National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for ft feet ft

  1. NPB UPC-FT

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    NPB UPC-FT NPB UPC-FT Description This is the Berkeley Unified Parallel C (UPC) implementation of the NAS Parallel Benchmark FT. The transpose communication is implemented using...

  2. NPB UPC-FT

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    NPB UPC-FT NPB UPC-FT Description This is the Berkeley Unified Parallel C (UPC) implementation of the NAS Parallel Benchmark FT. The transpose communication is implemented using both blocking functions (upc_memget) and nonblocking functions (upc_memput_nb). The default is nonblocking functions, which is defined in UPC description 3.1. If nonblocking functions are not supported on your system, it will switch to blocking functions automatically. Users are allowed to change the selection by

  3. Sandia Energy - SWiFT Operations

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Operations Home Stationary Power Energy Conversion Efficiency Wind Energy SWiFT Facility & Testing SWiFT Operations SWiFT Operationscwdd2015-05-28T15:24:41+00:00 wind-turbines The...

  4. Ft Bidwell Space Heating Low Temperature Geothermal Facility...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Ft Bidwell Space Heating Low Temperature Geothermal Facility Jump to: navigation, search Name Ft Bidwell Space Heating Low Temperature Geothermal Facility Facility Ft Bidwell...

  5. SWiFT Software Quality Assurance Plan.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Berg, Jonathan Charles

    2016-01-01

    This document describes the software development practice areas and processes which contribute to the ability of SWiFT software developers to provide quality software. These processes are designed to satisfy the requirements set forth by the Sandia Software Quality Assurance Program (SSQAP). APPROVALS SWiFT Software Quality Assurance Plan (SAND2016-0765) approved by: Department Manager SWiFT Site Lead Dave Minster (6121) Date Jonathan White (6121) Date SWiFT Controls Engineer Jonathan Berg (6121) Date CHANGE HISTORY Issue Date Originator(s) Description A 2016/01/27 Jon Berg (06121) Initial release of the SWiFT Software Quality Assurance Plan

  6. FT Solutions LLC | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    LLC Place: South Jordan, Utah Zip: 84095 Product: JV between Headwaters Technology Innovation Group and Rentech to focus on Fischer-Tropsch (FT) gas-to-liquids processes and...

  7. Carderock 3-ft Variable Pressure Cavitation Water Tunnel | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    3-ft Variable Pressure Cavitation Water Tunnel Jump to: navigation, search Basic Specifications Facility Name Carderock 3-ft Variable Pressure Cavitation Water Tunnel Overseeing...

  8. 3-ft Wave Flume Facility | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    ft Wave Flume Facility Jump to: navigation, search Basic Specifications Facility Name 3-ft Wave Flume Facility Overseeing Organization United States Army Corp of Engineers (ERDC)...

  9. 5-ft Wave Flume Facility | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    ft Wave Flume Facility Jump to: navigation, search Basic Specifications Facility Name 5-ft Wave Flume Facility Overseeing Organization United States Army Corp of Engineers (ERDC)...

  10. 1.5-ft Wave Flume Facility | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    .5-ft Wave Flume Facility Jump to: navigation, search Basic Specifications Facility Name 1.5-ft Wave Flume Facility Overseeing Organization United States Army Corp of Engineers...

  11. Sandia Energy - Wind Plant Optimization: SWiFT Restart Technical...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Plant Optimization: SWiFT Restart Technical Review Committee Home SWIFT Wind Energy Wind News Wind Plant Optimization: SWiFT Restart Technical Review Committee Previous Next Wind...

  12. Ft. Mojave Renewable Energy Feasibility Study

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Renewable Energy Feasibility Study Ft. Mojave Renewable Energy Feasibility Study Presented by Bill Cyr and Russell Gum Presented by Bill Cyr and Russell Gum Overview Document possible renewable energy sources Evaluate their feasibility Develop a business plan for implementation of selected alternatives Location along Colorado river where Arizona, California and Nevada meet Participants Aha Machav Power Service Avi Kwa Ame Farm ERCC Analytics Objectives Business plan that will result in

  13. SWiFT site atmospheric characterization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kelley, Christopher Lee; Ennis, Brandon Lee

    2016-01-01

    Historical meteorological tall tower data are analyzed from the Texas Tech University 200 m tower to characterize the atmospheric trends of the Scaled Wind Farm Technologies (SWiFT) site. In this report the data are analyzed to reveal bulk atmospheric trends, temporal trends and correlations of atmospheric variables. Through this analysis for the SWiFT turbines the site International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) classification is determined to be class III-C. Averages and distributions of atmospheric variables are shown, revealing large fluctuations and the importance of understanding the actual site trends as opposed to simply using averages. The site is significantly directional with the average wind speed from the south, and particularly so in summer and fall. Site temporal trends are analyzed from both seasonal (time of the year) to daily (hour of the day) perspectives. Atmospheric stability is seen to vary most with time of day and less with time of year. Turbulence intensity is highly correlated with stability, and typical daytime unstable conditions see double the level of turbulence intensity versus that experienced during the average stable night. Shear, veer and atmospheric stability correlations are shown, where shear and veer are both highest for stable atmospheric conditions. An analysis of the Texas Tech University tower anemometer measurements is performed which reveals the extent of the tower shadow effects and sonic tilt misalignment.

  14. Spherically symmetric static spacetimes in vacuum f(T) gravity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ferraro, Rafael; Fiorini, Franco

    2011-10-15

    We show that Schwarzschild geometry remains as a vacuum solution for those four-dimensional f(T) gravitational theories behaving as ultraviolet deformations of general relativity. In the gentler context of three-dimensional gravity, we also find that the infrared-deformed f(T) gravities, like the ones used to describe the late cosmic speed up of the Universe, have as the circularly symmetric vacuum solution a Deser-de Sitter or a Banados, Teitelboim and Zanelli-like spacetime with an effective cosmological constant depending on the infrared scale present in the function f(T).

  15. Ft. Carson Army Base, Colorado Springs, Colorado | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Ft. Carson Army Base, Colorado Springs, Colorado Ft. Carson Army Base, Colorado Springs, Colorado Photo of High-Bay Aviation Maintenance Facility at Butts Army Airfield Fort Carson U.S. Army Base is located south of Colorado Springs, Colorado. It was the first Federal facility to install a "solar wall"-a solar ventilation air preheating system. The solar wall heats Ft. Carson's new high-bay aviation maintenance facility at Butts Army Airfield by pre-warming air as much as 54°F and

  16. Well cored to 9,800 ft in Paraguay

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gunn, K.B. )

    1991-05-13

    The mining industry's slim hole drilling rigs have proven applicable to primary oil exploration. These machines are smaller than conventional drilling rigs and can be transported with relative ease to remote locations. A typical rig drills an entire well by coring, with the cores retrieved by wire line without tripping the pipe. The core drilling system is specially suited to drilling hard rock formations. This paper reports on the project which evaluated the geological aspects of the Parana basin and determined the applicability of slim hole, core drilling techniques as an exploration tool. The Parana basin is found in the eastern third of Paraguay, part of northeastern Argentina, and part of southern Brazil. Much of the basin is overlaid by basalt flows up to 5,000-ft thick, and there are numerous igneous intrusions and dikes within the sedimentary section. This combination makes seismic quality poor and interpretation extremely difficult. The formations are relatively old, with Triassic red beds occurring only a few feet below the surface or immediately below the basalt. Beneath the Triassic are Permian marine deposits, Permo-Carboniferous tillites, and then Devonian, Silurian, and Ordovician deposits to the basement. The section outcrops 100 miles west of the Mallorquin Well No. 1 site. The Parana basin has been only randomly explored. To date, success has been limited to a minor gas find near Sao Paulo, Brazil.

  17. Cosmological viability conditions for f(T) dark energy models

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Setare, M.R.; Mohammadipour, N. E-mail: N.Mohammadipour@uok.ac.ir

    2012-11-01

    Recently f(T) modified teleparallel gravity where T is the torsion scalar has been proposed as the natural gravitational alternative for dark energy. We perform a detailed dynamical analysis of these models and find conditions for the cosmological viability of f(T) dark energy models as geometrical constraints on the derivatives of these models. We show that in the phase space exists two cosmologically viable trajectory which (i) The universe would start from an unstable radiation point, then pass a saddle standard matter point which is followed by accelerated expansion de sitter point. (ii) The universe starts from a saddle radiation epoch, then falls onto the stable matter era and the system can not evolve to the dark energy dominated epoch. Finally, for a number of f(T) dark energy models were proposed in the more literature, the viability conditions are investigated.

  18. Generalized second law of thermodynamics in f(T) gravity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Karami, K.; Abdolmaleki, A. E-mail: AAbdolmaleki@uok.ac.ir

    2012-04-01

    We investigate the validity of the generalized second law (GSL) of gravitational thermodynamics in the framework of f(T) modified teleparallel gravity. We consider a spatially flat FRW universe containing only the pressureless matter. The boundary of the universe is assumed to be enclosed by the Hubble horizon. For two viable f(T) models containing f(T) = T+?{sub 1}((?T)){sup n} and f(T) = T??{sub 2}T(1?e{sup ?T{sub 0}/T}), we first calculate the effective equation of state and deceleration parameters. Then, (we investigate the null and strong energy conditions and conclude that a sudden future singularity appears in both models. Furthermore, using a cosmographic analysis we check the viability of two models. Finally, we examine the validity of the GSL and find that for both models it) is satisfied from the early times to the present epoch. But in the future, the GSL is violated for the special ranges of the torsion scalar T.

  19. Sandia Energy - New Facility Tool at SWiFT Makes Rotor Work More...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Facility Tool at SWiFT Makes Rotor Work More Efficient Home Renewable Energy Energy SWIFT Facilities Partnership News Wind Energy News & Events New Facility Tool at SWiFT Makes...

  20. SESAM FT-IR: A Comparison of the R&D Workhorse to Standard Emission...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    SESAM FT-IR: A Comparison of the R&D Workhorse to Standard Emission Benches SESAM FT-IR: A Comparison of the R&D Workhorse to Standard Emission Benches Data for a number of...

  1. 5 Hz Catalytic Emissions FT-IR Monitoring during Lean-Rich Engine...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Hz Catalytic Emissions FT-IR Monitoring during Lean-Rich Engine Cycles: Comparison to Reference Methods 5 Hz Catalytic Emissions FT-IR Monitoring during Lean-Rich Engine Cycles: ...

  2. Technology development for iron F-T catalysts. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Frame, R.R.; Gala, H.B.

    1994-08-01

    The objectives of this work were twofold. The first objective was to design and construct a pilot plant for preparing precipitated iron oxide F-T precursors and demonstrate that the rate of production from this plant is equivalent to 100 lbs/day of dried metal oxide. Secondly, these precipitates were to be used to prepare catalysts capable of achieving 88% CO + H{sub 2} conversion with {le} 5 mole percent selectivity to methane + ethane.

  3. A new day: SWiFT reaches rotor mounting milestone

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    day: SWiFT reaches rotor mounting milestone - Sandia Energy Energy Search Icon Sandia Home Locations Contact Us Employee Locator Energy & Climate Secure & Sustainable Energy Future Stationary Power Energy Conversion Efficiency Solar Energy Wind Energy Water Power Supercritical CO2 Geothermal Natural Gas Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & Engineering Grid Modernization Battery Testing Nuclear Fuel Cycle Defense Waste

  4. Cosmological perturbation in f(T) gravity revisited

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Izumi, Keisuke; Ong, Yen Chin E-mail: ongyenchin@member.ams.org

    2013-06-01

    We perform detailed investigation of cosmological perturbations in f(T) theory of gravity coupled with scalar field. Our work emphasizes on the way to gauge fix the theory and we examine all possible modes of perturbations up to second order. The analysis includes pseudoscalar and pseudovector modes in addition to the usual scalar, vector, and tensor modes. We find no gravitational propagating degree of freedom in the scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, as well as pseudovector modes. In addition, we find that the scalar and tensor perturbations have exactly the same form as their counterparts in usual general relativity with scalar field, except that the factor of reduced Planck mass squared M{sub pl}{sup 2}?1/(8?G) that occurs in the latter has now been replaced by an effective time-dependent gravitational coupling ?2(df/dT)|{sub T=T{sub 0}}, with T{sub 0} being the background torsion scalar. The absence of extra degrees of freedom of f(T) gravity at second order linear perturbation indicates that f(T) gravity is highly nonlinear. Consequently one cannot conclusively analyze stability of the theory without performing nonlinear analysis that can reveal the propagation of the extra degrees of freedom.

  5. Can f(T) gravity theories mimic ?CDM cosmic history

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Setare, M.R.; Mohammadipour, N. E-mail: N.Mohammadipour@uok.ac.ir

    2013-01-01

    Recently the teleparallel Lagrangian density described by the torsion scalar T has been extended to a function of T. The f(T) modified teleparallel gravity has been proposed as the natural gravitational alternative for dark energy to explain the late time acceleration of the universe. In order to reconstruct the function f(T) by demanding a background ?CDM cosmology we assume that, (i) the background cosmic history provided by the flat ?CDM (the radiation ere with ?{sub eff} = (1/3), matter and de Sitter eras with ?{sub eff} = 0 and ?{sub eff} = ?1, respectively) (ii) the radiation dominate in the radiation era with ?{sub 0r} = 1 and the matter dominate during the matter phases when ?{sub 0m} = 1. We find the cosmological dynamical system which can obey the ?CDM cosmic history. In each era, we find a critical lines that, the radiation dominated and the matter dominated are one points of them in the radiation and matter phases, respectively. Also, we drive the cosmologically viability condition for these models. We investigate the stability condition with respect to the homogeneous scalar perturbations in each era and we obtain the stability conditions for the fixed points in each eras. Finally, we reconstruct the function f(T) which mimics cosmic expansion history.

  6. SWiFT Turbines Full Dynamic Characterization Opens Doors for Research in

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    the Dynamics of Coupled Systems | Department of Energy SWiFT Turbines Full Dynamic Characterization Opens Doors for Research in the Dynamics of Coupled Systems SWiFT Turbines Full Dynamic Characterization Opens Doors for Research in the Dynamics of Coupled Systems March 31, 2014 - 11:19am Addthis Research conducted at the Scaled Wind Farm Technology Facility (SWiFT) in Lubbock, Texas, drew a lot of interest from attendees at the International Modal Analysis Conference held in Orlando,

  7. Sandia Energy - Power Production Started on All Three SWiFT Turbines

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Power Production Started on All Three SWiFT Turbines Home Renewable Energy Energy SWIFT Facilities Partnership News Wind Energy News & Events Power Production Started on All Three...

  8. Violation of the first law of black hole thermodynamics in f(T) gravity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Miao, Rong-Xin; Li, Miao; Miao, Yan-Gang E-mail: mli@itp.ac.cn

    2011-11-01

    We prove that, in general, the first law of black hole thermodynamics, ?Q = T?S, is violated in f(T) gravity. As a result, it is possible that there exists entropy production, which implies that the black hole thermodynamics can be in non-equilibrium even in the static spacetime. This feature is very different from that of f(R) or that of other higher derivative gravity theories. We find that the violation of first law results from the lack of local Lorentz invariance in f(T) gravity. By investigating two examples, we note that f''(0) should be negative in order to avoid the naked singularities and superluminal motion of light. When f''(T) is small, the entropy of black holes in f(T) gravity is approximatively equal to f'(T)/4 A.

  9. Alvord (3000-ft Strawn) LPG flood: design and performance evaluation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Frazier, G.D.; Todd, M.R.

    1982-01-01

    Mitchell Energy Corporation has implemented a LPG-dry gas miscible process in the Alvord (3000 ft Strawn) Unit in Wise County, Texas utilizing the DOE tertiary incentive program. The field had been waterflooded for 14 years and was producing near its economic limit at the time this project was started. This paper presents the results of the reservoir simulation study that was conducted to evaluate pattern configuration and operating alternatives so as to maximize LPG containment and oil recovery performance. Several recommendations resulting from this study were implemented for the project. Based on the model prediction, tertiary oil recovery is expected to be between 100,000 and 130,000 bbls, or about 7 percent of th oil originally in place in the Unit. An evaluation of the project performance to date is presented. In July of 1981 the injection of a 16% HPV slug of propane was completed. Natural gas is being used to drive the propane slug. A peak oil response of 222 BOPD was achieved in August of 1981 and production has since been declining. The observed performance of the flood indicates that the actual tertiary oil recovered will reach the predicted value, although the project life will be longer than expected. The results presented in this paper indicate that, without the DOE incentive program, the economics for this project would still be uncertain at this time.

  10. 5 Hz Catalytic Emissions FT-IR Monitoring during Lean-Rich Engine Cycles:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Comparison to Reference Methods | Department of Energy Hz Catalytic Emissions FT-IR Monitoring during Lean-Rich Engine Cycles: Comparison to Reference Methods 5 Hz Catalytic Emissions FT-IR Monitoring during Lean-Rich Engine Cycles: Comparison to Reference Methods 2005 Diesel Engine Emissions Reduction (DEER) Conference Presentations and Posters PDF icon 2005_deer_lake.pdf More Documents & Publications Reductant Utilization in a LNT + SCR System Spatiotemporal Distribution of NOx

  11. M4FT-15LL0806062-LLNL Thermodynamic and Sorption Data FY15 Progress Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zavarin, M.; Wolery, T. J.

    2015-08-31

    This progress report (Milestone Number M4FT-15LL0806062) summarizes research conducted at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) within Work Package Number FT-15LL080606. The focus of this research is the thermodynamic modeling of Engineered Barrier System (EBS) materials and properties and development of thermodynamic databases and models to evaluate the stability of EBS materials and their interactions with fluids at various physicochemical conditions relevant to subsurface repository environments. The development and implementation of equilibrium thermodynamic models are intended to describe chemical and physical processes such as solubility, sorption, and diffusion.

  12. Opportunities for the Early Production of Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) Fuels in

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    the U.S. -- An Overview | Department of Energy for the Early Production of Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) Fuels in the U.S. -- An Overview Opportunities for the Early Production of Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) Fuels in the U.S. -- An Overview 2002 DEER Conference Presentation: U.S. Department of Energy PDF icon 2002_deer_shen.pdf More Documents & Publications Coal-Derived Liquids to Enable HCCI Technology WA_99_018_TEXACO_ENERGY_SYSTEMS_Waiver_of_Domestic_and_Forei.pdf Advanced Fuels in HDV Applications

  13. FT-IR Study of CO2 Interaction with Na-rich Montmorillonite (Journal

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Article) | SciTech Connect FT-IR Study of CO2 Interaction with Na-rich Montmorillonite Citation Details In-Document Search Title: FT-IR Study of CO2 Interaction with Na-rich Montmorillonite Carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) in saline reservoirs in sedimentary formations has the potential to reduce the impact of fossil fuel combustion on climate change by reducing CO2 emissions to the atmosphere and storing the CO2 in geologic formations in perpetuity. At pressure and temperature

  14. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR DOWNEAST LNG, INC. - FT DKT. NO. 14-172-LNG - ORDER

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    NO. 3600 (FTA) | Department of Energy DOWNEAST LNG, INC. - FT DKT. NO. 14-172-LNG - ORDER NO. 3600 (FTA) SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR DOWNEAST LNG, INC. - FT DKT. NO. 14-172-LNG - ORDER NO. 3600 (FTA) No Reports Received More Documents & Publications SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR - STROM, INC. - FE DKT. NO. 14-56-LNG - ORDER NO 3537 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR TEXAS LNG - TEXAS LNG - FTA - FE DKT. NO. 13-160-LNG - 3443 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS - TEXAS LNG BROWNSVILLE LLC - FE DKT. 15-62-LNG - Order 3716 FTA

  15. SESAM FT-IR: A Comparison of the R&D Workhorse to Standard Emission Benches

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    | Department of Energy SESAM FT-IR: A Comparison of the R&D Workhorse to Standard Emission Benches SESAM FT-IR: A Comparison of the R&D Workhorse to Standard Emission Benches Data for a number of regulated emissions and ethanol using the SESAM FT-IR compare favorably with standard emissions analyzers. PDF icon p-07_frazee.pdf More Documents & Publications 5 Hz Catalytic Emissions FT-IR Monitoring during Lean-Rich Engine Cycles: Comparison to Reference Methods Urea SCR and DPF

  16. Ultra-clean Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) Fuels Production and Demonstration Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Stephen P. Bergin

    2006-06-30

    The objective of the DOE-NETL Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) Production and Demonstration Program was to produce and evaluate F-T fuel derived from domestic natural gas. The project had two primary phases: (1) fuel production of ultra-clean diesel transportation fuels from domestic fossil resources; and (2) demonstration and performance testing of these fuels in engines. The project also included a well-to-wheels economic analysis and a feasibility study of small-footprint F-T plants (SFPs) for remote locations such as rural Alaska. During the fuel production phase, ICRC partnered and cost-shared with Syntroleum Corporation to complete the mechanical design, construction, and operation of a modular SFP that converts natural gas, via F-T and hydro-processing reactions, into hydrogensaturated diesel fuel. Construction of the Tulsa, Oklahoma plant started in August 2002 and culminated in the production of over 100,000 gallons of F-T diesel fuel (S-2) through 2004, specifically for this project. That fuel formed the basis of extensive demonstrations and evaluations that followed. The ultra-clean F-T fuels produced had virtually no sulfur (less than 1 ppm) and were of the highest quality in terms of ignition quality, saturation content, backend volatility, etc. Lubricity concerns were investigated to verify that commercially available lubricity additive treatment would be adequate to protect fuel injection system components. In the fuel demonstration and testing phase, two separate bus fleets were utilized. The Washington DC Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) and Denali National Park bus fleets were used because they represented nearly opposite ends of several spectra, including: climate, topography, engine load factor, mean distance between stops, and composition of normally used conventional diesel fuel. Fuel evaluations in addition to bus fleet demonstrations included: bus fleet emission measurements; F-T fuel cold weather performance; controlled engine dynamometer lab evaluation; cold-start test-cell evaluations; overall feasibility, economics, and efficiency of SFP fuel production; and an economic analysis. Two unexpected issues that arose during the project were further studied and resolved: variations in NOx emissions were accounted for and fuel-injection nozzle fouling issues were traced to the non-combustible (ash) content of the engine oil, not the F-T fuel. The F-T fuel domestically produced and evaluated in this effort appears to be a good replacement candidate for petroleum-based transportation fuels. However, in order for domestic F-T fuels to become a viable cost-comparable alternative to petroleum fuels, the F-T fuels will need to be produced from abundant U.S. domestic resources such as coal and biomass, rather than stranded natural gas.

