[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Oneok

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name origin

[edit]

Did they give a reason behind their late 1980 adoption of the name ONEOK? Did they want people to think the company was Korean? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem very Korean (or Japanese or Indian). :-) —BarrelProof (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article reclassification

[edit]

The content of this article is well beyond the requirements for Stub classification. I have marked for Start class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruin2 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 May 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Guanaco 11:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ONEOK → Oneok – Per MOS:TM. The company refers to itself as "ONEOK" but that is neither an acronym nor an initialism; the company was renamed from Oklahoma Natural Gas in 1980. "Oneok" is used by sources such as Forbes and Reuters, so the use of "ONEOK" is not universal and an exception to the style guide should not be made for this article. feminist 08:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. I just went through 4 pages on Google news and all but one result showed the company in all caps, so the nominator's sources are obviously cherry picked. Also, I'm in the same industry as ONEOK and from personal experience I've never seen the company in lowercase. It's always uppercase. -- Tavix (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh. Both of my sources were from the first page of my Google news results. Also, I don't think WP:OR would be considered valid anywhere on Wikipedia. feminist 13:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Huh. Good thing I'm not using that "original research" in an article (where it says not to use WP:OR if you actually follow what you link). Furthermore, that last comment was simply anecdotal evidence to help back up my claim that the CAPS is near universal. If you want sources, here's what I found in the first page of Google News alone: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. All of these sources use ONEOK in caps (although one of the sources did use Oneok once among ONEOK the rest of the time.) -- Tavix (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no doubt that you are more familiar with this topic than I am, but based on my personal experience on Wikipedia comments like "I am familiar with the topic and this format is never used" are often ignored at discussions like RM and the various deletion processes. But there is no need to debate on this as continued discussion doesn't really benefit readers. The main disagreement here is whether "Oneok" as a style is widely used enough for Wikipedia to follow its MoS; on this issue we clearly disagree. I will leave this for other RM participants to decide. feminist 15:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • From my experience, a title should follow the preponderance of sources. The sources overwhelmingly use ONEOK, making that title the common name, and the name more recognizable to our readers. -- Tavix (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Usage by Forbes and Reuters demonstrates that the ugly ALLCAPS is not used consistently by independent reliable sources, and the company's own logo (as shown in the article) shows "Oneok" with the initial "O" taller than the other letters. Lots of companies try to promote spelling their names and brand names in all-caps to try to appear more prominent and important. Wikipedia is not a promotional forum and does not need to follow that styling. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So when all other sources use the company's actual name, they're using it for promotional reasons? Hmm... -- Tavix (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see MOS:TMRULES: "avoid: TIME, KISS, ASUS, The PLAYERS Championship; instead, use: Time, Kiss, Asus, The Players Championship". In this case it seems even more clear cut, since the company itself uses mixed case in its logo. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And in those cases, sources generally don't use caps. In this case, it's almost ubiquitous. Using Time magazine as an example, a Google News search of "TIME magazine", excluding TIME's own publication, produces many more results in the lowercase than the uppercase, so yes, the article needs to be in lowercase. For ONEOK, the lowercase is rarely used. -- Tavix (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The company also says its name is "pronounced ONE-OAK", so it is not something spelled out letter-by-letter. Lots of companies do this all-caps styling of their names. Wikipedia tries to have its own house style, and generally avoids excess capitalization, and Forbes and Reuters seem like pretty good sources to consider. Some of those other sources that you identified are just repeating the company press releases and so forth, not really exercising their own independent judgment. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related article: If this article is moved, I suggest that ONEOK Field should also be moved correspondingly. I am placing a move discussion notice on that article's Talk page. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but... – I oppose the current naming suggestion, but wouldn't oppose to the article being named OneOK. "OK" stands for Oklahoma, where the company was founded and is headquartered. My other reason for opposing this move is that it it is the same as NASCAR – we don't pronounce it by each individual letter. Unless articles like NASCAR are moved, I will oppose any requested moves in this area. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking about the abbreviation of the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, right? I also notice that the energy company says the final two letters are pronounced "oak" rather than "O.K." I think NASCAR is more like NASA, and I strongly suspect that Forbes and Reuters use "NASCAR" and "NASA" rather than "Nascar" and "Nasa". Those are abbreviations, and this one is not. Do any reliable sources use "OneOK"? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 17 September 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move; The lowercase title is clearly supported by arguments considering the sources available and MOS:TMRULES. (non-admin closure) — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Trying this again. This is a clear cut MOS:TMRULES case. "Oneok" is already used by sources such as Forbes and Reuters, so the all-caps stylization is by no means universal. feminist (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And here is Forbes and Reuters using "ONEOK", so it is by no means universal even among those publications either. -- Tavix (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To give an example, Jack White is playing a concert tonight at ONEOK Field. I did a search for this concert, and every single one of the first ten results I got use "ONEOK": [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. -- Tavix (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I checked two of those and they were both primary sources, so you appear to be wasting both our time and yours by giving them. Andrewa (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? None are from ONEOK, and most are news stories, such as from the Tulsa World and KOTV-DT. Furthermore, I have demonstrated "widespread usage" as required by MOS:TM. The lowercase, on the other hand, does not enjoy widespread usage so there is no violation, as you claim. If you want more significant publications, here is New York Times and USA Today further demonstrating that the widespread usage of the caps IS the common name. -- Tavix (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you following any of the links I'm giving? I'm following yours, but it's mostly a waste of time. A news story based on a press release is a primary source, and your latest link to the New York Times is explicitly that. The other one does seem to qualify as a secondary source (finally), but so do the two counter examples given by BarrelProof below. In order to have demonstrated "widespread usage", you need more than one. Please, if they are there, be a bit selective in providing them. Andrewa (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are not required to participate in this discussion if you feel it is a waste of time. -- Tavix (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. But it's not the whole discussion that is a waste of time, just the primary sources you are providing. And I think it's good use of my time to point this out. Otherwise, others might mistakenly think that they are relevant to the discussion. Andrewa (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per last time. This seems like a promotional styling that is not followed in some independent reliable sources. Wikipedia guidelines say to use ordinary English styling in such cases when the sources are mixed. The company says the final two letters are pronounced "oak" rather than "O.K.", so I think Oneok is more in line with ordinary English styling than OneOK, and Oneok is used by Forbes and Reuters. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It seems a simple case of violation of MOSTM. Andrewa (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move – see my comment from the last requested move for this. Corky 16:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's this one? So you oppose this move, but would support a move to OneOK? Andrewa (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

