accretive acquisitions or develop accretive growth projects because it is (1) unable to identify attractive acquisition candidates and negotiate acceptable acquisition agreements or develop growth projects economically, (2) unable to obtain financing for these acquisitions or projects on economically acceptable terms, or (3) unable to compete successfully for acquisitions or growth projects, then the Partnership’s future growth and ability to increase distributions will be limited.

Any acquisition or growth project involves potential risks, including, among other things:

operating a significantly larger combined organization and adding new or expanded operations;

difficulties in the assimilation of the assets and operations of the acquired businesses or growth projects, especially if the assets acquired are in a new business segment and/or geographic area;

the risk that crude oil and natural gas reserves expected to support the acquired assets may not be of the anticipated magnitude or may not be developed as anticipated;

the failure to realize expected volumes, revenues, profitability or growth;

the failure to realize any expected synergies and cost savings;

coordinating geographically disparate organizations, systems and facilities;

the assumption of environmental and other unknown liabilities;

limitations on rights to indemnity from the seller in an acquisition or the contractors and suppliers in growth projects;

the failure to attain or maintain compliance with environmental and other governmental regulations;

inaccurate assumptions about the overall costs of equity or debt;

the diversion of management’s and employees’ attention from other business concerns; and

customer or key employee losses at the acquired businesses or to a competitor.

If these risks materialize, any acquired assets or growth project may inhibit the Partnership’s growth, fail to deliver expected benefits and/or add further unexpected costs. Challenges may arise whenever businesses with different operations or management are combined, and the Partnership may experience unanticipated delays in realizing the benefits of an acquisition or growth project. If the Partnership consummates any future acquisition or growth project, its capitalization and results of operations may change significantly and you may not have the opportunity to evaluate the economic, financial and other relevant information that the Partnership will consider in evaluating future acquisitions or growth projects.

The Partnership’s acquisition and growth strategy is based, in part, on its expectation of ongoing divestitures of energy assets by industry participants and new opportunities created by industry expansion. A material decrease in such divestitures or in opportunities for economic commercial expansion would limit the Partnership’s opportunities for future acquisitions or growth projects and could adversely affect its operations and cash flows available for distribution to its limited partners.
 
Acquisitions may significantly increase the Partnership’s size and diversify the geographic areas in which it operates and growth projects may increase its concentration in a line of business or geographic region. The Partnership may not achieve the desired effect from any future acquisitions or growth projects.
 
The Partnership’s expansion or modification of existing assets or the construction of new assets may not result in revenue increases and is subject to regulatory, environmental, political, legal and economic risks, which could adversely affect its results of operations and financial condition.

The construction of additions or modifications to the Partnership’s existing systems and the construction of new midstream assets involve numerous regulatory, environmental, political and legal uncertainties beyond its control and may require the expenditure of significant amounts of capital. If the Partnership undertakes these projects, they may not be completed on schedule or at the budgeted cost or at all. Moreover, the Partnership’s revenues may not increase immediately upon the expenditure of funds on a particular project. For instance, if the Partnership builds a new fractionation facility or gas processing plant, the construction may occur over an extended period of time and the Partnership will not receive any material increases in revenues until the project is completed. Moreover, the Partnership may construct facilities to capture anticipated future growth in production in a region in which such growth does not materialize. Since the Partnership is not engaged in the exploration for and development of natural gas and oil reserves, it does not possess reserve expertise and it often does not have access to third-party estimates of potential reserves in an area prior to constructing facilities in such area. To the extent the Partnership relies on estimates of future production in any decision to construct additions to its systems, such estimates may prove to be inaccurate because there are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating quantities of future production. As a result, new facilities may not be able to attract enough throughput to achieve the Partnership’s expected investment return, which could adversely affect its results of operations and financial condition. In addition, the construction of additions to the Partnership’s existing gathering and transportation assets may require it to obtain new rights-of-way prior to constructing new pipelines. The Partnership may be unable to obtain such rights-of-way to connect new natural gas supplies to its existing gathering lines or capitalize on other attractive expansion opportunities. Additionally, it may become more expensive for the Partnership to obtain new rights-of-way or to renew existing rights-of-way. If the cost of renewing or obtaining new rights-of-way increases, the Partnership’s cash flows could be adversely affected.

The Partnership’s acquisition and growth strategy requires access to new capital. Tightened capital markets or increased competition for investment opportunities could impair the Partnership’s ability to grow through acquisitions or growth projects.

The Partnership continuously considers and enters into discussions regarding potential acquisitions and growth projects. Any limitations on the Partnership’s access to capital will impair its ability to execute this strategy. If the cost of such capital becomes too expensive, the Partnership’s ability to develop or acquire strategic and accretive assets will be limited. The Partnership may not be able to raise the necessary funds on satisfactory terms, if at all. The primary factors that influence the Partnership’s initial cost of equity include market conditions, fees it pays to underwriters and other offering costs, which include amounts it pays for legal and accounting services. The primary factors influencing the Partnership’s cost of borrowing include interest rates, credit spreads, covenants, underwriting or loan origination fees and similar charges it pays to lenders. These factors may impair the Partnership’s ability to execute its acquisition and growth strategy.

In addition, the Partnership is experiencing increased competition for the types of assets it contemplates purchasing or developing. Current economic conditions and competition for asset purchases and development opportunities could limit its ability to fully execute its acquisition and growth strategy.

Demand for propane is significantly impacted by weather conditions and therefore seasonal, and requires increases in inventory to meet seasonal demand.

Weather conditions have a significant impact on the demand for propane because end-users principally utilize propane for heating purposes. Warmer-than-normal temperatures in one or more regions in which the Partnership operates can significantly decrease the total volume of propane it sells. Lack of consumer demand for propane may also adversely affect the retailers with which the Partnership transacts its wholesale propane marketing operations, exposing the Partnership to retailers’ inability to satisfy their contractual obligations to the Partnership.
 
If the Partnership fails to balance its purchases of natural gas and its sales of residue gas and NGLs, its exposure to commodity price risk will increase.

The Partnership may not be successful in balancing its purchases of natural gas and its sales of residue gas and NGLs. In addition, a producer could fail to deliver promised volumes to the Partnership or deliver in excess of contracted volumes, or a purchaser could purchase less than contracted volumes. Any of these actions could cause an imbalance between the Partnership’s purchases and sales. If the Partnership’s purchases and sales are not balanced, it will face increased exposure to commodity price risks and could have increased volatility in its operating income.
 
The Partnership’s hedging activities may not be effective in reducing the variability of its cash flows and may, in certain circumstances, increase the variability of its cash flows. Moreover, the Partnership’s hedges may not fully protect it against volatility in basis differentials. Finally, the percentage of the Partnership’s expected equity commodity volumes that are hedged decreases substantially over time.

The Partnership has entered into derivative transactions related to only a portion of its equity volumes. As a result, it will continue to have direct commodity price risk to the unhedged portion. The Partnership’s actual future volumes may be significantly higher or lower than it estimated at the time it entered into the derivative transactions for that period. If the actual amount is higher than the Partnership estimated, it will have greater commodity price risk than it intended. If the actual amount is lower than the amount that is subject to its derivative financial instruments, the Partnership might be forced to satisfy all or a portion of its derivative transactions without the benefit of the cash flow from its sale of the underlying physical commodity. The percentages of the Partnership’s expected equity volumes that are covered by its hedges decrease over time. To the extent the Partnership hedges its commodity price risk; it may forego the benefits it would otherwise experience if commodity prices were to change in its favor. The derivative instruments the Partnership utilizes for these hedges are based on posted market prices, which may be higher or lower than the actual natural gas, NGL and condensate prices that it realizes in its operations. These pricing differentials may be substantial and could materially impact the prices the Partnership ultimately realizes. In addition, market and economic conditions may adversely affect the Partnership’s hedge counterparties’ ability to meet their obligations. Given volatility in the financial and commodity markets, the Partnership may experience defaults by its hedge counterparties in the future. As a result of these and other factors, the Partnership’s hedging activities may not be as effective as it intended in reducing the variability of its cash flows, and in certain circumstances may actually increase the variability of its cash flows. Please see “Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.”

If third-party pipelines and other facilities interconnected to the Partnership’s natural gas and crude oil gathering systems, terminals and processing facilities become partially or fully unavailable to transport natural gas and NGLs, its revenues could be adversely affected.

The Partnership depends upon third-party pipelines, storage and other facilities that provide delivery options to and from its gathering and processing facilities. Since the Partnership does not own or operate these pipelines or other facilities, their continuing operation in their current manner is not within its control. If any of these third-party facilities become partially or fully unavailable, or if the quality specifications for their facilities change so as to restrict the Partnership’s ability to utilize them, its revenues could be adversely affected.

The Partnership’s industry is highly competitive, and increased competitive pressure could adversely affect its business and operating results.

The Partnership competes with similar enterprises in its respective areas of operation. Some of the Partnership’s competitors are large crude oil, natural gas and NGL companies that have greater financial resources and access to supplies of natural gas and NGLs than it does. Some of these competitors may expand or construct gathering, processing, storage, terminaling and transportation systems that would create additional competition for the services the Partnership provides to its customers. In addition, customers who are significant producers of natural gas may develop their own gathering, processing, storage, terminaling and transportation systems in lieu of using those operated by the Partnership. The Partnership’s ability to renew or replace existing contracts with its customers at rates sufficient to maintain current revenues and cash flows could be adversely affected by the activities of its competitors and its customers. All of these competitive pressures could have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s business, results of operations and financial condition.
 
The Partnership typically does not obtain independent evaluations of natural gas or crude oil reserves dedicated to its gathering pipeline systems; therefore, supply volumes on its systems in the future could be less than it anticipates.

The Partnership typically does not obtain independent evaluations of natural gas or crude oil reserves connected to its gathering systems due to the unwillingness of producers to provide reserve information as well as the cost of such evaluations. Accordingly, the Partnership does not have independent estimates of total reserves dedicated to its gathering systems or the anticipated life of such reserves. If the total reserves or estimated life of the reserves connected to the Partnership’s gathering systems is less than it anticipates and it is unable to secure additional sources of supply, then the volumes of natural gas or crude oil transported on its gathering systems in the future could be less than it anticipates. A decline in the volumes on the Partnership’s systems could have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations and financial condition.

A reduction in demand for NGL products by the petrochemical, refining or other industries or by the fuel or export markets, or a significant increase in NGL product supply relative to this demand, could materially adversely affect the Partnership’s business, results of operations and financial condition.