  17. Utility Assessment Report for SPIDERS Phase 2: Ft. Carson (Rev 1.0)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Barr, Jonathan L.; Tuffner, Francis K.; Hadley, Mark D.; Schneider, Kevin P.

    2014-01-01

    This document contains the Utility Assessment Report (UAR) for the Phase 2 operational Demonstration (OD) of the Smart Power Infrastructure Demonstration for Energy Reliability and Security (SPIDERS) Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD). The UAR for Phase 2 shows that the SPIDERS system was able to meet the requirements of the Implementation Directive at Ft. Carson.

  18. Shape selective catalysts for F-T chemistry. Interim report : January 2001 - December 2002.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cronauer, D. C.

    2003-01-29

    Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) is carrying out a research program to create, prepare, and evaluate catalysts to promote Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) chemistry, specifically the reaction of hydrogen with carbon monoxide to form long-chain hydrocarbons. In addition to F-T catalysts needing high activity, it is desirable that they have high selectivity and stability with respect to both mechanical strength and aging properties. In this project, selectivity is directed toward the production of diesel fraction components and avoiding excess yields of both light hydrocarbons and heavy waxes. Shape-selective catalysts have the potential to both limit the formation of long-chain products and yet retain the active metal sites in a protected ''cage.'' This cage also restricts their loss by attrition during use in slurry-bed reactors. Experimentation has included evaluation of samples of (1) iron-based F-T catalysts prepared at Argonne National Laboratory, (2) iron-based F-T catalysts prepared by B.H. Davis of the Center of Applied Energy Research (CAER), (3) the Davis catalyst that were sized by differential gravity separation, and (4) the Davis catalyst onto which inorganic or catalytic ''shells'' were deposited. The ANL-prepared samples had a wide range of particle size and were irregular in shape. A sizeable portion of the samples provided by Davis were spherical, because they had been prepared by spray-drying. To compare the catalytic activities of the samples, we used a micro-scale fixed-bed reactor system for F-T runs of low conversion to avoid thermal and mass transfer effects. In summary, the highest activity was that of the original Davis catalyst; additional research must be carried out to generate more permeable surface cages. A number of approaches that have been published for other applications will be tested.

  19. Variability of biomass chemical composition and rapid analysis using FT-NIR techniques

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Liu, Lu [University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK); Ye, Philip [University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK); Womac, A.R. [University of Tennessee; Sokhansanj, Shahabaddine [ORNL

    2010-04-01

    A quick method for analyzing the chemical composition of renewable energy biomass feedstock was developed by using Fourier transform near-infrared (FT-NIR) spectroscopy coupled with multivariate analysis. The study presents the broad-based model hypothesis that a single FT-NIR predictive model can be developed to analyze multiple types of biomass feedstock. The two most important biomass feedstocks corn stover and switchgrass were evaluated for the variability in their concentrations of the following components: glucan, xylan, galactan, arabinan, mannan, lignin, and ash. A hypothesis test was developed based upon these two species. Both cross-validation and independent validation results showed that the broad-based model developed is promising for future chemical prediction of both biomass species; in addition, the results also showed the method's prediction potential for wheat straw.

  20. Application of Printed Circuit Board Technology to FT-ICR MS Analyzer Cell Construction and Prototyping

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Leach, Franklin E.; Norheim, Randolph V.; Anderson, Gordon A.; Pasa-Tolic, Ljiljana

    2014-12-01

    Although Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FT-ICRMS) remains themass spectrometry platform that provides the highest levels of performance for mass accuracy and resolving power, there is room for improvement in analyzer cell design as the ideal quadrupolar trapping potential has yet to be generated for a broadband MS experiment. To this end, analyzer cell designs have improved since the field’s inception, yet few research groups participate in this area because of the high cost of instrumentation efforts. As a step towards reducing this barrier to participation and allowing for more designs to be physically tested, we introduce a method of FT-ICR analyzer cell prototyping utilizing printed circuit boards at modest vacuum conditions. This method allows for inexpensive devices to be readily fabricated and tested over short intervals and should open the field to laboratories lacking or unable to access high performance machine shop facilities because of the required financial investment.

  1. Practical Analysis of materials with depth varying compositions using FT-IR photoacoustic spectroscopy (PAS)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    J.F. McClelland; R.W. Jones; Siquan Luo

    2004-09-30

    FT-IR photoacoustic spectroscopy (PAS) is discussed as a nondestructive method to probe the molecular composition of materials versus depth on the basis of the analysis of layers of experimentally controllable thickness, which are measured from the sample surface to depths of some tens of micrometers, depending on optical and thermal properties. Computational methods are described to process photoacoustic amplitude and phase spectra for both semi-quantitative and quantitative depth analyses. These methods are demonstrated on layered and gradient samples.

  2. DE-AT26-97FT34342 | netl.doe.gov

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Characterizing Arctic Hydrates (Canadian Test Well and Alaskan "Wells of Opportunity") photo of drilling rig at Mallik 2L-38 location Rig at Mallik 2L-38 location courtesy Geological Survey of Canada DE-AT26-97FT34342 Project Goal The purpose of this project is to assess the recoverability and potential production characteristics of the onshore natural gas hydrate and associated free-gas accumulations in the Arctic of North America Performer United States Geological Survey, Denver,

  3. DE-AT26-97FT34344 | netl.doe.gov

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    High-Resolution Sidescan Sonar and Multibeam Bathymetric Data Collection and Processing, Atwater Canyon, Gulf of Mexico DE-AT26-97FT34344 photo of DTAGS seismic source being deployed DTAG seismic source being deployed. Courtesy Naval Research Laboratory Project Goal During February 14-18, 2005, a scientific cruise was conducted using the R/V Pelican to obtain high-resolution sidescan sonar and multibeam bathymetric data of Mounds D and F in the Atwater Valley area of the Gulf of Mexico, to

  4. ft. n. Both, Ohtef, RarourQb DWrion,Oak Ridgo

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    _ ,' .' ft. n. Both, Ohtef, RarourQb DWrion,Oak Ridgo hwt 2% w9 s. P. Morgan, Aar' t, Pimotor; Produotlon Dirirloa, i BY00 sniwm! OP Zr T~BIDm 1 . It ir axpeat tbt 4alivery of @air wteri8.l will be maa on orbaforo leptcmwrl, lg4g. Idantifioatioii my&ml "2416" haa been wr@md to thlr ahip nent and all related dauuuentr, aat ma&or Watlr Br n&R 1 ::_,, : ; .,. . . . ,~,-,.", :;> .

  5. I CLASSiFtCArlON CHANiED FAIJC-ABC-286

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    Y ~L.ho-I . I CLASSiFtCArlON CHANiED FAIJC-ABC-286 : This dooumetlt consists 0.f 3 pages E end p. t' &ures. No. a of &copies. a Seriee A. 7 Novembar 6, 1944 Subject: Visit to Fansteel Netallurgical Corporaticn, North Chicago, Novembar 4, 1944 - AwAlabilityof~lnmbium!kkl Chapin, Simmons end I discussed witb~. C. N. B&e (ResearchDirector) . end LIr. F.L.Hunter (Chief&ineer, TanteInmDivision) availability, purity, and @co of columbiwn,metel. columbium metal is of particular interest

  6. Rolling Thunder -- Integration of the Solo 161 Stirling engine with the CPG-460 solar concentrator at Ft. Huachuca

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Diver, R.B.; Moss, T.A.; Goldberg, V.; Thomas, G.; Beaudet, A.

    1998-09-01

    Project Rolling Thunder is a dish/Stirling demonstration project at Ft. Huachuca, a US Army fort in southeastern Arizona (Huachuca means rolling thunder in Apache). It has been supported by the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), a cooperative program between the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Energy (DOE). As part of a 1992 SERDP project, Cummins Power Generation, Inc. (CPG) installed a CPG 7 kW(c) dish/Stirling system at the Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC) in Ft. Huachuca, Arizona. The primary objective of the SERDP Dish/Stirling for DoD Applications project was to demonstrate a CPG 7-kW(c) dish/Stirling system at a military facility. Unfortunately, Cummins Engine Company decided to divest its solar operations. As a direct result of Ft. Huachuca`s interest in the Cummins dish/Stirling technology, Sandia explored the possibility of installing a SOLO 161 Stirling power conversion unit (PCU) on the Ft. Huachuca CPG-460. In January 1997, a decision was made to retrofit a SOLO 161 Stirling engine on the CPG-460 at Ft. Huachuca. Project Rolling Thunder. The SOLO 161 Demonstration at Ft. Huachuca has been a challenge. Although, the SOLO 161 PCU has operated nearly flawlessly and the CPG-460 has been, for the most part, a solid and reliable component, integration of the SOLO PCU with the CPG-460 has required significant attention. In this paper, the integration issues and technical approaches of project Rolling Thunder are presented. Lessons of the project are also discussed.

  7. FT-IR microscopical analysis with synchrotron radiation: The microscope optics and system performance

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Reffner, J.A.; Martoglio, P.A.; Williams, G.P.

    1995-01-01

    When a Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) microspectrometer was first interfaced with the National Synchrotron Light Source (NSLS) in September 1993, there was an instant realization that the performance at the diffraction limit had increased 40-100 times. The synchrotron source transformed the IR microspectrometer into a true IR microprobe, providing high-quality IR spectra for probe diameters at the diffraction limit. The combination of IR microspectroscopy and synchrotron radiation provides a powerful new tool for molecular spectroscopy. The ability to perform IR microspectroscopy with synchrotron radiation is still under development at Brookhaven National Laboratory, but several initial studies have been completed that demonstrate the broad-ranging applications of this technology and its potential for materials characterization.

  8. ?CDM model in f(T) gravity: reconstruction, thermodynamics and stability

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Salako, I.G.; Kpadonou, A.V.; Houndjo, M.J.S.; Tossa, J.; Rodrigues, M.E. E-mail: esialg@gmail.com E-mail: sthoundjo@yahoo.fr

    2013-11-01

    We investigate some cosmological features of the ?CDM model in the framework of the generalized teleparallel theory of gravity f(T) where T denotes the torsion scalar. Its reconstruction is performed giving rise to an integration constant Q and other input parameters according to which we point out more analysis. Thereby, we show that for some values of this constant, the first and second laws of thermodynamics can be realized in the equilibrium description, for the universe with the temperature inside the horizon equal to that at the apparent horizon. Moreover, still within these suitable values of the constant, we show that the model may be stable using the de Sitter and Power-Law cosmological solutions.

  9. In-situ FT-IR diagnostics for monitoring and control of fossil fuel combustion

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bonanno, A.S.; Wojtowicz, M.A.; Serio, M.A.; Nelson, C.M.; Solomon, P.R.

    1995-12-31

    This paper describes the development and testing of a prototype fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) based measurement system for continuous emission monitoring (CEM) and process control in fossil fuel-fired power plants. On several occasions, prototype systems have been transported and assembled at full-scale and pilot-scale fossil fuel-fired combustors. The in-situ version of the prototype is able to measure NH{sub 3} and HCl concentrations, which are difficult to measure extractively, as well as CO, CO{sub 2}, NO{sub x}, H{sub 2}O, and SO{sub x} concentrations. The results of recent tests will be presented which involve in-situ monitoring of selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) of NO{sub x} based on simultaneous measurement of NO, NH{sub 3} and CO.

  10. Coiled tubing velocity string set at record 20,500 ft

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Adams, L.S. )

    1992-04-13

    This paper reports that coiled tubing, set at record depth, significantly reduced costs and posed lower mechanical failure risk for recompleting a gas well in the Delaware basin of West Texas. Alternative completions such as replacing the existing tubing string with smaller diameter conventional API production tubing was deemed less economical and effective. The gas well, George M. Shelton No. 2, was recompleted on July 18, 1991, by Chevron U.S.A. Production Co. The gas is produced from the deep, low-pressure Ellenburger formation in the Gomez field. The hang-off depth of 20,500 ft set a world record for the deepest permanently installed coiled tubing. The 1-1/2 in. coiled tubing velocity string, run within the existing 4-1/2 and 4-in. tapered production tubing string, consists of seven segments that vary in wall thickness from 0.087 to 0.156 in.

  11. Sandia Wake Imaging System Field Test Report: 2015 Deployment at the Scaled Wind Farm Technology (SWiFT) Facility.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Naughton, Brian Thomas; Herges, Thomas

    2015-10-01

    This report presents the objectives, configuration, procedures, reporting , roles , and responsibilities and subsequent results for the field demonstration of the Sandia Wake Imaging System (SWIS) at the Sandia Scaled Wind Farm Technology (SWiFT) facility near Lubbock, Texas in June and July 2015.

  12. Technology development for cobalt F-T catalysts. Quarterly technical progress report, October 1, 1995--December 31, 1995. No. 13

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Singleton, A.H.

    1996-09-05

    The goal of this project is the development of a commercially viable, cobalt-based Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) catalyst for use in a slurry bubble column reactor. Cobalt-based catalysts have long been known as being active for F-T synthesis. They typically possess greater activity than iron-based catalysts, historically the predominant catalyst being used commercially for the conversion of syngas based on coal, but possess two disadvantages that somewhat lessen its value: (1) cobalt tends to make more methane than iron does, and (2) cobalt is less versatile with low H{sub 2}/CO ratio syngas due to its lack of water-gas shift activity. Therefore, the major objectives of this work are (1) to develop a cobalt-based F-T catalyst with low (< 5 %) methane selectivity, (2) to develop a cobalt-based F-T catalyst with water-gas shift activity, and (3) to combine both these improvements into one catalyst. It will be demonstrated that these catalysts have the desired activity, selectivity, and life, and can be made reproducibly. Following this experimental work, a design and a cost estimate will be prepared for a plant to produce sufficient quantities of catalyst for scale-up studies.

  13. Analysis of Debris Trajectories at the Scaled Wind Farm Technology (SWiFT) Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    White, Jonathan R.; Burnett, Damon J.

    2016-01-01

    Sandia National Laboratories operates the Scaled Wind Farm Technology Facility (SWiFT) on behalf of the Department of Energy Wind and Water Power Technologies Office. An analysis was performed to evaluate the hazards associated with debris thrown from one of SWiFT’s operating wind turbines, assuming a catastrophic failure. A Monte Carlo analysis was conducted to assess the complex variable space associated with debris throw hazards that included wind speed, wind direction, azimuth and pitch angles of the blade, and percentage of the blade that was separated. In addition, a set of high fidelity explicit dynamic finite element simulations were performed to determine the threshold impact energy envelope for the turbine control building located on-site. Assuming that all of the layered, independent, passive and active engineered safety systems and administrative procedures failed (a 100% failure rate of the safety systems), the likelihood of the control building being struck was calculated to be less than 5/10,000 and ballistic simulations showed that the control building would not provide passive protection for the majority of impact scenarios. Although options exist to improve the ballistic resistance of the control building, the recommendation is not to pursue them because there is a low probability of strike and there is an equal likelihood personnel could be located at similar distances in other areas of the SWiFT facility which are not passively protected, while the turbines are operating. A fenced exclusion area has been created around the turbines which restricts access to the boundary of the 1/100 strike probability. The overall recommendation is to neither relocate nor improve passive protection of the control building as the turbine safety systems have been improved to have no less than two independent, redundant, high quality engineered safety systems. Considering this, in combination with a control building strike probability of less than 5/10,000, the overall probability of turbine debris striking the control building is less than 1/1,000,000.

  14. Attrition Resistant Iron-Based Catalysts For F-T SBCRs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Adeyinka A. Adeyiga

    2006-01-31

    The Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) reaction provides a way of converting coal-derived synthesis gas (CO+ H{sub 2}) to liquid fuels. Since the reaction is highly exothermic, one of the major problems in control of the reaction is heat removal. Recent work has shown that the use of slurry bubble column reactors (SBCRs) can largely solve this problem. The use of iron-(FE) based catalysts is attractive not only due to their low cost and ready availability, but also due to their high water-gas shift activity which makes it possible to use these catalysts with low H{sub 2}/CO ratios. However, a serious problem with the use of Fe catalysts in a SBCR is their tendency to undergo attrition. This can cause fouling/plugging of downstream filters and equipment; makes the separation of catalyst from the oil/wax product very difficult, if not impossible; and results in a steady loss of catalyst from the reactor. Under a previous Department of Energy (DOE)/University Research Grant (UCR) grant, Hampton University reported, for the first time, the development of demonstrably attrition-resistant Fe F-T synthesis catalysts having good activity, selectivity, and attrition resistance. These catalysts were prepared by spray drying Fe catalysts with potassium (K), copper (Cu), and silica (SiO{sub 2}) as promoters. SiO{sub 2} was also used as a binder for spray drying. These catalysts were tested for activity and selectivity in a laboratory-scale fixed-bed reactor. Fundamental understanding of attrition is being addressed by incorporating suitable binders into the catalyst recipe. This has resulted in the preparation of a spray dried HPR-43 catalyst having average particle size (aps) of 70 {micro}m with high attrition resistance. This HPR-43 attrition resistant, active and selective catalyst gave 95% CO conversion through 125 hours of testing in a fixed-bed at 270 C, 1.48 MPa, H{sub 2}/CO=0.67 and 2.0 NL/g-cat/h with C{sub 5+} selectivity of >78% and methane selectivity of less than 5% at an {alpha} of 0.9. Research is proposed to enable further development and optimization of these catalysts by (1) better understanding the role and interrelationship of various catalyst composition and preparation parameters on attrition resistance, activity, and selectivity of these catalysts, (2) the presence of sulfide ions on a precipitated iron catalyst, and (3) the effect of water on sulfided iron F-T catalysts for its activity, selectivity, and attrition. Catalyst preparations will be based on spray drying. The research employed, among other measurements, attrition testing and F-T synthesis at high pressure. Catalyst activity and selectivity is evaluated using a small fixed-bed reactor and a continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR). The catalysts were prepared by co-precipitation, followed by binder addition and spray drying at 250 C in a 1-m-diameter, 2-m-tall spray dryer. The binder silica content was varied from 0 to 20 wt%. The results show that the use of small amounts of precipitated SiO{sub 2} alone in spray-dried Fe catalysts can result in good attrition resistance. All catalysts investigated with SiO2 wt% {le} 12 produced fines less than 10 wt% during the jet cup attrition test, making them suitable for long-term use in a slurry bubble column reactor. Thus, concentration rather than the type of SiO{sub 2} incorporated into catalyst has a more critical impact on catalyst attrition resistance of spray-dried Fe catalysts. Lower amounts of SiO{sub 2} added to a catalyst give higher particle densities and therefore higher attrition resistances. In order to produce a suitable SBCR catalyst, however, the amount of SiO{sub 2} added has to be optimized to provide adequate surface area, particle density, and attrition resistance. Two of the catalysts with precipitated and binder silica were tested in Texas A&M University's CSTR (Autoclave Engineers). The two catalysts were also tested at The Center for Applied Energy Research in Lexington, Kentucky of the University of Kentucky. Spray-dried catalysts with compositions 100 Fe/5 Cu/4.2 K/11 (P) SiO{sub 2} and

  15. Distributed computing strategies for processing of FT-ICR MS imaging datasets for continuous mode data visualization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, Donald F.; Schulz, Carl; Konijnenburg, Marco; Kilic, Mehmet; Heeren, Ronald M.

