National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for gas capacity ownership

  1. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    of capacity that may understate the amount that can actually be stored. Working Gas Design Capacity: This measure estimates a natural gas facility's working gas capacity, as...

  2. California Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) California Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  3. Washington Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Washington Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  4. Mississippi Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  5. Pennsylvania Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May...

  6. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Salt Caverns Storage Capacity Aquifers Storage Capacity Depleted Fields Storage Capacity Total Working Gas Capacity Working Gas Capacity of Salt Caverns Working Gas Capacity of Aquifers Working Gas Capacity of Depleted Fields Total Number of Existing Fields Number of Existing Salt Caverns Number of Existing Aquifers Number of Depleted Fields Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data

  7. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

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

    Salt Caverns Storage Capacity Aquifers Storage Capacity Depleted Fields Storage Capacity Total Working Gas Capacity Working Gas Capacity of Salt Caverns Working Gas Capacity of Aquifers Working Gas Capacity of Depleted Fields Total Number of Existing Fields Number of Existing Salt Caverns Number of Existing Aquifers Number of Depleted Fields Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data

  8. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    Capacity Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity Released: September 3, 2010 for data as of April 2010 Next Release: August 2011 References Methodology Definitions...

  9. ,"Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)...

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

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release...

  10. ,"Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9...

  11. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Previous Articles Previous Articles Estimates of Peak Underground Working Gas Storage Capacity in the United States, 2009 Update (Released, 8312009) Estimates of Peak Underground...

  12. Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity - Methodology

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    ... changed to active. References Methodology Related Links Storage Basics Field Level Annual Capacity Data Map of Storage Facilities Natural Gas Data Tables Short-Term Energy Outlook

  13. ,"Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity "

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

    ...orcapaepg0sacmmcfm.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ... 1: Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity " "Sourcekey","N5290US2","NGMEP...

  14. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Citygate Price Residential Price Commercial Price Industrial Price Electric Power Price Gross Withdrawals Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Oil Wells Gross Withdrawals From Shale Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Coalbed Wells Repressuring Nonhydrocarbon Gases Removed Vented and Flared Marketed Production NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Dry Production Imports By Pipeline LNG Imports Exports Exports By Pipeline LNG Exports Underground Storage Capacity Gas in Underground

  15. Montana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  16. Assessment of the Adequacy of Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity in...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Assessment of the Adequacy of Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity in the Northeast United States - November 2013 Assessment of the Adequacy of Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity in the...

  17. New Mexico Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  18. Kansas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  19. West Virginia Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May...

  20. Indiana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  1. Oregon Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  2. Arkansas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  3. Alaska Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  4. Oklahoma Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  5. Nebraska Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  6. Michigan Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  7. Minnesota Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  8. Utah Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  9. Missouri Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  10. Virginia Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Virginia Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  11. Maryland Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  12. Wyoming Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  13. Ohio Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  14. Illinois Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  15. Iowa Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Iowa Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  16. Kentucky Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  17. Texas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  18. Louisiana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  19. Alabama Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  20. New York Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) New York Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  1. Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2013 2014 View History Total Storage Capacity 83,592 83,592 2013-2014 Depleted Fields 83,592 83,592 2013-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 67,915 67,915 2013-2014 Depleted Fields 67,915 67,915 2013-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 5 5 2013-2014 Depleted Fields 5 5 2013

  2. Alabama Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 33,150 33,150 33,150 33,150 33,150 33,150 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2

  3. Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2013-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 67,915 67,915 67,915 67,915 67,915 67,915 2013-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 5 5 5 5 5 5

  4. Washington Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    39,210 41,309 43,673 46,900 46,900 46,900 1988-2014 Aquifers 39,210 41,309 43,673 46,900 46,900 46,900 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 0 0 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 23,514...

  5. Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  6. Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    1,079,462 1,070,462 1,070,462 1,071,630 1,071,630 1,071,630 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 682,569 682,569 682,569 685,726 685,726 685,726 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 44 44 44 44 44 44

  7. Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2

  8. Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    31,301 331,301 331,301 331,812 331,812 331,812 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 200,903 200,903 200,903 201,388 201,388 201,388 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 12 12 12 12 12 12

  9. Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6

  10. Montana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    76,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 5 5 5 5 5 5

  11. New York Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    245,779 245,779 245,779 245,779 245,779 245,779 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 126,871 126,871 126,871 126,871 126,871 126,871 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 26 26 26 26 26 26

  12. Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    575,794 575,794 575,794 575,794 575,794 575,794 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 230,828 230,828 230,828 230,828 230,828 230,828 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 24 24 24 24 24 24

  13. Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    376,435 376,435 374,735 375,135 375,135 375,143 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 190,955 190,955 189,255 189,455 189,455 191,455 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 13 13 13 13 13 13

  14. Oregon Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    29,565 29,565 29,565 29,565 29,565 29,565 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,935 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 7 7 7 7 7 7

  15. Pennsylvania Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    771,422 771,422 771,422 771,422 771,422 771,422 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 429,796 429,796 429,796 429,796 429,796 429,796 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 49 49 49 49 49 49

  16. Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    832,644 832,644 832,644 832,644 832,644 834,965 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 528,445 528,335 528,335 528,335 528,335 528,335 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 36 36 36 36 36 36

  17. Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    124,518 124,518 124,509 124,509 124,509 124,509 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 54,942 54,942 54,942 54,942 54,942 54,942 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 3 3 3 3 3 3

  18. Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2

  19. California Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    603,012 603,012 603,012 601,808 601,808 601,808 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 376,996 376,996 376,996 375,496 375,496 375,496 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 14 14 14 14 14 14

  20. Colorado Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    130,186 130,186 130,186 130,186 130,186 130,186 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 63,774 63,774 63,774 63,774 63,774 63,774 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 10 10 10 10 10 10

  1. Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    ,004,598 1,004,598 1,003,899 1,004,100 1,004,100 1,004,100 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 304,312 304,312 303,613 303,613 303,613 303,613 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 28 28 28 28 28 28

  2. Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    10,749 110,749 110,749 110,749 111,581 111,581 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 32,760 32,760 32,760 32,760 33,592 33,592 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 21 21 21 21 21 21

  3. Iowa Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    288,210 288,210 288,210 288,210 288,210 288,210 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 90,313 90,313 90,313 90,313 90,313 90,313 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 4 4 4 4 4 4

  4. Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    82,984 282,984 282,984 282,984 282,984 282,984 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 122,980 122,980 122,980 122,980 122,980 122,980 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 17 17 17 17 17 17

  5. Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    21,723 221,723 221,723 221,722 221,722 221,722 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 107,600 107,600 107,572 107,571 107,571 107,571 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 23 23 23 23 23 23

  6. Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    742,627 742,627 749,867 749,867 749,867 749,867 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 452,359 452,359 457,530 457,530 457,530 457,530 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 19 19 19 19 19 19

  7. West Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    528,637 528,637 528,637 528,637 528,637 528,637 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 259,324 259,324 259,324 259,321 259,321 259,315 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 30 30 30 30 30 30

  8. Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    157,985 157,985 157,985 157,985 157,985 157,985 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 73,705 73,705 73,705 73,705 73,705 73,705 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 9 9 9 9 9 9

  9. Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 1988-2014 Aquifers 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2008-2014...

  10. Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    10,889 11,502 13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 1988-2014 Aquifers 10,889 11,502 13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 3,040 3,656 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000...

  11. Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    1,200 0 NA NA 1998-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 1,200 0 0 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 860 0 0 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 860 0 0 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1 1998-2014 Depleted Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  12. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Pipeline Capacity and Utilization

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

    Pipeline Utilization & Capacity About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity & Utilization Overview | Utilization Rates | Integration of Storage | Varying Rates of Utilization | Measures of Utilization Overview of Pipeline Utilization Natural gas pipeline companies prefer to operate their systems as close to full capacity as possible to maximize their revenues. However, the average

  13. Pennsylvania Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    776,964 776,822 776,845 774,309 774,309 774,309 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 776,964 776,822 776,845 774,309 774,309 774,309 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 431,137 431,086 433,110 434,179 433,214 433,214 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 942 938 938 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 431,137 431,086 433,110 433,236 432,276 432,276 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 51 51 51 51 51 51 1989-2014 Aquifers 1 1 1 2012-2014 Depleted Fields

  14. Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    766,768 783,579 812,394 831,190 842,072 834,124 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 182,725 196,140 224,955 246,310 253,220 254,136 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 584,042 587,439 587,439 584,881 588,852 579,988 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 504,524 509,961 532,336 533,336 541,161 528,485 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 123,664 130,621 152,102 164,439 168,143 167,546 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 380,859 379,340 380,234 368,897 373,018 360,938 2008-2014 Total Number of

  15. Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    20,368 221,751 221,751 221,751 221,723 221,723 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 9,567 9,567 9,567 9,567 9,567 6,567 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 210,801 212,184 212,184 212,184 212,156 215,156 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 103,484 107,600 107,600 107,600 107,600 107,600 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 6,629 6,629 6,629 6,629 6,629 4,619 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 96,855 100,971 100,971 100,971 100,971 102,981 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 23 23 23 23 23

  16. Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    51,968 670,880 690,295 699,646 733,939 745,029 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 123,341 142,253 161,668 297,020 213,039 224,129 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 528,626 528,626 528,626 402,626 520,900 520,900 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 369,031 384,864 397,627 412,482 446,713 454,140 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 84,487 100,320 111,849 200,702 154,333 161,260 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 284,544 284,544 285,779 211,780 292,380 292,880 2008-2014 Total Number of

  17. Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    4,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  18. Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    210,128 235,638 240,241 289,416 303,522 331,469 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 62,301 82,411 90,452 139,627 153,733 181,810 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 147,827 153,227 149,789 149,789 149,789 149,659 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 108,978 127,248 131,091 168,602 180,654 201,250 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 43,758 56,928 62,932 100,443 109,495 130,333 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 65,220 70,320 68,159 68,159 71,159 70,917 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields

  19. Montana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    76,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 197,508 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 197,508 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 5 5 5 5 5 5 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 5 5 5 5 5 5

  20. Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    129,480 129,480 124,465 124,465 124,465 124,465 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 11,980 11,980 4,265 4,265 4,265 4,265 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 117,500 117,500 120,200 120,200 120,200 120,200 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 52,198 52,189 54,889 54,898 54,898 54,898 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 948 939 939 948 948 948 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 51,250 51,250 53,950 53,950 53,950 53,950 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 3 3 3 3 3 3 1989-2014 Aquifers 2 2

  1. Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    111,120 111,120 106,764 124,937 157,985 157,985 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 10,000 10,000 6,733 6,705 6,705 6,705 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 101,120 101,120 100,030 118,232 151,280 151,280 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 42,140 42,134 41,284 48,705 73,705 73,705 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 836 830 830 836 836 836 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 41,304 41,304 40,454 47,869 72,869 72,869 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 8 8 8 9 9 9 1989-2014 Aquifers 1 1

  2. Nebraska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    4,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 13,619 14,819 14,819 14,819 14,819 14,819 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 13,619 14,819 14,819 14,819 14,819 14,819 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  3. New Mexico Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    80,000 84,300 84,300 89,100 89,100 89,100 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 80,000 84,300 84,300 89,100 89,100 89,100 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 55,300 59,000 59,000 63,300 59,738 59,738 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 55,300 59,000 59,000 63,300 59,738 59,738 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2 1989-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2

  4. New York Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    245,579 245,579 245,579 245,579 245,779 245,779 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 2,340 2,340 2,340 0 2,340 2,340 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 243,239 243,239 243,239 245,579 243,439 243,439 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 128,976 128,976 128,976 129,026 129,551 129,551 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 1,450 1,450 1,450 0 1,450 1,450 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 127,526 127,526 127,526 129,026 128,101 128,101 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 26 26 26 26 26 26

  5. Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    580,380 580,380 580,380 577,944 577,944 577,944 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 580,380 580,380 580,380 577,944 577,944 577,944 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 225,154 228,350 230,350 230,350 230,828 230,828 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 225,154 228,350 230,350 230,350 230,828 230,828 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 24 24 24 24 24 24 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 24 24 24 24 24 24

  6. Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    371,338 371,338 372,838 370,838 370,535 375,935 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 170 170 170 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 371,338 371,338 372,838 370,668 370,365 375,765 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 176,868 179,858 183,358 180,858 181,055 188,455 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 31 31 31 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 176,868 179,858 183,358 180,828 181,025 188,425 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 13 13 13 13 13 13 1989-2014 Aquifers 1 1 1 2012-2014 Depleted

  7. Oregon Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    29,565 29,565 29,565 28,750 29,565 29,565 1989-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 29,565 29,565 29,565 28,750 29,565 29,565 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,510 15,935 15,935 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,510 15,935 15,935 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 7 7 7 7 7 7 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 7 7 7 7 7 7

  8. California Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    513,005 542,511 570,511 592,411 599,711 599,711 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 12,000 12,000 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 513,005 542,511 570,511 592,411 587,711 587,711 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 296,096 311,096 335,396 349,296 374,296 374,296 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 10,000 10,000 2009-2014 Depleted Fields 296,096 311,096 335,396 349,296 364,296 364,296 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 13 13 13 14 14 14 1989-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0

  9. Colorado Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    105,768 105,768 105,858 124,253 122,086 130,186 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 105,768 105,768 105,858 124,253 122,086 130,186 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 48,129 49,119 48,709 60,582 60,582 63,774 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 48,129 49,119 48,709 60,582 60,582 63,774 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 9 9 9 10 10 10 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 9 9 9 10 10 10

  10. Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    989,454 990,487 997,364 999,931 1,000,281 1,004,547 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 885,848 772,381 777,294 779,862 974,362 978,624 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 103,606 218,106 220,070 220,070 25,920 25,923 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 303,761 303,500 302,385 302,962 303,312 304,312 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 252,344 216,132 215,017 215,594 291,544 292,544 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 51,418 87,368 87,368 87,368 11,768 11,768 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing

  11. Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    114,274 111,271 111,313 110,749 110,749 110,749 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 81,328 81,268 81,310 80,746 80,746 80,746 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 32,946 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 32,157 32,982 33,024 33,024 33,024 33,024 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 19,367 19,437 19,479 19,215 19,215 19,215 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 12,791 13,545 13,545 13,809 13,809 13,809 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 22 22 22 22 22 22

  12. Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    82,300 284,821 284,731 284,905 283,974 282,984 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 931 931 931 931 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 281,370 283,891 283,800 283,974 283,974 282,984 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 119,339 123,190 123,225 123,343 122,970 122,980 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 375 375 375 375 0 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 118,964 122,814 122,850 122,968 122,970 122,980 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 19 19 19 19 18 17 1989-2014 Salt Caverns 1 1 1 1 0

  13. Arkansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    1,760 21,760 21,359 21,853 21,853 21,853 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 21,760 21,760 21,359 21,853 21,853 21,853 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 13,898 13,898 12,036 12,178 12,178 12,178 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 13,898 13,898 12,036 12,178 12,178 12,178 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2

  14. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

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

    Total Working Gas Capacity Total Number of Existing Fields Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 View History U.S. 9,228,173 9,219,173 9,224,005 9,225,079 9,225,911 9,228,240 1989-2015 Alaska 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2013-2015 Lower 48 States 9,144,581 9,135,581 9,140,412 9,141,486 9,142,319 9,144,648

  15. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)...

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

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9...

  16. Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    1,069,405 1,069,898 1,075,472 1,078,979 1,079,424 1,079,462 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 3,821 3,834 3,834 3,834 3,834 3,834 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 1,065,583 1,066,064 1,071,638 1,075,145 1,075,590 1,075,629 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 666,636 667,065 672,632 673,200 674,967 675,003 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 2,150 2,159 2,159 2,159 2,159 2,159 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 664,486 664,906 670,473 671,041 672,808 672,844 2008-2014 Total Number of

  17. Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 1998-2014 Salt Caverns 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 2009-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2 1998-2014 Salt Caverns 1 1 1 1 1 1

  18. Alabama Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6,900 32,900 35,400 35,400 35,400 43,600 1995-2014 Salt Caverns 15,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 30,100 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 11,000 11,000 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 20,900 25,150 27,350 27,350 27,350 33,150 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 11,900 16,150 16,150 16,150 16,150 21,950 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 9,000 9,000 11,200 11,200 11,200 11,200 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2 1995-2014 Salt

  19. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

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

    Pipeline and Distribution Use Price Citygate Price Residential Price Commercial Price Industrial Price Vehicle Fuel Price Electric Power Price Proved Reserves as of 12/31 Reserves Adjustments Reserves Revision Increases Reserves Revision Decreases Reserves Sales Reserves Acquisitions Reserves Extensions Reserves New Field Discoveries New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields Estimated Production Number of Producing Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From

  20. ,"U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity"

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

    012015 7:00:34 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity" "Sourcekey","N5290US2","NA1393NUS2","NA1392NUS2","NA1391NUS2","NGAEP...

  1. ,"U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity"

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

    012015 7:00:34 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity" "Sourcekey","N5290US2","NGAEPG0SACW0NUSMMCF","NA1394NUS8"...

  2. West Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    531,456 531,480 524,324 524,324 524,337 528,637 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 531,456 531,480 524,324 524,324 524,337 528,637 1999-2014 Total Working Gas...

  3. Iowa Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    284,747 284,811 288,010 288,210 288,210 288,210 1988-2013 Aquifers 284,747 284,811 288,010 288,210 288,210 288,210 1999-2013 Depleted Fields 0 0 1999-2013 Total Working Gas...

  4. Nitrogen expander cycles for large capacity liquefaction of natural gas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chang, Ho-Myung; Park, Jae Hoon; Gwak, Kyung Hyun; Choe, Kun Hyung

    2014-01-29

    Thermodynamic study is performed on nitrogen expander cycles for large capacity liquefaction of natural gas. In order to substantially increase the capacity, a Brayton refrigeration cycle with nitrogen expander was recently added to the cold end of the reputable propane pre-cooled mixed-refrigerant (C3-MR) process. Similar modifications with a nitrogen expander cycle are extensively investigated on a variety of cycle configurations. The existing and modified cycles are simulated with commercial process software (Aspen HYSYS) based on selected specifications. The results are compared in terms of thermodynamic efficiency, liquefaction capacity, and estimated size of heat exchangers. The combination of C3-MR with partial regeneration and pre-cooling of nitrogen expander cycle is recommended to have a great potential for high efficiency and large capacity.

  5. AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 4,737,921 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,446 4,727,446 4,727,446 4,727,509 1995 4,730,109 4,647,791 4,647,791 4,647,791 4,647,791 4,647,791 4,593,948 4,593,948 4,593,948 4,593,948 4,593,948 4,593,948 1996 4,593,948

  6. AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 2,026,828 2,068,220 2,068,220 2,068,428 2,068,428 2,068,428 2,074,428 2,082,928 2,082,928 2,082,928 2,082,928 2,082,928 1995 2,082,928 2,096,611 2,096,611 2,096,176 2,096,176 2,096,176 2,090,331 2,090,331 2,090,331 2,090,331 2,090,331 2,090,331 1996 2,095,131 2,106,116

  7. AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 1,226,103 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1995 1,232,392 1,233,637 1,233,637 1,233,637 1,233,637 1,243,137 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1996 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446

  8. Midwest Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Midwest Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,723,336 2,725,497 2,725,535 2015 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,716,587 2,715,888 2,717,255 2,718,087 2,718,087 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable;

  9. South Central Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) South Central Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 2,578,946 2,577,866 2,578,498 2,578,547 2,590,575 2,599,184 2,611,335 2,616,178 2,612,570 2,613,746 2,635,148 2,634,993 2015 2,631,717 2,630,903 2,631,616 2,631,673 2,631,673 2,631,444 2,631,444 2,631,444 2,636,984 2,637,895 2,637,895 2,640,224 - = No Data Reported; -- =

  10. Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 8,842,950 8,854,720 8,854,720 8,882,728 8,905,843 8,919,139 8,922,097 8,940,010 8,979,317 8,991,571 8,990,535 8,992,535 2013 8,965,468 8,971,280 8,986,201 8,988,916 9,020,589 9,027,650 9,033,704 9,048,658 9,087,425 9,093,741 9,090,861 9,089,358 2014 9,081,309 9,080,229 9,080,862 9,080,910

  11. Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity - U.S. Energy Information

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Administration Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity With Data for November 2015 | Release Date: March 16, 2016 | Next Release Date: February 2017 Previous Issues Year: 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 prior issues Go Natural gas storage capacity nearly unchanged nationally, but regions vary U.S. natural gas working storage capacity (in terms of design capacity and demonstrated maximum working gas volumes) as of November 2015 was essentially flat compared to November 2014, with some

  12. Natural Gas Productive Capacity for the Lower-48 States 1985 - 2003

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

    Productive Capacity for the Lower-48 States 1985 - 2003 EIA Home > Natural Gas > Natural Gas Analysis Publications Natural Gas Productive Capacity for the Lower-48 States 1985 - 2003 Printer-Friendly Version gascapdata.xls ratiodata.xls wellcountdata.xls Executive Summary This analysis examines the availability of effective productive capacity to meet the projected wellhead demand for natural gas through 2003. Effective productive capacity is defined as the maximum production available

  13. Assessment of the Adequacy of Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity in the

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Northeast United States - November 2013 | Department of Energy Assessment of the Adequacy of Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity in the Northeast United States - November 2013 Assessment of the Adequacy of Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity in the Northeast United States - November 2013 In 2005-06, the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) conducted a study on the adequacy of interstate natural gas pipeline capacity serving the northeastern United States to meet natural gas demand

  14. Estimate of Maximum Underground Working Gas Storage Capacity in the United States: 2007 Update

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2007-01-01

    This report provides an update to an estimate for U.S. aggregate natural gas storage capacity that was released in 2006.