The NGL products the Partnership produces have a variety of applications, including as heating fuels, petrochemical feedstocks and refining blend stocks. A reduction in demand for NGL products, whether because of general or industry-specific economic conditions, new government regulations, global competition, reduced demand by consumers for products made with NGL products (for example, reduced petrochemical demand observed due to lower activity in the automobile and construction industries), reduced demand for propane or butane exports whether for price or other reasons, increased competition from petroleum-based feedstocks due to pricing differences, mild winter weather for some NGL applications or other reasons, could result in a decline in the volume of NGL products the Partnership handles or reduce the fees it charges for its services. Also, increased supply of NGL products could reduce the value of NGLs handled by the Partnership and reduce the margins realized. The Partnership’s NGL products and their demand are affected as follows:

Ethane. Ethane is typically supplied as purity ethane and as part of an ethane-propane mix. Ethane is primarily used in the petrochemical industry as feedstock for ethylene, one of the basic building blocks for a wide range of plastics and other chemical products. Although ethane is typically extracted as part of the mixed NGL stream at gas processing plants, if natural gas prices increase significantly in relation to NGL product prices or if the demand for ethylene falls, it may be more profitable for natural gas processors to leave the ethane in the natural gas stream, thereby reducing the volume of NGLs delivered for fractionation and marketing.

Propane. Propane is used as a petrochemical feedstock in the production of ethylene and propylene, as a heating, engine and industrial fuel, and in agricultural applications such as crop drying. Changes in demand for ethylene and propylene could adversely affect demand for propane. The demand for propane as a heating fuel is significantly affected by weather conditions. The volume of propane sold is at its highest during the six-month peak heating season of October through March. Demand for the Partnership’s propane may be reduced during periods of warmer-than-normal weather.

Normal Butane. Normal butane is used in the production of isobutane, as a refined petroleum product blending component, as a fuel gas (either alone or in a mixture with propane) and in the production of ethylene and propylene. Changes in the composition of refined petroleum products resulting from governmental regulation, changes in feedstocks, products and economics, and demand for heating fuel, ethylene and propylene could adversely affect demand for normal butane.

Isobutane. Isobutane is predominantly used in refineries to produce alkylates to enhance octane levels. Accordingly, any action that reduces demand for motor gasoline or demand for isobutane to produce alkylates for octane enhancement might reduce demand for isobutane.

Natural Gasoline. Natural gasoline is used as a blending component for certain refined petroleum products and as a feedstock used in the production of ethylene and propylene. Changes in the mandated composition of motor gasoline resulting from governmental regulation, and in demand for ethylene and propylene, could adversely affect demand for natural gasoline.
 
NGLs and products produced from NGLs also compete with products from global markets. Any reduced demand or increased supply for ethane, propane, normal butane, isobutane or natural gasoline in the markets the Partnership accesses for any of the reasons stated above could adversely affect both demand for the services it provides and NGL prices, which could negatively impact its results of operations and financial condition.

The tax treatment of the Partnership depends on its status as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes as well as its not being subject to a material amount of entity-level taxation by individual states. If, upon an audit of the Partnership, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) were to treat the Partnership as a corporation for federal income tax purposes now or with respect to a tax period prior to the TRC/TRP Merger, or the Partnership becomes subject to a material amount of entity-level taxation for state tax purposes, then its cash available for distribution to us would be substantially reduced.

A publicly traded partnership such as the Partnership may be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes unless it satisfies a “qualifying income” requirement. Based on the Partnership’s current operations we believe that the Partnership satisfies the qualifying income requirement and will be treated as a partnership. Failing to meet the qualifying income requirement or a change in current law could cause the Partnership to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes or otherwise subject the Partnership to taxation as an entity. The Partnership has not requested and does not plan to request a ruling from the IRS with respect to its treatment as a partnership for federal income tax purposes.

If the Partnership were treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, it would pay federal income tax on its taxable income at the corporate tax rate, which is currently a maximum of 35%, and would likely pay state income tax at varying rates. Distributions from the Partnership would generally be taxed again as corporate distributions and no income, gains, losses or deductions would flow through to us. If such tax were imposed upon the Partnership as a corporation now or with respect to a tax period prior to the TRC/TRP Merger, its cash available for distribution would be substantially reduced. Therefore, treatment of the Partnership as a corporation would result in a material reduction in the anticipated cash flow and after-tax return to us and could cause a substantial reduction in the value of our shares.

At the state level, because of widespread state budget deficits and other reasons, several states are evaluating ways to subject partnerships to entity-level taxation through the imposition of state income and franchise taxes and other forms of taxation. For example, the Partnership is required to pay Texas franchise tax at a maximum effective rate of 0.7% of its gross income apportioned to Texas in the prior year. Imposition of any similar tax on the Partnership by additional states would reduce the cash available for distribution to us.

The tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships or our investment in the Partnership could be subject to potential legislative, judicial or administrative changes and differing interpretations, possibly on a retroactive basis.

The present U.S. federal income tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships, including the Partnership, or an investment in the Partnership may be modified by administrative, legislative or judicial changes or differing interpretations at any time. For example, the Obama administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2016 recommends that certain publicly traded partnerships earning income from activities related to fossil fuels be taxed as corporations beginning in 2021. From time to time, members of Congress propose and consider such substantive changes to the existing federal income tax laws that affect publicly traded partnerships. If successful, the Obama administration’s proposal or other similar proposals could eliminate the qualifying income exception to the treatment of all publicly traded partnerships as corporations, upon which the Partnership relies for its treatment as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

In addition, the IRS, on May 5, 2015, issued proposed regulations concerning which activities give rise to qualifying income within the meaning of Section 7704 of the Internal Revenue Code. Neither we nor the Partnership believes that the proposed regulations affect the Partnership’s ability to qualify as a publicly traded partnership. However, finalized regulations could modify the amount of the Partnership’s gross income that it is able to treat as qualifying income for the purposes of the qualifying income requirement and modify or revoke existing rulings, including the Partnership’s.

Any modification to the U.S. federal income tax laws may be applied retroactively and could make it more difficult or impossible for the Partnership 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 such changes could negatively impact the value of our shares.
 
The Partnership does not own most of the land on which its pipelines, terminals and compression facilities are located, which could disrupt its operations.

The Partnership does not own most of the land on which its pipelines, terminals and compression facilities are located, and the Partnership is therefore subject to the possibility of more onerous terms and/or increased costs to retain necessary land use if it does not have valid rights-of-way or leases or if such rights-of-way or leases lapse or terminate. The Partnership sometimes obtains the rights to land owned by third parties and governmental agencies for a specific period of time. The Partnership’s loss of these rights, through its inability to renew right-of-way contracts or leases, or otherwise, could cause it to cease operations on the affected land, increase costs related to continuing operations elsewhere and reduce its revenue.

The Partnership may be unable to cause its majority-owned joint ventures to take or not to take certain actions unless some or all of its joint venture participants agree.

The Partnership participates in several majority-owned joint ventures whose corporate governance structures require at least a majority in interest vote to authorize many basic activities and require a greater voting interest (sometimes up to 100%) to authorize more significant activities. Examples of these more significant activities include, among others, large expenditures or contractual commitments, the construction or acquisition of assets, borrowing money or otherwise raising capital, making distributions, transactions with affiliates of a joint venture participant, litigation and transactions not in the ordinary course of business. Without the concurrence of joint venture participants with enough voting interests, the Partnership may be unable to cause any of its joint ventures to take or not take certain actions, even though taking or preventing those actions may be in the best interests of the Partnership or the particular joint venture.

In addition, subject to certain conditions, any joint venture owner may sell, transfer or otherwise modify its ownership interest in a joint venture, whether in a transaction involving third parties or the other joint owners. Any such transaction could result in the Partnership partnering with different or additional parties.

Weather may limit the Partnership’s ability to operate its business and could adversely affect its operating results.

The weather in the areas in which the Partnership operates can cause disruptions and in some cases suspension of its operations. For example, unseasonably wet weather, extended periods of below freezing weather, or hurricanes may cause disruptions or suspensions of the Partnership’s operations, which could adversely affect its operating results. Some forecasters expect that potential climate changes may have significant physical effects, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, floods and other climatic events and could have an adverse effect on the Partnership’s operations.

The Partnership’s business involves many hazards and operational risks, some of which may not be insured or fully covered by insurance. If a significant accident or event occurs for which it is not fully insured, if the Partnership fails to recover all anticipated insurance proceeds for significant accidents or events for which it is insured, or if the Partnership fails to rebuild facilities damaged by such accidents or events, its operations and financial results could be adversely affected.

The Partnership’s operations are subject to many hazards inherent in gathering, compressing, treating, processing and selling natural gas; storing, fractionating, treating, transporting and selling NGLs and NGL products; gathering, storing and terminaling crude oil; and storing and terminaling refined petroleum products, including:

· damage to pipelines and plants, related equipment and surrounding properties caused by hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, fires and other natural disasters, explosions and acts of terrorism;

· inadvertent damage from third parties, including from motor vehicles and construction, farm or utility equipment;

· damage that is the result of the Partnership’s negligence or any of its employees’ negligence;
 
· leaks of natural gas, NGLs, crude oil and other hydrocarbons or losses of natural gas or NGLs as a result of the malfunction of equipment or facilities;
 
· spills or other unauthorized releases of natural gas, NGLs, crude oil, other hydrocarbons or waste materials that contaminate the environment, including soils, surface water and groundwater, and otherwise adversely impact natural resources; and

· other hazards that could also result in personal injury, loss of life, pollution and/or suspension of operations.

These risks could result in substantial losses due to personal injury, loss of life, severe damage to and destruction of property and equipment, and pollution or other environmental damage, and may result in curtailment or suspension of the Partnership’s related operations. A natural disaster or other hazard affecting the areas in which the Partnership operates could have a material adverse effect on its operations. For example, in 2005 Hurricanes Katrina and Rita damaged gathering systems, processing facilities, NGL fractionators and pipelines along the Gulf Coast, including certain of the Partnership’s facilities, and curtailed or suspended the operations of various energy companies with assets in the region. The Louisiana and Texas Gulf Coast was similarly impacted in September 2008 as a result of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. The Partnership is not fully insured against all risks inherent to its business. Additionally, while the Partnership is insured for pollution resulting from environmental accidents that occur on a sudden and accidental basis, it may not be insured against all environmental accidents that might occur, some of which may result in toxic tort claims. If a significant accident or event occurs that is not fully insured, if the Partnership fails to recover all anticipated insurance proceeds for significant accidents or events for which it is insured, or if the Partnership fails to rebuild facilities damaged by such accidents or events, its operations and financial condition could be adversely affected. In addition, the Partnership may not be able to maintain or obtain insurance of the type and amount it desires at reasonable rates. As a result of market conditions, premiums and deductibles for certain of the Partnership’s insurance policies have increased substantially, and could escalate further. For example, following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, insurance premiums, deductibles and co-insurance requirements increased substantially, and terms were generally less favorable than terms that could be obtained prior to such hurricanes. Insurance market conditions worsened as a result of the losses sustained from Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. As a result, the Partnership experienced further increases in deductibles and premiums, and further reductions in coverage and limits, with some coverage unavailable at any cost.