    2015-03-01

    High-resolution Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance (FT-ICR) mass spectrometry imaging enables the spatial mapping and identification of biomolecules from complex surfaces. The need for long time-domain transients, and thus large raw file sizes, results in a large amount of raw data (big data) that must be processed efficiently and rapidly. This can be compounded by largearea imaging and/or high spatial resolution imaging. For FT-ICR, data processing and data reduction must not compromise the high mass resolution afforded by the mass spectrometer. The continuous mode Mosaic Datacube approach allows high mass resolution visualization (0.001 Da) of mass spectrometry imaging data, but requires additional processing as compared to featurebased processing. We describe the use of distributed computing for processing of FT-ICR MS imaging datasets with generation of continuous mode Mosaic Datacubes for high mass resolution visualization. An eight-fold improvement in processing time is demonstrated using a Dutch nationally available cloud service.

  16. Technology development for cobalt F-T catalysts. Quarterly technical progress report No. 12, July 1, 1995--September 30, 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Singleton, A.H.

    1996-03-21

    The investigation of the effect of certain promoters (Fe, Pd, and Ru) on the deactivation characteristics of Co catalysts during F-T synthesis was continued during this reporting period. All catalysts were tested first at 220{degrees}C, then at higher temperatures from 240 to 280{degrees}C, while monitoring their deactivation. The choice of these promoters was based on their intrinsic ability to enhance the hydrogenation reactions while slowing down the Boudouard reaction under the conditions used in F-T synthesis. Olefin hydrogenation and CO dissociation reactions were used individually to investigate further the nature of the deactivation process of these catalyst during F-T synthesis. Hydrogenation of isobutene (IB) was carried out in the presence of CO between 120 and 180{degrees}C and atmospheric pressure. CO dissociation activities of the catalysts were measured using a pulse technique at 2.5 atm and at temperatures between 180 and 280{degrees}C with intermittent H{sub 2} bracketing at 350{degrees}C. Promotion with high loadings of Fe or Pd resulted in catalysts with relatively lower activity and higher methane selectivity. The deactivation process and rate for catalysts containing Pd or Fe were similar to those of the non-promoted or Ru-promoted alumina-supported Co catalysts tested previously. The only exception was Co.068 with 1% Pd which had adequate activity and selectivity as well as lower deactivation rate at the various temperatures tested.

  17. Viability of the matter bounce scenario in F(T) gravity and Loop Quantum Cosmology for general potentials

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Haro, Jaume; Amors, Jaume E-mail: jaume.amoros@upc.edu

    2014-12-01

    We consider the matter bounce scenario in F(T) gravity and Loop Quantum Cosmology (LQC) for phenomenological potentials that at early times provide a nearly matter dominated Universe in the contracting phase, having a reheating mechanism in the expanding or contracting phase, i.e., being able to release the energy of the scalar field creating particles that thermalize in order to match with the hot Friedmann Universe, and finally at late times leading to the current cosmic acceleration. For these potentials, numerically solving the dynamical perturbation equations we have seen that, for the particular F(T) model that we will name teleparallel version of LQC, and whose modified Friedmann equation coincides with the corresponding one in holonomy corrected LQC when one deals with the flat Friedmann-Lematre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) geometry, the corresponding equations obtained from the well-know perturbed equations in F(T) gravity lead to theoretical results that fit well with current observational data. More precisely, in this teleparallel version of LQC there is a set of solutions which leads to theoretical results that match correctly with last BICEP2 data, and there is another set whose theoretical results fit well with Planck's experimental data. On the other hand, in the standard holonomy corrected LQC, using the perturbed equations obtained replacing the Ashtekar connection by a suitable sinus function and inserting some counter-terms in order to preserve the algebra of constrains, the theoretical value of the tensor/scalar ratio is smaller than in the teleparallel version, which means that there is always a set of solutions that matches with Planck's data, but for some potentials BICEP2 experimental results disfavours holonomy corrected LQC.

  18. Accelerated Aging of BKC 44306-10 Rigid Polyurethane Foam: FT-IR Spectroscopy, Dimensional Analysis, and Micro Computed Tomography

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gilbertson, Robert D.; Patterson, Brian M.; Smith, Zachary

    2014-01-02

    An accelerated aging study of BKC 44306-10 rigid polyurethane foam was carried out. Foam samples were aged in a nitrogen atmosphere at three different temperatures: 50 C, 65 C, and 80 C. Foam samples were periodically removed from the aging canisters at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 month intervals when FT-IR spectroscopy, dimensional analysis, and mechanical testing experiments were performed. Micro Computed Tomography imaging was also employed to study the morphology of the foams. Over the course of the aging study the foams the decreased in size by a magnitude of 0.001 inches per inch of foam. Micro CT showed the heterogeneous nature of the foam structure likely resulting from flow effects during the molding process. The effect of aging on the compression and tensile strength of the foam was minor and no cause for concern. FT-IR spectroscopy was used to follow the foam chemistry. However, it was difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the changes in chemical nature of the materials due to large variability throughout the samples.

  19. Technology development for cobalt F-T catalysts. Topical report No.1, Effects of supports and promoters on cobalt F-T catalyst behavior in fixed bed vs. slurry bubble column reactors

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Oukaci, R.; Marcelin, G.; Goodwin, J.G. Jr.

    1995-01-17

    A series of cobalt-based F-T catalysts supported on alumina, silica, or titania were prepared with Ru and/or ZrO{sub 2} as promoters. All catalysts were extensively characterized by different methods. The catalysts were evaluated in terms of their activity and selectivity both in fixed bed and slurry bubble column reactors. Similar trends were observed in both reactors for support effects. However, this was not the case for the effects of promoters. Noble metal promotion effects were much more accentuated in the fixed bed reactor than under slurry bubble column reaction conditions, while the opposite seemed to hold true in the case of ZrO{sub 2} promotion effects, at least for SiO{sub 2}-supported Co catalysts.

  20. Detailed chemical kinetic models for large n-alkanes and iso-alkanes found in conventional and F-T diesel fuels

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Westbrook, C K; Pitz, W J; Curran, H J; Mehl, M

    2008-12-15

    Detailed chemical kinetic models are needed to simulate the combustion of current and future transportation fuels. These models should represent the various chemical classes in these fuels. Conventional diesel fuels are composed of n-alkanes, iso-alkanes, cycloalkanes and aromatics (Farrell et al. 2007). For future fuels, there is a renewed interest in Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) processes which can be used to synthesize diesel and other transportation fuels from biomass, coal and natural gas. F-T diesel fuels are expected to be similar to F-T jet fuels which are commonly comprised of iso-alkanes with some n-alkanes (Smith and Bruno, 2008). Thus, n-alkanes and iso-alkanes are common chemical classes in these conventional and future fuels. This paper reports on the development of chemical kinetic models of large n-alkanes and iso-alkanes to represent these chemical classes in conventional and future fuels. Two large iso-alkanes are 2,2,4,4,6,8,8-heptamethylnonane, which is a primary reference fuel for diesel, and isooctane, a primary reference fuel for gasoline. Other iso-alkanes are branched alkanes with a single methyl side chain, typical of most F-T fuels. The chemical kinetic models are then used to predict the effect of these fuel components on ignition characteristics under conditions found in internal combustion engines.

  1. High resolution FT-ICR mass spectral analysis of bio-oil and residual water soluble organics produced by hydrothermal liquefaction of the marine microalga Nannochloropsis salina

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sudasinghe, Nilusha; Dungan, Barry; Lammers, Peter; Albrecht, Karl O.; Elliott, Douglas C.; Hallen, Richard T.; Schaub, Tanner

    2014-03-01

    We report a detailed compositional characterization of a bio-crude oil and aqueous by-product from hydrothermal liquefaction of Nannochloropsis salina by direct infusion Fourier Transform Ion Cyclotron Resonance Mass Spectrometry (FT-ICR MS) in both positive- and negative-ionization modes. The FT-ICR MS instrumentation approach facilitates direct assignment of elemental composition to >7000 resolved mass spectral peaks and three-dimensional mass spectral images for individual heteroatom classes highlight compositional diversity of the two samples and provide a baseline description of these materials. Aromatic nitrogen compounds and free fatty acids are predominant species observed in both the bio-oil and aqueous fraction. Residual organic compounds present in the aqueous fraction show distributions that are slightly lower in both molecular ring and/or double bond value and carbon number relative to those found in the bio-oil, albeit with a high degree of commonality between the two compositions.

  2. Hydrothermal Liquefaction Oil and Hydrotreated Product from Pine Feedstock Characterized by Heteronuclear Two-Dimensional NMR Spectroscopy and FT-ICR Mass Spectrometry

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sudasinghe, Nilusha; Cort, John R.; Hallen, Richard T.; Olarte, Mariefel V.; Schmidt, Andrew J.; Schaub, Tanner

    2014-12-01

    Hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) crude oil and hydrotreated product from pine tree farm waste (forest product residual, FPR) have been analyzed by direct infusion electrospray ionization Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (ESI FT-ICR MS) in both positive- and negative-ionization modes and high-resolution twodimensional heteronuclear 1H-13C NMR spectroscopy. FT-ICR MS resolves thousands of compounds in complex oils and provides unparalleled compositional details for individual molecules for identification of compound class (heteroatom content), type (number of rings plus double bonds to carbon or double bond equivalents (DBE) and carbon number (degree of alkylation). Heteronuclear 1H-13C NMR spectroscopy provides one-bond and multiple-bond correlations between pairs of 1H and 13C chemical shifts that are characteristic of different organic functional groups. Taken together this information provides a picture of the chemical composition of these oils. Pyrolysis crude oil product from pine wood was characterized for comparison. Generally, pyrolysis oil is comprised of a more diverse distribution of heteroatom classes with higher oxygen number relative to HTL oil as shown by both positive- and negative-ion ESI FT-ICR MS. A total of 300 N1, 594 O1 and 267 O2 compounds were observed as products of hydrotreatment. The relative abundance of N1O1, N1O2, N1O3, N2, N2O1, N2O2 and O3 compounds are reduced to different degrees after hydrotreatment and other higher heteroatom containing species (O4-O10, N1O4, N1O5 and N2O3) are completely removed by hydrotreatment.

  3. Milestone M3FT-15OR0203112. Build redesigned HFIR rabbit capsules and make ready for insertion for irradiation in HFIR

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Howard, Richard H; McDuffee, Joel Lee; Okuniewski, Maria A.

    2015-09-01

    This report details the fabrication and delivery of two Fuel Cycle Research and Development irradiation capsules (FCRP20 and FCRP03), with associated quality assurance documentation, to the High Flux Isotope Reactor. The capsules and documentation were delivered by September 30, 2015, thus meeting the deadline for milestone M3FT-15OR0203112. These irradiation experiments irradiate metal parallelepiped specimens that may consist of various compositions including uranium metal, steel, etc. This document contains a copy of the completed capsule fabrication request sheets, which detail all constituent components, pertinent drawings, etc., along with a detailed summary of the capsule assembly process performed by the Thermal Hydraulics and Irradiation Engineering Group (THIEG) in the Reactor and Nuclear Systems Division. A complete fabrication package record is maintained by THIEG and is available upon request.

  4. Initial activity of reduced chromia/alumina catalyst in n-butane dehydrogenation monitored by on-line FT-IR gas analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hakuli, A.; Kytoekivi, A.; Suntola, T.

    1996-06-01

    The initial activity of chromia/alumina catalyst (13 wt% Cr) in n-butane dehydrogenation was studied in a flow reactor at 853 K. The initial activity was determined by on-line FT-IR gas analysis, which enabled sampling of the gaseous product mixture at a time resolution of seconds. The catalysts were processed in repeated cycles of oxidation, reduction, and dehydrogenation using n-butane, methane, hydrogen, or carbon monoxide as reducing agents. With n-butane, methane, and hydrogen and dehydrogenation activity was associated with Cr{sup 3+} species apparently formed in the reduction of high-valence Cr species. The catalyst reduced with carbon monoxide at 853 K showed poor initial selectivity for butenes and, relative to the other catalysts. Simultaneous data relating the initial activity, coke content, and some of the physicochemical properties of the catalyst indicated that the surfaces of all catalysts were modified to some extent by the successive reaction cycles. 33 refs., 7 figs., 2 tabs.

  5. Dynamics of Propane in Silica Mesopores Formed upon PropyleneHydrogenation over Pt Nanoparticles by Time-Resolved FT-IRSpectroscopy

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Waslylenko, Walter; Frei, Heinz

    2007-01-31

    Propylene hydrogenation over Pt nanoparticles supported onmesoporous silica type SBA-15 was monitored by time-resolved FT-IRspectroscopy at 23 ms resolution using short propylene gas pulses thatjoined a continuous flow of hydrogen in N2 (1 atm total pressure).Experiments were conducted in the temperature range 323-413 K. Propanewas formed within 100 milliseconds or faster. The CH stretching regionrevealed distinct bands for propane molecules emerging inside thenanoscale channels of the silica support. Spectral analysis gave thedistribution of the propane product between support and surrounding gasphase as function of time. Kinetic analysis showed that the escape ofpropane molecules from the channels occurred within hundreds ofmilliseconds (3.1 + 0.4 s-1 at 383 K). A steady state distribution ofpropane between gas phase and mesoporous support is established as theproduct is swept from the catalyst zone by the continuous flow ofhydrogen co-reactant. This is the first direct spectroscopic observationof emerging products of heterogeneous catalysis on nanoporous supportsunder reaction conditions.

  6. Microsoft PowerPoint - ft

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    &3;&27;09072&4;3&4;3&4;&3;,&3;'&4;,-&4;0&3;,9&4;&3;94 08&4;&4;&4;03.0&3;,9&3;&28;&5;,8.,&4;0 &29;7,3&4;&3;&30;:0&4;&4;07 &27;059 &3;41&3;&26;425:907&3;.&4;03.0 &31;479&4;&3;&26;,74&4;&4;3,&3;9,90&3;&3&4;;078&4;9&5; &15; 08&4;&4;&4;03.0&3;&4;3&3;&2;&26; &7; &2;&26;&1;&3;&14; &4; &14; &4;&3;3408...

  7. SWiFT Research Program

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Research Program - Sandia Energy Energy Search Icon Sandia Home Locations Contact Us Employee Locator Energy & Climate Secure & Sustainable Energy Future Stationary Power Energy Conversion Efficiency Solar Energy Wind Energy Water Power Supercritical CO2 Geothermal Natural Gas Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & Engineering Grid Modernization Battery Testing Nuclear Fuel Cycle Defense Waste Management Programs Advanced Nuclear

  8. Technology development for cobalt F-T catalysts. Topical report No.3, Zirconia promotion of Fischer-Tropsch cobalt catalysts: Behavior in fixed-bed and slurry bubble column reactors

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Oukaci, R.; Marcelin, G.; Goodwin, J.G. Jr.

    1995-01-17

    A series of cobalt-based F-T catalysts supported on alumina and silica were prepared with different loadings of Zr and different sequences of impregnation of Co and Zr. All catalysts were extensively characterized by different methods. The catalysts were evaluated in terms of their activity and selectivity both in fixed bed and slurry bubble column reactors. Addition of ZrO{sub 2} to both Co/SiO{sub 2} and Co/Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} catalysts resulted in at least a twofold increase in the catalyst activity for F-T synthesis in the fixed bed reactor. In the slurry bubble column reactor, a similar promotion effect was observed for the SiO{sub 2}-supported catalysts, while the addition of Zr to a cobalt/alumina catalyst had a less significant effect.

  9. Use of Cutting-Edge Horizontal and Underbalanced Drilling Technologies and Subsurface Seismic Techniques to Explore, Drill and Produce Reservoired Oil and Gas from the Fractured Monterey Below 10,000 ft in the Santa Maria Basin of California

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    George Witter; Robert Knoll; William Rehm; Thomas Williams

    2005-09-29

    This project was undertaken to demonstrate that oil and gas can be drilled and produced safely and economically from a fractured Monterey reservoir in the Santa Maria Basin of California by employing horizontal wellbores and underbalanced drilling technologies. Two vertical wells were previously drilled in this area with heavy mud and conventional completions; neither was commercially productive. A new well was drilled by the project team in 2004 with the objective of accessing an extended length of oil-bearing, high-resistivity Monterey shale via a horizontal wellbore, while implementing managed-pressure drilling (MPD) techniques to avoid formation damage. Initial project meetings were conducted in October 2003. The team confirmed that the demonstration well would be completed open-hole to minimize productivity impairment. Following an overview of the geologic setting and local field experience, critical aspects of the application were identified. At the pre-spud meeting in January 2004, the final well design was confirmed and the well programming/service company requirements assigned. Various design elements were reduced in scope due to significant budgetary constraints. Major alterations to the original plan included: (1) a VSP seismic survey was delayed to a later phase; (2) a new (larger) surface hole would be drilled rather than re-enter an existing well; (3) a 7-in. liner would be placed into the top of the Monterey target as quickly as possible to avoid problems with hole stability; (4) evaluation activities were reduced in scope; (5) geosteering observations for fracture access would be deduced from penetration rate, cuttings description and hydrocarbon in-flow; and (6) rather than use nitrogen, a novel air-injection MPD system was to be implemented. Drilling operations, delayed from the original schedule by capital constraints and lack of rig availability, were conducted from September 12 to November 11, 2004. The vertical and upper curved sections were drilled and lined through the problematic shale member without major stability problems. The top of the targeted Monterey was thought to be seen at the expected TVD of 10,000 ft where the 7-in. liner was set at a 60{sup o} hole angle. Significant oil and gas shows suggested the fractured interval anticipated at the heel location had been penetrated. A total of 2572 ft of 6 1/8-in. near-horizontal interval was placed in the shale section, extending planned well length by approximately 470 ft. Very little hydrocarbon in-flow was observed from fractures along the productive interval. This may be a result of the well trajectory falling underneath the Monterey fractured zone. Hydrocarbon observations, cuttings analysis and gamma-ray response indicated additional fractured intervals were accessed along the last {+-}900 ft of well length. The well was completed with a 2 7/8-in. tubing string set in a production packer in preparation for flow and swab tests to be conducted later by a service rig. The planned well time was estimated as 39 days and overall cost as $2.4 million. The actual results are 66 days at a total cost of $3.4 million. Well productivity responses during subsequent flow and swabbing tests were negative. The well failed to inflow and only minor amounts (a few barrels) of light oil were recovered. The lack of production may suggest that actual sustainable reservoir pressure is far less than anticipated. Temblor is currently planning to re-enter and clean out the well and run an Array Induction log (primarily for resistivity and correlation purposes), and an FMI log (for fracture detection). Depending on the results of these logs, an acidizing or re-drill program will be planned.

  10. Use of Cutting-Edge Horizontal and Underbalanced Drilling Technologies and Subsurface Seismic Techniques to Explore, Drill and Produce Reservoired Oil and Gas from the Fractured Monterey Below 10,000 ft in the Santa Maria Basin of California

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    George Witter; Robert Knoll; William Rehm; Thomas Williams

    2006-06-30

    This project was undertaken to demonstrate that oil and gas can be drilled and produced safely and economically from a fractured Monterey reservoir in the Santa Maria Basin of California by employing horizontal wellbores and underbalanced drilling technologies. Two vertical wells were previously drilled in this area with heavy mud and conventional completions; neither was commercially productive. A new well was drilled by the project team in 2004 with the objective of accessing an extended length of oil-bearing, high-resistivity Monterey shale via a horizontal wellbore, while implementing managed-pressure drilling (MPD) techniques to avoid formation damage. Initial project meetings were conducted in October 2003. The team confirmed that the demonstration well would be completed open-hole to minimize productivity impairment. Following an overview of the geologic setting and local field experience, critical aspects of the application were identified. At the pre-spud meeting in January 2004, the final well design was confirmed and the well programming/service company requirements assigned. Various design elements were reduced in scope due to significant budgetary constraints. Major alterations to the original plan included: (1) a VSP seismic survey was delayed to a later phase; (2) a new (larger) surface hole would be drilled rather than re-enter an existing well; (3) a 7-in. liner would be placed into the top of the Monterey target as quickly as possible to avoid problems with hole stability; (4) evaluation activities were reduced in scope; (5) geosteering observations for fracture access would be deduced from penetration rate, cuttings description and hydrocarbon in-flow; and (6) rather than use nitrogen, a novel air-injection MPD system was to be implemented. Drilling operations, delayed from the original schedule by capital constraints and lack of rig availability, were conducted from September 12 to November 11, 2004. The vertical and upper curved sections were drilled and lined through the problematic shale member without major stability problems. The top of the targeted Monterey was thought to be seen at the expected TVD of 10,000 ft where the 7-in. liner was set at a 60{sup o} hole angle. Significant oil and gas shows suggested the fractured interval anticipated at the heel location had been penetrated. A total of 2572 ft of 6{Delta}-in. near-horizontal interval was placed in the shale section, extending planned well length by approximately 470 ft. Very little hydrocarbon in-flow was observed from fractures along the productive interval. This may be a result of the well trajectory falling underneath the Monterey fractured zone. Hydrocarbon observations, cuttings analysis and gamma-ray response indicated additional fractured intervals were accessed along the last {+-}900 ft of well length. The well was completed with a 2 and 7/8-in. tubing string set in a production packer in preparation for flow and swab tests to be conducted later by a service rig. The planned well time was estimated as 39 days and overall cost as $2.4 million. The actual results are 66 days at a total cost of $3.4 million. Well productivity responses during subsequent flow and swabbing tests were negative. The well failed to inflow and only minor amounts (a few barrels) of light oil were recovered. The lack of production may suggest that actual sustainable reservoir pressure is far less than anticipated. Temblor attempted in July, 2006, to re-enter and clean out the well and run an Array Induction log (primarily for resistivity and correlation purposes), and an FMI log (for fracture detection). Application of surfactant in the length of the horizontal hole, and acid over the fracture zone at 10,236 was also planned. This attempt was not successful in that the clean out tools became stuck and had to be abandoned.