I note this is reversing 

 04:46, 28 May 2017‎ Tavix (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (36 bytes) (+36)‎ . . (Tavix moved page Oneok to ONEOK over redirect: Revert, this is pretty much always in caps.)

which appears to have been undiscussed at the time. I'm a bit surprised that the RM at #Requested move 28 May 2017 above didn't simply reverse that, I guess from the edit summary it was itself reversing a still earlier move. Andrewa (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which itself is reversing
(cur | prev)  15:00, 26 May 2017‎ Feminist (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (7,574 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Feminist moved page ONEOK to Oneok: Not exactly an acronym) (undo | thank)

which was also undiscussed at the time. The all caps WP:COMMONNAME is the status quo. -- Tavix (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! But that point wasn't made at the last RM, and I didn't find that previous move although I guessed it was there and looked for it... but not well enough. Andrewa (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

History Request

[edit]

Hi, this is Jessica from ONEOK here to post an edit request. I explain my conflict of interest on my user page if you want to know more (User:Jessica at ONEOK) before peeping my edit request.

Below is a new version of the History section I've drafted up. I understand multiple parts of the article must be fixed, but I figured History was an excellent place to start. In the current History section, there are a ton of broken citations, sentences with no citations, or links directly to the ONEOK website, which I understand isn't allowed. Also, there is a good amount of recent history with the company that is completely missing. I spent some time finding good sourcing that would be allowed on Wikipedia, and only picked the best to cite in my draft. Instead of having somebody ready the current History side by side with my History section, I jotted down every change I made below:

- Changed the date the company was founded to Oct. 12th, 1906 citing TulsaPeople Magazine. Removed sentences detailing Flynnm Ames, and H. M. Byllesby original roles, which were not entirely crucial to the article.

- Added a sentence about the company building a gas pipeline in 1907 from Osage County to Sapulpa and Oklahoma City, and how the project was completed Dec. 28, 1907. All cited to Oklahoma Historical Society.

- Added a sentence about how the company built the first ever compressor station in Oklahoma history, cited to Oklahoma Historical Society.

- Removed sentences regarding Byllesby resigning and how Glenn T. Braden and Theodore N. Barnsdall joined ONG. - Added a sentence about how by 1919 ONG supplied gas to thirty-seven communities in Oklahoma across more than one thousand miles of line, cited to Oklahoma Historical Society.