The Partnership may incur significant costs and liabilities resulting from performance of pipeline integrity programs and related repairs.

Pursuant to the authority under the NGPSA and HLPSA, as amended by the PSI Act, the PIPES Act and the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act, PHMSA has established a series of rules requiring pipeline operators to develop and implement integrity management programs for certain gas and hazardous liquids pipelines that, in the event of a pipeline leak or rupture could affect “high consequence areas,” 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. Among other things, these regulations require operators of covered pipelines to:

· perform ongoing assessments of pipeline integrity;

· identify and characterize applicable threats to pipeline segments 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 certain intrastate gas and hazardous liquids pipelines. The Partnership currently estimates an average annual cost of $5.0 million between 2016 and 2018 to implement pipeline integrity management program testing along certain segments of its gas and hazardous liquids pipelines. This estimate does not include the costs, if any, of repair, remediation or preventative or mitigative actions that may be determined to be necessary as a result of the testing program, which costs could be substantial. At this time, the Partnership 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. The Partnership will continue its pipeline integrity testing programs to assess and maintain the integrity of its pipelines. The results of these tests could cause the Partnership to incur significant and unanticipated capital and operating expenditures for repairs or upgrades deemed necessary to ensure the continued safe and reliable operation of its pipelines.
 
Moreover, 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 the Partnership and similarly situated midstream operators. For instance, in August 2011, PHMSA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in which the agency sought public comment on a number of changes to regulations governing the safety of gas transmission pipelines and gathering lines, including, for example, revisions to the definitions of “high consequence areas” and “gathering lines” and strengthening integrity management requirements as they apply to existing regulated operators and to currently exempt operators should certain exemptions be removed. Most recently, in an August 2014 GAO report to Congress, the GAO acknowledged PHMSA’s continued assessment of the safety risks posed by gathering lines and recommended that PHMSA move forward with rulemaking to address larger-diameter, higher-pressure gathering lines, including subjecting such pipelines to emergency response planning requirements that currently do not apply.

Unexpected volume changes due to production variability or to gathering, plant or pipeline system disruptions may increase the Partnership’s exposure to commodity price movements.

The Partnership sells processed natural gas to third parties at plant tailgates or at pipeline pooling points. Sales made to natural gas marketers and end-users may be interrupted by disruptions to volumes anywhere along the system. The Partnership attempts to balance sales with volumes supplied from processing operations, but unexpected volume variations due to production variability or to gathering, plant or pipeline system disruptions may expose it to volume imbalances which, in conjunction with movements in commodity prices, could materially impact its income from operations and cash flow.

The Partnership requires a significant amount of cash to service its indebtedness. The Partnership’s ability to generate cash depends on many factors beyond its control.

The Partnership’s ability to make payments on and to refinance its indebtedness and to fund planned capital expenditures depends on its ability to generate cash in the future. This, to a certain extent, is subject to general economic, financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory and other factors that are beyond the Partnership’s control. We cannot assure you that the Partnership will generate sufficient cash flow from operations, that future borrowings will be available to it under the TRP Revolver, that it will be able to sell its accounts receivables or make borrowings under its Securitization Facility, or otherwise in an amount sufficient to enable it to pay its indebtedness or to fund its other liquidity needs. The Partnership may need to refinance all or a portion of its indebtedness at or before maturity. We cannot assure you that the Partnership will be able to refinance any of its indebtedness on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Failure to comply with environmental laws or regulations or an accidental release into the environment may cause the Partnership to incur significant costs and liabilities.

The Partnership’s operations are subject to stringent federal, tribal, state and local environmental laws and regulations governing the discharge of pollutants into the environment or otherwise relating to environmental protection. These laws and regulations may impose numerous obligations that are applicable to its operations including acquisition of a permit before conducting regulated activities, restrictions on the types, quantities and concentration of materials that can be released into the environment; limitation or prohibition of construction and operating activities in environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, urban areas, wilderness regions and other protected areas; requiring capital expenditures to comply with pollution control requirements and imposition of substantial liabilities for pollution resulting from its operations. Numerous 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, which can often require difficult and costly actions. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations or any newly adopted laws or regulations may trigger a variety of administrative, civil and criminal penalties or other sanctions, the imposition of remedial obligations and the issuance of orders enjoining or conditioning future operations. Certain environmental laws impose strict, joint and several liability for costs required to clean up and restore sites where hazardous substances, hydrocarbons or waste products have been released, even under circumstances where the substances, hydrocarbons or waste have been released by a predecessor operator.
 
There is inherent risk of incurring environmental costs and liabilities in connection with the Partnership’s operations due to its handling of natural gas, NGLs, crude oil and other petroleum products because of air emissions and product-related discharges arising out of its operations, and as a result of historical industry operations and waste disposal practices. For example, an accidental release from one of the Partnership’s facilities could subject it to substantial liabilities arising from environmental cleanup and restoration costs, claims made by neighboring landowners and other third parties for personal injury, natural resource and property damages and fines or penalties for related violations of environmental laws or regulations. Moreover, stricter laws, regulations or enforcement policies could significantly increase the Partnership’s operational or compliance costs and the cost of any remediation that may become necessary. The adoption of any laws, regulations or other legally enforceable mandates that result in more stringent air emission limitations or that restrict or prohibit the drilling of new oil or natural gas wells for any extended period of time could increase the Partnership’s oil and natural gas customers’ operating and compliance costs as well as reduce the rate of production of natural gas or crude oil from operators with whom the Partnership has a business relationship, which could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations and cash flows.

Increased regulation of hydraulic fracturing could result in reductions or delays in drilling and completing new oil and natural gas wells, which could adversely impact the Partnership’s revenues by decreasing the volumes of natural gas, NGLs or crude oil through its facilities and reducing the utilization of its assets.

While the Partnership does not conduct hydraulic fracturing, many of its customers do perform such activities. Hydraulic fracturing is a process used by oil and gas exploration and production operators in the completion of certain oil and gas wells whereby water, sand and chemicals are injected under pressure into subsurface formations to stimulate gas and, to a lesser extent, oil production. The process is typically regulated by state oil and gas commissions, but several federal agencies have asserted regulatory authority over and proposed or promulgated regulations governing certain aspects of the process, including the EPA and United States Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”). Further several federal governmental agencies are conducting reviews and studies on the environmental aspects of hydraulic fracturing activities, including the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the EPA. Such studies, depending on their findings, could spur additional regulatory initiatives. In addition, Congress has from time to time considered the adoption of legislation to provide for federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing. At the state level, a growing number of states have adopted or are considering legal requirements that could impose more stringent permitting, disclosure or well construction requirements on hydraulic fracturing activities, and states could elect to prohibit hydraulic fracturing altogether, as the State of New York did in 2015. In addition, local governments may seek to adopt ordinances within their jurisdictions regulating the time, place and manner of drilling activities in general or hydraulic fracturing activities in particular. If new or more stringent federal, state or local legal restrictions or prohibitions relating to the hydraulic fracturing process are adopted in areas where the Partnership’s oil and natural gas exploration and production customers operate, those customers could incur potentially significant added costs to comply with such requirements and experience delays or curtailment in the pursuit of exploration, development or production activities, which could reduce demand for the Partnership’s gathering, processing and fractionation services.
 
A change in the jurisdictional characterization of some of the Partnership’s assets by federal, state, tribal or local regulatory agencies or a change in policy by those agencies may result in increased regulation of its assets, which may cause its revenues to decline and operating expenses to increase or delay or increase the cost of expansion projects.

With the exception of the Partnership’s interest in VGS, which is subject to extensive FERC regulation, and the Driver Residue Pipeline and TPL SouthTex Transmission pipeline, which are each subject to more limited FERC regulation, its operations are generally exempt from FERC regulation under the NGA, but FERC regulation still affects its non-FERC jurisdictional businesses and the markets for products derived from these businesses, including certain FERC reporting and posting requirements in a given year. The Partnership believes that the natural gas pipelines in its gathering systems meet the traditional tests FERC has used to establish a pipeline’s status as a gatherer not subject to regulation as a natural gas company. However, the distinction between FERC-regulated transmission services and federally unregulated gathering services is the subject of substantial, ongoing litigation, so the classification and regulation of the Partnership’s gathering facilities are subject to change based on future determinations by FERC, the courts or Congress. The Partnership also operates natural gas pipelines that extend from some of its processing plants to interconnections with both intrastate and interstate natural gas pipelines. Those facilities, known in the industry as “plant tailgate” pipelines, typically operate at transmission pressure levels and may transport “pipeline quality” natural gas. Because the Partnership’s plant tailgate pipelines are relatively short, the Partnership treat them as “stub” lines, which are exempt from FERC’s jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act. FERC’s treatment of the “stub” line exemption has varied over time, but, absent other factors, FERC generally limits the length of the lines that qualify for the “stub” line exemption.  In addition, the courts have determined that certain pipelines that would otherwise be subject to the ICA are exempt from regulation by FERC under the ICA as proprietary lines. The classification of a line as a proprietary line is a fact-based determination subject to FERC and court review. Accordingly, the classification and regulation of some of the Partnership’s gathering facilities and transportation pipelines may be subject to change based on future determinations by FERC, the courts or Congress, in which case, the Partnership’s operating costs could increase and the Partnership could be subject to enforcement actions under the EP Act of 2005.
 
The crude oil pipeline system that is part of the Badlands assets has qualified for a temporary waiver of applicable FERC regulatory requirements under the ICA based on current circumstances. Such waivers are subject to revocation, however, and should the pipeline’s circumstances change, FERC could, either at the request of other entities or on its own initiative, assert that some or all of the transportation on this pipeline system is within its jurisdiction. In the event that FERC were to determine that this pipeline system no longer qualified for a waiver, the Partnership would likely be required to file a tariff with FERC, provide a cost justification for the transportation charge, and provide service to all potential shippers without undue discrimination. Such a change in the jurisdictional status of transportation on this pipeline could adversely affect the Partnership’s results of operations.