  11. USE OF CUTTING-EDGE HORIZONTAL AND UNDERBALANCED DRILLING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUBSURFACE SEISMIC TECHNIQUES TO EXPLORE, DRILL AND PRODUCE RESERVOIRED OIL AND GAS FROM THE FRACTURED MONTEREY BELOW 10,000 FT IN THE SANTA MARIA BASIN OF CALIFORNIA

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    George Witter; Robert Knoll; William Rehm; Thomas Williams

    2005-02-01

    This project was undertaken to demonstrate that oil and gas can be drilled and produced safely and economically from a fractured Monterey reservoir in the Santa Maria Basin of California by employing horizontal wellbores and underbalanced drilling technologies. Two vertical wells were previously drilled in this area by Temblor Petroleum with heavy mud and conventional completions; neither was commercially productive. A new well was drilled by the project team in 2004 with the objective of accessing an extended length of oil-bearing, high-resistivity Monterey shale via a horizontal wellbore, while implementing managed-pressure drilling (MPD) techniques to avoid formation damage. Initial project meetings were conducted in October 2003. The team confirmed that the demonstration well would be completed open-hole to minimize productivity impairment. Following an overview of the geologic setting and local field experience, critical aspects of the application were identified. At the pre-spud meeting in January 2004, the final well design was confirmed and the well programming/service company requirements assigned. Various design elements were reduced in scope due to significant budgetary constraints. Major alterations to the original plan included: (1) a VSP seismic survey was delayed to a later phase; (2) a new (larger) surface hole would be drilled rather than re-enter an existing well; (3) a 7-in. liner would be placed into the top of the Monterey target as quickly as possible to avoid problems with hole stability; (4) evaluation activities were reduced in scope; (5) geosteering observations for fracture access would be deduced from penetration rate, cuttings description and hydrocarbon in-flow; and (6) rather than use nitrogen, a novel air-injection MPD system was to be implemented. Drilling operations, delayed from the original schedule by capital constraints and lack of rig availability, were conducted from September 12 to November 11, 2004. The vertical and upper curved sections were drilled and lined through the problematic shale member without major stability problems. The top of the targeted Monterey was thought to be seen at the expected TVD of 10,000 ft where the 7-in. liner was set at a 60{sup o} hole angle. Significant oil and gas shows suggested the fractured interval anticipated at the heel location had been penetrated. A total of 2572 ft of 6.-in. near-horizontal interval was placed in the shale section, extending planned well length by approximately 470 ft. Very little hydrocarbon in-flow was observed from fractures along the productive interval. This may be a result of the well trajectory falling underneath the Monterey fractured zone. Hydrocarbon observations, cuttings analysis and gamma-ray response indicated additional fractured intervals were accessed along the last {+-}900 ft of well length. The well was completed with a 2 7/8-in. tubing string set in a production packer in preparation for flow and swab tests to be conducted later by a service rig. The planned well time was estimated as 39 days and overall cost as $2.4 million. The actual results are 66 days at a total cost of $3.4 million. Well productivity responses during subsequent flow and swabbing tests were negative. The well failed to inflow and only minor amounts (a few barrels) of light oil were recovered. The lack of production may suggest that actual sustainable reservoir pressure is far less than anticipated. Temblor is currently investigating the costs and operational viability of re-entering the well and conducting an FMI (fracture detection) log and/or an acid stimulation. No final decision or detailed plans have been made regarding these potential interventions at this time.

  12. Milestone Report - Demonstrate Braided Material with 3.5 g U/kg Sorption Capacity under Seawater Testing Condition (Milestone M2FT-15OR0310041 - 1/30/2015)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Janke, Christopher James; Das, Sadananda; Oyola, Yatsandra; Mayes, Richard T; Gill, Gary; Kuo, Li-Jung; Wood, Jordana

    2015-01-01

    This report describes work on the successful completion of Milestone M2FT-15OR0310041 (1/30/2015) entitled, Demonstrate braided material with 3.5 g U/kg sorption capacity under seawater testing condition . This effort is part of the Seawater Uranium Recovery Program, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, and involved the development of new adsorbent braided materials at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and marine testing at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). ORNL has recently developed four braided fiber adsorbents that have demonstrated uranium adsorption capacities greater than 3.5 g U/kg adsorbent after marine testing at PNNL. The braided adsorbents were synthesized by braiding or leno weaving high surface area polyethylene fibers and conducting radiation-induced graft polymerization of itaconic acid and acrylonitrile monomers onto the braided materials followed by amidoximation and base conditioning. The four braided adsorbents demonstrated capacity values ranging from 3.7 to 4.2 g U/kg adsorbent after 56 days of exposure in natural coastal seawater at 20 oC. All data are normalized to a salinity of 35 psu.

  13. UK FT PDU Facility Draft EA

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    for University of Kentucky Small-Scale Pilot Plant for the Gasification of Coal and Coal-Biomass Blends and Conversion of Derived Syngas to Liquid Fuels via Fischer-Tropsch ...

  14. UK FT PDU Facility Draft EA

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    42S Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment for University of Kentucky Small-Scale Pilot Plant for the Gasification of Coal and Coal-Biomass Blends and Conversion of Derived Syngas to Liquid Fuels via Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis Lexington, KY February 2014 Prepared for: Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory This page intentionally left blank. Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment DOE/EA-1642S Fischer-Tropsch Process Development Unit February 2014 Cover Sheet Proposed

  15. 2-ft Flume Facility | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Test Experience Studies done for Yaquina, WA, RIB floating breakwater, generalized Core-Loc stability tests, Cresent City, CA, generalized dolos structural tests, jetty...

  16. SWiFT Site Atmospheric Characterization

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Secure & Sustainable Energy Future Stationary Power Energy Conversion Efficiency Solar Energy Wind Energy Water Power Supercritical CO2 Geothermal Natural Gas Safety, Security & ...

  17. The 200 ft. Solar Tower at Sandia ...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Laboratories provides 218 computer-controlled heliostats to reflect concentrated solar energy onto the tower, producing a total thermal capacity of 6 MW and peak flux to 300...

  18. SWiFT performs accredited research...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    and the third turbine five diameters downwind (the turbines form a three, five-, six-diameter-length triangle). Two turbines are funded by the DOE's Office of Energy...

  19. Sandia Energy - SWiFT Facility & Testing

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    near the turbine rotor at temporal and spatial scales not accessible by current measurement techniques such as scanning LIDAR or particle image velocimetry (PIV). The...

  20. PP-56_NYPA_Ft._Covington.pdf

    Energy Savers [EERE]

  1. Direct observation of surface ethyl to ethane interconversion uponC2H4 hydrogenation over Pt/Al2O3 catalyst by time-resolved FT-IRspectroscopy

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wasylenko, Walter; Frei, Heinz

    2004-12-10

    Time-resolved FT-IR spectra of ethylene hydrogenation over alumina-supported Pt catalyst were recorded at 25 ms resolution in the temperature range 323 to 473 K using various H2 flow rates (1 atm total gas pressure). Surface ethyl species (2870 and 1200 cm-1) were detected at all temperatures along with the gas phase ethane product (2954 and 2893 cm-1). The CH3CH2Pt growth was instantaneous on the time scale of 25ms under all experimental conditions. At 323 K, the decay time of surface ethyl (122 + 10 ms) coincides with the rise time of C2H6 (144 + 14 ms).This establishes direct kinetic evidence for surface ethyl as the kinetically relevant intermediate. Such a direct link between the temporal behavior of an observed intermediate and the final product growth in a heterogeneous catalytic system has not been demonstrated before to our knowledge. A fraction (10 percent) of the asymptotic ethane growth at 323 K is prompt, indicating that there are surface ethyl species that react much faster than the majority of the CH3CH2Pt intermediates. The dispersive kinetics is attributed to the varying strength of interaction of the ethyl species with the Pt surface caused by heterogeneity of the surface environment. At 473 K, the majority of ethyl intermediates are hydrogenated prior to the recording of the first time slice (24 ms), and a correspondingly large prompt growth of ethane is observed. The yield and kinetics of the surface ethylidyne are in agreement with the known spectator nature of this species.

  2. Feasibility Study of Economics and Performance of Solar Photovoltaics at the Ft. Hood Military Base Outside Killeen, Texas. A Study Prepared in Partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency for the RE-Powering America's Land Initiative: Siting Renewable Energy on Potentially Contaminated Land and Mine Sites

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Geiger, J.; Lisell, L.; Mosey, G.

    2013-10-01

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in accordance with the RE-Powering America's Land initiative through the Region 6 contract, selected Ft. Hood Army Base in Killeen, Texas, for a feasibility study of renewable energy production. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) provided technical assistance for this project. The purpose of this study is to assess the site for possible photovoltaic (PV) system installations and estimate the cost, performance, and site impacts of different PV options. In addition, the report recommends financing options that could assist in the implementation of a PV system at the site.

  3. 4-16-13_Christopher_Turner FT HNR

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    SOUTHWESTERN PROFILE As one of four Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) in the United ... system that includes digital microwave, VHF radio, and fiber optic components. ...

  4. 6-ft Wave Flume Facility | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Test Services Yes Past Pertinent Test Experience Used for testing sandbag configurations, CORE-LOC units, shoreline stability designs, etc. Special Characteristics Special...

  5. 11-ft Wave Flume Facility | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Test Services Yes Past Pertinent Test Experience Used for testing sandbag configurations, CORE-LOC units, shoreline stability designs, etc. Special Characteristics Special...

  6. 10-ft Wave Flume Facility | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    None Available Sensors Flow, Pressure Range(psi), Turbulence, Velocity, Wave Probe Data Generation Capability Real-Time No Test Services Test Services Yes Past Pertinent...

  7. 7-12-12_Kathleen_Hogan_FT

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Federal government's efforts in advanced vehicles As part of its all-of-the-above energy strategy, and in its efforts to reduce oil imports by one- third, the Obama Administration...

  8. 4-9-13_Ernest_Moniz FT SENR

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    research community with unique research opportunities at major facilities for nuclear and particle physics, energy science, materials research and discovery, large scale...

  9. 7-12-12_David_Frantz_FT

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    improving its systems to ensure accurate application tracking, project management, and ready access to historical and current information. 3 The workflow management system will...

  10. 07-26-2012_Kathleen_Hogan_FT

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    sector accounts for approximately two-thirds of the United States' oil consumption and contributes to one-third of the Nation's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 1 Net...

  11. 6-27-13_Kathleen_Hogan FT HSST

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), and Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance. The preliminary data from...

  12. Microsoft Word - Draft Ft Yukon Biomass System EA_0220

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    EA Environmental Assessment EFH Essential Fish Habitat EO Executive Order F Degrees ... Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gm 3 microgram per ...

  13. Carderock 2-ft Variable Pressure Cavitation Water Tunnel | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    is a vertical plane, closed recirculating, variable-speed, variable-pressure, open jet test section, closed jet test section, and semi-rectangular test section. Towing...

  14. SWiFT Turbines Full Dynamic Characterization Opens Doors for...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    available for researchers to perform validation studies of various modal analysis and vibration techniques as well as investigate turbine-to-turbine interactions and advanced rotor...

  15. 9-11-2012_Lauren_Azar_FT

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    Today, the electricity generated by these federal facilities is incredibly valuable: with water as its fuel source, it is generally inexpensive 3 and produced without air-pollution ...

  16. Technology development for cobalt F-T catalysts. Topical report No.2, Comparison of patented F-T cobalt catalysts

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Oukaci, R.; Marcelin, G.; Goodwin, J.G. Jr.

    1995-01-17

    Based on the information provided in patents assigned to Gulf, Shell, Exxon, and Statoil, a series of catalysts has been prepared consisting of 12--20 wt. % cobalt, a second metal promoter (Ru or Re), and an oxide promoter such as lanthana, zirconia, or alkali oxide, the support being alumina, silica, or titania. All catalysts have been extensively characterized by different methods. The catalysts have been evaluated in terms of their activity, selectivity both in a fixed bed reactor and in a slurry bubble column reactor, and the results correlated with their physico-chemical properties.

  17. U.S. Army Office of Energy Initiatives

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    ... Huachuca Ft. Stewart Yakima Training Center Schofield Barracks Redstone Arsenal Ft. Bliss ... Gordon Ft. Benning Ft. Benning, Ft. Gordon, Ft. Stewart, GA 90 MW Solar GSA Areawide ...

  18. Balancing Item (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Balancing Item (Billion Cubic Feet) Balancing Item (Billion Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2001 140 143 41 166 30 -13 -8 -6 -26 -133 -76 -161 2002...

  19. RADIOLOGICAL DATA FOR ALARA PLANNING PURPOSES Rev. 1 Contact

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    RADIOLOGICAL DATA FOR ALARA PLANNING PURPOSES Rev. 1 Contact 1 ft 3 ft 10 ft 25 ft 50 ft 125 ft 100 mR/hr line 5 mR/hr line (R/hr) (R/hr) (R/hr) (R/hr) (R/hr) (R/hr) (R/hr) (feet) (feet) Outside of Cask (max) *Unshielded Liner (max) Top of *Unshielded Liner after the cask lid is removed *Unshielded Liner Inside of Cask/Lid Outside of Cask Lifting rig or any other support equipment Does the cask have fixed contamination that may "leach out" during transport (Yes/No)? If yes, please list

  20. FT-IR Study of CO2 Interaction with Na-rich Montmorillonite

    DOE Public Access Gateway for Energy & Science Beta (PAGES Beta)

    Krukowski, Elizabeth G; Goodman, Angela; Rother, Gernot; Ilton, Eugene; Guthrie, George; Bodnar, Robert

    2015-01-01

    Carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) in saline reservoirs in sedimentary formations has the potential to reduce the impact of fossil fuel combustion on climate change by reducing CO2 emissions to the atmosphere and storing the CO2 in geologic formations in perpetuity. At pressure and temperature (PT) conditions relevant to CCUS, CO2 is less dense than the pre-existing brine in the formation, and the more buoyant CO2 will migrate to the top of the formation where it will be in contact with cap rock. Interactions between clay-rich shale cap rocks and CO2 are poorly understood at PT conditions appropriate formore » CCUS in saline formations. In this study, the interaction of CO2 with clay minerals in the cap rock overlying a saline formation has been examined using Na+ exchanged montmorillonite (Mt) (Na+-STx-1) (Na+ Mt) as an analog for clay-rich shale. Attenuated Total Reflectance-Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR) was used to discern mechanistic information for CO2 interaction with hydrated (both one- and two-water layers) and relatively dehydrated (both dehydrated layers and one-water layers) Na+-STx-1 at 35 C and 50 C and CO2 pressure from 0 5.9 MPa. CO2-induced perturbations associated with the water layer and Na+-STx-1 vibrational modes such as AlAlOH and AlMgOH were examined. Data indicate that CO2 is preferentially incorporated into the interlayer space, with relatively dehydrated Na+-STx-1 capable of incorporating more CO2 compared to hydrated Na+-STx-1. Spectroscopic data provide no evidence of formation of carbonate minerals or the interaction of CO2 with sodium cations in the Na+-STx-1 structure.« less

  1. Comments on: SWiFT Facility Prepared for More-Efficient Operations...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    swift-facility-prepared-for-more-efficient-operations-advanced-turbine-turbine-wake-interaction-control-research...

  2. 4-23-13_Ingrid_Kolb FT SENR_0.pdf

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

  3. SWiFT Facility Prepared for More-Efficient Operations & Advanced

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Turbine-Turbine Wake-Interaction-Control Research Prepared for More-Efficient Operations & Advanced Turbine-Turbine Wake-Interaction-Control Research - Sandia Energy Energy Search Icon Sandia Home Locations Contact Us Employee Locator Energy & Climate Secure & Sustainable Energy Future Stationary Power Energy Conversion Efficiency Solar Energy Wind Energy Water Power Supercritical CO2 Geothermal Natural Gas Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy

  4. Microsoft Word - M2FT-14LB0811011_International Collab Activities...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    of DOE Order 414.1 NQA-1-2000 Other This Deliverable was subjected to: Technical Review Peer Review Technical Review (TR) Peer Review (PR) Review Documentation Provided...

  5. Properties of 30 lb/ft{sup 3} rigid polyurethane foams

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wenski. E.G.; Stinebaugh, R.E.; York, A.R. II

    1997-03-01

    This report summarizes tests on five different foams. Two are manufactured at Allied Signal, two at North Carolina Foam Industries, and one at General Plastics. The tests conducted are: thermal conductivity at various temperatures, specific heat at 60{degrees}C, compressive strength at ambient and 60{degrees}C, thermogravimetric analysis to 800{degrees}C, intumescence, and char formation properties. A CHN analysis was also performed. Funding for the testing of rigid polyurethane foams originated from the AT-400A container program at Sandia National Laboratories. This testing supported the development of the AT-400A container. The AT-400A is a storage and transportation container that will be used initially at the Pantex Plant for storage of plutonium from dismantled nuclear weapons.

  6. Progress Report on FY15 Crystalline Experiments M4FT-15LL0807052

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zavarin, M.; Zhao, P.; Joseph, C.; Begg, J.; Dai, Z.; Kersting, A. B.

    2015-08-13

    Colloid-facilitated plutonium transport is expected to be the dominant mechanism in its migration through the environment. The forms of Pu colloids (intrinsic versus pseudo-colloid) and their stabilities control temporal and spatial scales of Pu transport in the environment. In the present study, we examine the stability of Pu intrinsic colloids freshly prepared in alkaline solution relative to Pu-montmorillonite pseudo-colloids using a dialysis device and modeling approaches. Intrinsic colloids prepared under alkaline conditions were found to be unstable over a timescale of months. The kinetics of multiple processes, including hydrolysis/precipitation of Pu(IV), dissolution of intrinsic colloids in the absence and presence of the clay colloids, transport of dissolved Pu species across the dialysis membrane, and formation of pseudo-colloids were examined. The dissolution of intrinsic colloids was the rate-limiting process in most cases. The apparent intrinsic colloid dissolution rate constants range from 6×10-7 to 1×10- 6 mol·m-2·day-1 and 4×10-6 to 8×10-6 mol·m-2·day-1 at 25 and 80°C, respectively, while the apparent diffusion rate constants for Pu ions crossing the dialysis membrane are >200 times higher. Elevated temperatures enhance dissolution of Pu colloids and the activation energy for the process is estimated to be 28 kJ mol-1. The sorption of Pu to montmorillonite appears to be endothermic as the affinity of Pu for the clay increases with increasing temperature. Our results provide an in-depth understanding of how intrinsic and pseudo-colloids interact with each other kinetically. Although the fact that intrinsic colloids tend to dissolve in the presence of montmorillonite and transform into pseudo-colloids may limit the migration of intrinsic colloids, the thermodynamically more stable pseudo-colloids may play an important role in Pu transport in the environment over significant temporal and spatial scales.

  7. Sandia Energy - SWiFT Facility Prepared for More-Efficient Operations...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Facility Prepared for More-Efficient Operations & Advanced Turbine-Turbine Wake-Interaction-Control Research Home Renewable Energy Energy SWIFT Facilities Partnership Capabilities...

  8. M3FT-15OR0202212: SUBMIT SUMMARY REPORT ON THERMODYNAMIC EXPERIMENT AND MODELING

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McMurray, Jake W.; Brese, Robert G.; Silva, Chinthaka M.; Besmann, Theodore M.

    2015-09-01

    Modeling the behavior of nuclear fuel with a physics-based approach uses thermodynamics for key inputs such as chemical potentials and thermal properties for phase transformation, microstructure evolution, and continuum transport simulations. Many of the lanthanide (Ln) elements and Y are high-yield fission products. The U-Y-O and U-Ln-O ternaries are therefore key subsystems of multi-component high-burnup fuel. These elements dissolve in the dominant urania fluorite phase affecting many of its properties. This work reports on an effort to assess the thermodynamics of the U-Pr-O and U-Y-O systems using the CALPHAD (CALculation of PHase Diagrams) method. The models developed within this framework are capable of being combined and extended to include additional actinides and fission products allowing calculation of the phase equilibria, thermochemical and material properties of multicomponent fuel with burnup.

  9. 2-28-14-signed-NEPA-UK-FT-Final-SEA-FONSI_2.pdf

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

  10. Sandia Energy - SWiFT Commissioned to Study Wind Farm Optimization

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    the continued growth of our nation's clean energy economy while helping to speed the deployment of next generation energy technologies and bring more clean, affordable renewable...

  11. Commercial Scale Coal to F-T Liquid Plant Using a Dry Feed Gasifier

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    tower or steam systems. However, most of the water loss is evaporative loss from the cooling towers. More air- cooled heat exchangers could be added to reduce the load on the...