  15. Natural gas productive capacity for the lower 48 states 1984 through 1996, February 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1996-02-09

    This is the fourth wellhead productive capacity report. The three previous ones were published in 1991, 1993, and 1994. This report should be of particular interest to those in Congress, Federal and State agencies, industry, and the academic community, who are concerned with the future availability of natural gas. The EIA Dallas Field Office has prepared five earlier reports regarding natural gas productive capacity. These reports, Gas Deliverability and Flow Capacity of Surveillance Fields, reported deliverability and capacity data for selected gas fields in major gas producing areas. The data in the reports were based on gas-well back-pressure tests and estimates of gas-in-place for each field or reservoir. These reports use proven well testing theory, most of which has been employed by industry since 1936 when the Bureau of Mines first published Monograph 7. Demand for natural gas in the United States is met by a combination of natural gas production, underground gas storage, imported gas, and supplemental gaseous fuels. Natural gas production requirements in the lower 48 States have been increasing during the last few years while drilling has remained at low levels. This has raised some concern about the adequacy of future gas supplies, especially in periods of peak heating or cooling demand. The purpose of this report is to address these concerns by presenting a 3-year projection of the total productive capacity of natural gas at the wellhead for the lower 48 States. Alaska is excluded because Alaskan gas does not enter the lower-48 States pipeline system. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) generates this 3-year projection based on historical gas-well drilling and production data from State, Federal, and private sources. In addition to conventional gas-well gas, coalbed gas and oil-well gas are also included.

  16. Estimate of Maximum Underground Working Gas Storage Capacity in the United States

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2006-01-01

    This report examines the aggregate maximum capacity for U.S. natural gas storage. Although the concept of maximum capacity seems quite straightforward, there are numerous issues that preclude the determination of a definitive maximum volume. The report presents three alternative estimates for maximum capacity, indicating appropriate caveats for each.

  17. Natural gas productive capacity for the lower 48 States, 1980 through 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-07-14

    The purpose of this report is to analyze monthly natural gas wellhead productive capacity in the lower 48 States from 1980 through 1992 and project this capacity from 1993 through 1995. For decades, natural gas supplies and productive capacity have been adequate to meet demand. In the 1970`s the capacity surplus was small because of market structure (split between interstate and intrastate), increasing demand, and insufficient drilling. In the early 1980`s, lower demand, together with increased drilling, led to a large surplus capacity as new productive capacity came on line. After 1986, this large surplus began to decline as demand for gas increased, gas prices fell, and gas well completions dropped sharply. In late December 1989, the decline in this surplus, accompanied by exceptionally high demand and temporary weather-related production losses, led to concerns about the adequacy of monthly productive capacity for natural gas. These concerns should have been moderated by the gas system`s performance during the unusually severe winter weather in March 1993 and January 1994. The declining trend in wellhead productive capacity is expected to be reversed in 1994 if natural gas prices and drilling meet or exceed the base case assumption. This study indicates that in the low, base, and high drilling cases, monthly productive capacity should be able to meet normal production demands through 1995 in the lower 48 States (Figure ES1). Exceptionally high peak-day or peak-week production demand might not be met because of physical limitations such as pipeline capacity. Beyond 1995, as the capacity of currently producing wells declines, a sufficient number of wells and/or imports must be added each year in order to ensure an adequate gas supply.

  18. Mountain Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 904,787 904,787 904,787 904,787 904,787 904,787 909,887 912,887 912,887...

  19. Mountain Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 461,243 461,243 461,243 461,243 461,243 461,243 461,243 464,435 464,435...

  20. Pacific Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176...

  1. Pacific Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage Capacity...

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

    Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 414,831 414,831 414,831 414,831 414,831 414,831 414,831 414,831 414,831...

  2. Huge natural gas reserves central to capacity work, construction plans in Iran

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-07-11

    Questions about oil production capacity in Iran tend to mask the country's huge potential as a producer of natural gas. Iran is second only to Russia in gas reserves, which National Iranian Gas Co. estimates at 20.7 trillion cu m. Among hurdles to Iran's making greater use of its rich endowment of natural gas are where and how to sell gas not used inside the country. The marketing logistics problem is common to other Middle East holders of gas reserves and a reason behind the recent proliferation of proposals for pipeline and liquefied natural gas schemes targeting Europe and India. But Iran's challenges are greater than most in the region. Political uncertainties and Islamic rules complicate long-term financing of transportation projects and raise questions about security of supply. As a result, Iran has remained mostly in the background of discussions about international trade of Middle Eastern gas. The country's huge gas reserves, strategic location, and existing transport infrastructure nevertheless give it the potential to be a major gas trader if the other issues can be resolved. The paper discusses oil capacity plans, gas development, gas injection for enhanced oil recovery, proposals for exports of gas, and gas pipeline plans.

  3. U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Acquifers Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (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 396,950 396,092 2010's 364,228 363,521 367,108 453,054 452,044 - = 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: Working Gas

  4. U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Salt Caverns Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (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 230,456 271,785 2010's 312,003 351,017 488,268 455,729 488,698 - = 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: Working Gas

  5. Ownership questions can stymie development of coalbed methane

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Counts, R.A. )

    1990-01-01

    Although the technology exists for commercial recovery of coalbed methane, production has been hindered because of the legal quandary as to ownership. The author discusses how claims to ownership of coalbed methane can and have been made by the coal owner or lessee, the oil and gas owner or lessee, the surface owner, or any combination thereof. The federal perspective on this question of ownership is described and several state rulings are assessed.

  6. AGA totes up new U. S. gas-pipeline mileage, storage capacity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-07-04

    More than 8,000 miles of new US natural-gas transmission line or pipeline looping have been built, are under construction, or are proposed in 1993--94, the American Gas Association, Arlington, Va., states in its latest annual report on new construction. Additionally, AGA lists 47 proposed natural-gas storage projects in various stages of development to add more than 500 bcf of working-gas storage capacity and, if constructed, would increase total US working-gas storage capacity by nearly 20%. Throughout 1993 and 1994, more than $9 billion of new gas-pipeline construction projects have been in various stages of development. AGA classifies these projects as either built in 1993 or 1994 and operational, or currently under construction, or proposed and pending. In aggregate, the projects total 8,087 miles of new pipeline and pipeline looping, 1,098,940 hp of additional compression, and 15.3 bcfd of additional capacity. A table shows the regional breakout.

  7. Status of Natural Gas Pipeline System Capacity Entering the 2000-2001 Heating Season

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2000-01-01

    This special report looks at the capabilities of the national natural gas pipeline network in 2000 and provides an assessment of the current levels of available capacity to transport supplies from production areas to markets throughout the United States during the upcoming heating season. It also examines how completion of currently planned expansion projects and proposed new pipelines would affect the network.

  8. ,"Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mt2m.xls"

  9. ,"Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ne2m.xls"

  10. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290nm2m.xls"

  11. ,"New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ny2m.xls"

  12. ,"Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290oh2m.xls"

  13. ,"Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ok2m.xls"

  14. ,"Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290or2m.xls"

  15. ,"Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  16. ,"Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290tn2m.xls"

  17. ,"Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290tx2m.xls"

  18. ,"Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ut2m.xls"

  19. ,"Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290va2m.xls"

  20. ,"Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290wa2m.xls"

  1. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  2. ,"Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290wy2m.xls"

  3. U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Number

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

    of Elements) Acquifers Capacity (Number of Elements) U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 49 2000's 49 39 38 43 43 44 44 43 43 43 2010's 43 43 44 47 46 - = 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: Number of

  4. U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity

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

    (Number of Elements) Depleted Fields Capacity (Number of Elements) U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 335 2000's 336 351 340 318 320 320 322 326 324 331 2010's 331 329 330 332 333 - = 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. U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity

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

    (Number of Elements) Salt Caverns Capacity (Number of Elements) U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 29 2000's 28 28 29 30 30 30 31 31 34 35 2010's 37 38 40 40 39 - = 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. U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Depleted Fields Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (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 3,583,786 3,659,968 2010's 3,733,993 3,769,113 3,720,980 3,839,852 3,844,927 - = 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

  7. ,"Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290al2m.xls"

  8. ,"Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  9. ,"Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ar2m.xls"

  10. ,"California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ca2m.xls"

  11. ,"Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290co2m.xls"

  12. ,"Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290il2m.xls"

  13. ,"Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290in2m.xls"

  14. ,"Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ia2m.xls"

  15. ,"Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ks2m.xls"

  16. ,"Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ky2m.xls"

  17. ,"Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290la2m.xls"

  18. ,"Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290md2m.xls"

  19. ,"Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mi2m.xls"

  20. ,"Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mn2m.xls"

  1. ,"Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ms2m.xls"

  2. ,"Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mo2m.xls"

  3. U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Acquifers Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (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 1,263,106 2000's 1,263,711 1,195,141 1,234,007 1,237,132 1,238,158 1,350,689 1,356,323 1,347,516 1,351,832 1,340,633 2010's 1,233,017 1,231,897 1,237,269 1,443,769 1,445,031 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  4. U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Depleted Fields Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (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 6,780,700 2000's 6,788,130 6,768,622 6,747,108 6,733,983 6,776,894 6,667,222 6,711,656 6,801,291 6,805,490 6,917,547 2010's 7,074,773 7,104,948 7,038,245 7,074,916 7,085,773 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure

  5. U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Salt Caverns Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (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 185,451 2000's 189,043 218,483 225,958 234,601 239,990 250,532 261,988 253,410 341,213 397,560 2010's 456,009 512,279 715,821 654,266 702,548 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  6. “Assessment of the Adequacy of Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity in the Northeast United States” Report Now Available

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    In 2013, OE conducted an assessment to determine how changes to the Northeast gas market may have affected the ability of the interstate pipeline system to meet natural gas demand for “essential human needs” in the event of a disruption in pipeline capacity.

  7. Entity State Ownership Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Revenue for Delivery Service Providers (Data from form EIA-861 schedule 4C) Entity State Ownership Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Total Pacific Gas & Electric Co CA Investor Owned 58,038 366,593 243,892 4,112 672,635 San Diego Gas & Electric Co CA Investor Owned 596 91,379 113,352 0 205,326 Southern California Edison Co CA Investor Owned 4,502 517,154 90,847 0 612,503 Connecticut Light & Power Co CT Investor Owned 351,392 489,607 96,889 4,242 942,130 United

  8. Additions to Capacity on the U.S. Natural Gas Pipeline Network...

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

    ... for Providing Appropriate Access to Geospatial Data in Response to Security Concerns. Source: Energy Information Administration, GasTran Gas Transportation Information ...

  9. A Study of United States Hydroelectric Plant Ownership

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hall, Douglas G.; Reeves, Kelly S.

    2006-06-01

    Ownership of United States hydroelectric plants is reviewed from several perspectives. Plant owners are grouped into six owner classes as defined by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The numbers of plants and the corresponding total capacity associated with each owner class are enumerated. The plant owner population is also evaluated based on the number of owners in each owner class, the number of plants owned by a single owner, and the size of plants based on capacity ranges associated with each owner class. Plant numbers and corresponding total capacity associated with owner classes in each state are evaluated. Ownership by federal agencies in terms of the number of plants owned by each agency and the corresponding total capacity is enumerated. A GIS application that is publicly available on the Internet that displays hydroelectric plants on maps and provides basic information about them is described.

  10. Coal mine methane ownership issues

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2007-09-30

    The article summarizes the CMM ownership conditions in the US and the obstacles they present for project development. The first section discusses CMM resources and rights on lands controlled by the US Government, the case in several western states. The second section reviews the situation on private lands, such as in much of the eastern US, where ownership of the mineral; resources is governed by state laws. Each of the two sections analyses the ownership procedures and rules that govern both the relationship between the surface and subsurface owners and the relationship between two or more subsurface resource owners. 8 refs., 1 tab.

  11. Assessment of Factors Influencing Effective CO{sub 2} Storage Capacity and Injectivity in Eastern Gas Shales

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Godec, Michael

    2013-06-30

    Building upon advances in technology, production of natural gas from organic-rich shales is rapidly developing as a major hydrocarbon supply option in North America and around the world. The same technology advances that have facilitated this revolution - dense well spacing, horizontal drilling, and hydraulic fracturing - may help to facilitate enhanced gas recovery (EGR) and carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) storage in these formations. The potential storage of CO {sub 2} in shales is attracting increasing interest, especially in Appalachian Basin states that have extensive shale deposits, but limited CO{sub 2} storage capacity in conventional reservoirs. The goal of this cooperative research project was to build upon previous and on-going work to assess key factors that could influence effective EGR, CO{sub 2} storage capacity, and injectivity in selected Eastern gas shales, including the Devonian Marcellus Shale, the Devonian Ohio Shale, the Ordovician Utica and Point Pleasant shale and equivalent formations, and the late Devonian-age Antrim Shale. The project had the following objectives: (1) Analyze and synthesize geologic information and reservoir data through collaboration with selected State geological surveys, universities, and oil and gas operators; (2) improve reservoir models to perform reservoir simulations to better understand the shale characteristics that impact EGR, storage capacity and CO{sub 2} injectivity in the targeted shales; (3) Analyze results of a targeted, highly monitored, small-scale CO{sub 2} injection test and incorporate into ongoing characterization and simulation work; (4) Test and model a smart particle early warning concept that can potentially be used to inject water with uniquely labeled particles before the start of CO{sub 2} injection; (5) Identify and evaluate potential constraints to economic CO{sub 2} storage in gas shales, and propose development approaches that overcome these constraints; and (6) Complete new basin-level characterizations for the CO{sub 2} storage capacity and injectivity potential of the targeted eastern shales. In total, these Eastern gas shales cover an area of over 116 million acres, may contain an estimated 6,000 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas in place, and have a maximum theoretical storage capacity of over 600 million metric tons. Not all of this gas in-place will be recoverable, and economics will further limit how much will be economic to produce using EGR techniques with CO{sub 2} injection. Reservoir models were developed and simulations were conducted to characterize the potential for both CO{sub 2} storage and EGR for the target gas shale formations. Based on that, engineering costing and cash flow analyses were used to estimate economic potential based on future natural gas prices and possible financial incentives. The objective was to assume that EGR and CO{sub 2} storage activities would commence consistent with the historical development practices. Alternative CO{sub 2} injection/EGR scenarios were considered and compared to well production without CO{sub 2} injection. These simulations were conducted for specific, defined model areas in each shale gas play. The resulting outputs were estimated recovery per typical well (per 80 acres), and the estimated CO{sub 2} that would be injected and remain in the reservoir (i.e., not produced), and thus ultimately assumed to be stored. The application of this approach aggregated to the entire area of the four shale gas plays concluded that they contain nearly 1,300 Tcf of both primary production and EGR potential, of which an estimated 460 Tcf could be economic to produce with reasonable gas prices and/or modest incentives. This could facilitate the storage of nearly 50 Gt of CO{sub 2} in the Marcellus, Utica, Antrim, and Devonian Ohio shales.

  12. Backup Power Cost of Ownership Analysis and Incumbent Technology...

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

    Backup Power Cost of Ownership Analysis and Incumbent Technology Comparison Backup Power Cost of Ownership Analysis and Incumbent Technology Comparison This cost of ownership...

  13. Tribal Ownership & Capturing the Government Tax Base - 3 Projects

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Y TRIBAL OWNERSHIP & CAPTURING THE GOVERNMENT TAX BASE - 3 PROJECTS CAMPO BAND OF KUMEYAAY Southeast San Diego County 24 square miles Population: 365 GENERAL PARAMETERS * 66kV line on Reservation with substation * 500 kV line with substation 15 miles from Reservation * Interstate highway through Reservation * Railway line through Reservation * 3 MM in-County customer base * Average 30% capacity factor on ridge tops THREE APPROACHES * Kumeyaay Wind * 50 MW passive lease * 25 year lease *

  14. Property:CompanyOwnership | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Pages using the property "CompanyOwnership" Showing 5 pages using this property. E Eco Wave Power Ltd. + Private + I Individual developer + Private + N Nvision.Energy +...

  15. Applying the Battery Ownership Model in Pursuit of Optimal Battery...

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

    Applying the Battery Ownership Model in Pursuit of Optimal Battery Use Strategies Applying the Battery Ownership Model in Pursuit of Optimal Battery Use Strategies 2012 DOE ...

  16. Total Working Gas Capacity

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

    Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History U.S. 4,327,844 4,410,224 4,483,650 4,576,356 4,748,636 4,785,669 2008-2014 Alaska 67,915 67,915 2013-2014 Alabama 20,900 25,150 27,350 27,350 27,350 33,150 2008-2014 Arkansas 13,898 13,898 12,036 12,178 12,178 12,178 2008-2014 California 296,096 311,096 335,396 349,296 374,296 374,296 2008-2014

  17. Directory of coal production ownership, 1979

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Thompson, B.

    1981-10-01

    Ownership patterns in the coal industry are highly complex. Many producers are diversified into other lines of activity. The pattern and extent of this diversification has varied through time. In the past, steel and nonferrous metals companies had major coal industry involvement. This is still true today. However, other types of enterprises have entered the industry de novo or through merger. Those of greatest significance in recent times have involved petroleum and particularly public utility companies. This report attempts to identify, as accurately as possible, production ownership patterns in the coal industry. The audience for this Directory is anyone who is interested in accurately tracing the ownership of coal companies to parent companies, or who is concerned about the structure of ownership in the US coal industry. This audience includes coal industry specialists, coal industry policy analysts, economists, financial analysts, and members of the investment community.

  18. Enabling Legislation: Third-Party Ownership Resources | Department of

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

    Energy Enabling Legislation: Third-Party Ownership Resources Enabling Legislation: Third-Party Ownership Resources States can allow third-party ownership of renewable assets, which expands the type of financing available to the residential sector and encourages expansion of residential sector deployment. Third-party ownership models such as solar leases or residential power purchase agreements (PPAs) can take advantage of more tax incentives than homeowners can typically realize, ultimately

  19. Backup Power Cost of Ownership Analysis and Incumbent Technology Comparison

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

    | Department of Energy Backup Power Cost of Ownership Analysis and Incumbent Technology Comparison Backup Power Cost of Ownership Analysis and Incumbent Technology Comparison This cost of ownership analysis identifies the factors impacting the value proposition for fuel cell backup power and presents the estimated annualized cost of ownership for fuel cell backup power systems compared with the incumbent technologies of battery and diesel generator systems. The analysis compares three

  20. State Oil and Gas Boards | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    and protect the correlative rights of ownership associated with the production of oil, natural gas and brine, while protecting the environment during the production process,...

  1. Property:Building/OwnershipCategory | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    OwnershipCategory" Showing 25 pages using this property. (previous 25) (next 25) S Sweden Building 05K0001 + Government building + Sweden Building 05K0002 + Government building...