Various federal agencies within the U.S. Department of the Interior, particularly the Bureau of Land Management, Office of Natural Resources Revenue (formerly the Minerals Management Service) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, along with the Three Affiliated Tribes, promulgate and enforce regulations pertaining to operations on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, on which the Partnership operates a significant portion of its Badlands gathering and processing assets. The Three Affiliated Tribes is a sovereign nation having the right to enforce certain laws and regulations independent from federal, state and local statutes and regulations. These tribal laws and regulations include various taxes, fees and other conditions that apply to lessees, operators and contractors conducting operations on Native American tribal lands. Lessees and operators conducting operations on tribal lands can generally be subject to the Native American tribal court system. One or more of these factors may increase the Partnership’s costs of doing business on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation and may have an adverse impact on its ability to effectively transport products within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation or to conduct its operations on such lands.

Other FERC regulations may indirectly impact the Partnership’s businesses and the markets for products derived from these businesses. FERC’s policies and practices across the range of its natural gas regulatory activities, including, for example, its policies on open access transportation, gas quality, ratemaking, capacity release and market center promotion, may indirectly affect the intrastate natural gas market. In recent years, FERC has pursued pro-competitive policies in its regulation of interstate natural gas pipelines. However, we cannot assure you that FERC will continue this approach as it considers matters such as pipeline rates and rules and policies that may affect rights of access to transportation capacity. For more information regarding the regulation of the Partnership’s operations, see “Item 1. Business—Regulation of Operations.”

Should the Partnership fail to comply with all applicable FERC-administered statutes, rules, regulations and orders, it could be subject to substantial penalties and fines.

Under the EP Act of 2005, FERC has civil penalty authority under the NGA to impose penalties for current violations of up to $1 million per day for each violation and disgorgement of profits associated with any violation. While the Partnership’s systems other than VGS and the Driver Residue Pipeline have not been regulated by FERC as a natural gas company under the NGA, FERC has adopted regulations that may subject certain of its otherwise non-FERC jurisdictional facilities to FERC annual reporting and daily scheduled flow and capacity posting requirements. Additional rules and legislation pertaining to those and other matters may be considered or adopted by FERC from time to time. Failure to comply with those regulations in the future could subject the Partnership to civil penalty liability. For more information regarding regulation of the Partnership’s operations, see “Item 1. Business—Regulation of Operations.”
 
The adoption of climate change legislation or regulations restricting emissions of GHGs could result in increased operating costs and reduced demand for the products and services the Partnership provides.
 
Based on determinations made by the EPA that GHG emissions endanger public health and the environment because emissions of such gases are contributing to warming of the earth’s atmosphere and other climatic changes, the EPA has adopted rules related to GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act. Among other things, those rules establish PSD construction and Title V operating permit reviews for GHG emissions from certain large stationary sources that are also potential major sources of criteria pollutant 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 United States, including, among others, onshore processing, transmission, storage and distribution facilities. In October 2015, the EPA published a final rule that expanded the petroleum and natural gas system sources for which annual GHG emissions reporting is required to include, beginning for the 2016 reporting year, certain onshore gathering and boosting systems consisting primarily of gathering pipelines, compressors and process equipment used to perform natural gas compression, dehydration and acid gas removal. Moreover, the EPA proposed in August 2015 rules that will establish emissions standards for methane and volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”) from new and modified oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing and transmission facilities as part of the Obama Administration’s efforts to reduce methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector by up to 45 percent from 2012 levels by 2025.  The EPA is expected to finalize the rules in 2016. Furthermore, the EPA has passed a rule, known as the Clean Power Plan, to limit GHGs from power plants. Depending on the methods used to implement the rule, it could reduce demand for the oil and natural gas our customers produce. While Congress has from time to time considered adopting legislation to reduce emissions of GHGs, there has not been significant activity in the form of adopted legislation.  In the absence of such federal climate legislation, a number of state and regional efforts have emerged that are aimed at tracking and/or reducing GHG emissions by means of cap and trade programs. The adoption of any legislation or regulations that requires reporting of GHGs or otherwise restricts emissions of GHGs from the Partnership’s equipment and operations could require us to incur significant added costs to reduce emissions of GHGs or could adversely affect demand for the natural gas and NGLs the Partnership gathers and processes or fractionates. Moreover, if Congress undertakes comprehensive tax reform in the coming year, it is possible that such reform may include a carbon tax, which could impose additional direct costs on operations and reduce demand for refined products, which could adversely affect the services the Partnership provides. Finally, some scientists have concluded that increasing concentrations of GHGs in the Earth’s atmosphere may produce climate change that could have significant physical effects, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, droughts, and floods and other climatic events; if such effects were to occur, they could have an adverse effect on our or our customers’ operations.

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 the Partnership to increased capital costs, operational delays and costs of operation.

The 2011 Pipeline Safety Act is the most recent federal legislation to amend the NGPSA and HLPSA pipeline safety laws, requiring increased safety measures for gas and hazardous liquids pipelines. Among other things, the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act directs the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate regulations relating to expanded integrity management requirements, automatic or remote-controlled valve use, excess flow valve use, leak detection system installation, testing to confirm the material strength of certain pipelines and operator verification of records confirming the maximum allowable pressure of certain intrastate gas transmission pipelines. The 2011 Pipeline Safety Act also increases the maximum penalty for violation of pipeline safety regulations from $100,000 to $200,000 per violation per day and also from $1 million to $2 million for a related series of violations. The safety enhancement requirements and other provisions of the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act as well as any implementation of PHMSA regulations thereunder or any issuance or reinterpretation of guidance by PHMSA or any state agencies with respect thereto could require us 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 the Partnership’s incurring increased operating costs that could have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s results of operations or financial position.  For example, on October 13, 2015, PHMSA proposed new more stringent regulations for hazardous liquid pipelines, including extending certain integrity management assessment and repair requirements to pipelines not currently subject to integrity management regulations and requiring that all pipelines have a means of detecting leaks. The public comment period for these proposed regulations ended on January 8, 2016, and PHMSA may finalize the proposed regulations in 2016. Additionally, PHMSA and one or more state regulators, including the RRC, have in recent years expanded the scope of their regulatory inspections to include certain in-plant equipment and pipelines found within NGL fractionation facilities and associated storage facilities, to assess compliance with hazardous liquids pipeline safety requirements. To the extent that PHMSA and/or state regulatory agencies are successful in asserting their jurisdiction in this manner, midstream operators of NGL fractionation facilities and associated storage facilities may be required to make operational changes or modifications at their facilities to meet standards beyond current OSHA, PSM and EPA 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.
 
The enactment of derivatives legislation could have an adverse effect on the Partnership’s ability to use derivative instruments to reduce the effect of commodity price, interest rate and other risks associated with its business.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), enacted on July 21, 2010, established federal oversight and regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market and entities, such as the Partnership, that participate in that market. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the CFTC and the SEC to promulgate rules and regulations implementing the Dodd-Frank Act. Although the CFTC has finalized certain regulations, others remain to be finalized or implemented and it is not possible at this time to predict when this will be accomplished.

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 the associated rules also will require the Partnership, in connection with covered derivative activities, to comply with clearing and trade-execution requirements or take steps to qualify for an exemption to such requirements. Although the Partnership qualifies for the end-user exception from the mandatory clearing requirements for swaps entered to hedge its commercial risks, the application of the mandatory clearing and trade execution requirements to other market participants, such as swap dealers, may change the cost and availability of the swaps that the Partnership uses for hedging. In addition, for uncleared swaps, the CFTC or federal banking regulators may require end-users to enter into credit support documentation and/or post initial and variation margin. Posting of collateral could impact liquidity and reduce cash available to the Partnership for capital expenditures, therefore reducing its ability to execute hedges to reduce risk and protect cash flows. The proposed margin rules are not yet final, and therefore the impact of those provisions to the Partnership is uncertain at this time.

The Dodd-Frank Act also may require the counterparties to the Partnership’s derivative instruments to spin off some of their derivatives activities to a separate entity, which may not be as creditworthy as the current counterparty.

The full impact of the Dodd-Frank Act and related regulatory requirements upon the Partnership’s business will not be known until the regulations are implemented and the market for derivatives contracts has adjusted. The Dodd-Frank Act 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 the Partnership encounters, reduce its ability to monetize or restructure its existing derivative contracts or increase its exposure to less creditworthy counterparties. If the Partnership reduces its use of derivatives as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act and regulations implementing the Dodd-Frank Act, its results of operations may become more volatile and its cash flows may be less predictable, which could adversely affect its ability to plan for and fund capital expenditures.

Finally, the Dodd-Frank Act was intended, in part, to reduce the volatility of oil and natural gas prices, which some legislators attributed to speculative trading in derivatives and commodity instruments related to oil and natural gas. The Partnership’s revenues could therefore be adversely affected if a consequence of the Dodd-Frank Act and implementing regulations is to lower commodity prices.

Any of these consequences could have a material adverse effect on the Partnership, its financial condition and its results of operations.
 
The Partnership’s interstate common carrier liquids pipelines are regulated by the FERC.

Targa NGL has interstate NGL pipelines that are considered common carrier pipelines subject to regulation by FERC under the ICA. More specifically, Targa NGL owns a twelve-inch diameter pipeline that runs between Lake Charles, Louisiana and Mont Belvieu, Texas. This pipeline can move mixed NGL and purity NGL products. Targa NGL also owns an eight-inch diameter pipeline and a twenty-inch diameter pipeline, each of which run between Mont Belvieu, Texas and Galena Park, Texas. The eight-inch and the twenty-inch pipelines are part of an extensive mixed NGL and purity NGL pipeline receipt and delivery system that provides services to domestic and foreign import and export customers. The ICA requires that the Partnership maintain tariffs on file with FERC for each of these pipelines. Those tariffs set forth the rates the Partnership charges for providing transportation services as well as the rules and regulations governing these services. The ICA requires, among other things, that rates on interstate common carrier pipelines be “just and reasonable” and nondiscriminatory. All shippers on these pipelines are the Partnership’s subsidiaries.

Terrorist attacks and the threat of terrorist attacks have resulted in increased costs to the Partnership’s business. Continued hostilities in the Middle East or other sustained military campaigns may adversely impact the Partnership’s results of operations.

The long-term impact of terrorist attacks, such as the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and the threat of future terrorist attacks on the Partnership’s industry in general and on the Partnership in particular is not known at this time. However, resulting regulatory requirements and/or related business decisions associated with security are likely to increase the Partnership’s costs.

Increased security measures taken by the Partnership as a precaution against possible terrorist attacks have resulted in increased costs to its business. Uncertainty surrounding continued hostilities in the Middle East or other sustained military campaigns may affect the Partnership’s operations in unpredictable ways, including disruptions of crude oil supplies and markets for its products, and the possibility that infrastructure facilities could be direct targets, or indirect casualties, of an act of terror.

Changes in the insurance markets attributable to terrorist attacks may make certain types of insurance more difficult for the Partnership to obtain. Moreover, the insurance that may be available to the Partnership may be significantly more expensive than its existing insurance coverage or coverage may be reduced or unavailable. Instability in the financial markets as a result of terrorism or war could also affect the Partnership’s ability to raise capital.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 2. Properties.