  12. Modeling Volatile Species Retention Experiments: Interim Progress Report (M3FT-12LA0202053)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Carlson, Neil N. [Los Alamos National Laboratory

    2012-07-06

    Metal nuclear fuel is a candidate transmutation fuel form for advanced fuel cycles. One constituent of the fuel, americium, has a high vapor pressure, and there is a concern that excessive volatility losses of americium will occur during casting of the metal. A number of experiments have been performed using americium and surrogate metals, including experiments slated for FY12, to address the concern. The present task is to model and numerically simulate these experiments. This report describes a system-level model of the relevant experiments that has been developed together with some results. It also describes some initial 3D, full-physics simulations of portions of the experiments that have been performed.

  13. DE-AT26-99FT40267 | netl.doe.gov

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) - project management and research products Location Huntington, WV 25701 Project Impact The results...

  14. Alvord (3,000-ft strawn) LPG flood - design and performance evaluation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Frazier, G.D.; Todd, M.R.

    1982-01-01

    Mitchell Energy Corporation has implemented a LPG-dry gas miscible process in the Alvord (3000' Strawn) Unit in Wise County, Texas utilizing the DOE tertiary incentive program. The field had been waterflooded for 14 years and was producing near its economic limit at the time this project was started. This paper presents the results of the reservoir simulation study that was conducted to evaluate pattern configuration and operating alternatives so as to maximize LPG containment and oil recovery performance. Several recommendations resulting from this study were implemented for the project. Based on the model predictions, tertiary oil recovery is expected to be between 100,000 and 130,000 bbls, or about 7 percent of the oil originally in place in the Unit. 12 refs.

  15. Microsoft Word - 12.18.13 NEPA UK FT DSEA draft DearReaderLtr...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    with the Council on Environmental Quality's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and DOE's NEPA implementing...

  16. FY 2014 Status Report: of Vibration Testing of Clad Fuel (M4FT-14OR0805033)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bevard, Bruce Balkcom

    2014-03-28

    The DOE Used Fuel Disposition Campaign (UFDC) tasked Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to investigate the behavior of light-water-reactor (LWR) fuel cladding material performance related to extended storage and transportation of UNF. ORNL has been tasked to perform a systematic study on UNF integrity under simulated normal conditions of transportation (NCT) by using the recently developed hot-cell testing equipment, Cyclic Integrated Reversible-Bending Fatigue Tester (CIRFT). To support the testing on actual high-burnup UNF, fast-neutron irradiation of pre-hydrided zirconium-alloy cladding in the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) at elevated temperatures will be used to simulate the effects of high-burnup on fuel cladding for help in understanding the cladding materials properties relevant to extended storage and subsequent transportation. The irradiated pre-hydrided metallic materials testing will generate baseline data to benchmark hot-cell testing of the actual high-burnup UNF cladding. More importantly, the HFIR-irradiated samples will be free of alpha contamination and can be provided to researchers who do not have hot cell facilities to handle highly contaminated high-burnup UNF cladding to support their research projects for the UFDC.

  17. Low severity upgrading of F-T waxes with solid superacids. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wender, I.; Tierney, J.W.

    1995-09-30

    The use of solid acids, especially Pt/ZrO{sub 2}/SO{sub 4}, to convert long chain alkanes and Fischer-Tropsch waxes to liquid fuels under mild reaction conditions was explored in this work. Anion and/or hydrogenation metal modified zirconium oxides were synthesized, characterized, and tested for hydrocracking and hydroisomerization. of model compounds, chiefly with n-hexadecane. The relationship between catalytic activity and acidic character of the bifunctional Pt/ZrO{sub 2}/SO{sub 4} catalyst was investigated.

  18. Microsoft Word - 12.18.13 NEPA UK FT DSEA draft DearReaderLtr.docx

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    William.Gwilliam@netl.doe.gov  Voice (304) 285-4401  Fax (304) 285-4403  www.netl.doe.gov A l b a ny, O R * M o rg a n tow n , W V * Pi t t s b u rg h , PA December 18 , 2013 Dear Reader: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) invites comments on the enclosed draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (draft SEA) for the University of Kentucky Small-Scale Pilot Plant for the Gasification of Coal and Coal-Biomass Blends and Conversion of Derived Syngas to Liquid Fuels via Fischer-Tropsch

  19. DE-AT26-97FT34343 | netl.doe.gov

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    of hydrate-containing sediments via piston cores, and the measurement of hydrate sediment properties through laboratory experiments. Project Impact This project has already...

  20. Report on Fission Time Projection Chamber M3FT-12IN0210052

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    James K. Jewell

    2012-08-01

    The Time Projection Chamber is a collaborative effort to implement an innovative approach and deliver unprecedented fission measurements to DOE programs. This 4?-detector system will provide unrivaled 3-D data about the fission process. Shown here is a half populated TPC (2?) at the LLNL TPC laboratory as it undergoes testing before being shipped to LANSCE for beam experiments.

  1. ft. n. Both, Ohtef, RarourQb DWrion,Oak Ridgo

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    w9 s. P. Morgan, Aar' t, Pimotor; Produotlon Dirirloa, i BY00 sniwm OP Zr TBIDm 1 . It ir axpeat tbt 4alivery of @air wteri8.l will be maa on orbaforo leptcmwrl, lg4g....

  2. Microsoft Word - M2FT-14LB0811011_International Collab Activities_Sep 2014

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    International Collaboration Activities in Different Geologic Disposal Environments Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy Used Fuel Disposition Jens Birkholzer Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory September, 2014 FCRD-UFD-2014-000065 LBNL-6782E DISCLAIMER This information was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. While this document is believed to contain correct information, Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor the Regents of the

  3. F-T process using an iron on mixed zirconia-titania supported catalyst

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Dyer, Paul N.; Nordquist, Andrew F.; Pierantozzi, Ronald

    1987-01-01

    A Fischer-Tropsch catalyst comprising iron co-deposited with or deposited on particles comprising a mixture of zirconia and titania, preferably formed by co-precipitation of compounds convertible to zirconia and titania, such as zirconium and titanium alkoxide. The invention also comprises the method of making this catalyst and an improved Fischer-Tropsch reaction process in which the catalyst is utilized.

  4. Texas Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 7,018,237...

  5. West Virginia Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) West Virginia Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 11...

  6. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2 Alaska - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S2. Summary statistics for natural gas - Alaska, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 269 277 185 R 159 170 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 127,417 112,268

  7. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2 Connecticut - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S7. Summary statistics for natural gas - Connecticut, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0 From Oil

  8. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6 District of Columbia - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S9. Summary statistics for natural gas - District of Columbia, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  9. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    0 Indiana - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S16. Summary statistics for natural gas - Indiana, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 620 914 819 R 921 895 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 6,802 9,075

  10. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2 Maryland - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S22. Summary statistics for natural gas - Maryland, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 7 8 9 7 7 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 43 34 44 32 20 From Oil

  11. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    4 Massachusetts - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S23. Summary statistics for natural gas - Massachusetts, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0

  12. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    8 Minnesota - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S25. Summary statistics for natural gas - Minnesota, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0 From Oil

  13. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6 Nebraska - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S29. Summary statistics for natural gas - Nebraska, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 276 322 270 R 357 310 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 2,092 1,854

  14. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    0 New Hampshire - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S31. Summary statistics for natural gas - New Hampshire, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0

  15. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    8 North Carolina - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S35. Summary statistics for natural gas - North Carolina, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0

  16. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    50 North Dakota - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S36. Summary statistics for natural gas - North Dakota, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 188 239 211 200 200 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  17. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2 South Carolina - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S42. Summary statistics for natural gas - South Carolina, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0

  18. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6 Washington - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S49. Summary statistics for natural gas - Washington, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0 From Oil

  19. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    80 Wisconsin - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S51. Summary statistics for natural gas - Wisconsin, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0 From Oil

  20. ,"Texas Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","930...

  1. Technology demonstration of dedicated compressed natural gas (CNG) original equipment manufacturer (OEM) vehicles at Ft. Bliss, Texas. Interim report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Alvarez, R.A.; Yost, D.M.

    1995-11-01

    A technology demonstration program of dedicated compressed natural gas (CNG) original equipment manufacturer (OEM) vehicles was conducted at FL Bliss, Texas to demonstrate the use of CNG as an alternative fuel. The demonstration program at FL Bliss was the first Army initiative with CNG-fueled vehicles under the legislated Alternative Motor Fuels Act. This Department of Energy (DOE)-supported fleet demonstration consisted of 48 General Services Administration (GSA)-owned, Army-leased 1992 dedicated CNG General Motors (GM) 3/4-ton pickup trucks and four 1993 gasoline-powered Chevrolet 3/4-ton pickup trucks.

  2. Electrical energy and demand savings from a geothermal heat pump energy savings performance contract at Ft. Polk, LA

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shonder, J.A.; Hughes, P.J.

    1997-06-01

    At Fort Polk, LA the space conditioning systems of an entire city (4,003 military family housing units) have been converted to geothermal heat pumps (GHP) under an energy savings performance contract. At the same time, other efficiency measures such as compact fluorescent lights (CFLs), low-flow hot water outlets, and attic insulation were installed. Pre- and post-retrofit data were taken at 15-minute intervals on energy flows through the electrical distribution feeders that serve the family housing areas of the post. 15-minute interval data was also taken on energy use from a sample of the residences. This paper summarizes the electrical energy and demand savings observed in this data. Analysis of feeder-level data shows that for a typical year, the project will result in a 25.6 million kWh savings in electrical energy use, or 32.4% of the pre-retrofit electrical consumption in family housing. Results from analysis of building-level data compare well with this figure. Analysis of feeder-level data also shows that the project has resulted in a reduction of peak electrical demand of 6,541 kW, which is 39.6% of the pre-retrofit peak electrical demand. In addition to these electrical savings, the facility is also saving an estimated 260,000 therms per year of natural gas. It should be noted that the energy savings presented in this document are the apparent energy savings observed in the monitored data, and are not to be confused with the contracted energy savings used as the basis for payments. To determine the contracted energy savings, the apparent energy savings may require adjustments for such things as changes in indoor temperature performance criteria, additions of ceiling fans, and other factors.

  3. M3FT-15OR0202237: Submit Report on Results From Initial Coating Layer Development For UN TRISO Particles

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jolly, Brian C.; Lindemer, Terrence; Terrani, Kurt A.

    2015-02-01

    In support of fully ceramic matrix (FCM) fuel development, coating development work has begun at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to produce tri-isotropic (TRISO) coated fuel particles with UN kernels. The nitride kernels are used to increase heavy metal density in these SiC-matrix fuel pellets with details described elsewhere. The advanced gas reactor (AGR) program at ORNL used fluidized bed chemical vapor deposition (FBCVD) techniques for TRISO coating of UCO (two phase mixture of UO2 and UCx) kernels. Similar techniques were employed for coating of the UN kernels, however significant changes in processing conditions were required to maintain acceptable coating properties due to physical property and dimensional differences between the UCO and UN kernels.

  4. Milestone Report - M4FT-14OR0312022 - Co-absorption studies - Design system complete/test plan complete

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bruffey, Stephanie H.; Spencer, Barry B.; Jubin, Robert Thomas

    2013-12-01

    The objective of this test plan is to describe research that will determine the effectiveness of silver mordenite and molecular sieve beds to remove iodine and water (tritium) from off-gas streams arising from used nuclear fuel recycling processes, and to demonstrate that the iodine and water can be recovered separately from one another.

  5. Milestone report - M4FT-14OR0302102b - Evaluation of Tritium Content and Release from Surry-2 Fuel Cladding

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Robinson, Sharon M.; Chattin, Marc Rhea; Giaquinto, Joseph M.; Jubin, Robert Thomas

    2014-09-01

    To design and operate future reprocessing plants in a safe and environmentally compliant manner, the amount and form of tritium in the used nuclear fuel (UNF) must be understood and quantified.To gain a better understanding of how tritium in cladding will behave during processing, scoping tests are being performed to determine the tritium content in the cladding pre- and post-tritium pretreatment. A sample of Surry-2 pressurized water reactor (PWR) cladding was heated to 11001200C to oxidize the zirconium and release all of the tritium in the cladding sample. The tritium content was measured to be ~240 Ci/g. Cladding samples were heated to 500C, which is within the temperature range (480 - 600C) expected for standard air tritium pretreatment systems, and to a slightly higher temperature (700C) to determine the impact of tritium pretreatment on tritium release from the cladding. Heating at 500C for 24 hr removes ~0.2% of the tritium from the cladding, and heating at 700C for 24 hr removes ~9%. Thus, a significant fraction of the tritium remains bound in the cladding and must be considered in operations involving cladding recycle.

  6. DOE Building America Technology and Energy Savings Analysis of Two 2721 ft2 Homes in a Mixed Humid Climate

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jackson, Roderick K; Christian, Jeffrey E; Khowailed, Gannate A

    2013-09-01

    The ZEBRAlliance is an opportunity to accelerate progress toward DOE s goal of maximizing cost-effective energy efficiency by investing in a highly leveraged, focused effort to test new ultra-high-efficiency components emerging from ORNL s Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) partners and others. The Alliance integrated efficient components into the construction of four research houses that will be used as test markets to gauge the integral success of the components and houses. These four research houses are expected to be the first houses used to field-test several newly emerging products such as the ClimateMaster ground-source integrated heat pump, factory assembled ZEHcor walls, and one or more new appliances from Whirlpool Corporation.

  7. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    0 Alabama - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S1. Summary statistics for natural gas - Alabama, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 7,026 7,063 6,327 R 6,165 6,118 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  8. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6 Arkansas - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S4. Summary statistics for natural gas - Arkansas, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 7,397 8,388 8,538 R 9,843 10,150 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  9. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    8 California - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S5. Summary statistics for natural gas - California, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 1,580 1,308 1,423 R 1,335 1,118 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas

  10. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    0 Colorado - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S6. Summary statistics for natural gas - Colorado, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 28,813 30,101 32,000 R 32,468 38,346 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas

  11. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    8 Florida - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S10. Summary statistics for natural gas - Florida, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 17,182 16,459 19,742

  12. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    0 Georgia - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S11. Summary statistics for natural gas - Georgia, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0 From Oil Wells

  13. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    8 Illinois - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S15. Summary statistics for natural gas - Illinois, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 50 40 40 R 34 36 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells E 1,697 2,114

  14. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2 Iowa - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S17. Summary statistics for natural gas - Iowa, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0 From Oil Wells 0 0 0

  15. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    4 Kansas - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S18. Summary statistics for natural gas - Kansas, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 22,145 25,758 24,697 R 23,792 24,354 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  16. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6 Kentucky - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S19. Summary statistics for natural gas - Kentucky, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 17,670 14,632 17,936 R 19,494 19,256 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas

  17. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    8 Louisiana - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S20. Summary statistics for natural gas - Louisiana, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 19,137 21,235 19,792 R 19,528 19,251 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas

  18. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    0 Maine - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S21. Summary statistics for natural gas - Maine, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0 From Oil Wells 0 0

  19. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6 Michigan - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S24. Summary statistics for natural gas - Michigan, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 10,100 11,100 10,900 R 10,550 10,500 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas

  20. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    0 Mississippi - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S26. Summary statistics for natural gas - Mississippi, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 1,979 5,732 1,669 R 1,967 1,645 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas

  1. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2 Missouri - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S27. Summary statistics for natural gas - Missouri, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 53 100 R 26 28 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 R 8 8 From

  2. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    4 Montana - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S28. Summary statistics for natural gas - Montana, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 6,059 6,477 6,240 5,754 5,754 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  3. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    8 Nevada - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S30. Summary statistics for natural gas - Nevada, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 R 4 4 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 3 From Oil Wells

  4. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2 New Jersey - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S32. Summary statistics for natural gas - New Jersey, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0 From Oil

  5. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    4 New Mexico - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S33. Summary statistics for natural gas - New Mexico, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 44,748 32,302 28,206 R 27,073 27,957 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From

  6. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6 New York - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S34. Summary statistics for natural gas - New York, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 6,736 6,157 7,176 R 6,902 7,119 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  7. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2 Ohio - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S37. Summary statistics for natural gas - Ohio, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 34,931 46,717 35,104 R 32,664 32,967 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  8. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    4 Oklahoma - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S38. Summary statistics for natural gas - Oklahoma, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 44,000 41,238 40,000 39,776 40,070 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas

  9. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6 Oregon - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S39. Summary statistics for natural gas - Oregon, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 26 24 27 R 26 28 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 1,407 1,344 770 770

  10. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    8 Pennsylvania - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S40. Summary statistics for natural gas - Pennsylvania, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 44,500 54,347 55,136 R 53,762 70,400 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals

  11. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    0 Rhode Island - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S41. Summary statistics for natural gas - Rhode Island, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0 From

  12. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6 Tennessee - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S44. Summary statistics for natural gas - Tennessee, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 230 210 212 R 1,089 1,024 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 5,144

  13. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    8 Texas - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S45. Summary statistics for natural gas - Texas, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 95,014 100,966 96,617 97,618 98,279 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  14. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    0 Utah - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S46. Summary statistics for natural gas - Utah, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 6,075 6,469 6,900 R 7,030 7,275 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 328,135

  15. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2 Vermont - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S47. Summary statistics for natural gas - Vermont, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0 From Oil Wells

  16. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    4 Virginia - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S48. Summary statistics for natural gas - Virginia, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 7,470 7,903 7,843 R 7,956 7,961 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  17. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    8 West Virginia - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S50. Summary statistics for natural gas - West Virginia, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 52,498 56,813 50,700 R 54,920 60,000 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals

  18. Eastern States Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Eastern States Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 2 2 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Gas

  19. Indiana Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 191 102 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed

  20. Montana Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Montana Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 12 12 13 14 12 2010's 10 6 3 1 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Estimated Production Montana Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and

  1. Montana Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Montana Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 12 13 7 2010's 13 13 16 19 42 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production Montana Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production Shale

  2. Montana Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Montana Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 140 125 137 2010's 186 192 216 229 482 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Montana Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves

  3. New Mexico Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) New Mexico Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 2 0 2 2010's 6 9 13 16 28 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production New Mexico Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and

  4. North Dakota Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) North Dakota Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 3 3 25 2010's 64 95 203 268 426 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production North Dakota Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes,

  5. Ohio Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Ohio Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 14 101 441 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production Ohio Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production Shale Gas

  6. Oklahoma Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 58 68 82 69 55 2010's 45 39 68 65 61 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Estimated Production Oklahoma Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves, Reserves

  7. Pennsylvania Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 3 5 5 11 16 2010's 3 4 15 13 11 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Estimated Production Pennsylvania Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves, Reserves

  8. Pennsylvania Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 1 1 65 2010's 396 1,068 2,036 3,076 4,009 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production Pennsylvania Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves

  9. Colorado Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Colorado Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 1 2010's 1 3 9 18 236 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production Colorado Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production Shale

  10. Colorado Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Colorado Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 4 2010's 4 10 53 136 3,775 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Colorado Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves

  11. Kansas Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Kansas Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 17 25 38 47 43 2010's 41 37 34 30 27 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Estimated Production Kansas Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes,

  12. Kansas Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Kansas Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 1 3 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production Kansas Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production Shale Gas

  13. Kansas Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Kansas Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 2 3 4 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Kansas Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and

  14. Kentucky Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Kentucky Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 2 2 5 2010's 4 4 4 4 2 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production Kentucky Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production Shale G

  15. Kentucky Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Kentucky Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 21 20 55 2010's 10 41 34 46 50 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Kentucky Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves

  16. Michigan Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Michigan Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 148 122 132 2010's 120 106 108 101 96 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production Michigan Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and

  17. Michigan Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Michigan Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 3,281 2,894 2,499 2010's 2,306 1,947 1,345 1,418 1,432 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Michigan Shale Gas Proved

  18. Alabama Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Alabama Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 23 1990's 36 68 89 103 108 109 98 111 123 108 2000's 109 111 117 98 121 113 114 114 107 105 2010's 102 98 91 62 78 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane

  19. Arizona Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Arizona Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 103 1990's - 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Used for Repressuring Arizona Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals

  20. Arkansas Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Arkansas Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 2 3 3 3 3 2010's 3 4 2 2 2 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Estimated Production Arkansas Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and

  1. Arkansas Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Arkansas Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 94 279 527 2010's 794 940 1,027 1,026 1,038 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production Arkansas Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and

  2. Arkansas Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Arkansas Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 1,460 3,833 9,070 2010's 12,526 14,808 9,779 12,231 11,695 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Arkansas Shale Gas

  3. Colorado Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Colorado Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 12 1990's 26 48 82 125 179 226 274 312 401 432 2000's 451 490 520 488 520 515 477 519 497 498 2010's 533 516 486 444 412 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed

  4. Tennessee Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 11 1990's 19 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 6,146 6,200 6,304 5,721 5,000 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Processing Natural Gas

  5. Utah Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Utah Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 74 83 103 97 82 75 66 73 71 71 2010's 66 60 55 50 47 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Estimated Production Utah Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves,

  6. Virginia Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Virginia Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 56 81 85 101 111 2010's 97 100 99 93 108 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Estimated Production Virginia Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves, Reserves

  7. Virginia Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Virginia Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 3 3 3 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production Virginia Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production Shale Gas

  8. Wyoming Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Wyoming Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 133 278 302 344 320 336 378 401 573 535 2010's 566 506 426 331 264 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Estimated Production Wyoming Coalbed Methane

  9. Wyoming Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Wyoming Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 7 102 29 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production Wyoming Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production Shale Gas

  10. Ohio Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Ohio Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 483 2,319 6,384 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Ohio Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves

  11. Oklahoma Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 944 3,845 6,389 2010's 9,670 10,733 12,572 12,675 16,653 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Oklahoma Shale Gas

  12. Pennsylvania Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 96 88 3,790 2010's 10,708 23,581 32,681 44,325 56,210 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Pennsylvania Shale

  13. Wyoming Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Wyoming Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 2010's 1 0 216 856 380 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Wyoming Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves

  14. Virginia Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Virginia Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 135 126 84 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Virginia Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserve

  15. Montana Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet per...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Montana Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2006 317 313...