- Removed sentences about how the company owned 1,300 miles of pipeline and how it reorganized several times. I tried to keep the most important historical facts concise, which felt excessive to keep.

- Added one final sentence to the open paragraph, adding that ONG had grown to 600 employees and maintained 6,600 miles of pipeline by 1956, cited to Oklahoma Historical Society.

- Added a paragraph about Oneok's acquisition of Western Resources, cited to a New York Times article. Also added a sentence about Oneok acquiring Western's roughly 1,575 Western Resources employees and the 624,000 customers in Kansas and 36,000 customers in northeast Oklahoma, cited to The Oklahoman.

- Added that in 1999 Oneok agreed to acquire Southwest Gas for $1.8 billion, and that later in Jan. 2000, ONEOKOneok called off the agreement and a lawsuit followed.

- Removed the Fortune magazine most admired company, as the sourcing is not quality. Added that in 2002, Oneok acquired Southern Union Gas's Texas division and assets for $420 million, then renamed the company Texas Gas Service, which is cited in both an Oklahoman piece and The Journal Record.

- Added in 2004 Oneok acquired Northern Plains Natural Gas Co. for $175 million, cited to The Oklahoman. Also added that the deal gave Oneok a controlling interest in Northern Border Partners, which had a master limited partnership on 6,600 miles of pipeline, five natural gas processing plants, and two fractional plants.

- Added a sentence that ONEOK spun off its natural gas businesses into One Gas in July 2013, citing Bloomberg and The Journal Record.

- Added two new sentences about the Medford plant explosion: One sentence about the explosion occurring cited to KFOR, and a second sentence noting the insurance payout and that Oneok planned to "transition gas fractionation operations away from the plant in Medford" cited to Journal Record. Added the requested addition of the Demicks Lake III plant, which resumed construction in Nov. 2021., cited to the Wiliston Herald. Also added that the plant finished construction and became operational in Feb. 2023, cited to Hart Energy.

- Added that in September 2023, Oneok acquired Magellan Midstream Partners for $18.8 billion, cited to Tulsa World. Also added a sentence explaining extra assets Oneok acquired in the deal, like East Houston terminal and crude oil trading hub, facilities in Galena Park, Texas and Seabrook, Texas, and a terminal in Pasadena, Texas, cited to Houston Business Journal.

- Finally, added that in May 2024, Oneok agreed to acquire Gulf Coast NGL Pipelines from Easton Energy for $280 million, cited to Pipeline & Gas Journal. Also added an extra sentence explaining that the deal included 450 miles of pipelines located in Texas and the Louisiana Gulf Coast.

History

History

[edit]
Oklahoma Natural Gas Company headquarters in Tulsa, Oklahoma built in 1928
OneOK headquarters in Tulsa, Oklahoma on 20 March 2007

Oklahoma Natural Gas Company was founded on October 12, 1906[1] by entrepreneurs Dennis T. Flynn and Charles B. Ames.[2] During the spring and fall of 1907, the company built a gas pipeline from Osage County to Sapulpa and Oklahoma City.[2] On December 28, 1907, the $1.7 million project was completed.[2] In 1910, the company built the first compressor station in the state of Oklahoma.[2] By 1919, the Oklahoma Natural Gas Company supplied gas to thirty-seven communities in Oklahoma across more than one thousand miles of line.[2] The company had grown to 600 employees and maintained 6,600 miles of pipeline by 1956.[2]

In December 1980 Oklahoma Natural Gas Company's board of directors changed the company's name to Oneok Inc.[2][1] Also at that time the gas service part of the company was made into a separate division, retaining the name of Oklahoma Natural Gas.[2]

In 1996, Oneok acquired Western Resources' natural gas pipeline and plants for $660 million in stock.[3] From the acquisition, Oneok acquired roughly 1,575 Western Resources employees as well as the 624,000 customers in Kansas and 36,000 customers in northeast Oklahoma.[4]

In 1999, Oneok agreed to acquire Southwest Gas, a Las Vegas based natural gas company, for $1.8 billion.[5] In January 2000, Oneok terminated the pending merger of the two companies, and Southwest Gas filed a lawsuit against Oneok.[6] Judge Roslyn O. Silver dismissed two of the cases against Oneok in June 2001, and Oneok agreed to pay Southern Union $3 million to settle the remaining case.[7][8]

In October 2002, Oneok acquired the Texas division and assets of Southern Union Gas for $420 million.[9] Oneok renamed the company to Texas Gas Service when the acquisition was completed.[8]