A description of our properties is contained in “Item 1. Business” in this Annual Report.

Our principal executive offices are located at 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 4300, Houston, Texas 77002 and our telephone number is 713-584-1000.
 
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

Litigation related to TRC/TRP Merger

On December 16, 2015, two purported unitholders of TRP (the “State Court Plaintiffs”) filed a putative class action and derivative lawsuit challenging the TRC/TRP Merger against TRC, TRP (as a nominal defendant), TRP GP, the members of the board of the general partner (the “TRP GP Board”) and Merger Sub (collectively, the “State Court Defendants”). This lawsuit is styled Leslie Blumberg et al. v. TRC Resources Corp., et al., Cause No. 2015-75481, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 234th Judicial District (the “State Court Lawsuit”).

The State Court Plaintiffs allege several causes of action challenging the TRC/TRP Merger. Generally, the State Court Plaintiffs allege that (i) the members of the TRP GP Board breached express and/or implied duties under the TRP partnership agreement and (ii) TRC, our general partner, and Merger Sub aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of duties. The State Court Plaintiffs further allege, in general, that (a) the premium offered to TRP’s unitholders was inadequate, (b) the TRC/TRP Merger did not include a collar to protect TRP unitholders from decreases in TRC’s stock price, (c) the TRP GP Board agreed to contractual terms that allegedly may have dissuaded other potential acquirers from seeking to acquire TRP (including the “no-solicitation,” “matching rights,” and “termination fee” provisions), (d) the process leading up to the TRC/TRP Merger was unfair and (e) the TRP GP Board has conflicts of interest due to TRC’s control of our general partner.
 
Based on these allegations, the State Court Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the State Court Defendants from proceeding with or consummating the TRC/TRP Merger unless and until the TRP GP Board adopted and implemented processes to obtain the best possible terms for TRP common unitholders. The State Court Plaintiffs now seek to have the TRC/TRP Merger rescinded and seek attorneys’ fees. The date to answer or otherwise respond to the State Court Lawsuit is currently set for February 29, 2016.

On January 6 and 19, 2016, two additional purported unitholders of TRP (the “Federal Court Plaintiffs”) filed two putative class action lawsuits challenging the disclosures made in connection with the TRC/TRP Merger against TRP and the members of the TRP GP Board (the “Federal Court Defendants”). These lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Targa Resources Partners, L.P. Securities Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 4:16-cv-00041, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (the “Federal Court Lawsuits”).

The Federal Court Plaintiffs allege that (i) the Federal Court Defendants have violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and (ii) the members of the TRP GP Board have violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Federal Court Plaintiffs allege, in general, that the preliminary and definitive joint proxy statements/prospectuses filed in connection with the TRC/TRP Merger fail, among other things, to disclose allegedly material information concerning (i) the TRP GP Conflicts Committee’s financial advisor’s and TRC’s financial advisor’s analyses in connection with the TRC/TRP Merger, (ii) certain TRC and TRP projections, and (iii) the events leading up to the TRC/TRP Merger. The Federal Court Plaintiffs further allege, in general, that (a) the premium offered to TRP’s unitholders was inadequate, (b) the TRC/TRP Merger did not include a collar to protect TRP unitholders from decreases in TRC’s stock price, (c) the TRP GP Board agreed to contractual terms that allegedly may have dissuaded other potential acquirers from seeking to acquire TRP (including the “no-solicitation,” “matching rights,” and “termination fee” provisions), (d) the process leading up to the TRC/TRP Merger was unfair and (e) the TRP GP Board has conflicts of interest due to TRC’s control of the general partner.

Based on these allegations, the Federal Court Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the Federal Court Defendants from proceeding with or consummating the TRC/TRP Merger unless and until the Federal Court Defendants disclosed the allegedly omitted information summarized above. The Federal Court Plaintiffs now seek to have the TRC/TRP Merger rescinded. The Federal Court Plaintiffs also seek damages and attorneys’ fees.

One of the Federal Court Plaintiffs sought a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) to prevent the Federal Court Defendants from proceeding with the TRC/TRP vote and/or merger. On January 29, 2016, this Plaintiff was denied his request for a TRO.

The date for the Federal Court Defendants to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the Federal Court Lawsuits has not yet been set.

Neither the State Court Defendants nor the Federal Court Defendants (collectively, the “Defendants”) can predict the outcome of these or any other lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of the filing of this report, nor can Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve such litigation. Defendants believe these lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against these lawsuits and any other actions challenging the TRC/TRP Merger.

Targa Litigation related to Atlas Mergers

On January 28, 2015, a public shareholder of TRC (the “TRC Plaintiff”) filed a putative class action and derivative lawsuit against TRC (as a nominal defendant), its directors at the time of the ATLS Merger (the “TRC Director Defendants”), and ATLS (together with TRC and the TRC Director Defendants, the “TRC Lawsuit Defendants”).  This lawsuit was styled Inspired Investors v. Joe Bob Perkins, et al., in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (the “TRC Lawsuit”).

The TRC Plaintiff alleged a variety of causes of action challenging the disclosures related to the ATLS Merger. Generally, the TRC Plaintiff alleged that the TRC Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties.  The TRC Plaintiff further alleged that the registration statement filed on January 22, 2015 failed to disclose allegedly material details concerning (i) Wells Fargo Securities, LLC’s and the TRC Director Defendants’ supposed conflicts of interest with respect to the ATLS Merger, (ii) TRC’s financial projections, (iii) the background of the ATLS Merger, and (iv) Wells Fargo Securities, LLC’s analysis of the ATLS Merger.
 
Based on these allegations, the TRC Plaintiff sought to enjoin the TRC Lawsuit Defendants from proceeding with or consummating the ATLS Merger unless and until TRC disclosed the allegedly material omitted details. The TRC Plaintiff also sought to have the ATLS Merger rescinded, recissory damages, and attorneys’ fees.

On June 9, 2015, the Court dismissed the TRC Lawsuit with prejudice.

Atlas Unitholder Litigation

Between October and December 2014, five public unitholders of APL (the “APL Plaintiffs”) filed putative class action lawsuits against APL, ATLS, APL GP, its managers, Targa, the Partnership, the general partner and MLP Merger Sub (the “APL Lawsuit Defendants”). These lawsuits were styled (a) Michael Evnin v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (b) William B. Federman Family Wealth Preservation Trust v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma (the “Tulsa Lawsuit”); (c) Greenthal Living Trust U/A 01/26/88 v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (d) Mike Welborn v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; and (e) Irving Feldbaum v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, though the Tulsa Lawsuit has been voluntarily dismissed. The Evnin, Greenthal, Welborn and Feldbaum lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P. Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-019245, in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the “Consolidated APL Lawsuit”). In October and November 2014, two public unitholders of ATLS (the “ATLS Plaintiffs” and, together with the APL Plaintiffs, the “Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs”) filed putative class action lawsuits against ATLS, ATLS GP, its managers, Targa and GP Merger Sub (the “ATLS Lawsuit Defendants” and, together with the APL Lawsuit Defendants, the “Atlas Lawsuit Defendants”). These lawsuits were styled (a) Rick Kane v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and (b) Jeffrey Ayers v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the “ATLS Lawsuits”). The ATLS Lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Atlas Energy, L.P. Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-019658, in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the “Consolidated ATLS Lawsuit” and, together with the Consolidated APL Lawsuit, the “Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits”), though the Kane lawsuit has been voluntarily dismissed.

The Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs alleged a variety of causes of action challenging the Atlas mergers. Generally, the APL Plaintiffs alleged that (a) APL GP’s managers have breached the covenant of good faith and/or their fiduciary duties and (b) Targa, the Partnership, the general partner, MLP Merger Sub, APL, ATLS and APL GP have aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of the covenant of good faith and/or fiduciary duties. The APL Plaintiffs further alleged that (a) the premium offered to APL’s unitholders was inadequate, (b) APL agreed to contractual terms that would allegedly dissuade other potential acquirers from seeking to acquire APL, and (c) APL GP’s managers favored their self-interests over the interests of APL’s unitholders. The APL Plaintiffs in the Consolidated APL Lawsuit also alleged that the registration statement filed on November 19, 2014 failed, among other things, to disclose allegedly material details concerning (i) Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated’s analysis of the Atlas mergers; (ii) APL and the Partnership’s financial projections; and (iii) the background of the Atlas mergers. Generally, the ATLS Plaintiffs alleged that (a) ATLS GP’s directors have breached the covenant of good faith and/or their fiduciary duties and (b) Targa, GP Merger Sub, and ATLS have aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of the covenant of good faith and/or fiduciary duties. The ATLS Plaintiffs further alleged that (a) the premium offered to the ATLS unitholders was inadequate, (b) ATLS agreed to contractual terms that would allegedly dissuade other potential acquirers from seeking to acquire ATLS, (c) ATLS GP’s directors favored their self-interests over the interests of the ATLS unitholders and (d) the registration statement failed to disclose allegedly material details concerning, among other things, (i) Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.’s analyses of the Atlas mergers; (ii) the Partnership, Targa, APL, and ATLS’ financial projections; and (iii) the background of the Atlas mergers.

Based on these allegations, the Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the Atlas Lawsuit Defendants from proceeding with or consummating the Atlas mergers unless and until APL and ATLS adopted and implemented processes to obtain the best possible terms for their respective unitholders. The Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs also sought rescission, damages, and attorneys’ fees.
 
The parties to the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits agreed to settle the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits on February 9, 2015. In general, the settlements provide that in consideration for the dismissal of the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits, ATLS and APL would provide supplemental disclosures regarding the Atlas mergers in a filing with the SEC on Form 8-K, which ATLS and APL did on February 11, 2015. The Atlas Lawsuit Defendants agreed to make such supplemental disclosures solely to avoid the uncertainty, risk, burden, and expense inherent in litigation and deny that any supplemental disclosure was or is required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. On January 21, 2016, the Court granted final approval of the settlements in the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits and dismissed the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits with prejudice.

Environmental Proceedings

On August 22, 2014 and September 9, 2014, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”) issued Notices of Enforcement (“NOEs”) to Targa Midstream Services LLC for alleged violations of air emissions regulations at the Mont Belvieu Fractionator relating to the operations of two regenerative thermal oxidizers during 2013 and 2014 and an unrelated discrete emissions event that occurred on May 29, 2014. On May 26, 2015, the Partnership signed an Agreed Order resolving all alleged violations stated in the NOEs. The Executive Director of the TCEQ signed the Agreed Order on September 11, 2015, and the TCEQ Commissioners approved the Agreed Order during their November 4, 2015 meeting. Pursuant to the Agreed Order, the Partnership (1) paid an administrative penalty in the amount of $115,644; and (2) paid $115,643 to fund certain supplemental environmental projects. Under the Agreed Order, the Partnership must comply with certain ordering provisions, including a requirement to install a flare gas recovery unit at the Mont Belvieu Fractionator within one year of the effective date of the Agreed Order.