  16. California Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet per Day) California Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2006 998...

  17. Virginia Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet per...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Virginia Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2006 271 275...

  18. Arizona Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet per...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Arizona Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Arizona Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct...

  19. New Mexico Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet per Day) New Mexico Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2006 4,406...

  20. Texas Natural Gas Total Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Total Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Natural Gas Total Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's...

  1. Texas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's...

  2. Texas--Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Texas--Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  3. Texas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9...

  4. Texas--onshore Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Texas--onshore Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8...

  5. Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9...

  6. Texas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's...

  7. Texas Natural Gas Lease Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Natural Gas Lease Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9...

  8. Texas Onshore Natural Gas Processed in Texas (Million Cubic Feet...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Onshore Natural Gas Processed in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's...

  9. Texas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9...

  10. Texas Natural Gas Input Supplemental Fuels (Million Cubic Feet...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Input Supplemental Fuels (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Natural Gas Input Supplemental Fuels (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8...

  11. Kansas Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet per...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Kansas Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2006 1,049...

  12. West Virginia Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet per Day) West Virginia Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2006...

  13. West Virginia Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's...

  14. Connecticut Natural Gas Total Consumption (Million Cubic Feet...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Total Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Connecticut Natural Gas Total Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9...

  15. North Carolina Natural Gas Total Consumption (Million Cubic Feet...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Total Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) North Carolina Natural Gas Total Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8...

  16. New York Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Sales (Billion Cubic Feet) New York Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 1 1 23...

  17. New York Natural Gas Lease Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) New York Natural Gas Lease Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9...

  18. New York Natural Gas Total Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Total Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) New York Natural Gas Total Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9...

  19. New York Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet) New York Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9...

  20. New York Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet per...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet per Day) New York Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2006 149 147...

  1. Pneumatic Conveyance Device - Energy Innovation Portal

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Height: 70 feet plus 1 inch diameter nozzle connected to 100 ft. of 2 inch diameter PVC hose - dust collector and barrel Nozzle annulus air supply and flow rate: 50 SCFM at 80...

  2. Tennessee Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 146 436 897 538 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  3. Ohio Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 1,808 850 889 0 1,141 1,234 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  4. Oklahoma Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 81,755 86,285 87,196 1970's 86,432 85,027 82,265 82,396 83,488 83,486 85,479 89,365 91,342 96,366 1980's 101,198 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  5. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 375 320 312 1970's 273 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  6. Illinois Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 483,902 483,336 478,291 1970's 429,691 341,750 376,310 358,142 342,046 322,393 305,441 275,060 327,451 1980's 150,214 152,645 166,568 156,791 153,419 146,463 106,547 757 509 1990's 607 951 942 809 685 727 578 500 468 358 2000's 271 233 299 306 328 280 242 235 233 164 2010's 5,393 294 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA =

  7. Michigan Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 171,531 156,996 143,802 1970's 139,571 141,784 94,738 37,384 45,106 79,154 151,318 172,578 199,347 1980's 155,984 151,560 137,364 148,076 151,393 142,255 137,687 125,183 123,578 1990's 134,550 170,574 186,144 201,985 196,000 179,678 117,119 86,564 83,052 67,514 2000's 58,482 50,734 47,292 41,619 37,977 34,545 33,213 29,436 30,008

  8. Nebraska Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 13,130 9,437 6,415 1970's 3,697 2,848 2,890 33,369 34,243 34,463 35,351 32,226 29,828 1980's 1,648 1,281 1,154 1,256 1,097 707 987 690 381 1990's 31 136 65 586 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  9. Nebraska Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 1,629 1,200 427 1970's 318 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016

  10. Ohio Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 207 670 1,713 2,263 2,591 2,555 3,036 2,812 2,608 1990's 3,081 2,615 2,730 2,989 2,930 2,257 2,477 2,553 2,895 2,933 2000's 3,285 4,336 4,098 3,609 3,883 2,657 2,397 1,456 2010's 2,211 33,031 344,073 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  11. Ohio Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 1,808 850 889 0 1,141 1,234 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  12. Oklahoma Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 81,755 86,285 87,196 1970's 86,432 85,027 82,265 82,396 83,488 83,486 85,479 89,365 91,342 96,366 1980's 101,198 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  13. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 375 320 312 1970's 273 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  14. Tennessee Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 146 436 897 538 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  15. Utah Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980's 68,211 95,670 93,934 98,598 99,233 241,904 274,470 286,592 286,929 1990's 334,067 333,591 319,017 348,010 368,585 308,174 265,546 249,930 242,070 211,514 2000's 169,553 166,505 136,843 161,275 193,093 187,524 193,836 195,701 202,380 412,639 2010's 454,832 490,233 535,365 448,687 419,773 - = No Data

  16. California Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Processed (Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 505,063 476,596 455,692 1970's 444,700 431,605 386,664 359,841 252,402 213,079 216,667 206,981 204,693 1980's 169,812 261,725 263,475 276,209 281,389 263,823 276,969 270,191 254,286 1990's 263,667 246,335 243,692 246,283 228,346 226,548 240,566 243,054 235,558 259,518 2000's 260,049 258,271 249,671 238,743 236,465 226,230 223,580

  17. Colorado Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 112,440 96,397 85,171 1970's 82,736 97,420 104,116 110,662 118,686 136,090 175,624 171,233 167,959 1980's 201,637 220,108 173,894 181,150 191,625 163,614 180,290 178,048 196,682 1990's 208,069 234,851 256,019 307,250 353,855 345,441 493,963 374,728 425,083 444,978 2000's 494,581 497,385 534,295 555,544 703,804 730,948 751,036

  18. Florida Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Florida Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 375,090 409,248 765,597 854,064 886,147 859,996 1980's 279,690 272,239 270,004 265,840 247,870 218,288 228,721 226,028 260,627 1990's 258,984 222,893 226,254 207,975 10,265 9,061 8,514 8,364 8,174 8,439 2000's 7,844 7,186 6,063 5,771 4,805 3,584 3,972 2,422 300 2010's 2,915 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not

  19. Kansas Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 1,250,286 1,239,723 1,493,907 1970's 1,445,817 1,451,438 1,497,319 1,503,660 1,407,239 1,367,949 1,389,850 1,427,654 1,476,110 1980's 1,046,516 825,440 874,488 926,348 997,710 951,222 908,673 943,335 885,253 1990's 794,705 955,040 943,923 961,518 965,674 965,266 970,163 749,423 732,828 653,515 2000's 610,039 576,231 572,044 530,938

  20. Kentucky Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980's 237,759 230,940 241,558 256,522 253,652 150,627 26,888 26,673 18,707 1990's 28,379 40,966 47,425 45,782 42,877 44,734 46,015 43,352 37,929 44,064 2000's 36,734 36,901 41,078 42,758 38,208 38,792 39,559 38,158 58,899 60,167 2010's 66,579 60,941 92,883 85,549 79,985 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not

  1. Wyoming Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 261,478 259,227 269,921 1970's 276,926 292,434 298,439 303,519 263,684 215,104 251,846 262,801 255,760 1980's 366,530 393,027 432,313 579,479 624,619 506,241 512,579 560,603 591,472 1990's 635,922 681,266 728,113 750,853 821,689 895,129 845,253 863,052 870,518 902,889 2000's 993,702 988,595 1,083,860 1,101,425 1,249,309 1,278,087

  2. Nevada Natural Gas Wellhead (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 NA NA NA 2010's NA - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Quantity of Natural Gas Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value Nevada Natural Gas Wellhead Value and Marketed Production

  3. Western States Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Western States Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Gas Production

  4. Arizona - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    4 Arizona - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S3. Summary statistics for natural gas - Arizona, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 5 5 5 5 5 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 183 168 117 72 106 From

  5. ,"New Mexico Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales (Billion Cubic Feet...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales (Billion Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2013 ,"Release...

  6. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","930...

  7. ,"New Mexico Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","09...

  8. ,"Texas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2013 ,"Release...

  9. ,"Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release...

  10. ,"Texas Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","09...

  11. ,"Texas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales (Billion Cubic Feet)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales (Billion Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2013 ,"Release...

  12. ,"Texas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2013 ,"Release...

  13. ,"West Virginia Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release...

  14. ,"Oregon Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Monthly","122013" ,"Release Date:","2292016" ,"Next Release Date:","3312016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1160sor2m.xls" ,"Available from ...

  15. ,"Nebraska Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Monthly","122013" ,"Release Date:","2292016" ,"Next Release Date:","3312016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1160sne2m.xls" ,"Available from ...

  16. ,"Virginia Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Monthly","122013" ,"Release Date:","2292016" ,"Next Release Date:","3312016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1160sva2m.xls" ,"Available from ...

  17. ,"Texas Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Monthly","122013" ,"Release Date:","2292016" ,"Next Release Date:","3312016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1160stx2m.xls" ,"Available from ...

  18. ,"Utah Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Monthly","122013" ,"Release Date:","2292016" ,"Next Release Date:","3312016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1160sut2m.xls" ,"Available from ...

  19. ,"Ohio Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Monthly","122013" ,"Release Date:","2292016" ,"Next Release Date:","3312016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1160soh2m.xls" ,"Available from ...

  20. ,"New York Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Monthly","122013" ,"Release Date:","2292016" ,"Next Release Date:","3312016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1160sny2m.xls" ,"Available from ...

  1. ,"North Dakota Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Monthly","122013" ,"Release Date:","2292016" ,"Next Release Date:","3312016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1160snd2m.xls" ,"Available from ...

  2. ,"Pennsylvania Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Monthly","122013" ,"Release Date:","2292016" ,"Next Release Date:","3312016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1160spa2m.xls" ,"Available from ...

  3. ,"West Virginia Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Monthly","122013" ,"Release Date:","2292016" ,"Next Release Date:","3312016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1160swv2m.xls" ,"Available from ...

  4. ,"Oklahoma Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Monthly","122013" ,"Release Date:","2292016" ,"Next Release Date:","3312016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1160sok2m.xls" ,"Available from ...

  5. ,"Nevada Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Monthly","122013" ,"Release Date:","2292016" ,"Next Release Date:","3312016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1160snv2m.xls" ,"Available from ...

  6. ,"South Dakota Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Monthly","122013" ,"Release Date:","2292016" ,"Next Release Date:","3312016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1160ssd2m.xls" ,"Available from ...

  7. ,"Wyoming Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Monthly","122013" ,"Release Date:","2292016" ,"Next Release Date:","3312016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1160swy2m.xls" ,"Available from ...

  8. ,"Tennessee Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Monthly","122013" ,"Release Date:","2292016" ,"Next Release Date:","3312016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1160stn2m.xls" ,"Available from ...

  9. Ohio Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Estimated Production Ohio Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production Coalbed Methane Production

  10. Florida Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Estimated Production Florida Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production Coalbed Methane Production

  11. Kentucky Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Estimated Production Kentucky Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production Coalbed Methane

  12. Michigan Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Estimated Production Michigan Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production Coalbed Methane Production

  13. Maryland Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Used for Repressuring Maryland Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and Production Natural Gas Used for Repressuring

  14. Virginia Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Used for Repressuring Virginia Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and Production Natural Gas Used for Repressuring

  15. Kentucky Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Used for Repressuring Kentucky Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and Production Natural Gas Used for Repressuring

  16. Alabama Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 57,208 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,517 31,610 32,806 1980's 38,572 41,914 38,810 42,181 45,662 48,382 49,341 52,511 55,939 1990's 58,136 76,739 126,910 132,222 136,195 118,688 112,868 114,411 107,334 309,492 2000's 372,136 285,953 290,164 237,377 263,426 255,157 287,278 257,443 253,028 248,232 2010's 242,444 230,546 87,269 89,258 80,590 -

  17. Alaska Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 149,865 151,669 147,954 1980's 111,512 115,394 42,115 62,144 66,062 58,732 134,945 76,805 75,703 1990's 1,571,438 1,873,279 2,121,838 2,295,499 2,667,254 2,980,557 2,987,364 2,964,734 2,966,461 2,950,502 2000's 3,123,599 2,984,807 2,997,824 2,447,017 2,680,859 3,089,229 2,665,742 2,965,956 2,901,760 2,830,034

  18. Arkansas Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 93,452 88,011 56,190 1970's 37,816 31,387 17,946 26,135 19,784 17,918 20,370 18,630 18,480 1980's 29,003 31,530 33,753 34,572 258,648 174,872 197,781 213,558 228,157 1990's 272,278 224,625 156,573 198,074 218,710 100,720 219,477 185,244 198,148 179,524 2000's 207,045 207,352 12,635 13,725 10,139 16,756 13,702 11,532 6,531 2,352

  19. Mississippi Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 46,068 44,510 0 1970's 50,509 44,732 29,538 29,081 24,568 29,694 0 0 0 1980's 34,337 38,315 29,416 29,705 23,428 21,955 12,131 9,565 8,353 1990's 7,887 7,649 4,822 4,892 5,052 4,869 4,521 4,372 3,668 135,773 2000's 205,106 239,830 263,456 283,675 283,763 292,023 278,436 224,596 174,573 215,951 2010's 218,840 126,859 6,865 4,527

  20. Montana Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 60,500 59,058 57,793 1970's 59,193 57,105 61,757 56,960 146,907 156,203 0 0 0 1980's 11,825 13,169 15,093 16,349 19,793 16,212 14,177 15,230 15,475 1990's 14,629 14,864 12,697 11,010 10,418 9,413 10,141 8,859 8,715 5,211 2000's 5,495 5,691 6,030 6,263 6,720 10,057 12,685 13,646 13,137 12,415 2010's 12,391 11,185 12,727 14,575 14,751

  1. Oklahoma Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 1,038,103 1,122,692 1,167,150 1970's 1,183,273 1,123,614 1,116,872 1,175,548 1,092,487 1,033,003 1,072,992 1,057,326 1,069,293 1980's 1,063,256 1,112,740 1,023,057 1,118,403 1,137,463 1,103,062 1,127,780 1,301,673 1,145,688 1990's 1,102,301 1,100,812 1,071,426 1,082,452 1,092,734 1,015,965 1,054,123 1,014,008 947,177 892,396 2000's

  2. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 2,247 2,390 1,708 1970's 1,418 1,112 1,711 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980's 2,001 2,393 5,432 6,115 5,407 6,356 6,459 6,126 6,518 1990's 6,613 10,244 11,540 10,263 7,133 10,106 10,341 11,661 11,366 11,261 2000's 7,758 9,928 7,033 9,441 9,423 11,462 12,386 13,367 18,046 22,364 2010's 56,162 131,959 236,817 396,726 301,514 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not

  3. Louisiana Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 3,383,334 3,728,717 4,465,379 1970's 5,237,519 5,994,431 6,337,328 6,524,729 6,273,136 5,831,487 5,749,783 5,709,535 5,561,040 1980's 5,197,429 4,770,095 4,190,105 4,439,430 3,811,852 3,794,464 3,880,364 3,918,236 4,002,843 1990's 4,220,068 4,340,531 4,466,425 4,315,312 4,200,126 4,604,292 4,652,677 4,767,965 4,610,969 4,687,261

  4. Texas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Sales (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 4,402 2,902...

  5. Crosby, ND Liquefied Natural Gas Exports (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Crosby, ND Liquefied Natural Gas Exports (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 02/29/2016 Next Release Date: 03/31/2016 Referring Pages: U.S.

  6. Characterization Of The Hydrogenation Products Of Bix (phenylethynyl) Benzene (DEB) Getter Using Combined GC/FTIR/MS, FT-Raman, and ATR Spectroscopies (U)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smyrl, N. R.; Powell, G. L.

    2011-06-09

    Organic hydrogen getters are utilized to minimize hydrogen accumulation in sealed systems where such build up could produce either a safety problem from pressure build up or corrosion problem due the hydriding of metals contained in the sealed vessel. DEB (1,4 bis (phenyl ethynyl) benzene) is a hydrogen getter that is based on the palladium catalyzed hydrogenation of triple bonds to single bonds in aromatic aryl compound. DEB is a getter mixed with 25% carbon and 1% Pd and pressed into pellets with some porosity. The reaction mechanisms are complex involving solid state reactions with a heterogeneous catalyst leading to the many intermediates.

  7. Remedial measures plan for a spill of solvent refined coal liquid at the SRC Pilot Plant, Ft. Lewis, Washington. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Grimshaw, T.W.; Little, W.M.

    1980-08-22

    On 19 December 1979, a spill of SRC liquid occurred during transfer of the liquid from a storage tank to sample drums. Approximately 2300 gallons of fluid flowed into the floor of the tank farm and infiltrated into the porous and permeable gravels at the site. Because of concern for the possible impact of the SRC fluid on the quality of ground water, surface water, and water supply sources at and near the site, GMRC commissioned Radian to evaluate the problem and recommend specific measures to mitigate any known or anticipated impacts. This report presents the results of Radian's investigations. Although ground-water contamination apparently has occurred as a result of the 19 December spill, the contamination plume is localized to the vicinity of the SRC plant and Lake Sequalitchew. A contamination plume apparently is presently moving toward Lake Sequalitchew, but the two pump wells included in the Remedial Mesures Plan will arrest this movement. These wells will be pumped until phenol concentrations in the groundwater fall to acceptable levels. The source of contamination at the spill is being cut off by excavation of the contaminated soil and sealing of the floor of the tank farm. No public water supplies are appreciably endangered by the 19 December spill. Most public wells are upgradient from the spill and are thus in no danger. The downgradient wells are protected by the fact that they tap deeper aquifers than the upper aquifer at the SRC plant site and by the buffering effect of Lake Sequalitchew. The upper aquifer in the vicinity of the spill site probably should not be considered for use as a public or private water supply for the foreseeable future.

  8. Remedial measures plan for a spill of solvent refined coal liquid at the SRC pilot plant, Ft. Lewis, Washington. Final Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Grimshaw, T.W.; Little, W.M.

    1980-08-22

    On December 19, 1979, a spill of SRC liquid occurred during transfer of the liquid from a storage tank to sample drums. Approximately 2,300 gallons of fluid flowed into the floor of the tank farm and infiltrated into the porous and permeable gravels at the site. Because of concern for the possible impact of the SRC fluid on the quality of ground water, surface water, and water supply sources at and near the site, GMRC commissioned Radian to evaluate the problem and recommend specific measures to mitigate any known or anticipated impacts. This report presents the results of Radian's investigations. Although ground-water contamination apparently has occurred as a result of the December 19 spill, the contamination plume is localized to the vicinity of the SRC plant and Lake Sequalitchew. A contamination plume apparently is presently moving toward Lake Sequalitchew, but the two pump wells included in the Remedial Measures Plan will arrest this movement. These wells will be pumped until phenol concentrations in the groundwater fall to acceptable levels. The source of contamination at the spill is being cut off by excavation of the contaminated soil and sealing of the floor of the tank farm. No public water supplies are appreciably endangered by the December 19 spill. A long-term ground-water monitoring plan is being implemented to ensure early discovery of any unanticipated impacts of the spill. If further water quality problems are disclosed, additional remedial measures will be undertaken as necessary.

  9. High-throughput prediction of Acacia and eucalypt lignin syringyl/guaiacyl content using FT-Raman spectroscopy and partial least squares modeling

    DOE Public Access Gateway for Energy & Science Beta (PAGES Beta)

    Lupoi, Jason S.; Healey, Adam; Singh, Seema; Sykes, Robert; Davis, Mark; Lee, David J.; Shepherd, Merv; Simmons, Blake A.; Henry, Robert J.

    2015-01-16

    High-throughput techniques are necessary to efficiently screen potential lignocellulosic feedstocks for the production of renewable fuels, chemicals, and bio-based materials, thereby reducing experimental time and expense while supplanting tedious, destructive methods. The ratio of lignin syringyl (S) to guaiacyl (G) monomers has been routinely quantified as a way to probe biomass recalcitrance. Mid-infrared and Raman spectroscopy have been demonstrated to produce robust partial least squares models for the prediction of lignin S/G ratios in a diverse group of Acacia and eucalypt trees. The most accurate Raman model has now been used to predict the S/G ratio from 269 unknown Acaciamore » and eucalypt feedstocks. This study demonstrates the application of a partial least squares model composed of Raman spectral data and lignin S/G ratios measured using pyrolysis/molecular beam mass spectrometry (pyMBMS) for the prediction of S/G ratios in an unknown data set. The predicted S/G ratios calculated by the model were averaged according to plant species, and the means were not found to differ from the pyMBMS ratios when evaluating the mean values of each method within the 95 % confidence interval. Pairwise comparisons within each data set were employed to assess statistical differences between each biomass species. While some pairwise appraisals failed to differentiate between species, Acacias, in both data sets, clearly display significant differences in their S/G composition which distinguish them from eucalypts. In conclusion, this research shows the power of using Raman spectroscopy to supplant tedious, destructive methods for the evaluation of the lignin S/G ratio of diverse plant biomass materials.« less

  10. Proceedings of 1999 U.S./Japan Workshop (99FT-05) On High Heat Flux Components and Plasma Surface Interactions for Next Fusion Devices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NYGREN,RICHARD E.; STAVROS,DIANA T.