In September 2004, Oneok acquired Northern Plains Natural Gas Co. for $175 million.[10] The deal also gave Oneok a controlling interest in Northern Border Partners, which had a master limited partnership on 6,600 miles of pipeline, five natural gas processing plants, and two fractional plants.[10]

In July 2013, Oneok spun off its natural gas distribution businesses, including Oklahoma Natural Gas Co., Kansas Gas Service, and Texas Gas Service, into a separate company named One Gas.[11][12]

In November 2021, Oneok resumed construction of its natural gas processing facility Demicks Lake III plant in McKenzie County, North Dakota which was originally delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.[13] The Demicks Lake III plant was later completed and began operations in February 2023.[14]

In July 2022, a Oneok gas plant in Medford, Oklahoma exploded, causing no injuries but temporarily expelling roughly 1,000 residents from their homes.[15] In January 2023, Oneok reached an insurance settlement payment of $930 million and the company announced plans to transition gas fractionation operations away from the Medford plant.[16]

In September 2023, Oneok acquired Magellan Midstream Partners for $18.8 billion.[17] Included in the acquisition for Oneok was the Magellan-owned East Houston terminal and crude oil trading hub, facilities in Galena Park, Texas and Seabrook, Texas, and a terminal in Pasadena, Texas.[18]

In May 2024, Oneok agreed to acquire Gulf Coast NGL Pipelines from Easton Energy for $280 million.[19] The deal included 450 miles of pipelines located in Texas and the Louisiana Gulf Coast.[19]

References

  1. ^ a b Evatt, Robert (January 31, 2024). "Cheers to 10 years: Tulsa's ONE Gas marks a decade as an independent company". TulsaPeople Magazine. Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h Everett, Dianna. "Oklahoma Natural Gas Company The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture". Oklahoma Historical Society OHS. Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  3. ^ "Western Resources Ready to Sell Natural Gas Pipelines to Oneok". The New York Times. December 13, 1996. Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  4. ^ Vandewater, Bob (December 13, 1996). "Utility Acquisition Plan Valued at $660 Million". The Oklahoman. Retrieved July 30, 2024.
  5. ^ Vandewater, Bob (April 27, 1999). "ONEOK Wins Bid For Southwest Gas". The Oklahoman. Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  6. ^ "Oneok-Southwest Gas merger called off". Oil & Gas Journal. January 31, 2000. Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  7. ^ "Judge dismisses two claims against Oneok". The Journal Record. June 25, 2001. Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  8. ^ a b Minty, Chip (December 24, 2002). "ONEOK acquisition nearly complete Southern Union Gas renamed as Texas Gas Services Co". The Oklahoman. Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  9. ^ "Oneok buys Southern Union Gas's Texas gas division after selling Oklahoma midstream assets". Oil & Gas Journal. October 18, 2002. Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  10. ^ a b Wilmoth, Adam (September 17, 2004). "ONEOK to purchase company". The Oklahoman. Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  11. ^ Tuttle, D. Ray (July 25, 2013). "Oneok to spin off natural gas distribution business". Retrieved August 13, 2024.
  12. ^ Davis, Tina (July 25, 2013). "Oneok to Spin Off Gas Distribution Business Into One Gas". Bloomberg. Retrieved August 13, 2024.
  13. ^ Jean, Renée (November 18, 2021). "ONEOK takes Demicks Lake III out of mothballs, Bear Creek now operational". Williston Herald. Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  14. ^ Markman, Joseph (May 17, 2023). "Targa, EnLink, ONEOK Building Out in a Hurry Hart Energy". Hart Energy. Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  15. ^ Mitchell, Taylor (July 9, 2022). "Hundreds of Medford residents evacuated from home due to OneOk gas plant explosion". KFOR. Retrieved August 15, 2024.
  16. ^ "Oneok to transition operations away from damaged Medford plant". Journal Record. January 9, 2023. Retrieved August 15, 2024.
  17. ^ Dekker, Michael (September 25, 2023). "ONEOK's $18.8B buyout of Magellan becomes official". Tulsa World. Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  18. ^ Pulsinelli, Olivia (May 15, 2023). "Magellan Midstream Partners to be acquired by fellow Oklahoma company in $18.8B deal". Houston Business Journal. Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  19. ^ a b Holcomb (May 13, 2024). "ONEOK Agrees to $280 Million Acquisition of Gulf Coast NGL Pipelines". Pipeline & Gas Journal. Retrieved July 29, 2024.

If anybody has questions, please reply and tag me below, and I'll be here for a response! Thank you!! Jessica at ONEOK (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, I've returned to ping a few of the editors I see in the history who've edited this article in the past to gauge interest in evaluating this edit request: User:Ptrnext, User:Ksu6500, and User:BarrelProof. I completely understand that this is a lengthy request, so I do thank anybody who takes a crack at looking through it.Jessica at ONEOK (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection at first glance. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:BarrelProof thank you for the feedback! Is it possible for you to implement this request? Or could you point me in the right direction to find editors interested in implementing this? Thank you so much. Jessica at ONEOK (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been no objections and one expression of support, but nobody has shown a willingness to put work into it. I suggest to go ahead and edit the article yourself. It looks like you've already put some effort into avoiding puffery. Instead of the word "entrepreneurs", try "businessmen", per WP:ENTREPRENEUR. And please add Mary Holcomb's first name to the citation and use "|work=The Journal Record" consistently (|work=, not |location=, and including "The"). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for approving this; I went ahead and made the two changes to the draft you requested, replacing "entrepreneurs" with "businessmen" and adding Mary Holcomb's name to the citation, then implemented this into the article.
I'm also working on an Operations section draft which I will post shortly. Again, thank you for your time. Jessica at ONEOK (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operations request

[edit]

Hi, I'm back on this Talk page to post a draft for a new Operations section I've been working on. As the article is now, there isn't much explanation for how Oneok's business works. I found some quality sourcing to detail how it works and a few of the significant pipelines Oneok operates.

Here is precisely what this new section would add and what sources I used:

- Cited Bloomberg and Tulsa World to note the four main business segments of Oneok

- Added a sentence about the more notable pipelines Oneok operates that I could find high-quality sourcing for, including the Northern Border Pipeline, cited to The Gazette. Also added mention of the the Roadrunner Gas Transmission Pipeline, the Arbuckle Pipeline, and the Elk Creek pipeline, all cited to Hart Energy articles.

- I added one final sentence that details Magellan Midstream Partners, noting that it now operates as a subsidiary of Oneok and some statistics on how much oil it transports and how many miles of pipeline it operates. I cited this to the Tulsa World article.

Operations
 Done PK650 (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last source is paywalled, so I took your word for it, but please make sure the source corroborates the stated facts. PK650 (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operations

[edit]

Oneok has four business segments: natural gas liquids, natural gas gathering and processing, natural gas pipelines, refined products and crude oil.[1][2]

The main pipelines Oneok operates include the Northern Border Pipeline,[3] the Roadrunner Gas Transmission Pipeline,[4] the Arbuckle Pipeline,[5] and the Elk Creek Pipeline.[6]

Magellan Midstream Partners operates as a subsidiary of Oneok and owns approximately 2,200 miles of crude pipelines, and the 450-mile Longhorn pipeline, which transports roughly 275,000 barrels per day of crude oil from the Permian Basin to storage facilities and refining operations in Houston.[2]

References

  1. ^ Casey, Simon; Elkin, Elizabeth (August 29, 2024). "US Pipeline Operator ONEOK Inks Two Deals for $5.9 Billion". Bloomberg. Retrieved September 25, 2024.
  2. ^ a b Dekker, Michael (September 25, 2023). "ONEOK's $18.8B buyout of Magellan becomes official". Tulsa World. Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  3. ^ Jordan, Erin (January 31, 2022). "CO2 pipeline plans raise fears, but incidents rare in Iowa". The Gazette. Retrieved September 25, 2024.
  4. ^ Barbee, Darren (April 8, 2015). "ONEOK JV To Pipe Natural Gas From Permian To Mexico's Doorstep Hart Energy". Hart Energy. Retrieved September 25, 2024.
  5. ^ "ONEOK Bets On Cana-Woodford, Granite Wash Plays". Hart Energy. December 16, 2010. Retrieved October 15, 2024.
  6. ^ Mathews, Chris (April 27, 2024). "ONEOK CEO: 'Huge Competitive Advantage' to Upping Permian NGL Capacity Hart Energy". Hart Energy. Retrieved October 15, 2024.

If anybody has questions, please reply, and I'll be here to respond. Thank you so much! Jessica at ONEOK (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I'm not keen on the use of the phrase 'more notable' in your draft as that would appear to be a subjective judgement. I think you will need to either drop it or replace it (e.g. with 'main'). Axad12 (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the feedback here User:Axad12, I went back into the draft and replaced 'more notable' with 'main.' If anything else comes to mind to make this draft work, please let me know. Jessica at ONEOK (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oneok&oldid=1257869984"