On June 18, 2015, the New Mexico Environment Department’s Air Quality Bureau issued a Notice of Violation to Targa Midstream Services LLC for alleged violations of air emissions regulations related to emissions events that occurred at the Monument Gas Plant between June 2014 and December 2014.  The Monument Gas Plant is operated by the Partnership and owned by Versado Gas Processors, L.L.C., which is a joint venture in which we own a 63% interest. The Partnership is in discussions with the New Mexico Environment Department to resolve the alleged violations. The Partnership anticipates that this matter could result in a monetary sanction in excess of $100,000 but less than $300,000.

We and the Partnership are also parties to various legal, administrative and regulatory proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of our business.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.
 
PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Market Information

Our common stock is listed on the NYSE under the symbol “TRGP.” As of December 31, 2015, there were approximately 185 stockholders of record of our common stock. This number does not include stockholders whose shares are held in trust by other entities. The actual number of stockholders is greater than the number of holders of record. As of February 17, 2016, there were 160,563,464 shares of common stock outstanding.

The following table sets forth the high and low sales prices of our common stock as reported by the NYSE and the amount of cash dividends declared for the periods indicated:

   
Share Prices
     
Quarter Ended
 
High
   
Low
   
Dividend per Share
 
December 31, 2015
 
$
66.87
   
$
23.33
   
$
0.9100
 
September 30, 2015
   
92.13
     
48.65
     
0.9100
 
June 30, 2015
   
108.63
     
87.09
     
0.8750
 
March 31, 2015
   
107.93
     
82.09
     
0.8300
 
December 31, 2014
   
139.99
     
88.01
     
0.7750
 
September 30, 2014
   
145.00
     
126.42
     
0.7325
 
June 30, 2014
   
160.97
     
99.30
     
0.6900
 
March 31, 2014
   
99.92
     
84.17
     
0.6475
 
December 31, 2013
   
89.74
     
72.24
     
0.6075
 
September 30, 2013
   
74.94
     
64.40
     
0.5700
 
June 30, 2013
   
69.43
     
60.01
     
0.5325
 
March 31, 2013
   
68.42
     
54.31
     
0.4950
 
 
Stock Performance Graph

The graph below compares the cumulative return to holders of Targa Resources Corp.’s common stock, the NYSE Composite Index (the “NYSE Index”) and the Alerian MLP Index (the “MLP Index”). The performance graph was prepared based on the following assumptions: (i) $100 was invested in our common stock at $24.70 per share (the closing market price at the end of our first trading day), in the NYSE Index, and the MLP Index on December 7, 2010 (our first day of trading) and (ii) dividends were reinvested on the relevant payment dates. The stock price performance included in this graph is historical and not necessarily indicative of future stock price performance.

Pursuant to Instruction 7 to Item 201(e) of Regulation S-K, the above stock performance graph and related information is being furnished and is not being filed with the SEC, and as such shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing that incorporates this Annual Report by reference.

Our Dividend Policy

We intend to pay to our stockholders, on a quarterly basis, dividends equal to the cash we receive from our Partnership distributions, less reserves for expenses, future dividends and other uses of cash, including:

· federal income taxes, which we are required to pay because we are taxed as a corporation;

· the expenses of being a public company;

· other general and administrative expenses;

· general and administrative reimbursements to the Partnership;

· reserves our board of directors believes prudent to maintain;

· our obligation to satisfy tax obligations associated with previous sales of assets to the Partnership; and

· interest expense or principal payments on any indebtedness we incur.

If the Partnership is successful in implementing its business strategy and increasing distributions to its partners, we would generally expect to increase dividends to our stockholders, although the timing and amount of any such increased dividends will not necessarily be comparable to the increased Partnership distributions. We cannot assure you that any dividends will be declared or paid in the future.

The determination of the amount of cash dividends, including the quarterly dividend referred to above, if any, to be declared and paid will depend upon our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, the level of our capital expenditures, future business prospects and any other matters that our board of directors deems relevant. The Partnership’s debt agreements contain restrictions on the payment of distributions and prohibit the payment of distributions if the Partnership is in default. If the Partnership cannot make distributions to us, we will be unable to pay dividends on our common stock.
 
The Partnership’s Cash Distribution Policy

Under the Partnership’s partnership agreement, the term “available cash,” is defined, for any quarter, as the sum of all cash and cash equivalents on hand at the end of that quarter and all additional cash and cash equivalents on hand immediately prior to the date of the distribution of available cash resulting from borrowings for working capital purposes subsequent to the end of that quarter, less the amount of any cash reserves established by the general partner to:

· provide for the proper conduct of the Partnership’s business including reserves for future capital expenditures and for anticipated future credit needs;

· comply with applicable law or any loan agreements, security agreements, mortgages, debt instruments or other agreements;

· provide funds for distributions on and redemptions with respect to the Preferred Units; or

· provide funds for distributions to the Partnership’s unitholders and to the general partner for any one or more of the upcoming four quarters.

The determination of available cash takes into account the possibility of establishing cash reserves in some quarterly periods that the Partnership may use to pay cash distributions in other quarterly periods, thereby enabling it to maintain relatively consistent cash distribution levels even if the Partnership’s business experiences fluctuations in its cash from operations due to seasonal and cyclical factors. The general partner’s determination of available cash also allows the Partnership to maintain reserves to provide funding for its growth opportunities. The Partnership makes its quarterly distributions from cash generated from its operations, and those distributions have grown over time as its business has grown, primarily as a result of numerous acquisitions and organic expansion projects that have been funded through external financing sources and cash from operations.

Distributions on the Preferred Units are cumulative from the date of original issue and are payable monthly in arrears on the 15th day of each month of each year, when, as and if declared by the board of directors of the general partner. Distributions on the Preferred Units will be paid out of amounts legally available therefor to, but not including, November 1, 2020, at a rate equal to 9.0% per annum. On and after November 1, 2020, distributions on the Preferred Units will accumulate at an annual floating rate equal to the one-month LIBOR plus a spread of 7.71%. As of December 31, 2015, the Partnership has paid $1.5 million in distributions to its preferred unitholders.

The actual cash distributions paid by the Partnership to its common unitholders occur within 45 days after the end of each quarter.

For a discussion of restrictions on our and our subsidiaries’ ability to pay dividends or make distributions, please see Note 9 in our “Consolidated Financial Statements” beginning on page F-1 in this Form 10-K for more information.
 
Distributions from the Partnership and Dividends of TRC

The following table details the distributions declared and/or paid by the Partnership for the periods presented with respect to our 2% general partner interest, the associated Incentive Distribution Rights (“IDRs”) and common units that we held during the periods indicated along with dividends declared by us to our shareholders for the same periods:

             
Cash Distributions
   
Dividend
   
Total
 
  
For the Three
Months Ended
    
Date Paid
 
Cash
Distribution
Per Limited
Partner Unit
   
Limited
Partner
Units
   
General
Partner
Interest
   
Incentive
Distribution
Rights
   
Distributions
to Targa
Resources
Corp. (1)
   
Declared
Per TRC
Common
Share
   
Dividend
Declared to
Common
Shareholders
 
                                               
        
(In millions, except per unit amounts)
 
2015
                                             
December 31, 2015
 
February 9, 2016
   
0.8250
     
13.5
     
4.0
     
43.9
     
61.4
     
0.91000
     
51.7
 
September 30, 2015
 
November 16, 2015
   
0.8250
     
13.5
     
4.0
     
43.9
     
61.4
     
0.91000
     
51.2
 
June 30, 2015
 
August 17, 2015
   
0.8250
     
13.5
     
4.0
     
43.9
     
61.4
     
0.87500
     
49.2
 
March 31, 2015
 
May 18, 2015
   
0.8200
     
13.4
     
3.9
     
41.7
     
59.0
     
0.83000
     
46.6
 
2014
                                                           
December 31, 2014
 
February 17, 2015
   
0.8100
     
10.5
     
2.7
     
38.4
     
51.6
     
0.77500
     
32.8
 
September 30, 2014
 
November 14, 2014
   
0.7975
     
10.3
     
2.6
     
36.0
     
48.9
     
0.73250
     
31.0
 
June 30, 2014
 
August 14, 2014
   
0.7800
     
10.1
     
2.5
     
33.7
     
46.3
     
0.69000
     
29.2
 
March 31, 2014
 
May 15, 2014
   
0.7625
     
9.9
     
2.4
     
31.7
     
44.0
     
0.64750
     
27.4
 
2013
                                                           
December 31, 2013
 
February 14, 2014
   
0.7475
     
9.7
     
2.3
     
29.5
     
41.5
     
0.60750
     
25.6
 
September 30, 2013
 
November 14, 2013
   
0.7325
     
9.5
     
2.2
     
26.9
     
38.6
     
0.57000
     
24.1
 
June 30, 2013
 
August 14, 2013
   
0.7150
     
9.3
     
2.0
     
24.6
     
35.9
     
0.53250
     
22.5
 
March 31, 2013
 
May 15, 2013
   
0.6975
     
9.0
     
1.9
     
22.1
     
33.0
     
0.49500
     
21.0
 
 

(1) Pursuant to the IDR Giveback Amendment in conjunction with the Atlas mergers, IDR’s of $9.375 million were allocated to common unitholders in each of the quarters for 2015. The IDR Giveback Amendment covers sixteen quarterly distribution declarations following the completion of the Atlas mergers on February 27, 2015 and resulted in reallocation of IDR payments to common unitholders in the following amounts: $9.375 million per quarter for 2015. The IDR Giveback will result in reallocation of IDR payments to common unitholders of $6.25 million in the first quarter for 2016.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

None.

Repurchase of Equity by Targa Resources Corp, or Affiliated Purchasers.

   
Total number of
shares withheld
(1)
   
Average price
per share
   
Total number of
shares purchased as
   
Maximum number
of shares that may
 
Period
             
part of publicly
announced plans
   
yet be purchased
under the plan
 
October 1, 2015 - October 31, 2015
   
273
     
62.16
     
-
     
-
 
December 1, 2015 - December 31, 2015
   
606
     
28.28
     
-
     
-
 
 

(1) Represents shares that were withheld by us to satisfy tax withholding obligations of certain of our officers, directors and key employees that arose upon the lapse of restrictions on restricted stock.
 
Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

The following table presents selected historical consolidated financial and operating data of Targa Resources Corp. for the periods ended, and as of, the dates indicated. We derived this information from our historical “Consolidated Financial Statements” and accompanying notes. The information in the table below should be read together with, and is qualified in its entirety, by reference to those financial statements and notes in this Annual Report.

   
2015
   
2014
   
2013
   
2012
   
2011
 
   
(In millions, except per share amounts)
 
Statement of operations data:
                             
Revenues
 
$
6,658.6
   
$
8,616.5
   
$
6,314.7
   
$
5,679.0
   
$
6,843.2
 
Income from operations
   
159.3
     
640.5
     
368.2
     
336.3
     
351.1
 
Net income (loss)
   
(151.4
)
   
423.0
     
201.3
     
159.3
     
215.4
 
Net income available to common shareholders
   
58.3
     
102.3
     
65.1
     
38.1
     
30.7
 
Net income per common share - basic
   
1.09
     
2.44
     
1.56
     
0.93
     
0.75
 
Net income per common share - diluted
   
1.09
     
2.43
     
1.55
     
0.91
     
0.74
 
Balance sheet data (at end of period):
                                       
Total assets
 
$
13,253.7
   
$
6,453.4
   
$
6,048.6
   
$
5,105.0
   
$
3,831.0
 
Long-term debt
   
5,761.5
     
2,885.4
     
2,989.3
     
2,475.3
     
1,567.0
 
Other:
                                       
Dividends declared per share
 
$
3.5250
   
$
2.8450
   
$
2.2050
   
$
1.6388
   
$
1.2063
 
 
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our historical financial statements and notes included in Part IV of this Annual Report. Also, the Partnership files a separate Annual Report on Form 10-K with the SEC.

Overview

Financial Presentation

Targa Resources Corp. is a publicly traded Delaware corporation formed in October 2005. Our common stock is listed on the NYSE under the symbol “TRGP.” In this Annual Report, unless the context requires otherwise, references to “we,” “us,” “our,” the “Company,” or “Targa” are intended to mean our consolidated business and operations.

We own all of the general partner interest, Incentive Distribution Rights (“IDRs”) and outstanding common units in the Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership, that is a leading United States provider of midstream natural gas and NGL services, with a growing presence in crude oil gathering and petroleum terminaling. Common units of the Partnership were listed on the NYSE under the symbol “NGLS” prior to our acquisition of all of the outstanding common units not already owned by us on February 17, 2016. Preferred units of the Partnership are listed on the NYSE under the symbol “NGLS PRA.”

Our primary business objective is to increase our cash available for dividends to our stockholders by assisting the Partnership in executing its business strategy. We may potentially facilitate the Partnership’s growth through various forms of financial support, including, but not limited to, making loans, making capital contributions in exchange for yielding or non-yielding equity interests or providing other financial support to the Partnership to support its ability to make distributions. We also may potentially enter into other economic transactions intended to increase our ability to make cash available for dividends over time. In addition, we may potentially acquire assets that could be candidates for acquisition by the Partnership, potentially after operational or commercial improvement or further development.

An indirect subsidiary of ours is the general partner of the Partnership. Because we control the general partner, under GAAP we must reflect our ownership interest in the Partnership on a consolidated basis. Accordingly, the Partnership’s financial results are included in our consolidated financial statements even though the distribution or transfer of Partnership assets are limited by the terms of the partnership agreement, as well as restrictive covenants in the Partnership’s lending agreements. The limited partner interests in the Partnership not owned by us on certain dates are reflected in our results of operations as net income attributable to noncontrolling interests. Therefore, throughout this discussion, we make a distinction where relevant between financial results of the Partnership versus those of us as a standalone parent including our Non-Partnership subsidiaries.

The Partnership files its own separate Annual Report. The financial results presented in our consolidated financial statements will differ from the consolidated financial statements of the Partnership primarily due to the effects of:

· our separate debt obligations;

· federal income taxes;

· certain retained general and administrative costs applicable to us as a public company;

· certain administrative assets and liabilities incumbent as a provider of operational and support services to the Partnership;

· certain non-operating assets and liabilities that we retained;

· Partnership distributions and earnings allocable  to third-party preferred unitholders, if applicable, which are included in non-controlling interest in our statements; and
 
· Partnership distributions applicable to our General Partner interest, IDRs and investment in Partnership common units. While these are eliminated when preparing our consolidated financial statements, they nonetheless are the primary source of cash flow that supports the payment of dividends to our stockholders.

Our Operations

Currently, we have no separate, direct operating activities apart from those conducted by the Partnership. As such, our cash inflows will primarily consist of cash distributions from our interests in the Partnership. The Partnership is required to distribute all available cash at the end of each quarter after establishing reserves to provide for the proper conduct of its business or to provide for future distributions.

On February 17, 2016, we completed the previously announced transactions contemplated by the TRC/TRP Merger Agreement, pursuant to which we acquired indirectly all of our outstanding common units that we and our subsidiaries did not already own. Upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub merged with and into TRP, with TRP continuing as the surviving entity and as a subsidiary of TRC.

At the effective time of the TRC/TRP Merger, each outstanding TRP common unit not owned by us or our subsidiaries was converted into the right to receive 0.62 shares of our common stock. No fractional shares were issued in the TRC/TRP Merger, and TRP common unitholders instead received cash in lieu of fractional shares.

As we control the Partnership, the changes in our ownership interest in the Partnership will be accounted for as an equity transaction and no gain or loss will be recognized in our consolidated statements of income resulting from the TRC/TRP Merger. In addition, the tax effects of the TRC/TRP Merger are reported as adjustments to our additional paid-in capital.

The Partnership’s Operations

The Partnership is a leading provider of midstream natural gas and NGL services in the United States, with a growing presence in crude oil gathering and petroleum terminaling. In connection with these business activities, the Partnership buys and sells natural gas, NGLs and NGL products, crude oil, condensate and refined products.

The Partnership is engaged in the business of:

· gathering, compressing, treating, processing and selling natural gas;

· storing, fractionating, treating, transporting and selling NGLs and NGL products, including services to LPG exporters;

· gathering, storing and terminaling crude oil; and

· storing, terminaling and selling refined petroleum products.

The Partnership reports its operations in two divisions: (i) Gathering and Processing, consisting of two reportable segments – (a) Field Gathering and Processing and (b) Coastal Gathering and Processing; and (ii) Logistics and Marketing, consisting of two reportable segments – (a) Logistics Assets and (b) Marketing and Distribution. The operating margin results of its hedging activities are reported in Other.

The Partnership’s Gathering and Processing division includes assets used in the gathering of natural gas produced from oil and gas wells and processing this raw natural gas into merchantable natural gas by extracting NGLs and removing impurities and assets used for crude oil gathering and terminaling. The Field Gathering and Processing segment’s assets are located in the Permian Basin of West Texas and Southeast New Mexico; the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas; the Barnett Shale in North Texas; the Anadarko, Ardmore, and Arkoma Basins in Oklahoma and South Central Kansas; and the Williston Basin in North Dakota. The Coastal Gathering and Processing segment’s assets are located in the onshore and near offshore regions of the Louisiana Gulf Coast and the Gulf of Mexico.
 
The Partnership’s Logistics and Marketing division is also referred to as its Downstream Business. The Partnership’s Downstream Business includes all the activities necessary to convert mixed NGLs into NGL products and provides certain value-added services such as the fractionation, storage, terminaling, transportation, exporting, distribution and marketing of NGLs and NGL products; the storing and terminaling of refined petroleum products and crude oil; and certain natural gas supply and marketing activities in support of the Partnership’s other businesses, as well as transporting natural gas and NGLs.

The Partnership’s Logistics Assets segment is involved in transporting, storing, and fractionating mixed NGLs; storing, terminaling, and transporting finished NGLs, including services for exporting LPGs; and storing and terminaling of refined petroleum products. These assets are generally connected to and supplied in part by the Partnership’s Gathering and Processing segments and are predominantly located in Mont Belvieu and Galena Park, Texas, in Lake Charles, Louisiana and in Tacoma, Washington.

The Partnership’s Marketing and Distribution segment covers activities required to distribute and market raw and finished NGLs and all natural gas marketing activities. It includes (1) marketing the Partnership’s own NGL production and purchasing NGL products for resale in selected United States markets; (2) providing LPG balancing services to refinery customers; (3) transporting, storing and selling propane and providing related propane logistics services to multi-state retailers, independent retailers and other end-users; (4) providing propane, butane and services to LPG exporters; and (5) marketing natural gas available to the Partnership from its Gathering and Processing division and the purchase and resale and other value added activities related to third-party natural gas in selected United States markets.

Other contains the results (including any hedge ineffectiveness) of the Partnership’s commodity hedging activities included in operating margin and the mark-to-market gains/losses related to derivative contracts that were not designated as cash-flow hedges.
 
TRC/TRP Merger

On February 17, 2016, TRC completed the previously announced transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, by and among us, our general partner, TRP and Spartan Merger Sub LLC, a subsidiary of TRC (“Merger Sub”) pursuant to which TRC acquired indirectly all of the Partnership’s outstanding common units that TRC and its subsidiaries did not already own. Upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub merged with and into TRP, with TRP continuing as the surviving entity and as a subsidiary of TRC.

At the effective time of the TRC/TRP Merger, each outstanding TRP common unit not owned by TRC or its subsidiaries was converted into the right to receive 0.62 TRC shares. No fractional TRC shares were issued in the TRC/TRP Merger, and TRP common unitholders instead received cash in lieu of fractional TRC shares.

2015 Developments

Atlas Mergers

On February 27, 2015, Targa completed the Atlas mergers. In connection with the Atlas mergers, APL changed its name to “Targa Pipeline Partners LP,” which we refer to as TPL, and ATLS changed its name to “Targa Energy LP.”

TPL is a provider of natural gas gathering, processing and treating services primarily in the Anadarko, Ardmore, Arkoma and Permian Basins located in the southwestern and mid-continent regions of the United States and in the Eagle Ford Shale play in South Texas. The Atlas mergers add TPL’s Woodford/SCOOP, Mississippi Lime, Eagle Ford and additional Permian assets to the Partnership’s existing operations. In total, TPL adds 2,053 MMcf/d of processing capacity and 12,220 miles of additional pipeline. The results of TPL are reported in our Field Gathering and Processing segment.

Pursuant to the IDR Giveback Amendment entered into in conjunction with the Atlas mergers, IDRs of $9.375 million were allocated to common unitholders for each quarter of 2015 commencing with the first quarter of 2015. The IDR Giveback Amendment covers sixteen quarters following the completion of the Atlas mergers on February 27, 2015 and resulted in reallocation of IDR payments to common unitholders –in the amount of $9.375 million per quarter for 2015, and will result in reallocation of IDR payments to common unitholders in the amount of $6.25 million in the first quarter of 2016.
 
Logistics and Marketing Segment Expansion

Cedar Bayou Fractionator Train 5

In July 2014, the Partnership approved construction of a 100 MBbl/d fractionator at CBF. The 100 MBbl/d expansion will be fully integrated with the Partnership’s existing Gulf Coast NGL storage, terminaling and delivery infrastructure, which includes an extensive network of connections to key petrochemical and industrial customers as well as the Partnership’s LPG export terminal at Galena Park on the Houston Ship Channel. Construction has been underway and is continuing and the Partnership expects completion of construction in second quarter of 2016. Construction of the expansion has proceeded without disruption to existing operations, and we estimate that total growth capital expenditures net to our 88% interest for the expansion and the related infrastructure enhancements at Mont Belvieu should approximate $340 million.

Channelview Splitter

On December 27, 2015, Targa Terminals and Noble entered into the Splitter Agreement under which Targa Terminals will build and operate a 35,000 barrel per day crude and condensate splitter at Targa Terminals’ Channelview Terminal on the Houston Ship Channel (“Channelview Splitter”). The Channelview Splitter will have the capability to split approximately 35,000 barrels per day of condensate into its various components, including naphtha, kerosene, gas oil, jet fuel, and liquefied petroleum gas and will provide segregated storage for the crude, condensate and components. The Channelview Splitter is expected to be completed by early 2018, and has an estimated total cost of approximately $130 million to $150 million. The Partnership’s current total project capital expenditure estimate is higher than in the original announcement in March 2014 because of changes in project scope and anticipated increases in costs for engineering, procurement and construction services and/or materials, including labor costs. As contemplated by the December 2014 Agreement, the Splitter Agreement completes and terminates the December 2014 Agreement while retaining the Partnership’s economic benefits from that agreement.

Field Gathering and Processing Segment Expansion

Badlands Little Missouri 3

In the first quarter of 2015, the Partnership completed the 40 MMcf/d Little Missouri 3 plant expansion in McKenzie County, North Dakota, that increased capacity to 90 MMcf/d.

Permian Basin Buffalo Plant

In April 2014, TPL announced plans to build a new plant and expand the gathering footprint of its WestTX system. This project includes the laying of a new high pressure gathering line into Martin and Andrews counties of Texas, as well as incremental compression and a new 200 MMcf/d cryogenic processing plant, known as the Buffalo plant, which is now expected to be completed during the second quarter of 2016. Total net growth capital expenditures for the Buffalo plant should approximate $105 million.

Eagle Ford Shale Natural Gas Processing Joint Venture

In October 2015, the Partnership announced that it entered into joint venture agreements with Sanchez to construct the Raptor Plant and approximately 45 miles of associated pipelines. The Partnership expects to invest approximately $125 million of growth capital expenditures related to the joint ventures, and assuming full contribution from Sanchez, will have a 50% interest in the plant and the approximately 45 miles of high pressure gathering pipelines that will connect Sanchez’s Catarina gathering system to the plant. The Partnership will hold all of the transportation capacity on the pipeline and the gathering joint venture receives fees for transportation.

The Raptor Plant will accommodate the growing production from Sanchez’s premier Eagle Ford Shale acreage position in Dimmit, La Salle and Webb Counties, Texas and from other third party producers. The plant and high pressure gathering lines are supported by long-term, firm, fee-based contracts and acreage dedications with Sanchez. The Partnership will manage construction and operations of the plant and high pressure gathering lines, and the plant is expected to begin operations in early 2017. Prior to the plant being placed in-service, the Partnership will benefit from Sanchez natural gas volumes that will be processed at our Silver Oak facilities in Bee County, Texas.
 
In addition to the major projects in process noted above, the Partnership potentially has other growth capital expenditures in 2016 related to the continued build out of its gathering and processing infrastructure and logistics capabilities. In the current depressed market environment, the Partnership will evaluate these potential projects based on return profile, capital requirements and strategic need and may choose to defer projects depending on expected activity levels.

Accounts Receivable Securitization Facility

The Securitization Facility provides up to $225.0 million of borrowing capacity at LIBOR market index rates plus a margin through December 9, 2016. Under the Securitization Facility, Targa Midstream Services LLC (“TMS”), a consolidated subsidiary of the Partnership, contributes receivables to Targa Gas Marketing LLC (“TGM”), a consolidated subsidiary of the Partnership, and TGM and  another consolidated subsidiary of the Partnership (Targa Liquids Marketing and Trade LLC (“TLMT”)) sell or contribute receivables, without recourse, to another of its consolidated subsidiaries (Targa Receivables LLC or “TRLLC”), a special purpose consolidated subsidiary created for the sole purpose of the Securitization Facility. TRLLC, in turn, sells an undivided percentage ownership in the eligible receivables to a third-party financial institution. Receivables up to the amount of the outstanding debt under the Securitization Facility are not available to satisfy the claims of the creditors of TLMT, TMS, TGM or the Partnership. Any excess receivables are eligible to satisfy the claims of creditors of TLMT, TMS, TGM or the Partnership. As of December 31, 2015, total funding under the Securitization Facility was $219.3 million.

Distributions

During 2015, the Partnership paid cash distributions of $3.28 per unit, an increase of approximately six percent compared with the $3.09 per unit paid during 2014. In January 2016, the general partner declared a cash distribution of $0.825 per unit ($3.30 on an annualized basis) for the fourth quarter 2015, an increase of approximately two percent compared with the $ 0.81 per unit declared in January 2015.

Other Financing Activities

In connection with the closing of the Atlas mergers, we entered into the TRC Credit Agreement, dated as of February 27, 2015, among us, each lender from time to time party thereto and Bank of America, N.A. as administrative agent, collateral agent, swing line lender and letter of credit issuer. The TRC Credit Agreement provides for a new five year revolving credit facility in an aggregate principal amount up to $670 million and a seven year term loan facility in an aggregate principal amount of $430 million. We used the net proceeds from the term loan issuance and the revolving credit facility to fund cash components of the ATLS merger, including cash merger consideration and approximately $160 million related to change of control payments made by ATLS, cash settlements of equity awards and transaction fees and expenses. In March 2015, we repaid $188.0 million of the term loan and wrote off $3.3 million of the discount and $5.7 million of debt issuance costs. In June 2015, we repaid $82.0 million of the term loan and wrote off $1.4 million of the discount and $2.4 million of debt issuance costs. The write-off of the discount and debt issuance costs are reflected as Loss from financing activities on the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

In January 2015, the Partnership and Targa Resources Partners Finance Corporation (collectively, the “Partnership Issuers”) issued $1.1 billion in aggregate principal amount of 5% Notes resulting in approximately $1,089.8 million of net proceeds after costs, which were used together with borrowings under the TRP Revolver, to fund the APL Notes Tender Offers and the Change of Control Offer.

In February 2015, the Partnership amended the TRP Revolver to increase available commitments to $1.6 billion from $1.2 billion while retaining the Partnership’s right to request up to an additional $300.0 million in commitment increases. The Partnership used proceeds from borrowings under the credit facility to fund some of the cash components of the APL merger, including $701.4 million for the repayments of the APL Revolver and $28.8 million related to change of control payments. In connection with the 58,614,157 common units issued in the Atlas mergers in February 2015, we contributed an additional $52.4 million to the Partnership to maintain our 2% general partner interest.
 
In May 2015, the Partnership entered into the May 2015 EDA, pursuant to which it may sell through its sales agents, at its option, up to an aggregate of $1.0 billion of common units. During the year ended December 31, 2015, the Partnership issued 7,377,380 common units under its EDAs, receiving proceeds of $316.1 million (net of commissions). As of December 31, 2015, approximately $4.2 million of capacity and $835.6 million of capacity remain under the May 2014 and May 2015 EDAs. During the year ended December 31, 2015 we contributed $6.5 million to the Partnership to maintain our 2% general partner interest. Pursuant to the TRC/TRP Merger Agreement, TRC has agreed to cause the TRP common units to be delisted from the NYSE and deregistered under the Exchange Act. As a result of the completion of the TRC/TRP Merger, the TRP common units are no longer publicly traded.

In May 2015, the Partnership Issuers issued $342.1 million aggregate principal amount of the TRP 6⅝% Notes to holders of the 2020 APL Notes, which were validly tendered for exchange.

In September 2015, the Partnership Issuers issued $600.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 6¾% Notes resulting in approximately $595.0 million of net proceeds after costs, which were used to reduce borrowings under the TRP Revolver and for general partnership purposes.

In October 2015, the Partnership completed an offering of 4,400,000 Preferred Units at a price of $25.00 per unit. The Partnership sold an additional 600,000 Preferred Units pursuant to the exercise of the underwriters’ overallotment option. The Partnership received net proceeds after costs of approximately $121.1 million. The Partnership used the net proceeds from this offering to reduce borrowings under the TRP Revolver and for general partnership purposes. As of December 31, 2015, the Partnership has paid $1.5 million in distributions to its preferred unitholders. See Note 11 - Partnership Units and Related Matters. The Preferred Units remain outstanding as limited partner interests in TRP and continue to trade on the NYSE under the symbol “NGLS PRA.”

In December 2015, the Partnership repurchased on the open market a portion of its various series of outstanding senior notes paying $14.3 million plus accrued interest to repurchase $17.9 million of the outstanding balances. The December 2015 Senior Note Repurchases resulted in a $3.6 million gain on debt repurchase and a write-off of $0.1 million in related deferred debt issuance costs.

APL Merger Financing Activities

APL Senior Notes Tender Offers

In January 2015, the Partnership commenced cash tender offers for any and all of the outstanding fixed rate senior secured notes to be acquired in the APL merger, referred to as the APL Notes Tender Offers, which totaled $1.55 billion.

The results of the APL Notes Tender Offers were:

Senior Notes
 
Outstanding
Note Balance
   
Amount
Tendered
   
Premium
Paid
   
Accrued
Interest
Paid
   
Total Tender
Offer
 payments
   
% Tendered
   
Note Balance
after Tender
Offers
 
   
($ amounts in millions)
             
6⅝% due 2020
 
$
500.0
   
$
140.1
   
$
2.1
   
$
3.7
   
$
145.9
     
28.02
%
 
$
359.9
 
4¾% due 2021
   
400.0
     
393.5
     
5.9
     
5.3
     
404.7
     
98.38
%
   
6.5
 
5⅞% due 2023
   
650.0
     
601.9
     
8.7
     
2.6
     
613.2
     
92.60
%
   
48.1
 
Total
 
$
1,550.0
   
$
1,135.5
   
$
16.7
   
$
11.6
   
$
1,163.8