    2000-06-01

    The 1999 US-Japan Workshop on High Heat Flux Components and Plasma Surface Interactions in Next Step Fusion Devices was held at the St. Francis Hotel in Santa Fe, New Mexico, on November 1-4, 1999. There were 42 presentations as well as discussion on technical issues and planning for future collaborations. The participants included 22 researchers from Japan and the United States as well as seven researchers from Europe and Russia. There have been important changes in the programs in both the US and Japan in the areas of plasma surface interactions and plasma facing components. The US has moved away from a strong focus on the ITER Project and has introduced new programs on use of liquid surfaces for plasma facing components, and operation of NSTX has begun. In Japan, the Large Helical Device began operation. This is the first large world-class confinement device operating in a magnetic configuration different than a tokamak. In selecting the presentations for this workshop, the organizers sought a balance between research in laboratory facilities or confinement devices related to plasma surface interactions and experimental research in the development of plasma facing components. In discussions about the workshop itself, the participants affirmed their preference for a setting where ''work-in-progress'' could be informally presented and discussed.

  11. Milestone Report - M4FT-15OR0312026 - Complete NO and NO2 aging of AgZ

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bruffey, Stephanie H.; Patton, Kaara K.; Walker, Jr, Joseph Franklin; Jubin, Robert Thomas

    2015-03-31

    In an off-gas system within a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant, any capture material will be exposed to a gas stream for months at a time. This gas stream may be at elevated temperature and could contain water, NOx gas, or a variety of other constituents that comprise the off-gas stream. For this reason, it is important to understand the effects of long-term exposure, or aging, on proposed capture materials. One material under consideration is silver-exchanged mordenite (AgZ). The aim of this study was to determine the effect of extended exposure at 150C to an air stream containing NO on the iodine capture capacity of the hydrogen reduced form of AgZ designated as Ag0Z. The study was originally also intended to expand on the static NO2 aging studies by exposing Ag0Z to a flowing stream of NO2 for an extended period of time, but those tests were delayed due to NO2 production schedules by the gas vendor. Unreduced silver mordenite has a loading capacity of approximately 25 mg I/g AgZ and that capacity is increased to 100 mg I/g Ag0Z upon reduction. It appears that extended exposure of AgZ to 1% NO at 150C may not only neutralize the increased capacity gained by reduction, but perhaps degrade the sorbent even further. Loss of 80% of sorbent capacity and surface area was observed after 8 weeks of exposure to a 1% NO stream at 150C. Investigations continue into the effects of aging by off-gas components on iodine sorbents. Future work will age silver mordenite with streams containing NO2. As the simulated off-gas streams become more complex and more corrosive, the ability of AgZ to withstand conditions present in off-gas streams will be more fully known.

  12. Detailed chemical kinetic models for large n-alkanes and iso-alkanes found in conventional and F-T diesel fuels

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Westbrook, C K; Pitz, W J; Mehl, M; Curran, H J

    2009-03-09

    n-Hexadecane and 2,2,4,4,6,8,8-heptamethylnonane represent the primary reference fuels for diesel that are used to determine cetane number, a measure of the ignition property of diesel fuel. With the development of chemical kinetics models for both primary reference fuels, a new capability is now available to model diesel fuel ignition. Additionally, we have developed chemical kinetic models for a whole series of large n-alkanes and a large iso-alkane to represent these chemical classes in fuel surrogates for conventional and future fuels. These chemical kinetic models are used to predict the effect of the aforementioned fuel components on ignition characteristics under conditions found in internal combustion engines.

  13. FY-13 FCRD Milestone M3FT-13OR0202311 Weldability of ORNL Accident Tolerant Fuel Cladding Model Alloys For Thin Walled Tubes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Field, Kevin G [ORNL; Gussev, Maxim N [ORNL; Yamamoto, Yukinori [ORNL

    2013-07-01

    Ferritic FeCrAl-based alloys show increased oxidation resistance for accident tolerant applications as fuel cladding. This study focuses on investigating the weldability of three model FeCrAl alloys with varying alloy compositions using laser-welding techniques. A detailed study of the mechanical properties of bead-on-plate welds was used to determine the quality of welds as a function of alloy composition. Laser welding resulted in defect free welds devoid of cracking or inclusions. Initial results indicate a reduction in the yield strength of weldments compared to the base material due to distinct changes in the microstructure within the fusion zone. Although a loss of yield strength was observed, there was no significant difference in the magnitude of the tensile property changes with varying Cr or Al content. Also, there was no evidence of embrittlement; the material in the fusion zones demonstrated ductile behavior with high local ductility.

  14. MT3FT-15OR0204122: Report on the acquisition and installation of FEI Talos F200X S/TEM

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Parish, Chad M.

    2015-09-01

    This document describes the installation, performance, and early results from the FCRD-funded acquisition of a new advanced analytical scanning / transmission electron microscopy (S/TEM) at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Low Activation Materials Development and Analysis (LAMDA) facility.

  15. Corrosion mechanisms for metal alloy waste forms: experiment and theory Level 4 Milestone M4FT-14LA0804024 Fuel Cycle Research & Development

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Liu, Xiang-Yang; Taylor, Christopher D.; Kim, Eunja; Goff, George Scott; Kolman, David Gary

    2014-07-31

    This document meets Level 4 Milestone: Corrosion mechanisms for metal alloy waste forms - experiment and theory. A multiphysics model is introduces that will provide the framework for the quantitative prediction of corrosion rates of metallic waste forms incorporating the fission product Tc. The model requires a knowledge of the properties of not only the metallic waste form, but also the passive oxide films that will be generated on the waste form, and the chemistry of the metal/oxide and oxide/environment interfaces. in collaboration with experimental work, the focus of this work is on obtaining these properties from fundamental atomistic models. herein we describe the overall multiphysics model, which is based on MacDonald's point-defect model for passivity. We then present the results of detailed electronic-structure calculations for the determination of the compatibility and properties of Tc when incorporated into intermetallic oxide phases. This work is relevant to the formation of multi-component oxides on metal surfaces that will incorporate Tc, and provide a kinetic barrier to corrosion (i.e. the release of Tc to the environment). Atomistic models that build upon the electronic structure calculations are then described using the modified embedded atom method to simulate metallic dissolution, and Buckingham potentials to perform classical molecular dynamics and statics simulations of the technetium (and, later, iron-technetium) oxide phases. Electrochemical methods were then applied to provide some benchmark information of the corrosion and electrochemical properties of Technetium metal. The results indicate that published information on Tc passivity is not complete and that further investigation is warranted.

  16. ,"Compressed U.S. Natural Gas Imports (Million Cubic Feet)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    586-8800",,,"01292016 9:46:16 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Compressed U.S. Natural Gas Imports (Million Cubic Feet)" "Sourcekey","NGMEPG0INCNUS-Z00MMCF"...

  17. Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports (Million Cubic Feet...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Natural Gas Exports (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 2,664 2015 2,805 2,728 - No Data Reported; -- Not Applicable; NA Not...

  18. Babb, MT Liquefied Natural Gas Exports (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Natural Gas Exports (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015 5 - No Data Reported; -- Not Applicable; NA Not Available; W Withheld...

  19. Laredo, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports (Million Cubic Feet...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Natural Gas Exports (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015 1 - No Data Reported; -- Not Applicable; NA Not Available; W Withheld...

  20. Portal, ND Liquefied Natural Gas Exports (Million Cubic Feet...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Natural Gas Exports (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015 2 - No Data Reported; -- Not Applicable; NA Not Available; W Withheld...

  1. Buffalo, NY Liquefied Natural Gas Exports (Million Cubic Feet...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Natural Gas Exports (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015 1 1 1 1 - No Data Reported; -- Not Applicable; NA Not Available; W ...

  2. Nebraska Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1992 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0

  3. Arizona Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1996 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0

  4. Illinois Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1992 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0

  5. Tennessee Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1992 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0

  6. Ohio Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1992 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0

  7. Oklahoma Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1996 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0

  8. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1992 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0

  9. Montana Natural Gas Processed in Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Processed in Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 785 656 622 631 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Montana-Wyoming

  10. Ohio Natural Gas Processed in Ohio (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Ohio (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas Processed in Ohio (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 2,211 32,760 344,073 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Ohio-Ohio

  11. Ohio Natural Gas Processed in West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas Processed in West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 271 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Ohio-West Virginia

  12. Colorado Natural Gas Processed in Kansas (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Processed in Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 178 151 175 168 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Colorado-Kansas

  13. Eastern States Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Eastern States Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 58 69 68 71 72 90 24 1 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane

  14. Kansas Natural Gas Processed in Oklahoma (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Oklahoma (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Processed in Oklahoma (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 804 775 703 248 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Kansas-Oklahoma

  15. Kansas Natural Gas Processed in Texas (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Processed in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 142 141 121 88 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Kansas-Texas

  16. Louisiana Offshore Natural Gas Processed in Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Processed in Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Offshore Natural Gas Processed in Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 151,301 99,910 94,790 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed

  17. Alabama Offshore Natural Gas Processed in Alabama (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Processed in Alabama (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Offshore Natural Gas Processed in Alabama (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 53,348 53,771 49,474 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed

  18. Alaska Onshore Natural Gas Processed in Alaska (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Processed in Alaska (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Onshore Natural Gas Processed in Alaska (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 2,811,384 2,735,783 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed

  19. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Processed in Ohio (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    in Ohio (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Processed in Ohio (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 51,023 5,826 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Pennsylvania-Ohio

  20. South Dakota Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Processed (Million Cubic Feet) South Dakota Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 113 86 71 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed South Dakota Natural Gas Plant Processing Natural Gas Processed

  1. Sumas, WA Liquefied Natural Gas Imports (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Sumas, WA Liquefied Natural Gas Imports (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 5 2015 4 4 2 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Imports by Point of Entry Sumas, WA LNG Imports from All Countries

  2. Western States Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Western States Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Western States Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 4 14 33 51 77 89 108 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Production

  3. Wyoming Natural Gas Processed in Colorado (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Colorado (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Natural Gas Processed in Colorado (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 69,827 75,855 136,964 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Wyoming-Colorado

  4. Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 331 428 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators Wisconsin Underground Natural Gas

  5. South Dakota Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) South Dakota Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 0 1990's 0 2 5 7 5 4 4 10 8 10 2000's 10 13 13 16 18 0 W 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Delivered

  6. Louisiana--Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana--Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 2,849,980 1,884,566 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Dry Production Louisiana Onshore Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and

  7. Maine Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Maine Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 0 100 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2010's 1 1 1 1 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Delivered to Vehicle Fuel Consumers Maine Natural

  8. Montana Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 0 1990's 0 2 2 4 6 8 13 40 31 38 2000's 43 53 54 66 74 4 2 1 1 1 2010's 1 0 1 1 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Delivered to

  9. Vermont Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Vermont Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 0 0 0 2000's 0 1 1 1 1 0 W 1 1 2010's 1 3 3 3 3 3 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Delivered to Vehicle Fuel Consumers Vermont

  10. North Dakota Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) North Dakota Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 0 1990's 0 1 3 8 8 12 15 41 40 49 2000's 54 67 68 83 93 3 1 1 1 2010's 1 1 1 0 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Delivered

  11. Minnesota Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's -589 739 -295 -493 431 -234 3,636 621 4,442 -462 1990's 44 -70 213 466 630 -985 2,128 -29 -36 312 2000's -964 265 -160 81 128 -588 93 82 65 703 2010's 54 22 -545 255 4 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  12. Miscellaneous States Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Miscellaneous States Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 19 28 29 41 17 2010's 16 17 13 23 11 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31

  13. Miscellaneous States Shale Gas Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Gas Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Miscellaneous States Shale Gas Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 66 58 134 2010's 121 75 52 25 123 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Miscellaneous Shale Gas

  14. Mississippi (with State off) Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    off) Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Mississippi (with State off) Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 2 5 2 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production Mississippi Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and

  15. Mississippi (with State off) Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Mississippi (with State off) Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 19 37 19 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Mississippi Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves

  16. Mississippi Natural Gas Processed in Mississippi (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    in Mississippi (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas Processed in Mississippi (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 5,415 5,021 4,527 5,633 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Mississippi-Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Processing

  17. Missouri Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 -26 -13 -14 47 -10 5 10 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Net Withdrawals of Liquefied

  18. Montana Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Montana Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 73 77 66 75 37 2010's 64 25 11 16 11 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Montana Coalbed Methane Proved

  19. Montana Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Montana Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 887 926 825 1980's 1,287 1,321 847 896 802 857 803 780 819 867 1990's 899 831 859 673 717 782 796 762 782 841 2000's 885 898 906 1,059 995 986 1,057 1,052 1,000 976 2010's 944 778 602 575 667 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  20. Montana Natural Gas Processed in Montana (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Montana (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Processed in Montana (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 11,185 11,206 12,493 12,507 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Montana-Montana

  1. Montana Natural Gas Processed in North Dakota (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    North Dakota (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Processed in North Dakota (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 176 865 1,460 1,613 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Montana-North Dakota

  2. Nebraska Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 95 -54 -286 162 -70 -136 -48 14 132 -204 1990's 339 -119 111 65 26 -134 127 122 -351 176 2000's -132 348 -31 -83 -8 121 -122 18 -15 -10 2010's 39 -73 -140 280 -202 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  3. Nevada Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet) Nevada Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 53 30 21 16 13 11 9 9 8 2000's 7 7 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 2010's 4 3 4 3 3 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Dry Production Nevada Natural Gas Gross

  4. Nevada Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Nevada Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 289 149 68 89 110 256 -170 205 1990's -548 728 -71 9 -30 31 72 61 -31 -29 2000's -17 1 6 21 -1 8 -55 -73 17 -76 2010's -69 -42 -63 -57 16 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  5. New Mexico Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) New Mexico Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 56 1990's 133 229 358 486 530 574 575 597 571 582 2000's 550 517 471 451 528 514 510 394 443 432 2010's 402 374 355 356 373 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  6. New Mexico Natural Gas Processed in Texas (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Texas (Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Natural Gas Processed in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 32 2,479 8,607 5,497 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed New Mexico-Texas

  7. New Mexico--East Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) New Mexico--East Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 25 26 23 23 26 2010's 27 27 28 26 24 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Estimated Production NM, East Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves,

  8. New Mexico--East Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) New Mexico--East Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 2 0 1 2010's 3 5 10 13 25 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production NM, East Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production

  9. New Mexico--West Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) New Mexico--West Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 489 484 371 420 406 2010's 375 347 327 330 349 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Estimated Production NM, West Coalbed Methane Proved

  10. New Mexico--West Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) New Mexico--West Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 1 2010's 3 4 3 3 3 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production NM, West Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production

  11. North Dakota Natural Gas Processed in Illinois (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Illinois (Million Cubic Feet) North Dakota Natural Gas Processed in Illinois (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 15,727 30,603 38,066 35,829 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed North Dakota-Illinois

  12. Oklahoma Natural Gas Processed in Kansas (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas Processed in Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 8,527 9,029 8,794 8,481 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Oklahoma-Kansas

  13. Oklahoma Natural Gas Processed in Oklahoma (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Oklahoma (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas Processed in Oklahoma (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 1,121,999 1,282,707 1,349,870 1,670,265 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Oklahoma-Oklahoma

  14. Oklahoma Natural Gas Processed in Texas (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas Processed in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 16,462 18,595 18,455 17,361 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Oklahoma-Texas

  15. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Processed in Pennsylvania (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Pennsylvania (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Processed in Pennsylvania (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 131,959 226,544 159,840 194,075 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Pennsylvania-Pennsylvania

  16. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Processed in West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Processed in West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 10,273 236,886 101,613 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Pennsylvania-West Virginia

  17. Colorado Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Net Withdrawals of Liquefied Natural Gas

  18. Colorado Natural Gas Processed in Colorado (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Colorado (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Processed in Colorado (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 1,507,467 1,460,433 1,368,677 1,491,693 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Colorado-Colorado

  19. Colorado Natural Gas Processed in Utah (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Utah (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Processed in Utah (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 286 3,677 4,194 3,499 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Colorado-Utah

  20. Connecticut Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Connecticut Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's -820 701 -1,356 -385 544 -187 198 121 75 -604 1990's 822 -103 -355 -29 -61 -373 680 94 66 -66 2000's -471 -169 182 140 -91 -240 -286 102 207 164 2010's 178 129 260 -68 -327 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  1. Delaware Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Delaware Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 113 -3 -3 -29 39 7 -71 -60 4 -38 1990's 6 7 -5 3 23 -1 11 -8 8 31 2000's 83 10 -43 -28 -10 7 -1 -6 17 3 2010's -2 -31 51 -68 29 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016

  2. Florida Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Florida Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 151 119 77 1980's 84 69 64 49 65 55 49 49 51 46 1990's 45 38 47 50 98 92 96 96 88 84 2000's 82 84 91 79 78 77 45 108 1 7 2010's 56 6 16 15 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next

  3. Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 1,317,031 1,002,608 1,000,964 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Gulf of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Processing Natural Gas Processed (Summary)

  4. Idaho Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Idaho Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 19 132 -16 -52 -634 -932 -86 334 165 1990's 23 113 -47 51 182 -29 -25 32 -460 492 2000's -361 307 -42 91 120 143 -140 -99 -147 387 2010's 70 -19 139 -259 -676 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next

  5. Illinois Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's -41 22 47 -530 653 -205 -270 -96 69 -579 1990's 580 -229 222 -31 9 -12 -289 -200 -351 241 2000's -370 231 -283 -548 -58 402 119 132 -381 -260 2010's 74 127 419 -322 -442 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  6. Illinois Natural Gas Processed in Illinois (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Processed in Illinois (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas Processed in Illinois (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 294 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Illinois-Illinois Natural Gas Plant Processing Natural Gas Processed

  7. Indiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's -129 204 1,991 -498 1,878 429 615 541 6,077 344 1990's 230 595 -339 738 -95 -239 -234 653 486 582 2000's -480 223 -376 -28 -187 236 -275 86 -766 -590 2010's 835 -380 -977 -81 771 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  8. Iowa Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Iowa Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's -609 -259 726 -1,220 1,015 -813 -496 -208 -171 292 1990's 541 1,343 412 75 346 -651 1,978 241 280 72 2000's -53 -411 -743 -1,077 761 219 -899 -115 -166 -244 2010's 146 14 428 -151 -647 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  9. Kansas Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Kansas Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 257 234 340 301 163 2010's 258 228 183 189 211 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Kansas Coalbed Methane Proved

  10. Kansas Natural Gas Processed in Kansas (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Processed in Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 256,268 258,649 189,679 190,698 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Kansas-Kansas

  11. Kentucky Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Kentucky Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 7 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Kentucky Coalbed Methane Proved

  12. Kentucky Natural Gas Processed in Kentucky (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Kentucky (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas Processed in Kentucky (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 60,941 67,568 61,463 56,226 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Kentucky-Kentucky

  13. Louisiana (with State Offshore) Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana (with State Offshore) Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 1 23 293 2010's 1,232 2,084 2,204 1,510 1,191 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production Louisiana Shale Gas Proved

  14. Louisiana (with State Offshore) Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana (with State Offshore) Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 6 858 9,307 2010's 20,070 21,950 13,523 11,483 12,792 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31

  15. Louisiana Onshore Natural Gas Processed in Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Onshore Natural Gas Processed in Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 938,635 822,216 818,942 724,016 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Louisiana Onshore-Louisiana

  16. Louisiana Onshore Natural Gas Processed in Texas (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Onshore Natural Gas Processed in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 5,020 4,583 4,920 4,936 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Louisiana Onshore-Texas

  17. Louisiana--North Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana--North Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 1 1 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Estimated Production North Louisiana Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves, Reserves

  18. Louisiana--North Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana--North Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 1 7 9 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 North Louisiana Coalbed Methane Proved

  19. Louisiana--North Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana--North Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 1 23 293 2010's 1,232 2,084 2,204 1,509 1,169 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production North Louisiana Shale Gas Proved Reserves,

  20. Louisiana--North Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana--North Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 6 858 9,307 2010's 20,070 21,950 13,523 11,473 12,611 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 North Louisiana Shale

  1. Louisiana--South Onshore Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana--South Onshore Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 0 0 1 22 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production LA, South Onshore Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and

  2. Louisiana--South Onshore Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana--South Onshore Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 0 0 10 181 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 LA, South Onshore Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves

  3. Lower 48 States Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 1,732 1,758 1,753 1,966 1,914 2010's 1,886 1,763 1,655 1,466 1,404 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Estimated Production Lower 48 States