  2. Geothermal Regulations in Colorado - Land Ownership is the Key...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Conference Paper: Geothermal Regulations in Colorado - Land Ownership is the Key Abstract Geothermal resources in...

  3. Geothermal regulations in Colorado---land ownership is the key...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    ownership is the key Author P. Morgan Published Journal Geothermal Resources Council- Transactions, 2012 DOI Not Provided Check for DOI availability: http:crossref.org...

  4. Property:EIA/861/Ownership | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    10 different types of ownership categories: Federal; Political Subdivision; Municipal Marketing Authority; Cooperative; State; Municipal; Investor-Owned; Retail Power Marketer...

  5. Knudsen heat capacity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Babac, Gulru; Reese, Jason M.

    2014-05-15

    We present a Knudsen heat capacity as a more appropriate and useful fluid property in micro/nanoscale gas systems than the constant pressure heat capacity. At these scales, different fluid processes come to the fore that are not normally observed at the macroscale. For thermodynamic analyses that include these Knudsen processes, using the Knudsen heat capacity can be more effective and physical. We calculate this heat capacity theoretically for non-ideal monatomic and diatomic gases, in particular, helium, nitrogen, and hydrogen. The quantum modification for para and ortho hydrogen is also considered. We numerically model the Knudsen heat capacity using molecular dynamics simulations for the considered gases, and compare these results with the theoretical ones.

  6. Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence Program

    Broader source: Directives, Delegations, and Requirements [Office of Management (MA)]

    1993-06-14

    To establish the policies, responsibilities, and authorities for implementing the Department of Energy (DOE) Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) program, which is designed to obtain information that indicates whether DOE offerors/bidders or contractors/subcontractors are owned, controlled, or influenced by foreign individuals, governments, or organizations, and whether that foreign involvement may pose an undue risk to the common defense and security. This directive does not cancel another directive. Canceled by DOE O 470.1 of 9-28-1995.

  7. H. R. 2998: A bill to amend the Natural Gas Act to permit the development of coalbed methane gas in areas where its development has been impeded or made impossible by uncertainty and litigation over ownership rights, and for other purposes, introduced in the US House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress, First Session, July 23, 1991

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1991-01-01

    This bill would direct the Secretary of Energy to compile a list of affected states which are determined to be states in which disputes, uncertainty, or litigation exist or potentially exists regarding the ownership of coalbed methane; in which the development of significant deposits of coalbed methane may be impeded by such disputes; in which statutory or regulatory procedures permitting and encouraging development of coalbed methane prior to final resolution of disputes are not in place; and in which extensive development of coalbed methane does not exist. Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, Virginia, and Alabama are excluded from such a list since they currently have development of coalbed methane. Until the Secretary of Energy publishes a different list, the affected states are West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Indiana, and Illinois, effective on the date of enactment of this bill.

  8. Backup Power Cost of Ownership Analysis and Incumbent Technology Comparison

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This cost of ownership analysis identifies the factors impacting the value proposition for fuel cell backup power and presents the estimated annualized cost of ownership for fuel cell backup power systems compared with the incumbent technologies of battery and diesel generator systems.

  9. Natural Gas Aquifers Storage Capacity

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

    1,340,633 1,233,017 1,231,897 1,237,269 1,443,769 1,445,031 1999-2014 Alabama 0 0 1999-2014 Arkansas 0 0 1999-2014 California 0 0 12,000 12,000 1999-2014 Colorado 0 0 1999-2014 Illinois 885,848 772,381 777,294 779,862 974,362 978,624 1999-2014 Indiana 81,328 81,268 81,310 80,746 80,746 80,746 1999-2014 Iowa 284,811 288,010 288,210 288,210 288,210 288,210 1999-2014 Kansas 0 0 1999-2014 Kentucky 9,567 9,567 9,567 9,567 9,567 6,567 1999-2014 Louisiana 0 0 1999-2014 Michigan 0 0 1999-2014 Minnesota

  10. Working Gas Capacity of Aquifers

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

    96,092 364,228 363,521 367,108 453,054 452,044 2008-2014 Alabama 0 0 2012-2014 Arkansas 0 0 2012-2014 California 0 0 10,000 10,000 2009-2014 Colorado 0 0 2012-2014 Illinois 252,344 216,132 215,017 215,594 291,544 292,544 2008-2014 Indiana 19,367 19,437 19,479 19,215 19,215 19,215 2008-2014 Iowa 87,414 90,613 91,113 90,313 90,313 90,313 2008-2014 Kansas 0 0 2012-2014 Kentucky 6,629 6,629 6,629 6,629 6,629 4,619 2008-2014 Louisiana 0 0 2012-2014 Michigan 0 0 2012-2014 Minnesota 2,000 2,000 2,000

  11. PIA - e-Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) | Department of

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Energy PIA - e-Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) PIA - e-Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) June 25, 2008 PIA - e-Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) PDF icon PIA - e-Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) More Documents & Publications PIA - Weapons Data Control Systems PIA - FITPLUS PIA - Foreign Travel Management System (FTMS)

  12. Headquarters Security Operations Foreign Ownership Control or Influence Program

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Headquarters Foreign Ownership Control or Influence (FOCI) Program is established by DOE Order to evaluate the foreign involvement of a company being considered for award of a contract that...

  13. Backup Power Cost of Ownership Analysis and Incumbent Technology Comparison

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kurtz, J.; Saur, G.; Sprik, S.; Ainscough, C.

    2014-09-01

    This cost of ownership analysis identifies the factors impacting the value proposition for fuel cell backup power and presents the estimated annualized cost of ownership for fuel cell backup power systems compared with the incumbent technologies of battery and diesel generator systems. The analysis compares three different backup power technologies (diesel, battery, and fuel cell) operating in similar circumstances in four run time scenarios (8, 52, 72, and 176 hours).

  14. Community wind power ownership schemes in Europe and their relevance to the United States

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bolinger, Mark

    2001-05-15

    With varying success, the United States and Europe have followed a more or less parallel path of policies to support wind development over the past twenty years. Feed-in laws and tax incentives first popularized in California in the early 1980s and greatly expanded upon in Europe during the 1990s are gradually giving way to market-based support mechanisms such as renewable portfolio standards, which are being implemented in one form or another in ten US states and at least three European nations. At the same time, electricity markets are being liberalized in both the US and Europe, and many electricity consumers are being given the choice to support the development of renewable energy through higher tariffs, both in traditionally regulated and newly competitive markets. One notable area in which wind development in Europe and United States has not evolved in common, however, is with respect to the level of community ownership of wind turbines or clusters. While community ownership of wind projects is unheard of in the United States, in Europe, local wind cooperatives or other participatory business schemes have been responsible for a large share of total wind development. In Denmark, for example, approximately 80% of all wind turbines are either individually or cooperatively owned, and a similar pattern holds in Germany, the world leader in installed wind capacity. Sweden also has a strong wind cooperative base, and the UK has recently made forays into community wind ownership. Why is it that wind development has evolved this way in Europe, but not in the United States? What incremental effect have community-owned wind schemes had on European wind development? Have community-owned wind schemes driven development in Europe, or are they merely a vehicle through which the fundamental driving institutions have been channeled? Is there value to having community wind ownership in the US? Is there reason to believe that such schemes would succeed in the US? If so, which model seems most appropriate, and what barriers--legal, regulatory, tax, market, or investment--stand in the way of implementing such a scheme? These are the questions this report seeks to address. The report begins with a discussion of the relative advantages and disadvantages of community wind ownership, as opposed to the large commercially-owned projects that have so far dominated US wind development. Next, four detailed case studies relate community-owned wind experience in Denmark, Sweden, the UK, Germany, focusing primarily on the different participatory models employed in each country. The report then categorizes the various models into three main groupings--community-led, developer-led, and investment funds--and draws general conclusions about the success of each category in Europe, and the conditions that dictate the effective use of one approach over another. Finally, the focus shifts to the US, where the report discusses the domestic barriers facing each model category, and identifies the category offering the most value with the fewest barriers to implementation. The report concludes with a high-level introduction to potential applications for community wind ownership within the United States.

  15. An Evaluation of the Total Cost of Ownership of Fuel Cell-Powered...

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

    An Evaluation of the Total Cost of Ownership of Fuel Cell-Powered Material Handling Equipment An Evaluation of the Total Cost of Ownership of Fuel Cell-Powered Material Handling...

  16. Alternative windpower ownership structures: Financing terms and project costs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wiser, R.; Kahn, E.

    1996-05-01

    Most utility-scale renewable energy projects in the United States are developed and financed by private renewable energy companies. Electric output is then sold to investor-owned and public utilities under long-term contracts. Limited partnerships, sale/leaseback arrangements, and project-financing have historically been the dominant forms of finance in the windpower industry, with project-finance taking the lead more recently. Although private ownership using project-finance is still the most popular form of windpower development, alternative approaches to ownership and financing are becoming more prevalent. U.S. public and investor-owned electric utilities (IOUs) have begun to participate directly in windpower projects by owning and financing their own facilities rather than purchasing windpower from independent non-utility generators (NUGs) through power purchase agreements (PPAs). In these utility-ownership arrangements, the wind turbine equipment vendor/developer typically designs and constructs a project under a turnkey contract for the eventual project owner (the utility). The utility will also frequently sign an operations and maintenance (O&M) contract with the project developer/equipment vendor. There appear to be a number of reasons for utility involvement in recent and planned U.S. wind projects. One important claim is that utility ownership and self-finance provides substantial cost savings compared to contracting with private NUGs to supply wind-generated power. In this report, we examine that assertion.

  17. Water-Stable Zirconium-Based Metal-Organic Framework Material with High-Surface Area and Gas-Storage Capacities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gutov, OV; Bury, W; Gomez-Gualdron, DA; Krungleviciute, V; Fairen-Jimenez, D; Mondloch, JE; Sarjeant, AA; Al-Juaid, SS; Snurr, RQ; Hupp, JT; Yildirim, T; Farha, OK

    2014-08-14

    We designed, synthesized, and characterized a new Zr-based metal-organic framework material, NU-1100, with a pore volume of 1.53 ccg(-1) and Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) surface area of 4020 m(2)g(-1); to our knowledge, currently the highest published for Zr-based MOFs. CH4/CO2/H-2 adsorption isotherms were obtained over a broad range of pressures and temperatures and are in excellent agreement with the computational predictions. The total hydrogen adsorption at 65 bar and 77 K is 0.092 gg(-1), which corresponds to 43 gL(-1). The volumetric and gravimetric methane-storage capacities at 65 bar and 298 K are approximately 180 v(STP)/v and 0.27 gg(-1), respectively.

  18. Backup Power Cost of Ownership Analysis and Incumbent Technology Comparison

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

    Backup Power Cost of Ownership Analysis and Incumbent Technology Comparison J. Kurtz, G. Saur, S. Sprik, and C. Ainscough National Renewable Energy Laboratory NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. Technical Report NREL/TP-5400-60732 September 2014

  19. ACCESS TO AND OWNERSHIP OF RECORDS (OCT 2014) (DEVIATION

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

    ACCESS TO AND OWNERSHIP OF RECORDS (OCT 2014) (DEVIATION) (a) Government-owned records. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this clause, all records acquired or generated by the contractor in its performance of this contract, including records series described within the contract as Privacy Act systems of records, shall be the property of the Government and shall be maintained in accordance with 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Chapter XII, -- Subchapter B, "Records

  20. FAQs about Storage Capacity

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

    about Storage Capacity How do I determine if my tanks are in operation or idle or ... Do I have to report storage capacity every month? No, only report storage capacity with ...

  1. Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update...

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

    Natural Gas Processing Capacity (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Number of Natural Gas Plants Average Plant Capacity (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Change Between 2004 and 2009 State...

  2. A Total Cost of Ownership Model for Low Temperature PEM Fuel Cells in

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

    Combined Heat and Power and Backup Power Applications | Department of Energy A Total Cost of Ownership Model for Low Temperature PEM Fuel Cells in Combined Heat and Power and Backup Power Applications A Total Cost of Ownership Model for Low Temperature PEM Fuel Cells in Combined Heat and Power and Backup Power Applications This report prepared by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory describes a total cost of ownership model for emerging applications in stationary fuel cell systems. The

  3. High capacity carbon dioxide sorbent

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Dietz, Steven Dean; Alptekin, Gokhan; Jayaraman, Ambalavanan

    2015-09-01

    The present invention provides a sorbent for the removal of carbon dioxide from gas streams, comprising: a CO.sub.2 capacity of at least 9 weight percent when measured at 22.degree. C. and 1 atmosphere; an H.sub.2O capacity of at most 15 weight percent when measured at 25.degree. C. and 1 atmosphere; and an isosteric heat of adsorption of from 5 to 8.5 kilocalories per mole of CO.sub.2. The invention also provides a carbon sorbent in a powder, a granular or a pellet form for the removal of carbon dioxide from gas streams, comprising: a carbon content of at least 90 weight percent; a nitrogen content of at least 1 weight percent; an oxygen content of at most 3 weight percent; a BET surface area from 50 to 2600 m.sup.2/g; and a DFT micropore volume from 0.04 to 0.8 cc/g.

  4. Applying the Battery Ownership Model in Pursuit of Optimal Battery Use Strategies (Presentation)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Neubauer, J.; Ahmad, P.; Brooker, A.; Wood, E.; Smith, K.; Johnson, C.; Mendelsohn, M.

    2012-05-01

    This Annual Merit Review presentation describes the application of the Battery Ownership Model for strategies for optimal battery use in electric drive vehicles (PEVs, PHEVs, and BEVs).

  5. An Evaluation of the Total Cost of Ownership of Fuel Cell-Powered Material Handling Equipment

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This report by NREL discusses an analysis of the total cost of ownership of fuel cell-powered and traditional battery-powered material handling equipment.

  6. High capacity immobilized amine sorbents

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Gray, McMahan L.; Champagne, Kenneth J.; Soong, Yee; Filburn, Thomas

    2007-10-30

    A method is provided for making low-cost CO.sub.2 sorbents that can be used in large-scale gas-solid processes. The improved method entails treating an amine to increase the number of secondary amine groups and impregnating the amine in a porous solid support. The method increases the CO.sub.2 capture capacity and decreases the cost of utilizing an amine-enriched solid sorbent in CO.sub.2 capture systems.

  7. Natural Gas Weekly Update

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    325,000 Dth per day. Additionally, 25,000 Dth per day of capacity will be available for park and loan. The new capacity was effective with the cycle 1 gas day August 2 and is...

  8. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Generalized Natural Gas Pipeline

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

    Capacity Design Schematic Generalized Design Schematic About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines- Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates Generalized Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity Design Schematic Generalized Natural Gas Pipeline Capcity Design Schematic

  9. Owners of nuclear power plants: Percentage ownership of commercial nuclear power plants by utility companies

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wood, R.S.

    1987-08-01

    The following list indicates percentage ownership of commercial nuclear power plants by utility companies as of June 1, 1987. The list includes all plants licensed to operate, under construction, docked for NRC safety and environmental reviews, or under NRC antitrust review. It does not include those plants announced but not yet under review or those plants formally canceled. In many cases, ownership may be in the process of changing as a result of altered financial conditions, changed power needs, and other reasons. However, this list reflects only those ownership percentages of which the NRC has been formally notified. Part I lists plants alphabetically with their associated applicants/licensees and percentage ownership. Part II lists applicants/licensees alphabetically with their associated plants and percentage ownership. Part I also indicates which plants have received operating licenses (OL's). Footnotes for both parts appear at the end of this document.

  10. Evaluation of the Total Cost of Ownership of Fuel Cell-Powered Material Handling Equipment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ramsden, T.

    2013-04-01

    This report discusses an analysis of the total cost of ownership of fuel cell-powered and traditional battery-powered material handling equipment (MHE, or more typically 'forklifts'). A number of fuel cell MHE deployments have received funding support from the federal government. Using data from these government co-funded deployments, DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has been evaluating the performance of fuel cells in material handling applications. NREL has assessed the total cost of ownership of fuel cell MHE and compared it to the cost of ownership of traditional battery-powered MHE. As part of its cost of ownership assessment, NREL looked at a range of costs associated with MHE operation, including the capital costs of battery and fuel cell systems, the cost of supporting infrastructure, maintenance costs, warehouse space costs, and labor costs. Considering all these costs, NREL found that fuel cell MHE can have a lower overall cost of ownership than comparable battery-powered MHE.

  11. Philadelphia gas works medium-Btu coal gasification project: capital and operating cost estimate, financial/legal analysis, project implementation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1981-12-01

    This volume of the final report is a compilation of the estimated capital and operating costs for the project. Using the definitive design as a basis, capital and operating costs were developed by obtaining quotations for equipment delivered to the site. Tables 1.1 and 1.2 provide a summary of the capital and operating costs estimated for the PGW Coal Gasification Project. In the course of its Phase I Feasibility Study of a medium-Btu coal-gas facility, Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW) identified the financing mechanism as having great impact on gas cost. Consequently, PGW formed a Financial/Legal Task Force composed of legal, financial, and project analysis specialists to study various ownership/management options. In seeking an acceptable ownership, management, and financing arrangement, certain ownership forms were initially identified and classified. Several public ownership, private ownership, and third party ownership options for the coal-gas plant are presented. The ownership and financing forms classified as base alternatives involved tax-exempt and taxable financing arrangements and are discussed in Section 3. Project implementation would be initiated by effectively planning the methodology by which commercial operation will be realized. Areas covered in this report are sale of gas to customers, arrangements for feedstock supply and by-product disposal, a schedule of major events leading to commercialization, and a plan for managing the implementation.

  12. Working Gas Capacity of Salt Caverns

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

    271,785 312,003 351,017 488,268 455,729 488,698 2008-2014 Alabama 11,900 16,150 16,150 16,150 16,150 21,950 2008-2014 Arkansas 0 0 2012-2014 California 0 0 2012-2014 Colorado 0 0 2012-2014 Illinois 0 0 2012-2014 Indiana 0 0 2012-2014 Kansas 375 375 375 375 0 2008-2014 Kentucky 0 0 2012-2014 Louisiana 84,487 100,320 111,849 200,702 154,333 161,260 2008-2014 Maryland 0 0 2012-2014 Michigan 2,150 2,159 2,159 2,159 2,159 2,159 2008-2014 Mississippi 43,758 56,928 62,932 100,443 109,495 130,333

  13. Natural Gas Depleted Fields Storage Capacity

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

    6,917,547 7,074,773 7,104,948 7,038,245 7,074,916 7,085,773 1999-2014 Alaska 83,592 83,592 2013-2014 Alabama 11,000 11,000 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 1999-2014 Arkansas 21,760 21,760 21,359 21,853 21,853 21,853 1999-2014 California 513,005 542,511 570,511 592,411 587,711 587,711 1999-2014 Colorado 105,768 105,768 105,858 124,253 122,086 130,186 1999-2014 Illinois 103,606 218,106 220,070 220,070 25,920 25,923 1999-2014 Indiana 32,946 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 1999-2014 Iowa 0 0

  14. Natural Gas Salt Caverns Storage Capacity

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

    397,560 456,009 512,279 715,821 654,266 702,548 1999-2014 Alabama 15,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 30,100 1999-2014 Arkansas 0 0 1999-2014 California 0 0 1999-2014 Colorado 0 0 1999-2014 Illinois 0 0 1999-2014 Indiana 0 0 1999-2014 Kansas 931 931 931 931 0 1999-2014 Kentucky 0 0 1999-2014 Louisiana 123,341 142,253 161,668 297,020 213,039 224,129 1999-2014 Maryland 0 0 1999-2014 Michigan 3,821 3,834 3,834 3,834 3,834 3,834 1999-2014 Mississippi 62,301 82,411 90,452 139,627 153,733 181,810

  15. Working Gas Capacity of Depleted Fields

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

    296,096 311,096 335,396 349,296 364,296 364,296 2008-2014 Colorado 48,129 49,119 48,709 60,582 60,582 63,774 2008-2014 Illinois 51,418 87,368 87,368 87,368 11,768 11,768...

  16. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    714,417 714,417 714,417 714,417 714,417 714,217 714,097 2004 712,687 712,292 712,292 709,946 709,946 709,946 709,946 709,826 721,019 748,874 748,874 748,338 2005 748,338...

  17. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    not necessarily coincide. As such, the noncoincident peak for any region is at least as big as any monthly volume in the historical record. Data from Form EIA-191M, "Monthly...

  18. Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,720 37,720 2003 37,720 37,720 37,720 37,720...

  19. Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    NA NA NA NA NA NA 2002-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  20. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries by PAD District as of January 1, 2006 PDF 9 Shell Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries by PAD District as of January 1, 2006 PDF 10...

  1. ORISE: Capacity Building

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

    Capacity Building Because public health agencies must maintain the resources to respond to public health challenges, critical situations and emergencies, the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) helps government agencies and organizations develop a solid infrastructure through capacity building. Capacity building refers to activities that improve an organization's ability to achieve its mission or a person's ability do his or her job more effectively. For organizations, capacity

  2. EIA - Electricity Generating Capacity

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

    Electricity Generating Capacity Release Date: January 3, 2013 | Next Release: August 2013 Year Existing Units by Energy Source Unit Additions Unit Retirements 2011 XLS XLS XLS 2010...

  3. EIA - Analysis of Natural Gas Storage

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

    Prices This presentation provides information about EIA's estimates of working gas peak storage capacity, and the development of the natural gas storage industry....

  4. Iran outlines oil productive capacity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1992-11-09

    National Iranian Oil Co. (NIOC) tested production limits last month to prove a claim of 4 million bd capacity made at September's meeting of the organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Onshore fields account for 3.6 million bd of the total, with offshore fields providing the rest. NIOC plans to expand total capacity to 4.5 million bd by April 1993, consisting of 4 million b/d onshore and 500,000 b/d offshore. Middle East Economic Survey says questions remain about completion dates for gas injection, drilling, and offshore projects, but expansion targets are attainable within the scheduled time. NIOC said some slippage may be unavoidable, but it is confident the objective will be reached by third quarter 1993 at the latest. More than 60 rigs are working or about to be taken under contract to boost development drilling in onshore fields and provide gas injection in some. NIOC has spent $3.2 billion in foreign exchange on the drilling program in the last 2 1/2 years.

  5. Liquid heat capacity lasers

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Comaskey, Brian J. (Walnut Creek, CA); Scheibner, Karl F. (Tracy, CA); Ault, Earl R. (Livermore, CA)

    2007-05-01

    The heat capacity laser concept is extended to systems in which the heat capacity lasing media is a liquid. The laser active liquid is circulated from a reservoir (where the bulk of the media and hence waste heat resides) through a channel so configured for both optical pumping of the media for gain and for light amplification from the resulting gain.

  6. Variable capacity gasification burner

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Saxon, D.I.

    1985-03-05

    A variable capacity burner that may be used in gasification processes, the burner being adjustable when operating in its intended operating environment to operate at two different flow capacities, with the adjustable parts being dynamically sealed within a statically sealed structural arrangement to prevent dangerous blow-outs of the reactants to the atmosphere.

  7. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    CORPORATION / Refiner / Location Table 5. Refiners' Total Operable Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity as of January 1, 2015 Calendar Day Barrels per CORPORATION / Refiner / Location Calendar Day Barrels per Companies with Capacity Over 100,000 bbl/cd .............................................................................................................................. VALERO ENERGY CORP 1,964,300 Valero Refining Co Texas LP

  8. NMOSE-Change of Ownership of Water Right Application | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    NMOSE-Change of Ownership of Water Right Application Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- Permit ApplicationPermit Application:...

  9. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Cokers Catalytic Crackers Hydrocrackers Capacity Inputs Capacity Inputs Capacity Inputs Table 8. Capacity and Fresh Feed Input to Selected Downstream Units at U.S. Refineries, 2013 - 2015 (Barrels per Calendar Day) Reformers Capacity Inputs 2013 2,596,369 5,681,643 1,887,024 2,302,764 4,810,611 1,669,540 2,600,518 3,405,017 74,900 543,800 41,500 47,537 387,148 33,255 PADD I 162,249 240,550 450,093 1,196,952 303,000 414,732 1,028,003 263,238 PADD II 648,603 818,718 1,459,176 2,928,673 981,114

  10. Chapter_4_Foreign_Ownership_Control_or_Influence_Facility_Clearance_and_Classified_Contract_Registration

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence; Facility Clearance; and Classified Contract Registration This chapter summarizes the process that contractors undergo to be authorized to perform classified work for DOE HQ. The process involves three-steps: obtaining a Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) determination, obtaining a Facility Clearance; and registering classified contracts within DOE's Safeguards and Security Information Management System (SSIMS). At HQ, all these actions are

  11. Primer on gas integrated resource planning

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Goldman, C.; Comnes, G.A.; Busch, J.; Wiel, S.

    1993-12-01

    This report discusses the following topics: gas resource planning: need for IRP; gas integrated resource planning: methods and models; supply and capacity planning for gas utilities; methods for estimating gas avoided costs; economic analysis of gas utility DSM programs: benefit-cost tests; gas DSM technologies and programs; end-use fuel substitution; and financial aspects of gas demand-side management programs.

  12. Future of Natural Gas

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

    of Natural Gas Bill Eisele, CEM SC Electric & Gas Co Hosted by: FEDERAL UTILITY PARTNERSHIP WORKING GROUP SEMINAR November 5-6, 2014 Cape Canaveral. Florida Agenda * Gas Facts * Supply vs. Capacity * Sources * Consumption * Pipeline system * Gas Interruptions - Operational Flow Orders * Pricing Federal Utility Partnership Working Group November 5-6, 2014 Cape Canaveral, FL Sources of Natural Gas * Mine * Import * Remove from storage Federal Utility Partnership Working Group November 5-6,

  13. WINDExchange: Potential Wind Capacity

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

    Potential Wind Capacity Potential wind capacity maps are provided for a 2014 industry standard wind turbine installed on a 110-m tower, which represents plausible current technology options, and a wind turbine on a 140-m tower, which represents near-future technology options. Enlarge image This map shows the wind potential at a 110-m height for the United States. Download a printable map. Click on a state to view the wind map for that state. * Grid Granularity = 400 sq km* 35% Gross Capacity

  14. Refinery Capacity Report

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2015-01-01

    Data series include fuel, electricity, and steam purchased for consumption at the refinery; refinery receipts of crude oil by method of transportation; and current and projected atmospheric crude oil distillation, downstream charge, and production capacities. Respondents are operators of all operating and idle petroleum refineries (including new refineries under construction) and refineries shut down during the previous year, located in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and other U.S. possessions. The Refinery Capacity Report does not contain working and shell storage capacity data. This data is now being collected twice a year as of March 31 and September 30 on the Form EIA-810, "Monthly Refinery Report", and is now released as a separate report Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity.

  15. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Largest Natural Gas Pipeline Systems

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Interstate Pipelines Table About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates Thirty Largest U.S. Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Systems, 2008 (Ranked by system capacity) Pipeline Name Market Regions Served Primary Supply Regions States in Which Pipeline Operates Transported in 2007 (million dekatherm)1 System Capacity (MMcf/d) 2 System Mileage Columbia Gas Transmission Co. Northeast Southwest, Appalachia DE, PA, MD, KY, NC, NJ, NY,

  16. Dual capacity reciprocating compressor

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Wolfe, R.W.

    1984-10-30

    A multi-cylinder compressor particularly useful in connection with northern climate heat pumps and in which different capacities are available in accordance with reversing motor rotation is provided with an eccentric cam on a crank pin under a fraction of the connecting rods, and arranged for rotation upon the crank pin between opposite positions 180[degree] apart so that with cam rotation on the crank pin such that the crank throw is at its normal maximum value all pistons pump at full capacity, and with rotation of the crank shaft in the opposite direction the cam moves to a circumferential position on the crank pin such that the overall crank throw is zero. Pistons whose connecting rods ride on a crank pin without a cam pump their normal rate with either crank rotational direction. Thus a small clearance volume is provided for any piston that moves when in either capacity mode of operation. 6 figs.

  17. Dual capacity reciprocating compressor

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Wolfe, Robert W. (Wilkinsburg, PA)

    1984-01-01

    A multi-cylinder compressor 10 particularly useful in connection with northern climate heat pumps and in which different capacities are available in accordance with reversing motor 16 rotation is provided with an eccentric cam 38 on a crank pin 34 under a fraction of the connecting rods, and arranged for rotation upon the crank pin between opposite positions 180.degree. apart so that with cam rotation on the crank pin such that the crank throw is at its normal maximum value all pistons pump at full capacity, and with rotation of the crank shaft in the opposite direction the cam moves to a circumferential position on the crank pin such that the overall crank throw is zero. Pistons 24 whose connecting rods 30 ride on a crank pin 36 without a cam pump their normal rate with either crank rotational direction. Thus a small clearance volume is provided for any piston that moves when in either capacity mode of operation.

  18. Geothermal Plant Capacity Factors

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Greg Mines; Jay Nathwani; Christopher Richard; Hillary Hanson; Rachel Wood

    2015-01-01

    The capacity factors recently provided by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicated this plant performance metric had declined for geothermal power plants since 2008. Though capacity factor is a term commonly used by geothermal stakeholders to express the ability of a plant to produce power, it is a term frequently misunderstood and in some instances incorrectly used. In this paper we discuss how this capacity factor is defined and utilized by the EIA, including discussion on the information that the EIA requests from operations in their 923 and 860 forms that are submitted both monthly and annually by geothermal operators. A discussion is also provided regarding the entities utilizing the information in the EIA reports, and how those entities can misinterpret the data being supplied by the operators. The intent of the paper is to inform the facility operators as the importance of the accuracy of the data that they provide, and the implications of not providing the correct information.

  19. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    District and State Production Capacity Alkylates Aromatics Asphalt and Road Oil Isomers Lubricants Marketable Petroleum Coke Sulfur (short tons/day) Hydrogen (MMcfd) Table 2. Production Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries by PAD District and State as of January 1, 2015 (Barrels per Stream Day, Except Where Noted) a 83,429 10,111 26,500 87,665 21,045 21,120 69 1,159 PAD District I Delaware 11,729 5,191 0 6,000 0 13,620 40 596 New Jersey 29,200 0 65,000 4,000 12,000 7,500 26 280 Pennsylvania

  20. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Distillation Crude Oil Atmospheric Distillation Vacuum Cracking Thermal Catalytic Cracking Fresh Recycled Catalytic Hydro- Cracking Catalytic Reforming Desulfurization Hydrotreating/ Fuels Solvent Deasphalting Downstream Charge Capacity Table 6. Operable Crude Oil and Downstream Charge Capacity of Petroleum Refineries, January 1, 1986 to (Thousand Barrels per Stream Day, Except Where Noted) January 1, 2015 JAN 1, 1986 16,346 6,892 1,880 5,214 463 1,125 3,744 8,791 NA JAN 1, 1987 16,460 6,935

  1. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Alkylates Aromatics Road Oil and Lubricants Petroleum Coke (MMcfd) Hydrogen Sulfur (short tons/day) Production Capacity Asphalt Isomers Marketable Table 7. Operable Production Capacity of Petroleum Refineries, January 1, 1986 to January 1, 2015 (Thousand Barrels per Stream Day, Except Where Noted) a JAN 1, 1986 941 276 804 258 246 356 2,357 NA JAN 1, 1987 974 287 788 326 250 364 2,569 23,806 JAN 1, 1988 993 289 788 465 232 368 2,418 27,639 JAN 1, 1989 1,015 290 823 469 230 333 2,501 28,369 JAN

  2. Tri-Laboratory Linux Capacity Cluster 2007 SOW

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Seager, M

    2007-03-22

    The Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Program (formerly know as Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative, ASCI) has led the world in capability computing for the last ten years. Capability computing is defined as a world-class platform (in the Top10 of the Top500.org list) with scientific simulations running at scale on the platform. Example systems are ASCI Red, Blue-Pacific, Blue-Mountain, White, Q, RedStorm, and Purple. ASC applications have scaled to multiple thousands of CPUs and accomplished a long list of mission milestones on these ASC capability platforms. However, the computing demands of the ASC and Stockpile Stewardship programs also include a vast number of smaller scale runs for day-to-day simulations. Indeed, every 'hero' capability run requires many hundreds to thousands of much smaller runs in preparation and post processing activities. In addition, there are many aspects of the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) that can be directly accomplished with these so-called 'capacity' calculations. The need for capacity is now so great within the program that it is increasingly difficult to allocate the computer resources required by the larger capability runs. To rectify the current 'capacity' computing resource shortfall, the ASC program has allocated a large portion of the overall ASC platforms budget to 'capacity' systems. In addition, within the next five to ten years the Life Extension Programs (LEPs) for major nuclear weapons systems must be accomplished. These LEPs and other SSP programmatic elements will further drive the need for capacity calculations and hence 'capacity' systems as well as future ASC capability calculations on 'capability' systems. To respond to this new workload analysis, the ASC program will be making a large sustained strategic investment in these capacity systems over the next ten years, starting with the United States Government Fiscal Year 2007 (GFY07). However, given the growing need for 'capability' systems as well, the budget demands are extreme and new, more cost effective ways of fielding these systems must be developed. This Tri-Laboratory Linux Capacity Cluster (TLCC) procurement represents the ASC first investment vehicle in these capacity systems. It also represents a new strategy for quickly building, fielding and integrating many Linux clusters of various sizes into classified and unclassified production service through a concept of Scalable Units (SU). The programmatic objective is to dramatically reduce the overall Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of these 'capacity' systems relative to the best practices in Linux Cluster deployments today. This objective only makes sense in the context of these systems quickly becoming very robust and useful production clusters under the crushing load that will be inflicted on them by the ASC and SSP scientific simulation capacity workload.

  3. High Methane Storage Capacity in Aluminum Metal-Organic Frameworks (MOFs)

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

    | Center for Gas SeparationsRelevant to Clean Energy Technologies | Blandine Jerome High Methane Storage Capacity in Aluminum Metal-Organic Frameworks (MOFs)

  4. Fact #622: May 10, 2010 Average Length of Light Vehicle Ownership |

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

    Department of Energy 2: May 10, 2010 Average Length of Light Vehicle Ownership Fact #622: May 10, 2010 Average Length of Light Vehicle Ownership Vehicle owners are holding onto their vehicles for a longer period, according to data from R.L. Polk and Company. The vehicle retention trends show that owners held onto a new vehicle for 56.3 months in 2008, up from 48.4 months six years earlier. New vehicle owners hold onto vehicles about 15 or 16 months longer than used vehicle owners. Average

  5. Oh, the Joys of Energy-Inefficient Smartphone Ownership! | Department of

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Energy Oh, the Joys of Energy-Inefficient Smartphone Ownership! Oh, the Joys of Energy-Inefficient Smartphone Ownership! August 22, 2011 - 1:23pm Addthis Elizabeth Spencer Communicator, National Renewable Energy Laboratory So, I recently purchased my first smartphone. For the most part, I love the daylights out of it. But you know what? Its battery life is horrible. Smartphones take a lot of charging. I was horrified when one of my friends got a smartphone about a year ago and promptly

  6. Refinery Capacity Report

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    1 Idle Operating Total Stream Day Barrels per Idle Operating Total Calendar Day Barrels per Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity Idle Operating Total Operable Refineries Number of State and PAD District a b b 14 10 4 1,617,500 1,205,000 412,500 1,708,500 1,273,500 435,000 ............................................................................................................................................... PAD District I 1 0 1 182,200 0 182,200 190,200 0 190,200

  7. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    5 Idle Operating Total Stream Day Barrels per Idle Operating Total Calendar Day Barrels per Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity Idle Operating Total Operable Refineries Number of State and PAD District a b b 9 9 0 1,268,500 1,236,500 32,000 1,332,000 1,297,000 35,000 ............................................................................................................................................... PAD District I 1 1 0 182,200 182,200 0 190,200 190,200 0

  8. CSTI high capacity power

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Winter, J.M.

    1994-09-01

    The SP-100 program was established in 1983 by DOD, DOE, and NASA as a joint program to develop the technology necessary for space nuclear power systems for military and civil application. During FY86 and 87, the NASA SP-100 Advanced Technology Program was devised to maintain the momentum of promising technology advancement efforts started during Phase I of SP-100 and to strengthen, in key areas, the chances for successful development and growth capability of space nuclear reactor power systems for future space applications. In FY88, the Advanced Technology Program was incorporated into NASA`s new Civil Space Technology Initiative (CSTI). The CSTI Program was established to provide the foundation for technology development in automation and robotics, information, propulsion, and power. The CSTI High Capacity Power Program builds on the technology efforts of the SP-100 program, incorporates the previous NASA SP-100 Advanced Technology project, and provides a bridge to NASA Project Pathfinder. The elements of CSTI High Capacity Power development include Conversion Systems, Thermal Management, Power Management, System Diagnostics, and Environmental Interactions. Technology advancement in all areas, including materials, is required to assure the high reliability and 7 to 10 year lifetime demanded for future space nuclear power systems. The overall program will develop and demonstrate the technology base required to provide a wide range of modular power systems as well as allowing mission independence from solar and orbital attitude requirements. Several recent advancements in CSTI High Capacity power development will be discussed.

  9. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Oklahoma" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Northeastern","Coal","Public Service Co of Oklahoma",1815 2,"Redbud Power Plant","Natural gas","Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co",1752.4 3,"Muskogee","Coal","Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co",1505.5 4,"Seminole (OK)","Natural gas","Oklahoma Gas &

  10. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Former Corporation/Refiner Total Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity (bbl/cd) New Corporation/Refiner Date of Sale Table 12. Refinery Sales During 2014 Lindsay Goldberg LLC/Axeon Speciality Products LLC Nustar Asphalt LLC/Nustar Asphalt Refining LLC 2/14 Savannah, GA 28,000 Lindsay Goldberg LLC/Axeon Specialty Products LLC Nustar Asphalt LLC/Nustar Asphalt Refining LLC 2/14 Paulsboro, NJ 70,000 bbl/cd= Barrels per calendar day Sources: Energy Information Administration (EIA) Form

  11. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Commodity PAD Districts I II III IV V United States Table 10a. Fuel Consumed at Refineries by PAD District, 2014 (Thousand Barrels, Except Where Noted) Crude Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 Liquefied Petroleum Gases 0 1,348 421 23 513 2,305 Distillate Fuel Oil 0 33 174 0 102 309 Residual Fuel Oil 3 23 28 13 346 413 Still Gas 15,174 48,972 110,958 8,749 46,065 229,918 Marketable Petroleum Coke 0 0 0 493 143 636 Catalyst Petroleum Coke 8,048 16,837 44,599 2,925 12,482 84,891 Natural Gas (million cubic feet)

  12. Natural Gas Citygate Price

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Citygate Price Residential Price Commercial Price Industrial Price Electric Power Price Gross Withdrawals Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Oil Wells Gross Withdrawals From Shale Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Coalbed Wells Repressuring Nonhydrocarbon Gases Removed Vented and Flared Marketed Production NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Dry Production Imports By Pipeline LNG Imports Exports Exports By Pipeline LNG Exports Underground Storage Capacity Gas in Underground

  13. Natural Gas Industrial Price

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Citygate Price Residential Price Commercial Price Industrial Price Electric Power Price Gross Withdrawals Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Oil Wells Gross Withdrawals From Shale Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Coalbed Wells Repressuring Nonhydrocarbon Gases Removed Vented and Flared Marketed Production NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Dry Production Imports By Pipeline LNG Imports Exports Exports By Pipeline LNG Exports Underground Storage Capacity Gas in Underground

  14. Cost of Ownership and Well-to-Wheels Carbon Emissions/Oil Use of Alternative Fuels and Advanced Light-Duty Vehicle Technologies

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Elgowainy, Mr. Amgad; Rousseau, Mr. Aymeric; Wang, Mr. Michael; Ruth, Mr. Mark; Andress, Mr. David; Ward, Jacob; Joseck, Fred; Nguyen, Tien; Das, Sujit

    2013-01-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne), and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) updated their analysis of the well-to-wheels (WTW) greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions, petroleum use, and the cost of ownership (excluding insurance, maintenance, and miscellaneous fees) of vehicle technologies that have the potential to significantly reduce GHG emissions and petroleum consumption. The analyses focused on advanced light-duty vehicle (LDV) technologies such as plug-in hybrid, battery electric, and fuel cell electric vehicles. Besides gasoline and diesel, alternative fuels considered include natural gas, advanced biofuels, electricity, and hydrogen. The Argonne Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) and Autonomie models were used along with the Argonne and NREL H2A models.

  15. Dealing with natural gas uncertainties

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Clements, J.; Graeber, D. )

    1991-04-01

    The fuel of choice for generating new power is and will continue over the next two decades to be natural gas. It is the fuel of choice because it is plentiful, environmentally acceptable, and relatively inexpensive. This paper reports that gas reserves on the North American continent continue to be discovered in amounts that may keep the gas bubble inflated far longer than currently estimated. New gas transportation capacity is actively being developed to overcome the capacity bottlenecks and deliverability shortfalls. Natural gas prices will probably remain stable (with expected CPI-related increases) for the short run (2-4 years), and probably will be higher than CPI increases thereafter.

  16. Corporate Realignments and Investments in the Interstate Natural Gas Transmission System

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    1999-01-01

    Examines the financial characteristics of current ownership in the natural gas pipeline industry and of the major U.S. interstate pipeline companies that transported the bulk of the natural gas consumed in the United States between 1992 and 1997, focusing on 14 parent corporations. It also examines the near-term investment needs of the industry and the anticipated growth in demand for natural gas during the next decade.

  17. EA-1338: Transfer of the Department of Energy Grand Junction Office to Non-DOE Ownership, Grand Junction, Colorado

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This EA evaluates the environmental impacts for the proposed transfer of real and personal property at the U.S. Department of Energy's Grand Junction Office to non-DOE ownership.

  18. Gas Shale Plays? The Global Transition

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

    and transportation capacity in the Horn River Basin is being expanded to provide improved market access for its growing shale gas production. Pipeline infrastructure is being...

  19. Natural Gas Market Centers: A 2008 Update

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

    ... This minimal growth reflects the stabilization of natural gas pipeline capacity originating in western Canada, which serves the west coast of the United States, primarily ...

  20. High capacity oil burner

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pedrosa, O.A. Jr.; Couto, N.C.; Fanqueiro, R.C.C.

    1983-11-01

    The present invention relates to a high capacity oil burner comprising a cylindrical atomizer completely surrounded by a protective cylindrical housing having a diameter from 2 to 3 times greater than the diameter of said atomizer; liquid fuels being injected under pressure into said atomizer and accumulating within said atomizer in a chamber for the accumulation of liquid fuels, and compressed air being injected into a chamber for the accumulation of air; cylindrical holes communicating said chamber for the accumulation of liquid fuels with the outside and cylindrical holes communicating said chamber for the accumulation of air with said cylindrical holes communicating the chamber for the accumulation of liquids with the outside so that the injection of compressed air into said liquid fuel discharge holes atomizes said fuel which is expelled to the outside through the end portions of said discharge holes which are circumferentially positioned to be burnt by a pilot flame; said protecting cylindrical housing having at its ends perforated circular rings into which water is injected under pressure to form a protecting fan-like water curtain at the rear end of the housing and a fan-like water curtain at the flame to reduce the formation of soot; the burning efficiency of said burner being superior to 30 barrels of liquid fuel per day/kg of the apparatus.

  1. Organizational precedents for ownership and management of decentralized renewable-energy systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Meunier, R.; Silversmith, J.A.

    1981-03-01

    Three existing organizational types that meet the decentralization criteria of local consumer ownership and control - cooperatives, Rural Electric Cooperatives, and municipal utilities - are examined. These three organizational precedents are analyzed in terms of their histories, structures, legal powers, sources of capital, and social and political aspects. Examples of related experiments with renewable energy technologies are given, and inferences are drawn regarding the organizations' suitability as vehicles for future implementation of decentralized renewable energy systems.

  2. U.S. Virgin Islands Leadership Embraces Inclusiveness to Ensure Community Ownership of Clean Energy Vision

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

    0: Committing to an Energy Transition U.S. Virgin Islands Leadership Embraces Inclusiveness to Ensure Community Ownership of Clean Energy Vision Getting the Right People in the Room at the Outset Getting the right people in the room is critical to ensuring buy-in from key stakeholders when setting the vision for an energy project or initiative. Like many island communities, the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) was almost 100% depen- dent on imported oil for electricity, water desalinization, and

  3. The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage

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

    Two of the most important characteristics of an underground storage reservoir are its capacity to hold natural gas for future use and the rate at which gas inventory can be...

  4. CHP Installed Capacity Optimizer Software

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    2004-11-30

    The CHP Installed Capacity Optimizer is a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet application that determines the most economic amount of capacity of distributed generation and thermal utilization equipment (e.g., absorption chillers) to install for any user-defined set of load and cost data. Installing the optimum amount of capacity is critical to the life-cycle economic viability of a distributed generation/cooling heat and power (CHP) application. Using advanced optimization algorithms, the software accesses the loads, utility tariffs, equipment costs,more » etc., and provides to the user the most economic amount of system capacity to install.« less

  5. Property:USGSMeanCapacity | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    USGSMeanCapacity Jump to: navigation, search Property Name USGSMeanCapacity Property Type String Description Mean capacity potential at location based on the USGS 2008 Geothermal...

  6. Overview of U.S. Legislation and Regulations Affecting Offshore Natural Gas and Oil Activity

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2005-01-01

    This article presents a summary of the legislative and regulatory regime that affects natural gas and oil exploration and production in offshore regions of the United States. It discusses the role and importance of these areas as well as the competing interests surrounding ownership, production, exploration and conservation.

  7. EIS-0171: Pacificorp Capacity Sale

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) EIS assesses the proposed action of providing surplus power from its facilites to PacifiCorp in response to its request for a continued supply of firm capacity. BPA has surplus electrical capacity (peakload energy) that BPA projects will not be required to meet its existing obligations.

  8. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    District of Columbia" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"US GSA Heating and Transmission","Natural gas","US GSA Heating and Transmission",9

  9. Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operable Capacity

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

    Charge Capacity (BSD) Catalytic Hydrotreating NaphthaReformer Feed Charge Cap (BSD) Catalytic Hydrotreating Gasoline Charge Capacity (BSD) Catalytic Hydrotreating...

  10. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    California" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Dynegy Moss Landing Power Plant","Natural gas","Dynegy -Moss Landing LLC",2529 2,"Diablo Canyon","Nuclear","Pacific Gas & Electric Co",2240 3,"AES Alamitos LLC","Natural gas","AES Alamitos LLC",1997 4,"Castaic","Pumped Storage","Los Angeles

  11. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Rhode Island" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Entergy Rhode Island State Energy LP","Natural gas","Entergy RISE",538 2,"Manchester Street","Natural gas","Dominion Energy New England, LLC",447 3,"Tiverton Power Plant","Natural gas","Tiverton Power LLC",250 4,"Ocean State Power","Natural

  12. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Alaska" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Beluga","Natural gas","Chugach Electric Assn Inc",344.4 2,"George M Sullivan Generation Plant 2","Natural gas","Anchorage Municipal Light and Power",248.1 3,"Southcentral Power Project","Natural gas","Chugach Electric Assn Inc",169.7 4,"North

  13. Impact of Flow Control and Tax Reform on Ownership and Growth in the U.S. Waste-to-Energy Industry

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    1994-01-01

    This article analyzes two key issues that could be influencing growth and ownership (both public and private) in the waste to energy (WTE) industry.

  14. Evaluation of land ownership, lease status, and surface features in five geopressured geothermal prospects

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hackenbracht, W.N.

    1981-05-01

    This study was accomplished for the purpose of gathering information pertaining to land and lease ownership, surface features and use and relevant environmental factors in the Lake Theriot (West and East), Kaplan, Bayou Hebert and Freshwater Bayou geopressured geothermal prospects in Louisiana, and the Blessing geopressured geothermal prospect in Texas. This information and recommendations predicated upon it will then be used to augment engineering and geological data utilized to select geopressured geothermal test well sites within the prospects. The five geopressured geothermal prospects are briefly described and recommendations given.

  15. COMMUNITY CAPACITY BUILDING THROUGH TECHNOLOGY

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

    COMMUNITY CAPACITY BUILDING THROUGH TECHNOLOGY Empowering Communities in the Age of E-Government Prepared by Melinda Downing, Environmental Justice Program Manager, U.S. Department of Energy MAR 06 MARCH 2006 Since 1999, the Department of Energy has worked with the National Urban Internet and others to create community capacity through technology.  Empowering Communities in the Age of E-Government Table of Contents Message from the Environmental Justice Program Manager . . . . . . . . 3

  16. Transformation of California's Residential Photovoltaics Market Through Third-Party Ownership

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Drury, E.; Miller, M.; Macal, C. M.; Graziano, D. J.; Heimiller, D.; Ozik, J.; Perry, T. D.

    2012-03-01

    Third-party photovoltaics (PV) ownership is a rapidly growing market trend, where commercial companies own and operate customer-sited PV systems and lease PV equipment or sell PV electricity to the building occupant. Third-party PV companies can reduce or eliminate up-front adoption costs, reduce technology risk and complexity by monitoring system performance, and can repackage the PV value proposition by showing cost savings in the first month of ownership rather than payback times on the order of a decade. We find that the entrance of third-party business models in southern California residential PV markets has enticed a new demographic to adopt PV systems that is more highly correlated to younger, less affluent, and less educated populations than the demographics correlated to purchasing PV systems. By enticing new demographics to adopt PV, we find that third-party PV products are likely increasing total PV demand rather than gaining market share entirely at the expense of existing customer owned PV demand. We also find that mean population demographics are good predictors of third-party and customer owned PV adoption, and mean voting trends on California carbon policy (Proposition 23) are poor predictors of PV adoption.

  17. Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2003 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2004 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2005 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2006 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2007 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200

  18. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 220,597 220,597 2003 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 2004 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,804 220,804 220,804 2005 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 2006 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804

  19. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 576,841 576,841 2003 576,841 576,841 576,841 576,841 576,841 587,116 563,590 587,116 587,116 587,116 587,116 587,116 2004 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 591,673 591,673 591,673 2005 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 2006 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673

  20. Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2003 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2004 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2005 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2006 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000

  1. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,071,747 1,071,747 2003 1,043,529 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,034,429 1,034,429 2004 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,018,517 1,018,517 1,018,517 1,045,517 1,045,517 1,013,437 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 2005 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264

  2. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2003 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2004 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2005 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2006 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2007 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000

  3. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 141,912 141,912 141,912 141,912 144,787 144,787 2003 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 2004 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 143,887 143,887 143,887 2005 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 2006 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887

  4. Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,992 31,992 2003 31,992 31,992 31,992 31,992 31,992 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 2004 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,080 32,080 32,080 2005 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 2006 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,146 32,146 32,146

  5. Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 374,125 374,125 2003 374,125 374,125 374,125 374,125 374,125 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2004 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2005 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2006 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201

  6. Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2003 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2004 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2005 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2006 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480

  7. Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 2,992 2,992 2003 2,992 2,992 2,992 2,992 2,992 5,100 5,100 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 2004 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 8,024 8,024 8,024 2005 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 2006 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 9,035 9,035 9,035 2007 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,692

  8. Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 2003 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 2004 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 114,187 114,187 114,187 2005 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 2006 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187

  9. Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2003 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2004 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2005 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2006 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469

  10. New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2003 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 2004 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 2005 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 2006 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,124 83,124 83,124

  11. Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 575,959 575,959 2003 575,959 575,959 575,959 575,959 575,959 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 2004 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 572,404 572,404 572,404 2005 572,404 572,404 572,329 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 2006 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404

  12. Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 378,137 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 2003 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 2004 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 384,838 384,838 384,838 2005 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 2006 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838

  13. Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 17,755 21,080 21,080 21,080 21,080 21,080 21,080 21,080 22,042 22,042 22,042 22,042 2003 22,042 22,042 22,042 22,042 22,042 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 2004 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,796 23,796 23,796 2005 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 2006 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,034 24,034 24,034

  14. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 7,000 7,000 1990's 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 6,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2000's 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2010's

  15. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 108,171 108,207 1990's 108,601 114,621 114,627 114,627 124,138 124,114 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 2000's 134,012 134,000 144,787 143,887 146,287 150,947 150,809 166,909 187,251 210,128 2010's 235,638 240,241 289,416 303,522 331,469

  16. Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 29,025 29,791 1990's 29,791 29,791 30,564 30,564 30,564 30,564 31,125 31,273 31,273 31,273 2000's 31,878 32,000 32,098 32,080 32,004 32,146 32,505 32,940 32,876 10,889 2010's 11,502

  17. Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 373,963 373,960 1990's 373,960 373,960 375,010 375,010 375,010 375,010 375,010 342,785 371,510 371,510 2000's 371,510 372,000 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 376,301 2010's

  18. Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 88,438 88,438 1990's 143,311 93,311 93,311 93,311 93,311 39,468 39,468 39,468 39,468 39,468 2000's 39,468 39,000 39,468 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 34,850 34,850 34,850 2010's

  19. New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 94,600 94,600 1990's 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2000's 96,600 97,000 89,800 83,800 83,800 83,124 82,652 78,424 80,000 80,000 2010's 84,300 84,3

  20. Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 612,547 612,547 1990's 591,494 591,494 591,494 594,644 595,008 620,544 557,452 573,434 575,234 575,384 2000's 573,784 574,000 573,709 572,404 572,404 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 580,380 2010's 580,380 580,380 577,944 577,944 577,94

  1. Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 377,189 364,887 1990's 362,616 362,616 359,616 359,616 363,593 364,593 395,087 396,087 394,827 394,827 2000's 378,137 382,000 389,767 384,838 383,638 378,738 380,038 373,738 371,324 371,338 2010's 371,338 372,838 370,838 370,535 375,935

  2. Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 9,791 1990's 9,791 9,791 11,445 11,445 11,622 11,622 11,622 11,622 11,622 11,622 2000's 16,035 21,000 23,675 23,796 24,480 24,034 26,703 29,415 29,415 29,565 2010's 29,565 29,565 28,750

  3. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 805,394 805,393 1990's 640,938 640,938 669,354 664,693 658,578 654,570 680,006 684,842 684,842 684,842 2000's 684,518 717,070 714,216 748,074 749,018 748,792 750,054 759,365 759,153 776,964 2010's 776,822 776,845 774,309 774,309 774,309

  4. Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 82,662 82,662 1990's 98,999 98,999 105,790 105,790 105,583 108,837 99,599 99,599 99,599 99,599 2000's 100,226 100,000 101,054 101,055 101,055 98,068 98,068 98,068 95,068 105,768 2010's 105,768 105,858 124,253 122,0

  5. Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 953,947 952,279 1990's 949,914 949,914 949,721 952,388 958,968 905,260 898,239 965,565 898,565 898,565 2000's 898,565 899,000 945,307 972,388 982,474 981,995 984,768 980,691 977,989 989,454 2010's 990,487 997,364 999,931 1,000,281 1,004,547

  6. Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 114,603 112,045 1990's 97,332 102,246 106,176 106,676 108,621 113,121 113,209 113,209 113,209 113,209 2000's 113,210 113,000 111,095 113,597 113,397 114,080 114,294 114,294 114,937 114,274 2010's 111,271 111,313 110,749 110,749 110,749

  7. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 311,000 311,000 1990's 229,700 279,700 279,700 279,700 270,200 270,200 270,200 408,200 273,200 273,200 2000's 273,200 273,000 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 275,200 278,238 284,747 284,811 2010's 288,0

  8. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 334,925 334,925 1990's 301,199 301,199 290,571 289,797 290,148 283,603 285,201 304,065 301,101 301,101 2000's 300,401 300,000 299,473 288,197 289,450 289,747 288,383 288,926 282,221 282,300 2010's 284,821 284,731 284,905 283,97

  9. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 206,572 206,603 1990's 312,061 307,235 210,242 210,242 209,753 215,351 216,351 219,907 219,907 219,907 2000's 219,913 220,000 220,596 220,804 220,844 218,927 218,394 220,359 220,359 220,368 2010's 221,751 221,751 221,751 221,723 221,723

  10. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 559,019 559,019 1990's 550,823 559,823 539,200 542,900 551,580 549,436 554,872 559,012 563,867 564,062 2000's 569,187 580,000 587,115 591,673 593,740 593,740 599,165 588,711 615,858 651,968 2010's 670,880 690,295 699,646 733,939 745,029

  11. Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 61,978 61,978 1990's 61,978 61,978 62,400 62,400 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2000's 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 2010's

  12. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 982,362 982,362 1990's 994,542 995,181 994,281 1,043,781 1,046,582 1,053,814 1,052,236 992,933 1,021,674 1,071,699 2000's 1,070,716 1,071,000 1,034,429 1,028,344 1,010,034 1,021,622 1,031,290 1,060,558 1,062,339 1,069,405 2010's 1,069,898 1,075,472 1,078,979 1,079,424 1,079,462

  13. Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 2,600 3,280 3,280 3,280 3,280 2000's 3,280 5,000 8,520 11,015 11,015 11,015 19,300 19,300 26,900 26,900 2010's 32,900 35,400 35,400 35,4

  14. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's

  15. Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 36,147 31,447 1990's 31,277 31,277 31,277 31,277 31,277 38,347 31,871 31,871 24,190 24,190 2000's 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 21,760 2010's 21,760 21,359

  16. California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 459,673 466,818 1990's 291,678 467,678 472,108 472,108 472,108 472,908 469,695 396,430 388,370 388,370 2000's 388,480 476,000 478,995 446,095 478,226 477,726 484,711 487,711 498,705 513,005 2010's 542,511 570,511 592,411 599,711 599,711

  17. Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 1,200 1,200 2000's 1,200 1,000 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2010's 0

  18. Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 590,248 589,780 1990's 586,502 589,018 595,229 598,782 627,589 653,420 672,533 683,891 684,226 684,226 2000's 699,323 686,000 699,471 662,593 674,196 680,096 690,061 690,678 740,477 766,768 2010's 783,579 812,394 831,190 842,072 834,124

  19. Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2008 679,449 679,449 679,449 679,449 679,449 679,449 679,449 679,449 679,449 698,449 709,678 709,678 2009 709,678 709,678 709,678 709,678 709,678 709,678 709,678 709,678...

  20. Colorado Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 48,709 48,709 48,709 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,582 60,582 2013...

  1. Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 2,600 3,280 3,280 3,280 3,280 2000's 3,280 5,000 8,520 11,015 11,015 11,015 19,300 19,300 26,900 26,900 2010's 32,900 35,400 35,400 35,4

  2. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's

  3. Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 36,147 31,447 1990's 31,277 31,277 31,277 31,277 31,277 38,347 31,871 31,871 24,190 24,190 2000's 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 21,760 2010's 21,760 21,359

  4. U.S. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    7,933,967 7,934,228 7,929,728 7,974,893 7,974,893 7,974,893 7,975,643 7,978,632 7,979,132 7,987,416 7,985,156 7,988,856 1994 7,990,852 8,028,112 8,028,112 8,028,321 8,028,321...

  5. West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 523,132 523,132 1990's 525,138 525,138 525,206 519,286 520,457 466,089 484,596 734,157 733,157...

  6. East Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    2,200,169 2,200,169 2015 2,197,282 2,197,282 2,197,282 2,197,282 2,197,282 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 - No Data Reported; -- Not...

  7. Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 2003 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 2004 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 11,015 11,015 11,015 2005 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 2006 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 2007 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015

  8. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 25,907 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2014 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2015 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592

  9. Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2003 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2004 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2005 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2006 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000

  10. California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 388,480 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 474,920 474,920 2003 474,920 474,920 474,920 474,920 474,920 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 2004 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 486,095 446,095 446,095 454,095 454,095 454,095 2005 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 2006 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095

  11. Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 2003 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 2004 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 2005 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 2006 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055

  12. Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 2003 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 901,274 901,274 901,274 945,307 945,307 945,307 945,307 2004 959,244 959,244 959,244 959,244 959,112 959,112 959,112 959,112 959,112 972,388 972,388 972,388 2005 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 2006 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388

  13. Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 111,556 111,556 2003 112,088 129,968 112,095 112,095 112,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 2004 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 113,597 113,397 113,397 2005 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 2006 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397

  14. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2003 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2004 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2005 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2006 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200

  15. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 2003 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 2004 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 288,197 288,197 288,197 2005 288,197 288,197 288,197 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 2006 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259

  16. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 220,597 220,597 2003 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 2004 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,804 220,804 220,804 2005 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 2006 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804

  17. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 576,841 576,841 2003 576,841 576,841 576,841 576,841 576,841 587,116 563,590 587,116 587,116 587,116 587,116 587,116 2004 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 591,673 591,673 591,673 2005 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 2006 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673

  18. Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2003 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2004 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2005 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2006 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000

  19. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,071,747 1,071,747 2003 1,043,529 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,034,429 1,034,429 2004 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,018,517 1,018,517 1,018,517 1,045,517 1,045,517 1,013,437 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 2005 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264

  20. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2003 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2004 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2005 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2006 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2007 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000

  1. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 141,912 141,912 141,912 141,912 144,787 144,787 2003 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 2004 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 143,887 143,887 143,887 2005 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 2006 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887

  2. Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,992 31,992 2003 31,992 31,992 31,992 31,992 31,992 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 2004 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,080 32,080 32,080 2005 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 2006 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,146 32,146 32,146

  3. Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 374,125 374,125 2003 374,125 374,125 374,125 374,125 374,125 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2004 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2005 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2006 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201

  4. Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2003 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2004 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2005 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2006 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469

  5. California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 388,480 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 474,920 474,920 2003 474,920 474,920 474,920 474,920 474,920 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 2004 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 486,095 446,095 446,095 454,095 454,095 454,095 2005 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 2006 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095

  6. Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 2003 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 2004 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 2005 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 2006 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055

  7. Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 2003 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 901,274 901,274 901,274 945,307 945,307 945,307 945,307 2004 959,244 959,244 959,244 959,244 959,112 959,112 959,112 959,112 959,112 972,388 972,388 972,388 2005 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 2006 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388

  8. Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 111,556 111,556 2003 112,088 129,968 112,095 112,095 112,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 2004 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 113,597 113,397 113,397 2005 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 2006 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397

  9. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2003 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2004 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2005 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2006 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200

  10. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 2003 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 2004 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 288,197 288,197 288,197 2005 288,197 288,197 288,197 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 2006 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259

  11. Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 61,978 61,978 1990's 61,978 61,978 62,400 62,400 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2000's 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 2010's

  12. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 982,362 982,362 1990's 994,542 995,181 994,281 1,043,781 1,046,582 1,053,814 1,052,236 992,933 1,021,674 1,071,699 2000's 1,070,716 1,071,000 1,034,429 1,028,344 1,010,034 1,021,622 1,031,290 1,060,558 1,062,339 1,069,405 2010's 1,069,898 1,075,472 1,078,979 1,079,424 1,079,462

  13. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 7,000 7,000 1990's 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 6,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2000's 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2010's

  14. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 108,171 108,207 1990's 108,601 114,621 114,627 114,627 124,138 124,114 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 2000's 134,012 134,000 144,787 143,887 146,287 150,947 150,809 166,909 187,251 210,128 2010's 235,638 240,241 289,416 303,522 331,469

  15. Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 29,025 29,791 1990's 29,791 29,791 30,564 30,564 30,564 30,564 31,125 31,273 31,273 31,273 2000's 31,878 32,000 32,098 32,080 32,004 32,146 32,505 32,940 32,876 10,889 2010's 11,502

  16. Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 373,963 373,960 1990's 373,960 373,960 375,010 375,010 375,010 375,010 375,010 342,785 371,510 371,510 2000's 371,510 372,000 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 376,301 2010's

  17. Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 88,438 88,438 1990's 143,311 93,311 93,311 93,311 93,311 39,468 39,468 39,468 39,468 39,468 2000's 39,468 39,000 39,468 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 34,850 34,850 34,850 2010's

  18. New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 94,600 94,600 1990's 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2000's 96,600 97,000 89,800 83,800 83,800 83,124 82,652 78,424 80,000 80,000 2010's 84,300 84,3

  19. New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 156,259 156,259 1990's 147,618 150,538 167,834 173,463 173,463 173,463 173,979 175,479 175,479 175,129 2000's 175,495 166,000 190,156 200,545 204,765 204,855 213,225 229,013 228,613 245,579 2010's 245,579 245,579 245,5

  20. Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 612,547 612,547 1990's 591,494 591,494 591,494 594,644 595,008 620,544 557,452 573,434 575,234 575,384 2000's 573,784 574,000 573,709 572,404 572,404 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 580,380 2010's 580,380 580,380 577,944 577,944 577,94

  1. Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 377,189 364,887 1990's 362,616 362,616 359,616 359,616 363,593 364,593 395,087 396,087 394,827 394,827 2000's 378,137 382,000 389,767 384,838 383,638 378,738 380,038 373,738 371,324 371,338 2010's 371,338 372,838 370,838 370,535 375,935

  2. Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 9,791 1990's 9,791 9,791 11,445 11,445 11,622 11,622 11,622 11,622 11,622 11,622 2000's 16,035 21,000 23,675 23,796 24,480 24,034 26,703 29,415 29,415 29,565 2010's 29,565 29,565 28,750

  3. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 805,394 805,393 1990's 640,938 640,938 669,354 664,693 658,578 654,570 680,006 684,842 684,842 684,842 2000's 684,518 717,070 714,216 748,074 749,018 748,792 750,054 759,365 759,153 776,964 2010's 776,822 776,845 774,309 774,309 774,309

  4. West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 733,126 733,126 733,126 733,126 733,126 733,126 496,796 496,796 496,796 496,796 497,996 497,996 2003 497,996 497,996...

  5. Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 1,200 1,200 2000's 1,200 1,000 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2010's 0

  6. Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 590,248 589,780 1990's 586,502 589,018 595,229 598,782 627,589 653,420 672,533 683,891 684,226 684,226 2000's 699,323 686,000 699,471 662,593 674,196 680,096 690,061 690,678 740,477 766,768 2010's 783,579 812,394 831,190 842,072 834,124

  7. Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 114,980 114,980 1990's 114,980 114,980 114,980 114,980 122,498 122,498 121,980 121,980 121,980 121,980 2000's 129,480 129,000 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2010's 129,480 124,465 124,465 124,465 124,465

  8. Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 4,668 4,668 2000's 4,967 5,000 5,100 6,720 8,100 9,035 9,692 9,560 6,200 9,500 2010's

  9. Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 36,400 36,400 1990's 32,100 34,100 34,100 34,100 33,900 33,900 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 2000's 37,300 37,000 39,627 40,247 41,263 42,191 43,316 39,341 39,287 39,210 2010's 41,309 43,673

  10. Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 114,980 114,980 1990's 114,980 114,980 114,980 114,980 122,498 122,498 121,980 121,980 121,980 121,980 2000's 129,480 129,000 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2010's 129,480 124,465 124,465 124,465 124,465

  11. Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 4,668 4,668 2000's 4,967 5,000 5,100 6,720 8,100 9,035 9,692 9,560 6,200 9,500 2010's

  12. Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 36,400 36,400 1990's 32,100 34,100 34,100 34,100 33,900 33,900 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 2000's 37,300 37,000 39,627 40,247 41,263 42,191 43,316 39,341 39,287 39,210 2010's 41,309 43,673

  13. Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 103,831 103,830 1990's 106,130 106,130 105,668 105,668 105,668 105,668 105,868 105,868 105,868 105,868 2000's 105,868 106,000 115,068 114,187 114,160 114,160 114,096 114,067 111,167 111,120 2010's 111,120 106,764 124,937

  14. Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 2003 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 2004 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 11,015 11,015 11,015 2005 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 2006 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 2007 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015

  15. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 25,907 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2014 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2015 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592

  16. Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2003 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2004 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2005 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2006 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000

  17. Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2003 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2004 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2005 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2006 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2007 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200

  18. Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 699,324 698,258 699,324 699,324 699,324 699,324 699,324 699,324 700,324 700,324 723,922 723,922 2003 723,922 723,922 723,922 723,922 723,922 699,472 699,472 699,472 699,472 699,472 699,472 699,472 2004 700,769 700,769 700,769 700,769 675,769 675,769 675,769 675,769 675,769 665,730 665,730 665,730 2005 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 2006 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730

  19. New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2003 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 2004 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 2005 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 2006 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,124 83,124 83,124

  20. New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 189,267 189,267 2003 189,267 189,267 189,267 189,267 189,267 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 2004 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 203,265 203,265 203,265 2005 203,265 203,265 203,265 203,265 203,265 203,265 203,265 204,265 204,265 204,265 204,265 204,265 2006 204,265 204,265 204,265 204,265

  1. Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 575,959 575,959 2003 575,959 575,959 575,959 575,959 575,959 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 2004 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 572,404 572,404 572,404 2005 572,404 572,404 572,329 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 2006 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404

  2. Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 378,137 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 2003 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 2004 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 384,838 384,838 384,838 2005 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 2006 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838

  3. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 713,818 713,818 713,818 713,818 713,818 713,818 950,148 950,148 950,148 950,148 950,148 950,148 2003 950,148 950,148 950,148 950,148 950,148 714,417 714,417 714,417 714,417 714,417 714,217 714,097 2004 712,687 712,292 712,292 709,946 709,946 709,946 709,946 709,826 721,019 748,874 748,874 748,338 2005 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 2006 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338

  4. Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 2003 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 2004 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 114,187 114,187 114,187 2005 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 2006 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187

  5. California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 459,673 466,818 1990's 291,678 467,678 472,108 472,108 472,108 472,908 469,695 396,430 388,370 388,370 2000's 388,480 476,000 478,995 446,095 478,226 477,726 484,711 487,711 498,705 513,005 2010's 542,511 570,511 592,411 599,711 599,711

  6. Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 82,662 82,662 1990's 98,999 98,999 105,790 105,790 105,583 108,837 99,599 99,599 99,599 99,599 2000's 100,226 100,000 101,054 101,055 101,055 98,068 98,068 98,068 95,068 105,768 2010's 105,768 105,858 124,253 122,0

  7. Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 953,947 952,279 1990's 949,914 949,914 949,721 952,388 958,968 905,260 898,239 965,565 898,565 898,565 2000's 898,565 899,000 945,307 972,388 982,474 981,995 984,768 980,691 977,989 989,454 2010's 990,487 997,364 999,931 1,000,281 1,004,547

  8. Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 114,603 112,045 1990's 97,332 102,246 106,176 106,676 108,621 113,121 113,209 113,209 113,209 113,209 2000's 113,210 113,000 111,095 113,597 113,397 114,080 114,294 114,294 114,937 114,274 2010's 111,271 111,313 110,749 110,749 110,749

  9. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 311,000 311,000 1990's 229,700 279,700 279,700 279,700 270,200 270,200 270,200 408,200 273,200 273,200 2000's 273,200 273,000 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 275,200 278,238 284,747 284,811 2010's 288,0

  10. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 334,925 334,925 1990's 301,199 301,199 290,571 289,797 290,148 283,603 285,201 304,065 301,101 301,101 2000's 300,401 300,000 299,473 288,197 289,450 289,747 288,383 288,926 282,221 282,300 2010's 284,821 284,731 284,905 283,97

  11. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 206,572 206,603 1990's 312,061 307,235 210,242 210,242 209,753 215,351 216,351 219,907 219,907 219,907 2000's 219,913 220,000 220,596 220,804 220,844 218,927 218,394 220,359 220,359 220,368 2010's 221,751 221,751 221,751 221,723 221,723

  12. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 559,019 559,019 1990's 550,823 559,823 539,200 542,900 551,580 549,436 554,872 559,012 563,867 564,062 2000's 569,187 580,000 587,115 591,673 593,740 593,740 599,165 588,711 615,858 651,968 2010's 670,880 690,295 699,646 733,939 745,029

  13. U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    Lower 48 States Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region East Region South Central Region Midwest Region Mountain Region Pacific Region Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download

  14. U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Total Storage

  15. Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2003 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2004 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2005 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2006 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480

  16. Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 2,992 2,992 2003 2,992 2,992 2,992 2,992 2,992 5,100 5,100 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 2004 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 8,024 8,024 8,024 2005 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 2006 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 9,035 9,035 9,035 2007 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,692

  17. Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,720 37,720 2003 37,720 37,720 37,720 37,720 37,720 38,969 38,969 38,969 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 2004 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 40,247 40,247 40,247 2005 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 2006 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 42,191 42,191 42,191

  18. West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 733,126 733,126 733,126 733,126 733,126 733,126 496,796 496,796 496,796 496,796 497,996 497,996 2003 497,996 497,996 497,996 497,996 497,996 509,836 509,836 509,836 509,836 509,758 494,458 494,458 2004 492,025 492,025 492,025 492,025 492,025 492,025 492,025 492,025 492,025 510,827 510,827 510,827 2005 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 2006 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827

  19. ,"U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity"

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

    Date:","1292016" ,"Next Release Date:","2292016" ,"Excel File Name:","ngstorcapdcunusm.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http:www.eia.govdnavng...

  20. West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 523,132 523,132 1990's 525,138 525,138 525,206 519,286 520,457 466,089 484,596 734,157 733,157 733,157 2000's 733,125 733,000 494,457 510,827 512,143 512,377 513,416 536,702 528,442 531,456 2010's 531,480 524,324 524,324 524,3

  1. Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 103,831 103,830 1990's 106,130 106,130 105,668 105,668 105,668 105,668 105,868 105,868 105,868 105,868 2000's 105,868 106,000 115,068 114,187 114,160 114,160 114,096 114,067 111,167 111,120 2010's 111,120 106,764 124,937

  2. New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 189,267 189,267 2003 189,267 189,267...

  3. New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 156,259 156,259 1990's 147,618 150,538 167,834 173,463 173,463 173,463 173,979 175,479 175,479...

  4. Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...

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

    21,080 21,080 21,080 21,080 22,042 22,042 22,042 22,042 2003 22,042 22,042 22,042 22,042 22,042 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 2004 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676...

  5. Natural Gas Weekly Update, Printer-Friendly Version

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    325,000 Dth per day. Additionally, 25,000 Dth per day of capacity will be available for park and loan. The new capacity was effective with the cycle 1 gas day August 2 and is...

  6. Alaskan Natural Gas Pipeline Developments (released in AEO2007)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2007-01-01

    The Annual Energy Outlook 2007 reference case projects that an Alaska natural gas pipeline will go into operation in 2018, based on the Energy Information Administration's current understanding of the projects time line and economics. There is continuing debate, however, about the physical configuration and the ownership of the pipeline. In addition, the issue of Alaskas oil and natural gas production taxes has been raised, in the context of a current market environment characterized by rising construction costs and falling natural gas prices. If rates of return on investment by producers are reduced to unacceptable levels, or if the project faces significant delays, other sources of natural gas, such as unconventional natural gas production and liquefied natural gas imports, could fulfill the demand that otherwise would be served by an Alaska pipeline.

  7. Spray dryer capacity stretched 50%

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Paraskevas, J.

    1983-01-01

    This article describes plant equipment modifications which has resulted in a 50% increase in spray drying capacity. The installation of a new atomizer and screening system in NL Chemicals' Newberry Springs plant which produces natural clays for use as rheological additives in industrial coatings, cosmetics and other products, resulted in a 50% increase in spray drying capacity. Energy consumption per pound of product was reduced by 7%, and product quality improved. This was achieved in less than three months at an investment of less than 10% of what an additional spray dryer would have cost.

  8. Natural Gas Electric Power Price

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Citygate Price Residential Price Commercial Price Industrial Price Electric Power Price Gross Withdrawals Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Oil Wells Gross Withdrawals From Shale Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Coalbed Wells Repressuring Nonhydrocarbon Gases Removed Vented and Flared Marketed Production NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Dry Production Imports By Pipeline LNG Imports Exports Exports By Pipeline LNG Exports Underground Storage Capacity Gas in Underground

  9. Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operable Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Barrels per Calendar Day) Data Series: Total Number of Operable Refineries Number of Operating Refineries Number of Idle Refineries Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operable Capacity (B/CD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operating Capacity (B/CD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Idle Capacity (B/CD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operable Capacity (B/SD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operating Capacity (B/SD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Idle Capacity (B/SD) Vacuum

  10. Worldwide Energy Efficiency Action through Capacity Building...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Capacity Building and Training (WEACT) Jump to: navigation, search Logo: Worldwide Energy Efficiency Action through Capacity Building and Training (WEACT) Name Worldwide...

  11. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity

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

    Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity With Data for September 2015 | Release ... Containing storage capacity data for crude oil, petroleum products, and selected biofuels. ...

  12. Property:Capacity | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Capacity Jump to: navigation, search Property Name Capacity Property Type Quantity Description Potential electric energy generation, default units of megawatts. Use this property...

  13. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Delaware" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Hay Road","Natural gas","Calpine Mid-Atlantic Generation LLC",1136 2,"Edge Moor","Natural gas","Calpine Mid-Atlantic Generation LLC",725 3,"Indian River Generating Station","Coal","Indian River Operations Inc",591.4 4,"Delaware City Plant","Other

  14. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Maine" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"William F Wyman","Petroleum","FPL Energy Wyman LLC",821.6 2,"Westbrook Energy Center Power Plant","Natural gas","Westbrook Energy Center",506 3,"Maine Independence Station","Natural gas","Casco Bay Energy Co LLC",490 4,"Verso Paper","Natural

  15. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Jersey" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"PSEG Salem Generating Station","Nuclear","PSEG Nuclear LLC",2370.4 2,"PSEG Linden Generating Station","Natural gas","PSEG Fossil LLC",1572 3,"Bergen Generating Station","Natural gas","PSEG Fossil LLC",1208 4,"PSEG Hope Creek Generating

  16. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Mexico" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"San Juan","Coal","Public Service Co of NM",1684 2,"Four Corners","Coal","Arizona Public Service Co",1540 3,"Luna Energy Facility","Natural gas","Public Service Co of NM",559 4,"Hobbs Generating Station","Natural gas","CAMS NM LLC",530.4

  17. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Colorado" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Comanche (CO)","Coal","Public Service Co of Colorado",1410 2,"Craig (CO)","Coal","Tri-State G & T Assn, Inc",1304 3,"Fort St Vrain","Natural gas","Public Service Co of Colorado",969 4,"Rawhide","Natural gas","Platte River Power

  18. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Florida" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Martin","Natural gas","Florida Power & Light Co",3695 2,"West County Energy Center","Natural gas","Florida Power & Light Co",3669 3,"Turkey Point","Nuclear","Florida Power & Light Co",3552 4,"Manatee","Petroleum","Florida Power &

  19. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Kentucky" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Paradise","Coal","Tennessee Valley Authority",2201 2,"Trimble County","Coal","Louisville Gas & Electric Co",2185 3,"Ghent","Coal","Kentucky Utilities Co",1932 4,"E W Brown","Natural gas","Kentucky Utilities Co",1496 5,"Mill Creek

  20. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Louisiana" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Big Cajun 2","Coal","Louisiana Generating LLC",1756 2,"Willow Glen","Natural gas","Entergy Gulf States - LA LLC",1748.8 3,"Brame Energy Center","Petroleum","Cleco Power LLC",1543 4,"Nine Mile Point","Natural gas","Entergy Louisiana

  1. High Methane Storage Capacity in Aluminum Metal-Organic Frameworks |

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

    Center for Gas SeparationsRelevant to Clean Energy Technologies | Blandine Jerome High Methane Storage Capacity in Aluminum Metal-Organic Frameworks Previous Next List Felipe Gándara, Hiroyasu Furukawa, Seungkyu Lee, and Omar M. Yaghi, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 136, 5271-5274 (2014) DOI: 10.1021/ja501606h Abstract Image Abstract: The use of porous materials to store natural gas in vehicles requires large amounts of methane per unit of volume. Here we report the synthesis, crystal structure and

  2. Ownership transfer for non-federate object and time management in developing an hla compliant logistics model.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Li, Z.

    1998-01-12

    A seaport simulation model, PORTSIM, has been developed for the Department of Defense (DOD) at Argonne National Laboratory. PORTSIM simulates the detailed processes of cargo loading and unloading in a seaport and provides throughput capability, resource utilization, and other important information on the bottlenecks in a seaport operation, which are crucial data in determining troop and equipment deployment capability. There are two key problems to solve in developing the HLA-compliant PORTSIM model. The first is the cargo object ownership transfer problem. In PORTSIM, cargo items, e.g. vehicles, containers, and pallets, are objects having asset attributes. Cargo comes to a seaport for loading or unloading. The ownership of a cargo object transfers from its carrier to the port and then from the port to a new carrier. Each owner of the cargo object is responsible for publishing and updating the attributes of the cargo object when it has the ownership. This creates a unique situation in developing the PORTSIM federate object model, that is, the ownership of the object instead of the attributes needs to be changed in handling the cargo object in the PORTSIM federate. The ownership management service provided by the current RTI does not directly address this issue. The second is the time management issue. PORTSIM is an event-driven simulation that models seaport operations over time. To make PORTSIM HLA compliant, time management must be addressed to allow for synchronization with other simulation models. This paper attempts to address these two issues and methodologies developed for solving these two problems.

  3. Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update...

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

    of new production basins, including the San Juan Basin, Powder River Basin, and Green River Basin, natural gas processing capacity in this region has expanded...

  4. Shale Gas Spreads to the South | GE Global Research

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

    of techniques of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (also known as "fracking") have allowed the expansion of production capacity of oil and natural gas in...

  5. Santa Ynez Chumash Strategic Energy Planning and Capacity Building Project

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Santa Ynez Chumash Strategic Energy Planning and Capacity Building Project Lars Davenport Environmental Specialist Santa Ynez Chumash Environmental Office March 24, 2014 137 Acre Reservation * Tribal government facilities * Casino, hotel, WWTP * 20 vehicles Off Reservation * 2 hotels, restaurant, 2 gas stations * 2 parking lots, business admin building * 7 acre fee-to-trust property * 1400 acre fee-to-trust Chumash Energy Overview Tribal Government Manages: Tribal government administration

  6. winter_capacity_2010.xls

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

    Table 4.B Winter Net Internal Demand, Capacity Resources, and Capacity Margins by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, 2001-2010 Actual, 2011-2015 Projected (Megawatts and Percent) Interconnection NERC Regional Assesment Area 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/ 2011 2011/2012E 2012/2013E 2013/2014E 2014/2015E 2015/2016E FRCC 39,699 42,001 36,229 41,449 42,493 45,993 46,093 45,042 51,703 45,954 44,196 44,750 45,350

  7. Natural Gas Weekly Update, Printer-Friendly Version

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    of approval for Starks Storage Company's proposal to construct and operate a salt dome gas storage facility, with a total estimated capacity of about 28.9 Bcf of gas. It...

  8. Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update...

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

    States along the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf States have been some of the most prolific natural gas producing areas. U.S. natural gas processing capacity showed a net increase of about 12...

  9. EIS-0164: Pacific Gas Transmission/Pacific Gas and Electric and Altamont Natural Gas Pipeline Project

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has prepared the PGT/PG&E and Altamont Natural Gas Pipeline Projects Environmental Impact Statement to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. This project addresses the need to expand the capacity of the pipeline transmission system to better transfer Canadian natural gas to Southern California and the Pacific Northwest. The U.S. Department of Energy cooperated in the preparation of this statement because Section 19(c) of the Natural Gas Act applies to the Department’s action of authorizing import/export of natural gas, and adopted this statement by the spring of 1992. "

  10. A Total Cost of Ownership Model for Low Temperature PEM Fuel Cells in Combined Heat and Power and Backup Power Applications

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    University of California, Berkeley; Wei, Max; Lipman, Timothy; Mayyas, Ahmad; Chien, Joshua; Chan, Shuk Han; Gosselin, David; Breunig, Hanna; Stadler, Michael; McKone, Thomas; Beattie, Paul; Chong, Patricia; Colella, Whitney; James, Brian

    2014-06-23

    A total cost of ownership model is described for low temperature proton exchange membrane stationary fuel cell systems for combined heat and power (CHP) applications from 1-250kW and backup power applications from 1-50kW. System designs and functional specifications for these two applications were developed across the range of system power levels. Bottom-up cost estimates were made for balance of plant costs, and detailed direct cost estimates for key fuel cell stack components were derived using design-for-manufacturing-and-assembly techniques. The development of high throughput, automated processes achieving high yield are projected to reduce the cost for fuel cell stacks to the $300/kW level at an annual production volume of 100 MW. Several promising combinations of building types and geographical location in the U.S. were identified for installation of fuel cell CHP systems based on the LBNL modelling tool DER CAM. Life-cycle modelling and externality assessment were done for hotels and hospitals. Reduced electricity demand charges, heating credits and carbon credits can reduce the effective cost of electricity ($/kWhe) by 26-44percent in locations such as Minneapolis, where high carbon intensity electricity from the grid is displaces by a fuel cell system operating on reformate fuel. This project extends the scope of existing cost studies to include externalities and ancillary financial benefits and thus provides a more comprehensive picture of fuel cell system benefits, consistent with a policy and incentive environment that increasingly values these ancillary benefits. The project provides a critical, new modelling capacity and should aid a broad range of policy makers in assessing the integrated costs and benefits of fuel cell systems versus other distributed generation technologies.

  11. Battery Ownership Model: A Tool for Evaluating the Economics of Electrified Vehicles and Related Infrastructure (Presentation)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    O'Keefe, M.; Brooker, A.; Johnson, C.; Mendelsohn, M.; Neubauer, J.; Pesaran, A.

    2010-11-01

    This presentation uses a vehicle simulator and economics model called the Battery Ownership Model to examine the levelized cost per mile of conventional (CV) and hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) in comparison with the cost to operate an electric vehicle (EV) under a service provider business model. The service provider is assumed to provide EV infrastructure such as charge points and swap stations to allow an EV with a 100-mile range to operate with driving profiles equivalent to CVs and HEVs. Battery cost, fuel price forecast, battery life, and other variables are examined to determine under what scenarios the levelized cost of an EV with a service provider can approach that of a CV. Scenarios in both the United States as an average and Hawaii are examined. The levelized cost of operating an EV with a service provider under average U.S. conditions is approximately twice the cost of operating a small CV. If battery cost and life can be improved, in this study the cost of an EV drops to under 1.5 times the cost of a CV for U.S. average conditions. In Hawaii, the same EV is only slightly more expensive to operate than a CV.

  12. Material World: Forecasting Household Appliance Ownership in a Growing Global Economy

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Letschert, Virginie; McNeil, Michael A.

    2009-03-23

    Over the past years the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) has developed an econometric model that predicts appliance ownership at the household level based on macroeconomic variables such as household income (corrected for purchase power parity), electrification, urbanization and climate variables. Hundreds of data points from around the world were collected in order to understand trends in acquisition of new appliances by households, especially in developing countries. The appliances covered by this model are refrigerators, lighting fixtures, air conditioners, washing machines and televisions. The approach followed allows the modeler to construct a bottom-up analysis based at the end use and the household level. It captures the appliance uptake and the saturation effect which will affect the energy demand growth in the residential sector. With this approach, the modeler can also account for stock changes in technology and efficiency as a function of time. This serves two important functions with regard to evaluation of the impact of energy efficiency policies. First, it provides insight into which end uses will be responsible for the largest share of demand growth, and therefore should be policy priorities. Second, it provides a characterization of the rate at which policies affecting new equipment penetrate the appliance stock. Over the past 3 years, this method has been used to support the development of energy demand forecasts at the country, region or global level.

  13. U.S. Refining Capacity Utilization

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    1995-01-01

    This article briefly reviews recent trends in domestic refining capacity utilization and examines in detail the differences in reported crude oil distillation capacities and utilization rates among different classes of refineries.

  14. California: Conducting Polymer Binder Boosts Storage Capacity...

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

    Conducting Polymer Binder Boosts Storage Capacity, Wins R&D 100 Award California: Conducting Polymer Binder Boosts Storage Capacity, Wins R&D 100 Award August 19, 2013 - 10:17am ...

  15. T10K Change Max Capacity

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    2013-08-16

    This command line utility will enable/disable the Oracle StorageTek T10000 tape drive's maximum capacity feature.

  16. DOE Transmission Capacity Report | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Transmission Capacity Report DOE Transmission Capacity Report DOE Transmission Capacity Report: Transmission lines, substations, circuit breakers, capacitors, and other equipment provide more than just a highway to deliver energy and power from generating units to distribution systems. Transmission systems both complement and substitute for generation. Transmission generally enhances reliability; lowers the cost of electricity delivered to consumers; limits the ability of generators to exercise

  17. Capacity Value of Concentrating Solar Power Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Madaeni, S. H.; Sioshansi, R.; Denholm, P.

    2011-06-01

    This study estimates the capacity value of a concentrating solar power (CSP) plant at a variety of locations within the western United States. This is done by optimizing the operation of the CSP plant and by using the effective load carrying capability (ELCC) metric, which is a standard reliability-based capacity value estimation technique. Although the ELCC metric is the most accurate estimation technique, we show that a simpler capacity-factor-based approximation method can closely estimate the ELCC value. Without storage, the capacity value of CSP plants varies widely depending on the year and solar multiple. The average capacity value of plants evaluated ranged from 45%?90% with a solar multiple range of 1.0-1.5. When introducing thermal energy storage (TES), the capacity value of the CSP plant is more difficult to estimate since one must account for energy in storage. We apply a capacity-factor-based technique under two different market settings: an energy-only market and an energy and capacity market. Our results show that adding TES to a CSP plant can increase its capacity value significantly at all of the locations. Adding a single hour of TES significantly increases the capacity value above the no-TES case, and with four hours of storage or more, the average capacity value at all locations exceeds 90%.

  18. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Michigan" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Monroe (MI)","Coal","DTE Electric Company",2944 2,"Donald C Cook","Nuclear","Indiana Michigan Power Co",2069 3,"Ludington","Pumped storage","Consumers Energy Co",1872 4,"Midland Cogeneration Venture","Natural gas","Midland Cogeneration

  19. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    United States" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Grand Coulee","Hydroelectric","U S Bureau of Reclamation",7079 2,"Palo Verde","Nuclear","Arizona Public Service Co",3937 3,"Martin","Natural gas","Florida Power & Light Co",3695 4,"W A Parish","Coal","NRG Texas Power LLC",3675

  20. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Connecticut" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Millstone","Nuclear","Dominion Nuclear Conn Inc",2102.5 2,"Middletown","Petroleum","Middletown Power LLC",770.2 3,"Lake Road Generating Plant","Natural gas","Lake Road Generating Co LP",757.3 4,"Kleen Energy Systems Project","Natural

  1. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Georgia" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Scherer","Coal","Georgia Power Co",3406.7 2,"Bowen","Coal","Georgia Power Co",3202 3,"Jack McDonough","Natural gas","Georgia Power Co",2578 4,"Vogtle","Nuclear","Georgia Power Co",2302 5,"Wansley","Coal","Georgia Power

  2. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Idaho" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Brownlee","Hydroelectric","Idaho Power Co",744 2,"Dworshak","Hydroelectric","USACE Northwestern Division",400 3,"Langley Gulch Power Plant","Natural gas","Idaho Power Co",298.7 4,"Cabinet Gorge","Hydroelectric","Avista Corp",254.6

  3. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Kansas" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Jeffrey Energy Center","Coal","Westar Energy Inc",2155 2,"La Cygne","Coal","Kansas City Power & Light Co",1415.3 3,"Wolf Creek Generating Station","Nuclear","Wolf Creek Nuclear Optg Corp",1175 4,"Gordon Evans Energy Center","Natural gas","Kansas

  4. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    York" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Robert Moses Niagara","Hydroelectric","New York Power Authority",2353.2 2,"Ravenswood","Natural gas","TC Ravenswood LLC",2207.6 3,"Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station","Nuclear","Nine Mile Point Nuclear Sta LLC",1924.1 4,"Northport","Natural

  5. North Dakota Refining Capacity Study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dennis Hill; Kurt Swenson; Carl Tuura; Jim Simon; Robert Vermette; Gilberto Marcha; Steve Kelly; David Wells; Ed Palmer; Kuo Yu; Tram Nguyen; Juliam Migliavacca

    2011-01-05

    According to a 2008 report issued by the United States Geological Survey, North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation. With the size and remoteness of the discovery, the question became 'can a business case be made for increasing refining capacity in North Dakota?' And, if so what is the impact to existing players in the region. To answer the question, a study committee comprised of leaders in the region's petroleum industry were brought together to define the scope of the study, hire a consulting firm and oversee the study. The study committee met frequently to provide input on the findings and modify the course of the study, as needed. The study concluded that the Petroleum Area Defense District II (PADD II) has an oversupply of gasoline. With that in mind, a niche market, naphtha, was identified. Naphtha is used as a diluent used for pipelining the bitumen (heavy crude) from Canada to crude markets. The study predicted there will continue to be an increase in the demand for naphtha through 2030. The study estimated the optimal configuration for the refinery at 34,000 barrels per day (BPD) producing 15,000 BPD of naphtha and a 52 percent refinery charge for jet and diesel yield. The financial modeling assumed the sponsor of a refinery would invest its own capital to pay for construction costs. With this assumption, the internal rate of return is 9.2 percent which is not sufficient to attract traditional investment given the risk factor of the project. With that in mind, those interested in pursuing this niche market will need to identify incentives to improve the rate of return.

  6. Coal companies invest in more longwall capacity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fiscor, S.

    2006-02-15

    This year's annual survey shows not much has changed since last year. The overall population stands at 47 mines operating 53 longwalls. CONSOL Energy remains the leading US longwall operator with 13 installations, followed by Arch Coal (5), Robert E. Murray (5) and Massey Energy (4). West Virginia remains the leading longwall mining state with 14 faces in 2005, followed by Pennsylvania (8), Alabama (7), Utah (7) and Colorado (5). A detailed table gives for each longwall installation, the ownership, seam height, cutting height, panel width and length, overburden, number of gate entries, depth of cut, model of equipment used (shearer, haulage system, roof support, face conveyor, stage loader, crusher, electrical controls and voltage to face). 1 photos., 2 tabs.

  7. How regulators should use natural gas price forecasts

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Costello, Ken

    2010-08-15

    Natural gas prices are critical to a range of regulatory decisions covering both electric and gas utilities. Natural gas prices are often a crucial variable in electric generation capacity planning and in the benefit-cost relationship for energy-efficiency programs. High natural gas prices can make coal generation the most economical new source, while low prices can make natural gas generation the most economical. (author)

  8. Multiple volume compressor for hot gas engine

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Stotts, Robert E. (Clifton Park, NY)

    1986-01-01

    A multiple volume compressor for use in a hot gas (Stirling) engine having a plurality of different volume chambers arranged to pump down the engine when decreased power is called for and return the working gas to a storage tank or reservoir. A valve actuated bypass loop is placed over each chamber which can be opened to return gas discharged from the chamber back to the inlet thereto. By selectively actuating the bypass valves, a number of different compressor capacities can be attained without changing compressor speed whereby the capacity of the compressor can be matched to the power available from the engine which is used to drive the compressor.

  9. WINDExchange: U.S. Installed Wind Capacity

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

    Education Printable Version Bookmark and Share Workforce Development Collegiate Wind Competition Wind for Schools Project School Project Locations Education & Training Programs Curricula & Teaching Materials Resources Installed Wind Capacity This page has maps of the United States that show installed wind capacity by state and its progression. This map shows the installed wind capacity in megawatts. As of June 30, 2015, 67,870 megawatts have been installed. Alaska, 62 megawatts; Hawaii,

  10. Property:Cooling Capacity | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Pages using the property "Cooling Capacity" Showing 2 pages using this property. D Distributed Generation Study615 kW Waukesha Packaged System + 90 + Distributed Generation...

  11. Increasing the Capacity of Existing Power Lines

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2013-04-01

    The capacity of the grid has been largely unchanged for decades and needs to expand to accommodate new power plants and renewable energy projects.

  12. EEI/DOE Transmission Capacity Report

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

    ... The data show a continuation of past trends. Specifically, transmission capacity is being ... 1978 through 2012. These results show trends over time at the national and regional ...

  13. Solar Energy and Capacity Value (Fact Sheet)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    2013-09-01

    This is a one-page, two-sided fact sheet on the capacity of solar power to provide value to utilities and power system operators.

  14. Voluntary Initiative: Partnering to Enhance Program Capacity

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Better Buildings Residential Network Program Sustainability Peer Exchange Call Series: Voluntary Initiative: Partnering to Enhance Program Capacity, Call Slides and Summary, May 8, 2014.

  15. Climate Change Capacity Development (C3D+) | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Capacity Development (C3D+) Jump to: navigation, search Logo: Climate Change Capacity Development (C3D+) Name Climate Change Capacity Development (C3D+) AgencyCompany...

  16. Trinidad and Tobago-Building Capacity for Innovative Policy NAMAs...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Trinidad and Tobago-Building Capacity for Innovative Policy NAMAs (Redirected from Building Capacity for Innovative Policy NAMAs) Jump to: navigation, search Name Building Capacity...

  17. UNDP-Low Emission Capacity Building Programme | Open Energy Informatio...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Capacity Building Programme Jump to: navigation, search Logo: UNDP-Low Emission Capacity Building Programme Name UNDP-Low Emission Capacity Building Programme AgencyCompany...

  18. Thermoacoustic natural gas liquefier

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Swift, G.W.

    1997-05-01

    Cryenco and Los Alamos are collaborating to develop a natural-gas-powered natural-gas liquefier that will have no moving parts and require no electrical power. It will have useful efficiency, remarkable reliability, and low cost. The liquefaction of natural gas, which occurs at only 115 Kelvin at atmospheric pressure, has previously required rather sophisticated refrigeration machinery. The 1990 invention of the thermoacoustically driven orifice pulse-tube refrigerator (TA-DOPTR) provides cryogenic refrigeration with no moving parts for the first time. In short, this invention uses acoustic phenomena to produce refrigeration from heat. The required apparatus consists of nothing more than helium-filled heat exchangers and pipes, made of common materials, without exacting tolerances. In the Cryenco-Los Alamos collaboration, the authors are developing a version of this invention suitable for use in the natural-gas industry. The project is known as acoustic liquefier for short. The present program plans call for a two-phase development. Phase 1, with capacity of 500 gallon per day (i.e., approximately 40,000 scfd, requiring a refrigeration power of about 7 kW), is large enough to illuminate all the issues of large-scale acoustic liquefaction without undue cost, and to demonstrate the liquefaction of 60--70% of input gas, while burning 30--40%. Phase 2 will target versions of approximately 10{sup 6} scfd = 10,000 gallon per day capacity. In parallel with both, they continue fundamental research on the technology, directed toward increased efficiency, to build scientific foundations and a patent portfolio for future acoustic liquefiers.

  19. Natural Gas Market Digest (formerly Year in Review) - U.S. Energy

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Information Administration Natural Gas Reports Market Digest: Natural Gas (2013-2014) Updated: June 12, 2014 For prior report data see Natural Gas Year-in-Review archives EIA's Natural Gas Market Digest highlights the latest information and analyses on all aspects of the natural gas markets. Storage Record winter withdrawals create summer storage challenges, June 12, 2014 Natural gas storage working capacity grows 2% in 2012 - Today in Energy, July 24, 2013 High natural gas inventory last

  20. Expansion of the U.S. Natural Gas Pipeline Network

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2009-01-01

    Additions in 2008 and Projects through 2011. This report examines new natural gas pipeline capacity added to the U.S. natural gas pipeline system during 2008. In addition, it discusses and analyzes proposed natural gas pipeline projects that may be developed between 2009 and 2011, and the market factors supporting these initiatives.

  1. Retraying and revamp double big LPG fractionators's capacity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sasson, R. , Friendswood, TX ); Pate, R. )

    1993-08-02

    Enterprise operates two LPG fractionation units at Mont Belvieu: the Seminole unit and the West Texas unit. In 1985, Nye Engineering Inc., Friendswood, Texas, designed improvements to expand the Seminole plant from 60,000 b/d of C[sub 2] + feed to 90,000 b/d. The primary modifications made to increase the West Texas plant's capacity and reduce fuel consumption were the following: retraying the deethanizer and depropanizer columns with new High Capacity Nye Trays. Lowering the pressure in the de-ethanizer and depropanizer to improve the separating efficiency of the columns. Replacing the debutanizer with a high-pressure column that rejects its condensing heat as reboil for the de-ethanizer. Adjusting the feed temperature to balance the load in the top and bottom of the depropanizer column to prevent premature flooding in one section of the tower. Installing convection heaters to recover existing stack gas heat into the process. In conjunction with the capacity expansion, there was a strong incentive to improve the fuel efficiency of the unit. The modifications are described.

  2. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2015-01-01

    Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity is the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) report containing storage capacity data for crude oil, petroleum products, and selected biofuels. The report includes tables detailing working and net available shell storage capacity by type of facility, product, and Petroleum Administration for Defense District (PAD District). Net available shell storage capacity is broken down further to show the percent for exclusive use by facility operators and the percent leased to others. Crude oil storage capacity data are also provided for Cushing, Oklahoma, an important crude oil market center. Data are released twice each year near the end of May (data for March 31) and near the end of November (data for September 30).

  3. Gas separating

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Gollan, Arye Z. [Newton, MA

    1990-12-25

    Feed gas is directed tangentially along the non-skin surface of gas separation membrane modules comprising a cylindrical bundle of parallel contiguous hollow fibers supported to allow feed gas to flow from an inlet at one end of a cylindrical housing through the bores of the bundled fibers to an outlet at the other end while a component of the feed gas permeates through the fibers, each having the skin side on the outside, through a permeate outlet in the cylindrical casing.

  4. Gas separating

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Gollan, Arye (Newton, MA)

    1988-01-01

    Feed gas is directed tangentially along the non-skin surface of gas separation membrane modules comprising a cylindrical bundle of parallel contiguous hollow fibers supported to allow feed gas to flow from an inlet at one end of a cylindrical housing through the bores of the bundled fibers to an outlet at the other end while a component of the feed gas permeates through the fibers, each having the skin side on the outside, through a permeate outlet in the cylindrical casing.

  5. Virginia Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells ...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Virginia Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5...

  6. Colorado Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells ...

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

    Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Colorado Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5...

  7. Nebraska Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells ...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Nebraska Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5...

  8. Missouri Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells ...

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

    Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Missouri Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5...

  9. Michigan Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells ...

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

    Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Michigan Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5...

  10. Kentucky Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells ...

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

    Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Kentucky Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5...

  11. Tennessee Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells...

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

    Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Tennessee Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5...

  12. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells...

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

    Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

  13. Mississippi Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells...

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

    Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Mississippi Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

  14. Oklahoma Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells ...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Oklahoma Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5...

  15. Illinois Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells ...

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

    Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Illinois Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5...

  16. Arkansas Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells ...

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

    Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Arkansas Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5...

  17. Maryland Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells ...

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

    Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Maryland Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5...

  18. Louisiana Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells...

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

    Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Louisiana Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5...

  19. Capacity mapping for optimum utilization of pulverizers for coal fired boilers - article no. 032201

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bhattacharya, C.

    2008-09-15

    Capacity mapping is a process of comparison of standard inputs with actual fired inputs to assess the available standard output capacity of a pulverizer. The base capacity is a function of grindability; fineness requirement may vary depending on the volatile matter (VM) content of the coal and the input coal size. The quantity and the inlet will change depending on the quality of raw coal and output requirement. It should be sufficient to dry pulverized coal (PC). Drying capacity is also limited by utmost PA fan power to supply air. The PA temperature is limited by air preheater (APH) inlet flue gas temperature; an increase in this will result in efficiency loss of the boiler. The higher PA inlet temperature can be attained through the economizer gas bypass, the steam coiled APH, and the partial flue gas recirculation. The PS/coal ratioincreases with a decrease in grindability or pulverizer output and decreases with a decrease in VM. The flammability of mixture has to be monitored on explosion limit. Through calibration, the PA flow and efficiency of conveyance can be verified. The velocities of coal/air mixture to prevent fallout or to avoid erosion in the coal carrier pipe are dependent on the PC particle size distribution. Metal loss of grinding elements inversely depends on the YGP index of coal. Variations of dynamic loading and wearing of grinding elements affect the available milling capacity and percentage rejects. Therefore, capacity mapping in necessary to ensure the available pulverizer capacity to avoid overcapacity or undercapacity running of the pulverizing system, optimizing auxiliary power consumption. This will provide a guideline on the distribution of raw coal feeding in different pulverizers of a boiler to maximize system efficiency and control, resulting in a more cost effective heat rate.

  20. Representation of the Solar Capacity Value in the ReEDS Capacity Expansion Model: Preprint

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sigrin, B.; Sullivan, P.; Ibanez, E.; Margolis, R.

    2014-08-01

    An important emerging issue is the estimation of renewables' contributions to reliably meeting system demand, or their capacity value. While the capacity value of thermal generation can be estimated easily, assessment of wind and solar requires a more nuanced approach due to resource variability. Reliability-based methods, particularly, effective load-carrying capacity (ELCC), are considered to be the most robust techniques for addressing this resource variability. The Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) capacity expansion model and other long-term electricity capacity planning models require an approach to estimating CV for generalized PV and system configurations with low computational and data requirements. In this paper we validate treatment of solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity value by ReEDS capacity expansion model by comparing model results to literature for a range of energy penetration levels. Results from the ReEDS model are found to compare well with both comparisons--despite not being resolved at an hourly scale.

  1. Natural Gas Weekly Update

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    34 pipelines. Over this period, capacity release volumes receiving prices over the price cap were 2 percent of total capacity release volumes. Capacity release volumes and prices...

  2. Carbon Dioxide Sealing Capacity: Textural or Compositional Controls?

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cranganu, Constantin; Soleymani, Hamidreza; Sadiqua, Soleymani; Watson, Kieva

    2013-11-30

    This research project is aiming to assess the carbon dioxide sealing capacity of most common seal-rocks, such as shales and non-fractured limestones, by analyzing the role of textural and compositional parameters of those rocks. We hypothesize that sealing capacity is controlled by textural and/or compositional pa-rameters of caprocks. In this research, we seek to evaluate the importance of textural and compositional parameters affecting the sealing capacity of caprocks. The conceptu-al framework involves two testable end-member hypotheses concerning the sealing ca-pacity of carbon dioxide reservoir caprocks. Better understanding of the elements controlling sealing quality will advance our knowledge regarding the sealing capacity of shales and carbonates. Due to relatively low permeability, shale and non-fractured carbonate units are considered relatively imper-meable formations which can retard reservoir fluid flow by forming high capillary pres-sure. Similarly, these unites can constitute reliable seals for carbon dioxide capture and sequestration purposes. This project is a part of the comprehensive project with the final aim of studying the caprock sealing properties and the relationship between microscopic and macroscopic characteristics of seal rocks in depleted gas fields of Oklahoma Pan-handle. Through this study we examined various seal rock characteristics to infer about their respective effects on sealing capacity in special case of replacing reservoir fluid with super critical carbon dioxide (scCO{sub 2}). To assess the effect of textural and compositional properties on scCO{sub 2} maximum reten-tion column height we collected 30 representative core samples in caprock formations in three counties (Cimarron, Texas, Beaver) in Oklahoma Panhandle. Core samples were collected from various seal formations (e.g., Cherokee, Keys, Morrowan) at different depths. We studied the compositional and textural properties of the core samples using several techniques. Mercury Injection Porosimetry (MIP), Scanning Electron Microsco-py SEM, and Sedigraph measurements are used to assess the pore-throat-size distribu-tion, sorting, texture, and grain size of the samples. Also, displacement pressure at 10% mercury saturation (Pd) and graphically derived threshold pressure (Pc) were deter-mined by MIP technique. SEM images were used for qualitative study of the minerals and pores texture of the core samples. Moreover, EDS (Energy Dispersive X-Ray Spec-trometer), BET specific surface area, and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) measurements were performed to study various parameters and their possible effects on sealing capaci-ty of the samples. We found that shales have the relatively higher average sealing threshold pressure (Pc) than carbonate and sandstone samples. Based on these observations, shale formations could be considered as a promising caprock in terms of retarding scCO{sub 2} flow and leak-age into above formations. We hypothesized that certain characteristics of shales (e.g., 3 fine pore size, pore size distribution, high specific surface area, and strong physical chemical interaction between wetting phase and mineral surface) make them an effi-cient caprock for sealing super critical CO{sub 2}. We found that the displacement pressure at 10% mercury saturation could not be the ultimate representative of the sealing capacity of the rock sample. On the other hand, we believe that graphical method, introduced by Cranganu (2004) is a better indicator of the true sealing capacity. Based on statistical analysis of our samples from Oklahoma Panhandle we assessed the effects of each group of properties (textural and compositional) on maximum supercriti-cal CO{sub 2} height that can be hold by the caprock. We conclude that there is a relatively strong positive relationship (+.40 to +.69) between supercritical CO{sub 2} column height based on Pc and hard/ soft mineral content index (ratio of minerals with Mohs hardness more than 5 over minerals with Mohs hardness less than 5) in both shales and limestone samples. Average median pore rad

  3. Planned Geothermal Capacity | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Map of Development Projects Planned Geothermal Capacity in the U.S. is reported by the Geothermal Energy Association via their Annual U.S. Geothermal Power Production and...

  4. Capacity Building Project with Howard University

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The purpose of this initiative is to build community capacity for public participation in environmental and energy decision making. The target communities are those impacted by U.S. Department of...

  5. Measuring the capacity impacts of demand response

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Earle, Robert; Kahn, Edward P.; Macan, Edo

    2009-07-15

    Critical peak pricing and peak time rebate programs offer benefits by increasing system reliability, and therefore, reducing capacity needs of the electric power system. These benefits, however, decrease substantially as the size of the programs grows relative to the system size. More flexible schemes for deployment of demand response can help address the decreasing returns to scale in capacity value, but more flexible demand response has decreasing returns to scale as well. (author)

  6. Natural gas pipeline technology overview.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Folga, S. M.; Decision and Information Sciences

    2007-11-01

    The United States relies on natural gas for one-quarter of its energy needs. In 2001 alone, the nation consumed 21.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. A large portion of natural gas pipeline capacity within the United States is directed from major production areas in Texas and Louisiana, Wyoming, and other states to markets in the western, eastern, and midwestern regions of the country. In the past 10 years, increasing levels of gas from Canada have also been brought into these markets (EIA 2007). The United States has several major natural gas production basins and an extensive natural gas pipeline network, with almost 95% of U.S. natural gas imports coming from Canada. At present, the gas pipeline infrastructure is more developed between Canada and the United States than between Mexico and the United States. Gas flows from Canada to the United States through several major pipelines feeding U.S. markets in the Midwest, Northeast, Pacific Northwest, and California. Some key examples are the Alliance Pipeline, the Northern Border Pipeline, the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, the TransCanada Pipeline System, and Westcoast Energy pipelines. Major connections join Texas and northeastern Mexico, with additional connections to Arizona and between California and Baja California, Mexico (INGAA 2007). Of the natural gas consumed in the United States, 85% is produced domestically. Figure 1.1-1 shows the complex North American natural gas network. The pipeline transmission system--the 'interstate highway' for natural gas--consists of 180,000 miles of high-strength steel pipe varying in diameter, normally between 30 and 36 inches in diameter. The primary function of the transmission pipeline company is to move huge amounts of natural gas thousands of miles from producing regions to local natural gas utility delivery points. These delivery points, called 'city gate stations', are usually owned by distribution companies, although some are owned by transmission companies. Compressor stations at required distances boost the pressure that is lost through friction as the gas moves through the steel pipes (EPA 2000). The natural gas system is generally described in terms of production, processing and purification, transmission and storage, and distribution (NaturalGas.org 2004b). Figure 1.1-2 shows a schematic of the system through transmission. This report focuses on the transmission pipeline, compressor stations, and city gates.

  7. Table 11.6 Installed Nameplate Capacity of Fossil-Fuel Steam-Electric Generators With Environmental Equipment, 1985-2010 (Megawatts)

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

    Installed Nameplate Capacity of Fossil-Fuel Steam-Electric Generators With Environmental Equipment," " 1985-2010 (Megawatts)" "Year","Coal",,,,"Petroleum and Natural Gas",,,,"Total 1" ,,,"Flue Gas","Total 2",,,"Flue Gas","Total 2",,,"Flue Gas","Total 2"

  8. ENERGYWORKS KC BUILDS CAPACITY IN KANSAS CITY

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    In 2008, Kansas City, Missouri, formally adopted a Climate Protection Plan with greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2020 and 2050 and specific energy efficiency recommendations. Using $20 million...

  9. Gas separating

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Gollan, A.Z.

    1990-12-25

    Feed gas is directed tangentially along the non-skin surface of gas separation membrane modules comprising a cylindrical bundle of parallel contiguous hollow fibers supported to allow feed gas to flow from an inlet at one end of a cylindrical housing through the bores of the bundled fibers to an outlet at the other end while a component of the feed gas permeates through the fibers, each having the skin side on the outside, through a permeate outlet in the cylindrical casing. 3 figs.

  10. Gas separating

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Gollan, A.

    1988-03-29

    Feed gas is directed tangentially along the non-skin surface of gas separation membrane modules comprising a cylindrical bundle of parallel contiguous hollow fibers supported to allow feed gas to flow from an inlet at one end of a cylindrical housing through the bores of the bundled fibers to an outlet at the other end while a component of the feed gas permeates through the fibers, each having the skin side on the outside, through a permeate outlet in the cylindrical casing. 3 figs.

  11. Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    which saw a 65 percent drop in processing capacity. At the same time, the number of plants in Kansas decreased by four. The decrease was likely the result of falling natural gas...

  12. Implications of Disruption to Natural Gas Deliverability

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Science Applications International

    2008-09-30

    This project was sponsored by Department of Energy/Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability and managed by the National Energy Technology Laboratory. The primary purpose of the project was to analyze the capability of the natural gas production, transmission and supply systems to continue to provide service in the event of a major disruption in capacity of one or more natural gas transmission pipelines. The project was specifically designed to detail the ability of natural gas market to absorb facility losses and efficiently reallocate gas supplies during a significant pipeline capacity disruption in terms that allowed federal and state agencies and interests to develop effective policies and action plans to prioritize natural gas deliveries from a regional and national perspective. The analyses for each regional study were based on four primary considerations: (1) operating conditions (pipeline capacity, storage capacity, local production, power dispatch decision making and end user options); (2) weather; (3) magnitude and location of the disruption; and, (4) normal versus emergency situation. The detailed information contained in the region reports as generated from this project are Unclassified Controlled Information; and as such are subject to disclosure in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act. Therefore, this report defines the regions that were analyzed and the basic methodologies and assumptions used to completing the analysis.

  13. Wet powder seal for gas containment

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Stang, Louis G. (Sayville, NY)

    1982-01-01

    A gas seal is formed by a compact layer of an insoluble powder and liquid filling the fine interstices of that layer. The smaller the particle size of the selected powder, such as sand or talc, the finer will be the interstices or capillary spaces in the layer and the greater will be the resulting sealing capacity, i.e., the gas pressure differential which the wet powder layer can withstand. Such wet powder seal is useful in constructing underground gas reservoirs or storage cavities for nuclear wastes as well as stopping leaks in gas mains buried under ground or situated under water. The sealing capacity of the wet powder seal can be augmented by the hydrostatic head of a liquid body established over the seal.

  14. Representation of Solar Capacity Value in the ReEDS Capacity Expansion Model

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sigrin, B.; Sullivan, P.; Ibanez, E.; Margolis, R.

    2014-03-01

    An important issue for electricity system operators is the estimation of renewables' capacity contributions to reliably meeting system demand, or their capacity value. While the capacity value of thermal generation can be estimated easily, assessment of wind and solar requires a more nuanced approach due to the resource variability. Reliability-based methods, particularly assessment of the Effective Load-Carrying Capacity, are considered to be the most robust and widely-accepted techniques for addressing this resource variability. This report compares estimates of solar PV capacity value by the Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) capacity expansion model against two sources. The first comparison is against values published by utilities or other entities for known electrical systems at existing solar penetration levels. The second comparison is against a time-series ELCC simulation tool for high renewable penetration scenarios in the Western Interconnection. Results from the ReEDS model are found to compare well with both comparisons, despite being resolved at a super-hourly temporal resolution. Two results are relevant for other capacity-based models that use a super-hourly resolution to model solar capacity value. First, solar capacity value should not be parameterized as a static value, but must decay with increasing penetration. This is because -- for an afternoon-peaking system -- as solar penetration increases, the system's peak net load shifts to later in the day -- when solar output is lower. Second, long-term planning models should determine system adequacy requirements in each time period in order to approximate LOLP calculations. Within the ReEDS model we resolve these issues by using a capacity value estimate that varies by time-slice. Within each time period the net load and shadow price on ReEDS's planning reserve constraint signals the relative importance of additional firm capacity.

  15. HPSS Disk Cache Upgrade Caters to Capacity

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

    HPSS Disk Cache Upgrade Caters to Capacity HPSS Disk Cache Upgrade Caters to Capacity Analysis of NERSC Users' Data-Access Habits Reveals Sweet Spot for Short-term Storage October 16, 2015 Contact: Kathy Kincade, +1 510 495 2124, kkincade@lbl.gov HPSS 09 vert NERSC users today are benefiting from a business decision made three years ago by the center's Storage Systems Group (SSG) as they were looking to upgrade the High-Performance Storage System (HPSS) disk cache: rather than focus primarily on

  16. INVESTING IN NEW BASE LOAD GENERATING CAPACITY

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

    INVESTING IN NEW BASE LOAD GENERATING CAPACITY Paul L. Joskow April 8, 2008 The views expressed here are my own. They do not reflect the views of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, MIT or any other organization with which I am affiliated. THE 25-YEAR VIEW * Significant investment in base-load generating capacity is required over the next 25 years to balance supply and demand efficiently - ~ 200 to 250 Gw (Gross) - Depends on retirements of older steam and peaking units - Depends on demand growth *

  17. Ukraine-Capacity Building for Low Carbon Growth | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Ukraine-Capacity Building for Low Carbon Growth (Redirected from UNDP-Capacity Building for Low Carbon Growth in Ukraine) Jump to: navigation, search Name UNDP-Capacity Building...

  18. Temperature programmable microfabricated gas chromatography column

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Manginell, Ronald P.; Frye-Mason, Gregory C.

    2003-12-23

    A temperature programmable microfabricated gas chromatography column enables more efficient chemical separation of chemical analytes in a gas mixture by the integration of a resistive heating element and temperature sensing on the microfabricated column. Additionally, means are provided to thermally isolate the heated column from their surroundings. The small heat capacity and thermal isolation of the microfabricated column improves the thermal time response and power consumption, both important factors for portable microanalytical systems.

  19. Minnesota Natural Gas Summary

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

    4.68 4.52 4.49 3.51 4.06 3.65 1989-2015 Residential 13.30 13.01 12.75 9.33 7.71 7.16 1989-2015 Commercial 8.17 8.03 7.72 6.43 6.20 6.10 1989-2015 Industrial 4.59 4.76 4.23 4.31 4.20 4.31 2001-2015 Electric Power W W W W W W 2002-2015 Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Total Capacity 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2002-2015 Gas in Storage 6,153 6,355 6,573 6,835 6,984 6,973 1990-2015 Base Gas 4,848 4,848 4,848 4,848 4,848 4,848 1990-2015 Working Gas 1,305 1,507 1,725 1,987 2,136 2,125

  20. Washington Natural Gas Summary

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

    29 5.84 5.08 4.25 3.51 3.46 1989-2015 Residential 12.37 12.57 11.71 11.24 9.71 9.15 1989-2015 Commercial 9.80 10.04 9.42 9.32 8.35 7.80 1989-2015 Industrial 9.45 8.94 8.87 8.48 7.87 7.27 2001-2015 Electric Power W W W W W W 2002-2015 Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Total Capacity 46,900 46,900 46,900 46,900 46,900 46,900 2002-2015 Gas in Storage 37,248 41,994 45,053 45,877 42,090 39,380 1990-2015 Base Gas 22,300 22,300 22,300 22,300 22,300 22,300 1990-2015 Working Gas 14,948 19,694