  4. Lower 48 States Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 19,892 19,620 21,874 20,798 18,578 2010's 17,508 16,817 13,591 12,392 15,696 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves as of

  5. Lower 48 States Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 23,304 34,428 60,644 2010's 97,449 131,616 129,396 159,115 199,684 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31

  6. Maine Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Maine Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's -86 15 -85 5 12 6 0 0 4 1990's -4 1 4 -2 5 3 4 -2 17 15 2000's 12 0 6 51 22 34 18 -21 0 -33 2010's -25 -18 2 1 4 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Net

  7. Michigan Natural Gas Processed in Michigan (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    in Michigan (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Natural Gas Processed in Michigan (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 21,518 21,243 21,416 18,654 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Michigan-Michigan Natural Gas Plant Processing

  8. Alabama (with State Offshore) Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Alabama (with State Offshore) Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 1 2 0 2010's 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Alabama Shale Gas Proved Reserves,

  9. Alabama Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 185 30 66 -580 459 -459 132 -46 164 -422 1990's 456 -19 239 215 448 -164 -303 425 32 -219 2000's -285 -136 298 -47 19 114 -7 -209 -73 178 2010's -21 -75 -22 63 -206 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  10. Alabama Onshore Natural Gas Processed in Alabama (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Processed in Alabama (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Onshore Natural Gas Processed in Alabama (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 100,491 33,921 35,487 31,116 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed

  11. Alaska Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's -2,581 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's -1 1 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Net Withdrawals of Liquefied

  12. Arkansas Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Arkansas Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 30 34 31 31 22 2010's 28 21 10 13 15 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Arkansas Coalbed Methane Proved

  13. Arkansas Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 14 -19 -11 -34 36 -8 4 9 -12 -32 1990's 106 -11 -1 9 5 -27 -85 -11 2 -1 2000's -1 -2 4 52 -36 -20 12 -3 -21 -24 2010's 2 -7 9 12 14 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016

  14. Arkansas Natural Gas Processed in Arkansas (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    in Arkansas (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas Processed in Arkansas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 5,611 6,872 7,781 8,058 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Arkansas-Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Processing

  15. California (with State off) Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    off) Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) California (with State off) Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 101 90 89 3 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production California Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and

  16. California (with State off) Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) California (with State off) Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 855 777 756 44 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 California Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves

  17. California Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's -916 -105 19 -430 -335 -207 -5 0 -11 0 1990's 0 32 -38 -24 -80 -33 -13 -58 -114 -59 2000's 234 -1 4 3 -1 -31 -16 10 -1 -5 2010's 2 7 -5 3 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  18. California Onshore Natural Gas Processed in California (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Processed in California (Million Cubic Feet) California Onshore Natural Gas Processed in California (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 180,648 169,203 164,401 162,413 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed

  19. Tennessee Natural Gas Processed in Tennessee (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    in Tennessee (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas Processed in Tennessee (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 6,200 6,304 5,721 5,000 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Tennessee-Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Processing

  20. Texas (with State Offshore) Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas (with State Offshore) Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 11 8 9 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Estimated Production Texas Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves, Reserves

  1. Texas (with State Offshore) Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas (with State Offshore) Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 988 1,503 1,789 2010's 2,218 2,900 3,649 3,876 4,156 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production Texas Shale Gas Proved

  2. Texas Onshore Natural Gas Processed in Kansas (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Onshore Natural Gas Processed in Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 57,971 63,053 144,573 112,694 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Processed Texas Onshore-Kansas

  3. Texas--RRC District 1 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas--RRC District 1 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 11 2010's 41 156 362 630 822 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production TX, RRC District 1 Shale Gas Proved Reserves,

  4. Texas--RRC District 10 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas--RRC District 10 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 5 5 8 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production TX, RRC District 10 Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves

  5. Texas--RRC District 5 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas--RRC District 5 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 437 769 954 2010's 1,053 1,266 1,256 1,128 1,022 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production TX, RRC District 5 Shale Gas

  6. Texas--RRC District 6 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas--RRC District 6 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 3 28 2010's 219 382 486 409 270 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production TX, RRC District 6 Shale Gas Proved Reserves,

  7. Texas--RRC District 8 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas--RRC District 8 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 1 4 3 2010's 7 5 22 62 78 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production TX, RRC District 8 Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves

  8. Texas--RRC District 9 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas--RRC District 9 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 460 586 643 2010's 725 612 626 619 639 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production TX, RRC District 9 Shale Gas Proved

  9. Alabama Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet) Alabama Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 237 3 0 264 0 431 253 379 21 0 2010's 148 383 21 183 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions Alabama Dry Natural Gas

  10. Alabama Dry Natural Gas Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet) Alabama Dry Natural Gas Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 7 -12 -27 1980's 30 42 1990's 197 605 159 -644 27 -45 -44 -31 5 -17 2000's -56 36 72 -36 34 -27 -11 12 -71 46 2010's 32 -49 112 -274 502 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016

  11. Alabama Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Alabama Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 24 42 46 1980's 64 85 1990's 104 146 256 281 391 360 373 376 394 376 2000's 359 345 365 350 327 300 287 274 257 254 2010's 223 218 214 175 176 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next

  12. Alabama Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet) Alabama Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 50 42 44 1980's 64 12 1990's 1,014 229 35 378 80 118 177 34 19 1 2000's 175 169 289 315 131 85 146 123 59 20 2010's 28 3 0 0 2 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring

  13. Alabama Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet) Alabama Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 14 45 41 1980's 116 89 1990's 938 207 191 159 2,128 286 97 54 313 140 2000's 69 218 155 122 155 60 208 35 732 328 2010's 173 157 254 75 41 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  14. Alabama Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Increases (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Increases (Billion Cubic Feet) Alabama Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Increases (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 18 35 129 1980's 69 119 1990's 759 773 545 44 2,101 481 502 348 309 215 2000's 74 78 130 588 162 135 234 163 283 99 2010's 206 455 99 67 140 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  15. Alabama Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Sales (Billion Cubic Feet) Alabama Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 140 1 6 246 29 419 188 302 10 2 2010's 263 573 11 357 2 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales Alabama Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves Dry

  16. Alabama Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 655 908 754 353 838 512 581 465 607 512 1990's 893 511 501 612 944 524 979 960 501 564 2000's 729 504 871 655 509 493 704 868 1,003 1,676 2010's 946 754 562 822 1,664 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next

  17. Alabama Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 470 878 688 933 379 971 449 511 444 934 1990's 437 530 262 396 497 688 1,282 535 469 783 2000's 1,014 641 573 607 528 606 698 1,078 1,076 1,498 2010's 968 829 583 759 1,869 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  18. Alaska Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet) Alaska Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 4,348 0 13 0 0 98 0 6 0 0 2010's 0 221 0 272 193 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions Alaska Dry Natural Gas Proved

  19. Alaska Dry Natural Gas Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet) Alaska Dry Natural Gas Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 1 -17 -62 1980's 38 -213 11 1 4 -359 -298 202 176 16 1990's -320 -7 289 57 49 -393 145 19 -172 133 2000's 23 -11 35 1 -1 -2 -46 1 -3 3 2010's 1 -1 -2 -5 -21 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release

  20. Alaska Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Alaska Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 206 216 228 1980's 213 235 261 273 324 312 324 349 400 401 1990's 339 353 414 393 423 396 446 475 513 459 2000's 506 461 460 478 478 469 408 388 354 358 2010's 317 327 299 285 304 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  1. Alaska Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet) Alaska Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 67 1,324 231 1980's 104 61 22 742 395 552 757 67 24,751 136 1990's 99 239 21 109 49 51 171 99 125 3,525 2000's 2,093 335 118 235 207 154 376 112 4,068 108 2010's 452 206 339 2,400 685 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  2. Alaska Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Sales (Billion Cubic Feet) Alaska Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 4,531 0 13 0 0 96 0 10 0 5 2010's 131 36 2 91 165 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales Alaska Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves Dry Natural

  3. Alaska Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 2,581 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 159 319 467 697 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Additions of Liquefied

  4. Alaska Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 0 2000's 1 158 319 467 697 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Liquefied Natural Gas from

  5. Arizona Natural Gas Lease Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Arizona Natural Gas Lease Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 7 7 6 5 6 5 35 1990's 71 45 41 49 61 57 58 51 46 35 2000's 36 40 58 18 25 23 23 20 20 17 2010's 19 17 12 4 3 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas

  6. Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet) Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 343 5 80 82 52 30 5 280 5 36 2010's 807 6,880 6 9 80 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions Arkansas Dry Natural Gas

  7. Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet) Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's -1 22 -2 1980's -7 39 93 -15 90 -127 55 26 124 -46 1990's 94 110 183 -62 95 64 33 -21 -1 -48 2000's -3 28 27 21 13 8 -26 -27 -64 5 2010's -34 728 -743 -78 -3 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next

  8. Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 109 120 100 1980's 117 121 158 206 188 175 123 129 159 166 1990's 164 173 204 188 186 182 200 189 170 163 2000's 154 160 157 166 170 174 188 269 456 698 2010's 951 1,079 1,151 1,140 1,142 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  9. Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet) Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 175 32 58 1980's 89 76 116 157 167 178 262 229 232 288 1990's 118 195 175 123 95 92 108 101 653 376 2000's 48 88 107 134 91 142 113 146 189 621 2010's 301 324 6,610 284 1,094 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  10. Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Increases (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Increases (Billion Cubic Feet) Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Increases (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 50 76 48 1980's 116 61 87 181 146 105 180 215 118 202 1990's 100 163 182 98 147 107 96 205 596 761 2000's 207 128 114 148 200 122 101 321 1,249 1,912 2010's 1,072 631 1,754 560 171 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  11. Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Sales (Billion Cubic Feet) Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 336 8 66 63 24 31 4 298 19 54 2010's 393 6,760 1 4 248 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves Dry

  12. Arkansas Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 14 5 21 0 44 18 22 52 42 30 1990's 128 38 50 53 73 29 0 57 64 52 2000's 52 50 85 36 76 72 45 54 51 27 2010's 42 47 57 52 56 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  13. Arkansas Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 24 32 34 8 26 18 43 54 62 1990's 23 49 51 44 68 56 85 68 62 53 2000's 52 52 81 88 40 51 57 57 72 51 2010's 40 53 48 40 42 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  14. Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 982 966 7,077 4,709 6,270 6,646 7,646 1990's 637 188 268 352 467 468 451 508 405 405 2000's 441 653 890 504 490 433 509 404 470 489 2010's 529 423 622 797 871 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next

  15. Delaware Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Delaware Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 21 27 33 2000's 37 46 46 56 63 9 6 5 4 1 2010's 1 1 1 1 1 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Delivered to

  16. Illinois Natural Gas Lease Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Lease Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas Lease Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 29 47 39 54 47 38 35 1990's 22 10 9 10 10 7 7 6 5 4 2000's 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 39 41 62 2010's 50 101 122 122 70 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  17. Michigan Dry Natural Gas Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet) Michigan Dry Natural Gas Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's -1 153 -182 1980's 297 -191 23 205 -106 -26 -32 35 -124 55 1990's 3 240 95 94 155 327 581 177 105 12 2000's 217 653 82 65 -97 1 112 -45 -48 -279 2010's 243 8 -104 -62 -47 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  18. Michigan Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Michigan Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 135 149 134 1980's 160 139 133 125 138 132 128 130 126 129 1990's 120 155 145 141 150 163 208 221 240 234 2000's 333 239 242 220 207 211 197 184 157 153 2010's 154 139 138 133 124 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  19. Michigan Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet) Michigan Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 35 84 38 1980's 39 35 53 24 28 20 80 257 47 48 1990's 40 20 29 22 15 33 17 50 12 2 2000's 143 63 287 74 90 55 86 29 21 16 2010's 1 0 0 0 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016

  20. Michigan Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet) Michigan Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 99 209 106 1980's 71 98 144 100 105 132 78 157 261 283 1990's 170 311 248 202 48 315 152 124 288 478 2000's 176 524 276 235 360 163 291 210 430 406 2010's 378 267 1,062 139 90 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  1. Michigan Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Increases (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Increases (Billion Cubic Feet) Michigan Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Increases (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 94 83 118 1980's 64 87 146 115 184 98 105 160 239 228 1990's 87 281 148 164 191 79 453 252 538 624 2000's 422 263 383 303 205 141 460 780 143 367 2010's 260 210 541 388 290 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  2. Michigan Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Sales (Billion Cubic Feet) Michigan Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 479 24 35 201 13 104 48 1,043 0 0 2010's 529 643 0 11 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales Michigan Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves Dry

  3. Minnesota Natural Gas Exports to All Countries (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Exports to All Countries (Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Natural Gas Exports to All Countries (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 0 2000's 0 0 71 172 2,193 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 3,975 11,768 16,209 5,474 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: U.S. Natural Gas Exports Minnesota

  4. Minnesota Natural Gas Input Supplemental Fuels (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Input Supplemental Fuels (Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Natural Gas Input Supplemental Fuels (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980's 48 106 337 1 3 11 2 1 385 315 1990's 56 49 52 78 289 194 709 172 50 64 2000's 101 118 13 42 71 154 13 54 46 47 2010's 12 20 9 22 66 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  5. Mississippi Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet) Mississippi Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 35 29 33 29 9 54 30 78 4 2 2010's 13 10 109 90 82 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions Mississippi Dry Natural Gas

  6. Mississippi Dry Natural Gas Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet) Mississippi Dry Natural Gas Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 9 104 -18 1980's 29 399 24 11 7 8 51 5 -1 17 1990's 82 106 -102 68 -1 31 13 -16 -19 34 2000's -20 53 81 -26 20 5 -26 37 12 26 2010's 1 109 65 29 -15 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release

  7. Mississippi Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet) Mississippi Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 341 108 68 1980's 103 73 42 31 49 79 71 32 31 57 1990's 20 11 9 2 2 30 43 48 109 11 2000's 53 43 54 81 27 75 119 146 155 132 2010's 33 24 4 5 9 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  8. Mississippi Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Sales (Billion Cubic Feet) Mississippi Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 96 34 29 42 18 17 44 24 2 17 2010's 31 11 159 39 115 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales Mississippi Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves

  9. Missouri Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 7 26 29 57 21 28 58 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Additions of Liquefied Natural

  10. Missouri Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 33 39 43 10 31 23 48 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Liquefied

  11. Missouri Natural Gas Lease Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Natural Gas Lease Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Lease Fuel Consumption

  12. Montana Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet) Montana Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 12 59 6 326 3 9 17 39 95 3 2010's 30 44 4 4 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions Montana Dry Natural Gas Proved

  13. Montana Dry Natural Gas Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet) Montana Dry Natural Gas Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 1 -91 -74 1980's 573 30 -448 75 -74 56 -61 -25 83 -106 1990's 29 -27 58 -154 142 -4 16 33 -12 42 2000's 13 51 58 -28 -56 3 13 9 -3 135 2010's -19 -59 38 3 39 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next

  14. Montana Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Montana Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 49 44 47 1980's 61 86 45 49 46 49 42 42 60 43 1990's 48 48 52 50 49 51 52 55 51 41 2000's 67 73 77 86 95 100 117 112 114 113 2010's 93 75 65 62 58 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015

  15. Montana Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet) Montana Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 31 71 47 1980's 45 60 33 31 38 3 7 2 1 126 1990's 40 17 16 0 1 0 2 22 6 15 2000's 57 36 96 146 131 130 144 81 75 32 2010's 86 14 37 36 77 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016

  16. Montana Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet) Montana Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 25 21 86 1980's 189 83 95 79 77 40 31 16 33 25 1990's 32 33 21 11 76 14 12 133 43 55 2000's 133 90 109 26 124 122 78 74 56 210 2010's 100 97 191 49 54 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release

  17. Montana Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Increases (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Increases (Billion Cubic Feet) Montana Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Increases (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 112 120 45 1980's 72 102 72 58 54 65 60 57 48 91 1990's 34 20 22 29 26 133 59 99 119 98 2000's 130 82 40 46 73 63 65 92 41 132 2010's 103 43 31 113 89 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release

  18. Montana Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Sales (Billion Cubic Feet) Montana Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 9 57 10 225 3 6 20 41 90 3 2010's 40 44 30 72 2 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales Montana Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves Dry Natural

  19. Montana Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 439 457 542 437 449 474 519 1990's 557 518 423 295 206 168 168 188 208 235 2000's 218 396 249 512 606 697 820 816 788 771 2010's 800 604 612 645 657 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release

  20. Montana Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 0 1990's 0 2 2 4 6 8 13 40 31 38 2000's 43 53 54 66 74 4 2 1 1 1 2010's 1 0 1 1 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Delivered to

  1. Nebraska Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 225 119 7 283 65 4 81 130 299 210 1990's 493 92 283 287 393 115 915 505 0 377 2000's 288 598 187 601 449 185 303 214 159 165 2010's 346 147 1 407 481 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  2. Nebraska Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 130 173 293 121 135 140 129 115 167 414 1990's 155 211 173 222 367 248 788 383 351 201 2000's 421 251 217 518 441 306 181 196 174 175 2010's 308 220 141 128 683 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next

  3. Nebraska Natural Gas Lease Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas Lease Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 60 70 57 40 43 26 21 1990's 26 17 31 56 86 58 43 38 37 29 2000's 31 29 295 286 302 236 176 182 395 359 2010's 331 287 194 194 62 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016

  4. Nebraska Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 34 35 30 19 31 21 13 1990's 0 14 9 0 3 2 3 7 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Fuel

  5. Nebraska Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 1,170 794 598 1970's 555 599 539 474 460 313 259 226 168 139 1980's 126 153 133 137 132 115 77 81 59 29 1990's 0 13 3 8 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  6. Nevada Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet) Nevada Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 53 30 21 16 13 11 9 9 8 2000's 7 7 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 2010's 4 3 4 3 3 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Dry Production Nevada Natural Gas Gross

  7. Nevada Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Nevada Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 294 241 133 419 217 441 213 696 1990's 356 767 83 253 241 259 180 276 92 206 2000's 153 211 181 193 199 587 316 202 174 106 2010's 125 112 82 153 227 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  8. Nevada Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Nevada Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 5 92 65 330 107 185 383 491 1990's 904 39 155 244 271 228 109 214 124 235 2000's 170 210 174 214 198 595 261 275 157 182 2010's 195 154 146 210 211 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  9. Nevada Natural Gas Lease Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Nevada Natural Gas Lease Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 0 1990's 0 53 30 21 16 13 11 9 9 8 2000's 7 7 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 2010's 4 3 4 3 3 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Lease Fuel Consumption

  10. New Hampshire Natural Gas Exports (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Exports (Million Cubic Feet) New Hampshire Natural Gas Exports (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 64 0 2010's 0 336 199 95 373 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: U.S. Natural Gas Exports New Hampshire U.S. Natural Gas Imports & Exports Natural Gas Exports

  11. New Hampshire Natural Gas Input Supplemental Fuels (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Input Supplemental Fuels (Million Cubic Feet) New Hampshire Natural Gas Input Supplemental Fuels (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980's 774 720 582 328 681 509 362 464 492 592 1990's 205 128 96 154 160 90 147 102 103 111 2000's 180 86 66 58 91 84 92 9 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  12. New Hampshire Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) New Hampshire Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 5 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 29 80 138 99 27 101 45 82 2010's 33 112 65 124 185 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Additions of

  13. New Hampshire Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) New Hampshire Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 27 11 21 84 0 0 100 91 142 213 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 102 37 0 82 137 100 26 103 44 73 2010's 35 108 71 124 185 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring

  14. New Mexico Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet) New Mexico Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 1,087 307 1,052 852 1,323 1,238 6,278 376 192 292 2010's 419 1,078 115 594 62 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions

  15. New Mexico Dry Natural Gas Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet) New Mexico Dry Natural Gas Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 13 -20 -37 1980's -282 866 -779 -135 -78 131 -176 -76 249 255 1990's 342 683 313 -124 -641 284 -106 -664 -48 394 2000's 18 9 199 -104 126 44 91 136 -6 525 2010's -89 73 153 -202 555 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  16. New Mexico Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Sales (Billion Cubic Feet) New Mexico Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 649 312 1,029 652 682 963 6,248 570 402 287 2010's 145 1,016 311 705 15 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Dry Natural Gas Reserves Sales New Mexico Dry Natural Gas

  17. New York Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) New York Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 150 878 1,170 1,050 836 1,073 777 892 370 595 1990's 303 309 363 440 835 886 1,262 760 260 454 2000's 938 575 822 1,988 913 635 597 656 717 1,025 2010's 705 671 584 528 1,194 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  18. North Dakota Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet) North Dakota Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 9 5 42 6 22 22 40 43 26 1 2010's 136 169 206 384 322 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions North Dakota Dry

  19. North Dakota Dry Natural Gas Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet) North Dakota Dry Natural Gas Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 0 16 -23 1980's -7 31 -1 -9 21 -31 6 -3 6 29 1990's 56 -93 44 49 -47 -2 22 -2 -31 -13 2000's 21 17 18 25 -29 -10 18 12 -7 47 2010's -2 -3 -56 -208 -31 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release

  20. North Dakota Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet) North Dakota Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 2 5 37 1980's 31 69 60 23 28 17 10 5 51 8 1990's 16 11 17 21 7 2 5 25 25 1 2000's 3 3 8 5 7 49 30 59 102 401 2010's 442 572 834 1,523 1,161 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: