National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for gas capacity ownership

  1. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

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

    Storage Capacity Salt Caverns Storage Capacity Aquifers Storage Capacity Depleted Fields Storage Capacity Total Working Gas Capacity Working Gas Capacity of Salt Caverns Working...

  2. 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...

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

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ... 7:00:58 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

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

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ... 11:44:46 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

  5. 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...

  6. 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...

  7. 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...

  8. 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...

  9. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

    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

  10. 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...

  11. ,"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...

  12. 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...

  13. ,"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...

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

    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 - ...

  15. Natural Gas Aquifers Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2,086 11,809 11,254 9,720 9,459 9,992 1979-2014 Natural Gas Nonassociated, Wet After Lease Separation 12,004 11,704 11,111 9,578 9,322 9,766 1979-2014 Natural Gas Associated-Dissolved, Wet After Lease Separation 82 105 143 142 137 226 1979-2014 Dry Natural Gas 11,457 11,186 10,626 9,200 8,943 9,484 Separation

    2,004 11,704 11,111 9,578 9,322 9,766 1979-2014 Adjustments 263 120 179 49 42 310 1979-2014 Revision Increases 898 1,795 1,695 1,647 2,517 2,021 1979-2014 Revision Decreases 1,125

  16. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

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

    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

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

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ... AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

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

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

    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 ...

  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. 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...

  2. 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...

  3. 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...

  4. 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...

  5. 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...

  6. 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...

  7. 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...

  8. 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...

  9. 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...

  10. 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...

  11. 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...

  12. 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...

  13. 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...

  14. 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...

  15. 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...

  16. 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...

  17. 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...

  18. 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...

  19. 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...

  20. 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...

  1. 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...

  2. 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...

  3. 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...

  4. 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 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2

  5. Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    832,644 832,644 832,644 834,965 834,965 844,911 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 528,335 528,335 528,335 528,335 528,335 538,281 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 36 36 36 36 36 36

  6. Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    124,509 124,509 124,509 124,509 124,509 124,509 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 54,942 54,942 54,942 54,942 54,942 54,942 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 3 3 3 3 3 3

  7. 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 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2

  8. 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 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 259,324 259,321 259,321 259,315 259,314 259,314 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 30 30 30 30 30 30

  9. California Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    603,012 601,808 601,808 601,808 601,808 601,808 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 376,996 375,496 375,496 375,496 375,496 375,496 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 14 14 14 14 14 14

  10. 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 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 63,774 63,774 63,774 63,774 63,774 63,774 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 10 10 10 10 10 10

  11. Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    ,003,899 1,004,100 1,004,100 1,004,100 1,004,100 1,004,100 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 303,613 303,613 303,613 303,613 303,613 303,613 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 28 28 28 28 28 28

  12. Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    10,749 110,749 111,581 111,581 111,581 111,581 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 32,760 32,760 33,592 33,592 33,592 33,592 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 21 21 21 21 21 21

  13. 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 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 90,313 90,313 90,313 90,313 90,313 90,313 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 4 4 4 4 4 4

  14. Colorado Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    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...

  15. 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 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 126,871 126,871 126,871 126,871 126,871 126,871 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 26 26 26 26 26 26

  16. 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 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 230,828 230,828 230,828 230,828 230,828 230,828 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 24 24 24 24 24 24

  17. Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    374,735 375,135 375,135 375,143 375,143 375,143 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 189,255 189,455 189,455 191,455 191,455 191,455 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 13 13 13 13 13 13

  18. 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 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,935 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 7 7 7 7 7 7

  19. 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 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 429,796 429,796 429,796 429,796 429,796 429,796 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 49 49 49 49 49 49

  20. 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 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 122,980 122,980 122,980 122,980 122,980 122,980 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 17 17 17 17 17 17

  1. Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    21,723 221,722 221,722 221,722 221,722 221,722 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 107,572 107,571 107,571 107,571 107,571 107,571 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 23 23 23 23 23 23

  2. Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    749,867 749,867 749,867 749,867 743,067 743,067 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 457,530 457,530 457,530 457,530 453,929 453,929 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 19 19 19 19 19 19

  3. 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 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  4. Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    1,070,462 1,071,630 1,071,630 1,071,630 1,071,630 1,071,630 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 682,569 685,726 685,726 685,726 685,726 685,726 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 44 44 44 44 44 44

  5. Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    31,301 331,812 331,812 331,812 332,900 332,958 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 200,903 201,388 201,388 201,388 202,972 203,085 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 12 12 12 12 12 12

  6. 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 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6

  7. 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 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 5 5 5 5 5 5

  8. Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    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...

  9. 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 1988-2013 Salt Caverns 0 1999-2012 Depleted Fields 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 1999-2013 Total Working Gas Capacity 13,619...

  10. Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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...

  11. 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 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 33,150 33,150 33,150 33,150 33,150 33,150 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2

  12. 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 2013-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 67,915 67,915 67,915 67,915 67,915 67,915 2013-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 5 5 5 5 5 5

  13. 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 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 73,705 73,705 73,705 73,705 73,705 73,705 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 9 9 9 9 9 9

  14. Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    340 340 340 340 340 340 1997-2016 Base Gas 340 340 340 340 340 340 1997-2016 Working Gas 1997-2011 Net Withdrawals 1998-2006 Injections 1997-2005 Withdrawals 1997-2006 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 1997-2011 Percent 1997-2011

    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

  15. 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 ...

  16. 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...

  17. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

    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 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 View History U.S. 9,224,005 9,225,079 9,225,911 9,228,240 9,222,527 9,232,532 1989-2016 Alaska 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2013-2016 Lower 48 States 9,140,412 9,141,486 9,142,319 9,144,648 9,138,935 9,148,940

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

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

    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

  19. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Region To Region System Capacity

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

    Levels Interregional Capacity About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates Interregional Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Capacity, Close of 2008 (Million cubic feet per day) Map of Interregional Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Capacity in 2008 The EIA has determined that the informational map displays here do not raise security concerns, based on the application of the Federal Geographic Data Committee's Guidelines for

  20. AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity...

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

    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...

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

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

    ,"Data 1","U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity",3,"Monthly","22016","115...ngstorcapdcunusm.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  2. ,"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...

  3. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

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

    From Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Oil Wells Gross Withdrawals From Shale Gas ... Gaseous Equivalent Dry Production Imports By Pipeline LNG Imports Exports Exports ...

  4. ,"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...

  5. ,"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"...

  6. ,"U.S. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)...

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

    ...dnavnghistn5290us2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ... 1: U.S. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290US2" ...

  7. ,"U.S. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)...

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

    ...dnavnghistn5290us2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ... 1: U.S. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290US2" ...

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

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

    292016 12:05:02 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity" "Sourcekey","N5290US2","NA1393NUS2","NA1392NUS2","NA1391NUS2","NGA...

  9. Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    725,652 767,699 769,020 762,592 705,870 681,323 1990-2016 Base Gas 297,542 297,441 297,427 293,580 294,440 294,196 1990-2016 Working Gas 428,110 470,258 471,593 469,012 411,431 387,127 1990-2016 Net Withdrawals -35,276 -41,913 -2,086 6,424 56,721 24,128 1990-2016 Injections 50,816 56,019 26,996 31,787 17,953 21,048 1990-2016 Withdrawals 15,540 14,106 24,910 38,211 74,674 45,176 1990-2016 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 121,603 103,543 86,959 94,731 103,720 154,836

  10. Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    8,740 38,792 38,658 38,516 38,492 38,987 2013-2016 Base Gas 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 2013-2016 Working Gas 24,543 24,595 24,461 24,319 24,295 24,790 2013-2016 Net Withdrawals 92 -52 197 140 -50 -459 2013-2016 Injections 682 824 756 717 496 748 2013-2016 Withdrawals 774 772 953 857 446 289 2013-2016 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 723 881 189 -679 -515 164 2013-2016 Percent 3.0 3.7 0.8 -2.7 -2.1 0.7 2013

    2013 2014 View History Total Storage

  11. 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...

  12. Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    116,465 117,867 114,737 108,552 99,722 96,037 1990-2016 Base Gas 69,525 69,525 69,525 69,525 69,525 69,525 1990-2016 Working Gas 46,940 48,342 45,211 39,027 30,197 26,512 1990-2016 Net Withdrawals -4,323 -1,402 3,131 6,185 8,830 3,685 1990-2016 Injections 4,599 2,100 1,228 430 117 1,451 1990-2016 Withdrawals 276 698 4,359 6,615 8,947 5,135 1990-2016 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 5,898 5,327 6,748 7,931 5,349 4,913 1991-2016 Percent 14.4 12.4 17.5 25.5 21.5 22

  13. Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    8,536 9,080 9,351 9,302 7,691 7,673 1997-2016 Base Gas 4,100 4,100 4,100 4,100 4,100 4,100 1997-2016 Working Gas 4,436 4,980 5,251 5,202 3,591 3,573 1997-2016 Net Withdrawals -623 -545 -270 48 1,612 17 1995-2016 Injections 1,146 1,077 722 392 1,258 1,471 1997-2016 Withdrawals 523 533 451 440 2,870 1,488 1997-2016 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 6 -88 358 468 124 1,928 1997-2016 Percent 0.1 -1.7 7.3 9.9 3.6 117.1 1997

    9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 1998-2014

  14. Washington Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    5,053 45,877 42,090 39,380 37,900 32,046 1990-2016 Base Gas 22,300 22,300 22,300 22,300 22,300 22,300 1990-2016 Working Gas 22,753 23,577 19,790 17,080 15,600 9,746 1990-2016 Net Withdrawals -2,976 -792 3,788 2,710 1,480 5,854 1990-2016 Injections 3,653 1,967 1,065 1,968 1,951 503 1990-2016 Withdrawals 677 1,175 4,853 4,678 3,431 6,357 1990-2016 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume -747 -154 -2,386 -4,419 -1,484 -2,626 1990-2016 Percent -3.2 -0.6 -10.8 -20.6 -8.7 -21.2

  15. West Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    70,454 479,640 476,839 452,957 390,894 355,238 1990-2016 Base Gas 269,975 269,978 269,978 269,983 269,908 269,801 1990-2016 Working Gas 200,479 209,662 206,862 182,973 120,986 85,437 1990-2016 Net Withdrawals -22,820 -9,186 2,845 23,846 62,042 35,655 1990-2016 Injections 22,967 11,101 5,919 3,512 734 2,318 1990-2016 Withdrawals 147 1,915 8,764 27,358 62,776 37,974 1990-2016 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 13,738 5,456 18,992 25,179 21,224 26,766 1990-2016 Percent 7.4

  16. Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    97,387 98,805 99,061 97,415 94,381 91,933 1990-2016 Base Gas 67,815 67,815 67,815 68,174 68,131 68,062 1990-2016 Working Gas 29,572 30,991 31,246 29,240 26,249 23,871 1990-2016 Net Withdrawals -1,866 -1,419 -255 1,646 3,031 2,448 1990-2016 Injections 1,871 1,431 716 227 1,988 3,024 1990-2016 Withdrawals 5 12 461 1,873 5,019 5,472 1990-2016 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 804 173 1,291 872 -218 -200 1990-2016 Percent 2.8 0.6 4.3 3.1 -0.8 -0.8

    111,120 111,120 106,764

  17. Pennsylvania Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    693,267 724,856 730,680 719,217 631,739 569,313 1990-2016 Base Gas 343,975 344,161 343,997 343,965 343,818 343,699 1990-2016 Working Gas 349,293 380,696 386,683 375,251 287,921 225,614 1990-2016 Net Withdrawals -38,785 -31,589 -5,821 11,466 87,473 62,426 1990-2016 Injections 42,529 37,962 24,482 17,010 5,148 8,852 1990-2016 Withdrawals 3,744 6,373 18,662 28,476 92,621 71,278 1990-2016 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 6,781 -1,466 20,561 38,300 34,424 64,473 1990-2016

  18. Montana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    03,416 204,466 202,011 198,390 193,997 191,940 1990-2016 Base Gas 178,500 178,500 178,501 178,501 178,501 178,501 1990-2016 Working Gas 24,916 25,966 23,510 19,890 15,496 13,439 1990-2016 Net Withdrawals -2,101 -1,050 2,456 3,620 4,394 2,057 1990-2016 Injections 2,260 1,313 153 50 12 55 1990-2016 Withdrawals 159 264 2,609 3,670 4,406 2,112 1990-2016 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 2,931 2,239 3,471 3,197 3,391 4,649 1990-2016 Percent 13.3 9.4 17.3 19.2 28.0 52.9

  19. Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    345,498 358,954 354,984 346,618 319,836 309,723 1990-2016 Base Gas 184,522 185,345 185,530 183,624 183,624 183,624 1990-2016 Working Gas 160,976 173,608 169,454 162,995 136,212 126,100 1990-2016 Net Withdrawals -8,189 -13,483 3,951 8,250 26,725 10,070 1990-2016 Injections 11,609 14,397 6,360 7,073 2,701 4,518 1990-2016 Withdrawals 3,420 914 10,310 15,323 29,426 14,589 1990-2016 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 34,288 22,870 25,764 34,802 38,649 59,569 1990-2016 Percent

  20. Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity - Methodology

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) US--Federal Offshore Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 3,932,196 4,355,742 4,822,114 1980's 4,902,354 4,990,667 4,772,873 4,182,233 4,706,782 4,185,519 4,185,515 4,671,801 4,746,664 4,771,411 1990's 5,046,660 4,849,657 4,771,744 4,765,865 4,996,197 4,942,089 5,246,422 5,315,514 5,185,312 5,130,746 2000's 5,043,769 5,136,962 4,615,443 4,505,443 4,055,340

  1. 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.

  2. Pacific Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Pacific Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 2015 679,477 679,477 679,477 679,477 679,477 679,477 679,477 679,477 679,477 678,273 678,273 678,273 2016 678,273 678,273 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA =

  3. 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 2016 2,634,512 2,644,516 -

  4. East Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) East Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2015 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 2,195,132 2,195,132 2016 2,195,132 2,195,132 - = No Data Reported; -- =

  5. 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

  6. 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 2016 2,718,087 2,718,087 - = No Data

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity - U.S. Energy...

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

    ... Inactive fields were removed from aggregate statistics. Percent change in storage capacity ... In late 2015, EIA began publishing weekly data in five regions and historical data for the ...

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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...

  15. 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...

  16. 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...

  17. 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.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    3,091 3,215 2,832 2,579 2,373 2,800 1982-2014 Natural Gas Nonassociated, Wet After Lease Separation 3,091 3,215 2,832 2,579 2,373 2,800 1982-2014 Natural Gas Associated-Dissolved, Wet After Lease Separation 0 0 0 1982-2014 Dry Natural Gas 3,091 3,215 2,832 2,579 2,373 2,800 1982-2014

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 41,495 43,582 46,663 1970's 49,554 49,488 55,427 51,618 48,160 48,802 52,491 48,953 54,250 50,999 1980's 54,825 50,997 48,253

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2,919 2,785 2,128 1,515 1,794 1,753 1979-2014 Natural Gas Nonassociated, Wet After Lease Separation 2,887 2,674 2,030 1,422 1,750 1,704 1979-2014 Natural Gas Associated-Dissolved, Wet After Lease Separation 32 111 98 93 44 49 1979-2014 Dry Natural Gas 2,782 2,613 2,006 1,408 1,663 1,611

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 69,542 75,824 83,815 1970's 86,473 84,197 85,881 80,233 76,129 79,156 96,351 94,646 84,436 77,438 1980's 74,235 70,538 67,590

  20. Additions to Capacity on the U.S. Natural Gas Pipeline Network: 2007

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

    Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, July 2008 1 U.S. natural gas pipeline construction activity accelerated in 2007 with capacity additions to the grid totaling nearly 14.9 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of daily deliverability (Figure 1). These additions were the largest of any year in the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) 10-year database of pipeline construction activity. The increased level of natural gas pipeline construction activity in 2007 conformed to a growth

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    from All Countries (Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Natural Gas Imports from All Countries (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 0 2000's 0 0 0 66,078 209,294 221,689 116,613 148,231 25,894 72,339 2010's 43,431 13,981 2,790 5,366 11,585 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages:

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Total Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas Total Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 1,077,139 957,254 1,004,281 2000's 1,030,604 951,616 1,049,878 998,486 953,207 969,642 893,997 965,591 1,000,501 956,068 2010's 966,678 986,867 940,367 1,056,826 1,092,999 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Price (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Iowa Natural Gas Pipeline and Distribution Use Price (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0.17 0.16 0.17 1970's 0.17 0.19 0.20 0.22 0.26 0.34 0.52 0.73 0.99 1.17 1980's 1.55 1.89 2.50 2.73 2.71 2.83 2.57 2.75 2.01 2.02 1990's 1.52 1.54 1.71 1.25 1.39 1.40 2.37 2.46 2.06 2.16 2000's 3.17 3.60 NA -- -- -- - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  4. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Working Gas

  5. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Working Gas

  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. 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.

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    In 2013, OE conducted an assessment to determine how changes to the Northeast gass 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Number of

  11. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  12. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  13. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016

  14. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290md2m.xls"

  15. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mi2m.xls"

  16. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ms2m.xls"

  17. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mo2m.xls"

  18. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mt2m.xls"

  19. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ne2m.xls"

  20. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290nm2m.xls"

  1. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ny2m.xls"

  2. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290oh2m.xls"

  3. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ok2m.xls"

  4. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290or2m.xls"

  5. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290pa2m.xls"

  6. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290tn2m.xls"

  7. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290tx2m.xls"

  8. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ut2m.xls"

  9. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290wa2m.xls"

  10. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290wy2m.xls"

  11. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290al2m.xls"

  12. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  13. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ar2m.xls"

  14. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ca2m.xls"

  15. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290co2m.xls"

  16. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290il2m.xls"

  17. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290in2m.xls"

  18. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ia2m.xls"

  19. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ks2m.xls"

  20. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ky2m.xls"

  1. ,"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","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290la2m.xls"

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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:

  5. “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.

  6. U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Developments: 1998-2005

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

    U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Developments: 1998-2005 Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, October 2006 1 This special report examines the current status of the underground natural gas storage sector in the United States and how it has changed since 1998, particularly in regards to deliverability from storage, working gas capacity, ownership, and operational capabilities. In addition, it includes a discussion and an analysis of underground natural gas storage

  7. Entity State Ownership Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation

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

    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. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operable Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Catalytic Hydrotreating Gasoline Charge Capacity (BSD) Catalytic Hydrotreating Heavy Gas Oil Charge Capacity (BSD) Catalytic Hydrotreating Distillate Charge Capacity (BSD) ...

  12. 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 *

  13. U.S. Working Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    586,953 575,601 549,151 489,505 505,318 514,809 1978-2014 From Gas Wells 259,848 234,236 208,970 204,667 186,887 159,337 1978-2014 From Oil Wells 327,105 341,365 340,182 284,838 318,431 355,472 1978

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1980's 155 176 145 132 110 126 113 101 101 107 1990's 123 113 118 119 111 110 109 103 102 98 2000's 90 86 68 68 60 64 66 63 61 65 2010's 65 60 61 55 60 60 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not

  14. U.S. Natural Gas Count of Underground Storage Capacity (Number of Elements)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Percent) Commercial Delivered for the Account of Others (Percent) U.S. Natural Gas % of Total Commercial Delivered for the Account of Others (Percent) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 10.9 1990's 13.4 14.9 16.8 16.1 20.7 23.3 22.4 29.2 33.0 33.9 2000's 36.1 34.0 36.4 34.9 35.9 35.0 36.3 37.6 38.1 40.8 2010's 42.5 44.2 46.8 46.1 46.2 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  15. 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 +...

  16. 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 ...

  17. 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 This cost of ownership analysis identifies the factors impacting the value proposition for fuel cell ...

  18. Total Working Gas Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  19. 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.

  20. Enabling Legislation: Third-Party Ownership Resources

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    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...

  1. Natural gas information 1996 (1997 edition)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1997-09-16

    A detailed reference work on gas supply and demand covering not only the OECD countries but also the rest of the world, this publication contains essential information on LNG and pipeline trade, gas reserves, storage capacity, and prices. The main part of the book concentrates on OECD countries, showing a detailed gas supply and demand balance for each country and for three OECD regions: North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific, as well as a breakdown of gas consumption by end-user. Import and export data are reported by source and destination. Also included are maps of the pipeline systems in 25 IEA countries and information on their ownership and operations, transit of gas, regulatory features, and transportation tariffs.

  2. 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

  3. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Vacuum State/Refiner/Location Barrels per Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity Barrels per Operating Idle Operating Idle Downstream Charge Capacity Thermal Cracking Delayed Fluid Coking Visbreaking Other/Gas Calendar Day Stream Day Distillation Coking Oil Table 3. Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries by State as of January 1, 2015 (Barrels per Stream Day, Except Where Noted) ......................................................... Alabama 120,100 0 135,000 0 45,000 32,000 0 0 0

  4. 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,...

  5. 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...

  6. 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...

  7. 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...

  8. 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...

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. Working Gas Capacity of Aquifers

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    3,274,385 3,074,251 2,818,148 3,701,510 3,585,867 3,100,219 1944-2015 Alaska 7,259 6,523 9,943 2013-2015 Lower 48 States 3,074,251 2,818,148 3,694,251 3,579,344 3,090,276 2011-2015 Alabama 16,740 15,408 23,651 22,968 28,683 29,187 1968-2015 Arkansas 4,368 4,409 2,960 3,964 3,866 2,272 1967-2015 California 203,653 242,477 170,586 268,548 235,181 204,077 1967-2015 Colorado 45,010 48,341 56,525 63,531 70,692 64,053 1967-2015 Connecticut 1973-1996 Delaware 1967-1975 Georgia 1974-1975 Illinois

  13. 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 - Foreign Travel Management System (FTMS) PIA - FITPLUS

  14. 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...

  15. 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).

  16. Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI) | National Nuclear Security

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Administration Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI) The FOCI program regulates NNSA determinations to the degree of which a company is under foreign ownership, control, or influence. In accordance with 48 CFR Chapter 9, DOE Acquisition Regulation (DEAR), NNSA must obtain information about a company's FOCI that is sufficient in making determinations regarding risk to the common defense and security of the United States. the Office of Personnel and Facility Clearances and

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

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

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

    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

  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. 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 ...

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

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

    Handling Equipment | Department of Energy 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 Equipment This report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory discusses an analysis of the total cost of ownership of fuel cell-powered and traditional battery-powered material handling equipment, including the capital costs of battery and fuel cell systems, the cost of

  4. 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...

  5. 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).

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  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. Next Update: November 2016 Geographic Area Capacity In-Service

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

    Geographic Area Capacity In-Service Data Year NERC Region Type Operating (kV) Design (kV) Rating (MVa) Month/Year From Terminal To Terminal Length (Miles) Type Company Code Company Name Organizational Type Ownership (Percent) Project Name Level of Certainty Primary Driver 1 Primary Driver 2 2014 FRCC AC 200-299 115 460 1/2016 SUB 4 230.00 SUB 7 230.00 3.8 OH 18445 of Tallahassee M 100% 0.00 - SUB 7 230.00 Under Constructio Reliability 2014 FRCC AC 100-120 115 232 12/2016 Sub 14 115 Sub 7 115 6.0

  10. Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    NA NA NA NA NA NA 2002-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  11. Working Gas Capacity of Salt Caverns

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  12. California 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 459,673 466,818 1990's 291,678 467,678 472,108 472,108 472,108 472,908 469,695 396,430 388,370 ...

  13. California Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (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 ...

  14. California 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 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 ...

  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. Natural Gas Depleted Fields Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Separation, as of Dec. 31 33,383 35,746 42,823 53,156 58,490 69,117 1979-2014 Federal Offshore U.S. 5,223 5,204 5,446 5,864 5,530 5,334 1990-2014 Pacific (California) 731 722 711 652 264 243 1979-2014 Louisiana & Alabama 3,863 3,793 4,196 4,358 4,293 4,253 1981-2014 Texas 629 689 539 854 973 838 1981-2014 Alaska 8,093 7,896 8,535 8,672 6,428 5,851 1979-2014 Lower 48 States 25,290 27,850 34,288 44,484 52,062 63,266 1979-2014 Alabama 29 38 48 100 46 141 1979-2014 Arkansas 20 29 46 82 135

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

    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...

  20. Oregon Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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...

  1. Alabama Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    6,900 26,900 32,900 35,400 35,400 35,400 1995-2013 Salt Caverns 15,900 15,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 1999-2013 Aquifers 0 1999-2012 Depleted Fields 11,000 11,000 11,000 13,500...

  2. Arkansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    2,000 21,760 21,760 21,359 21,853 21,853 1988-2013 Salt Caverns 0 1999-2012 Aquifers 0 1999-2012 Depleted Fields 22,000 21,760 21,760 21,359 21,853 21,853 1999-2013 Total Working...

  3. Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    187,251 210,128 235,638 240,241 289,416 303,522 1988-2013 Salt Caverns 62,424 62,301 82,411 90,452 139,627 153,733 1999-2013 Aquifers 0 1999-2012 Depleted Fields 124,827 147,827...

  4. Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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...

  5. Natural Gas Salt Caverns Storage Capacity

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

    341,213 397,560 456,009 512,279 715,821 654,266 1999-2013 Alabama 15,900 15,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 1999-2013 Arkansas 0 1999-2012 California 0 1999-2012 Colorado 0...

  6. Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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...

  7. New York Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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...

  8. 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...

  9. Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    114,937 114,274 111,271 111,313 110,749 110,749 1988-2013 Salt Caverns 0 1999-2012 Aquifers 81,991 81,328 81,268 81,310 80,746 80,746 1999-2013 Depleted Fields 32,946 32,946 30,003...

  10. Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    15,858 651,968 670,880 690,295 699,646 733,939 1988-2013 Salt Caverns 88,806 123,341 142,253 161,668 297,020 213,039 1999-2013 Aquifers 0 1999-2012 Depleted Fields 527,051 528,626...

  11. New Mexico Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    80,000 80,000 84,300 84,300 89,100 89,100 1988-2013 Salt Caverns 0 1999-2012 Aquifers 0 1999-2012 Depleted Fields 80,000 80,000 84,300 84,300 89,100 89,100 1999-2013 Total Working...

  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...

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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...

  17. 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

  18. 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....

  19. Natural Gas Vans To Help Clear the Air In Metro Denver

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

    Million Cubic Feet) Data Series: Total Storage Capacity 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 &

  20. 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:...

  1. Chapter_4_Foreign_Ownership_Control_or_Influence_Facility_Clearance_and_Classified_Contract_Registration

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  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. 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

  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. 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.

  8. 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

  9. WINDExchange: Potential Wind Capacity

    Wind Powering America (EERE)

    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

  10. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Refinery Capacity Report With Data as of January 1, 2015 | Release Date: June 19, 2015 | Next Release Date: June 24, 2016 Previous Issues Year: 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 prior issues Go 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

  11. Forward capacity market CONEfusion

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wilson, James F.

    2010-11-15

    In ISO New England and PJM it was assumed that sponsors of new capacity projects would offer them into the newly established forward centralized capacity markets at prices based on their levelized net cost of new entry, or ''Net CONE.'' But the FCCMs have not operated in the way their proponents had expected. To clear up the CONEfusion, FCCM designs should be reconsidered to adapt them to the changing circumstances and to be grounded in realistic expectations of market conduct. (author)

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

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

    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,

  13. Tribal Authority Process Case Studies: The Conversion of On-Reservation Electric Utilities to Tribal Ownership and Operation

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Three case studies documenting the processes followed by Indian tribes when they took over ownership and operation of their electric utilities.

  14. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2014

    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 ...

  15. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2014

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

    Louisiana" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Nine Mile Point","Natural gas","Entergy Louisiana LLC",2083.3 2,"Willow Glen","Natural ...

  16. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2014

    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 ...

  17. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2014

    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 ...

  18. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2014

    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 ...

  19. ENERGYWORKS KC BUILDS CAPACITY IN KANSAS CITY | Department of Energy

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

    ENERGYWORKS KC BUILDS CAPACITY IN KANSAS CITY ENERGYWORKS KC BUILDS CAPACITY IN KANSAS CITY ENERGYWORKS KC BUILDS CAPACITY IN KANSAS CITY 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 in seed funding from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Better Buildings Neighborhood Program, the City of Kansas City launched EnergyWorks KC in 2010 to

  20. 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.

  1. Dual capacity reciprocating compressor

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Wolfe, Robert W.

    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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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.

  8. 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)

  9. Natural Gas Infrastructure Implications of Increased Demand from...

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

    needs of the U.S. interstate natural gas pipeline transmission system across a range of ... natural gas pipeline expansion is modest, relative to historical capacity additions. ...

  10. 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

  11. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    State/Refiner/Location Alkylates Aromatics Isobutane Lubricants Isomers Isopentane and Isohexane Asphalt and Road Oil Marketable Petroleum Coke Hydrogen (MMcfd) Sulfur (short tons per day) Table 4. Production Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries by State as of January 1, 2015 (Barrels per Stream Day, Except Where Noted) Isooctane a ..................................................................... Alabama 0 0 15,000 711 3,500 0 7,120 33 245 0 Hunt Refining Co 0 0 15,000 0 3,500 0 7,120

  12. 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 XLS XLS XLS 2009 XLS XLS XLS 2008 XLS XLS XLS 2007 XLS XLS XLS 2006 XLS XLS XLS 2005 XLS XLS XLS 2004 XLS XLS XLS 2003 XLS XLS XLS Source: Form EIA-860, "Annual Electric Generator Report." Related links Electric Power Monthly Electric Power Annual Form EIA-860 Source Data

  13. 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.

  14. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Capacity Report June 2015 With Data as of January 1, 2015 Independent Statistics & Analysis www.eia.gov U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 This report was prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. By law, EIA's data, analyses, and forecasts are independent of approval by any other officer or employee of the United States Government. The views in this report therefore should not be

  15. 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

  16. 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.

  17. 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)

  18. 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.

  19. 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...

  20. 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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  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. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. 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...

  8. 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.

  9. A Total Cost of Ownership Model for Low Temperature PEM Fuel Cells in Combined Heat and Power and Backup Power Applications

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This report prepared by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory describes a total cost of ownership model for emerging applications in stationary fuel cell systems.

  10. 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.

  11. 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...

  12. 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.

  13. Natural Gas Receipts Across U.S. Borders (Annual Supply & Disposition)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  14. 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.

  15. COMMUNITY CAPACITY BUILDING THROUGH TECHNOLOGY

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    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. New Mexico 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 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...

  17. Minnesota 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 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 ...

  18. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...

    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 ...

  19. U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    Lower 48 States Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico ...

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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 9,500 9,500 9,500

  4. 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 46,900

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. Oregon 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 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

  10. 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

  11. Utah 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 1991 15,073 14,081 15,757 15,821 14,757 15,209 15,209 15,665 12,137 14,694 14,486 14,329 1992 15,221 13,656 13,168 11,390 11,537 11,941 11,954 11,375 11,617 10,161 10,609 9,069 1993 9,234 8,048 8,426 10,843 10,044 9,739 10,136 9,860 9,381 8,310 7,236 7,372 1994 7,057 6,684 6,978 6,450 6,086 6,183 6,058 6,000 5,912 4,935 5,287 5,167 1995 4,736 3,880 3,400 3,383 3,441 1,323 1,293 1,492 1,056 1,076 907 886 1996 762 708 215 187 210 167 165 169 163

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 929 289 499 863 0 2,707 2,937 2,937 1,101 622 906 507 1991 833 586 299 3,139 1,705 2,716 2,138 291 308 0 1,447 753 1992 436 149 945 1,205 1,824 1,543 1,336 1,618 1,578 979 785 895 1993 750 383 2,192 1,363 4,359 1,112 2,036 1,280 2,258 340 326 3,176 1994 1,579 318 1,268 3,455 2,882 2,005 1,945 965 1,330 503 1,263 1,192 1995 541 827 1,671 1,661 2,601 2,020 1,565 829 2,494 464 1,696 1,447 1996 808 2,027 1,081 1,609 2,176 3,349

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  14. Wyoming 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 1991 5,127 4,605 8,610 8,415 7,743 8,318 8,211 8,971 7,226 10,425 7,920 4,894 1992 7,886 7,507 4,809 7,021 7,608 15,649 4,881 7,665 4,623 4,660 4,544 4,859 1993 6,544 6,120 6,276 6,226 10,323 6,573 21,075 10,246 9,455 6,476 10,110 10,620 1994 6,371 7,194 5,976 7,649 8,952 7,896 8,341 12,156 7,771 13,020 12,298 12,440 1995 11,460 10,137 13,117 10,183 9,733 10,159 10,446 11,174 11,080 11,833 11,224 11,348 1996 11,440 9,821 11,800 11,600 10,739

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  16. 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 21,853

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  1. 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 288,010 288,210 288,210

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...

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

    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...

  13. 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...

  14. 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...

  15. 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

  16. 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 83,592 83,592 2016

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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...

  6. Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...

    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...

  7. 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 84,300 89,100

  8. 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 245,579 245,579 245,579

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Thousand Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 W W W W W W W W W W W W 2003 5.54 W 7.00 6.28 W 6.35 5.61 5.30 W W 4.75 6.48 2004 5.76 W W 6.12 6.88 6.56 6.28 6.08 5.44 W W 7.50 2005 6.67 W W W W 7.61 7.80 9.49 13.52 14.90 12.76 14.05 2006 10.47 9.13 7.73 7.96 6.98 6.81 7.12 7.74 6.56 6.25 6.99 7.37 2007 6.75 8.00 6.97 7.38 7.45 7.76 6.81 7.01 6.44 6.77 7.75 7.64 2008 8.83 10.01 W W W 13.64 12.44 9.52 9.16 6.03 8.45 7.29 2009 5.89 5.20 4.46 3.93 4.03 4.00 3.69

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Thousand Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 W 2.57 2.77 2.46 2.38 2.40 2.12 2.12 2.11 2.02 2.02 1.98 2003 2.02 2.03 2.02 2.11 W 2.07 2.57 2.58 2.50 2.65 2.64 2.64 2004 2.78 2.78 2.81 2.85 2.80 2.81 2.69 2.77 2.78 2.78 2.78 2.78 2005 3.11 3.12 3.17 3.31 3.38 3.32 3.54 3.54 3.53 3.59 3.58 3.66 2006 3.52 3.52 3.42 3.68 3.63 3.74 3.51 3.38 3.72 3.79 3.94 3.88 2007 3.75 3.54 3.59 3.64 3.56 3.48 3.57 3.57 3.64 3.51 3.57 3.49 2008 W W W W W W W W W W W W 2009 W W

  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 1960's 10,010 4,633 4,752 1970's 2,073 995 0 0 0 3,963 10,387 17,507 20,293 17,546 1980's 15,494 38,991 24,278 25,376 25,359 26,036 20,329 24,779 22,994 23,837 1990's 20,165 4,722 8,056 7,773 7,426 7,815 2,354 2,139 1,293 1,150 2000's 8 0 0 0 0 0 439 516 511 520 2010's 414 4,051 0

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 854 748 874 377 368 398 320 289 301 116 43 35 1992 714 638 688 663 660 639 651

  16. 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 1989 14,966 15,278 13,652 8,580 5,694 3,947 2,778 2,279 2,601 3,750 6,975 11,066 1990 15,699 13,559 12,631 9,873 7,248 4,191 2,478 2,357 2,331 3,450 7,142 10,956 1991 17,902 15,114 11,686 9,187 7,108 3,600 2,569 2,283 2,367 3,541 8,076 14,007 1992 16,198 14,400 11,499 8,789 5,005 3,963 2,809 2,438 2,644 3,547 7,607 15,715 1993 18,551 15,981 15,025 9,897 6,505 3,996 2,851 2,391 3,027 4,451 8,984 14,527 1994 16,252 15,391 13,500 9,732 6,819

  17. 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 1989 74,796 76,868 64,320 40,575 24,582 12,602 10,775 9,958 13,627 26,027 51,490 94,362 1990 71,107 64,322 52,008 37,441 23,464 12,361 10,424 10,802 12,633 30,333 40,903 76,365 1991 92,323 62,627 54,680 32,273 18,197 11,041 10,168 10,122 16,099 27,231 61,099 71,109 1992 80,315 63,013 59,187 40,752 22,488 12,963 10,391 11,171 13,758 28,742 54,950 77,632 1993 85,860 74,466 67,993 42,426 18,258 12,716 10,373 9,728 15,193 31,937 51,226 75,134 1994

  18. 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 2001 26,677 23,164 24,258 19,456 18,831 18,369 17,553 20,171 17,971 21,014 20,330 22,971 2002 24,441 23,170 23,714 20,750 18,770 17,297 19,398 20,664 19,688 22,268 23,322 25,579 2003 27,047 24,384 21,994 19,376 18,238 16,652 16,774 17,813 18,398 20,589 22,780 24,621 2004 28,155 25,447 25,012 21,558 19,052 18,264 18,325 19,767 19,514 20,781 22,067 24,940 2005 28,069 24,575 27,661 22,009 19,346 18,322 17,340 19,005 18,711 20,639 21,908 26,437

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2001 232 179 329 365 534 479 1,124 1,278 449 259 247 279 2002 366 291 364 323 325 587 1,032 637 551 281 264 229 2003 247 276 270 241 195 316 559 1,008 244 226 447 221 2004 388 177 332 213 324 704 788 657 770 1,086 1,395 1,457 2005 1,307 1,096 2,541 1,671 1,351 2,257 2,620 2,885 1,817 977 920 1,841 2006 681 489 909 707 1,672 1,780 3,166 2,467 1,181 2,639 2,393 1,544 2007 2,694 3,549 1,450 1,928 2,649 2,181 2,202 2,574 684 1,875 1,471

  20. Kentucky 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 1989 9,700 10,403 8,293 5,319 3,161 1,809 1,332 1,337 1,446 3,109 6,141 13,034 1990 9,736 8,409 6,367 5,007 2,448 1,599 1,376 1,288 1,375 3,306 5,741 9,412 1991 11,629 9,644 7,168 3,430 1,805 1,378 1,278 1,168 1,487 3,120 7,676 9,682 1992 11,805 8,511 7,813 4,179 2,626 1,835 1,326 1,416 1,413 3,376 6,997 10,617 1993 11,143 11,145 9,198 4,989 1,908 1,710 1,289 1,137 1,410 3,858 7,612 11,510 1994 15,487 10,560 8,417 3,601 2,314 1,260 1,178 1,211

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Thousand Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 W W W W W 3.61 3.49 3.34 W W W W 2003 5.86 7.31 7.89 5.81 W 6.47 5.74 5.45 5.29 5.20 4.92 W 2004 6.74 6.22 5.99 6.14 6.81 6.91 6.51 6.17 5.49 6.77 7.11 7.48 2005 6.74 6.70 7.20 7.78 7.15 7.46 7.96 9.15 13.07 W 12.25 13.64 2006 11.64 8.69 8.11 7.77 7.25 6.97 6.83 7.95 6.96 5.94 7.94 9.06 2007 6.80 8.49 7.98 8.14 8.25 8.35 7.26 7.07 6.30 7.26 7.76 7.79 2008 8.36 8.95 9.93 10.78 12.26 13.21 12.68 9.71 8.70 7.78 7.20

  2. Michigan 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 1989 55,928 52,459 51,163 34,224 20,415 9,803 8,052 7,957 9,726 19,994 31,679 60,266 1990 55,931 48,164 43,437 31,606 19,275 11,093 7,779 8,253 9,336 17,937 29,517 45,069 1991 61,349 49,685 43,914 29,081 18,655 10,014 7,555 6,594 9,297 18,491 33,409 49,160 1992 56,513 52,668 46,640 36,421 21,545 11,927 8,773 8,655 9,435 20,856 34,278 50,376 1993 59,618 57,465 54,627 35,109 18,269 11,464 8,589 7,199 10,020 22,363 34,389 50,690 1994 72,958

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2001 545 650 611 788 866 791 1,941 2,026 513 866 469 543 2002 715 815 1,155 652 648 1,310 2,991 1,526 1,304 830 605 629 2003 885 881 540 1,029 481 844 2,220 3,812 1,498 1,734 1,560 1,269 2004 2,209 1,317 987 957 991 703 1,652 402 1,492 626 612 826 2005 1,279 997 1,027 1,984 931 3,602 4,476 3,729 2,169 1,953 1,934 1,944 2006 907 737 833 443 1,060 1,912 5,845 3,518 1,213 3,451 2,423 2,568 2007 2,268 4,022 2,376 2,697 1,428 2,870 4,081

  4. Mississippi 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 1989 3,995 4,030 4,077 2,195 1,282 929 864 829 894 1,043 1,933 4,241 1990 6,060 3,307 2,793 2,205 1,266 922 850 809 798 948 2,070 3,018 1991 4,628 4,348 3,390 1,903 1,117 882 846 811 824 1,024 2,357 3,625 1992 4,724 4,551 2,850 2,440 1,287 963 896 817 856 979 1,927 4,198 1993 4,474 4,388 4,396 2,961 1,465 947 830 788 815 933 2,518 3,832 1994 6,163 5,192 3,481 2,254 1,088 883 845 784 834 921 1,542 3,098 1995 5,027 4,997 3,800 1,770 1,178 892

  5. Missouri 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 2001 8,526 7,720 5,601 5,511 4,509 4,386 4,772 4,809 4,386 4,954 5,329 7,342 2002 7,089 5,945 6,709 5,703 5,620 4,458 4,410 4,486 4,255 6,007 5,966 6,319 2003 7,084 6,868 6,028 4,820 4,273 3,942 3,396 4,833 4,317 4,659 5,254 6,070 2004 7,377 6,846 5,989 5,220 4,565 4,624 4,193 4,543 4,470 4,690 5,183 6,783 2005 7,534 6,457 6,449 5,350 4,758 4,701 4,433 4,709 4,733 4,965 5,487 6,775 2006 6,869 6,415 6,259 5,168 4,767 4,659 4,611 4,994 4,640

  6. Montana 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 1989 2,803 2,778 2,544 1,666 965 680 426 435 568 1,084 1,728 2,518 1990 2,625 2,421 1,900 1,459 1,104 701 389 392 450 1,040 1,694 2,673 1991 3,533 2,139 2,087 1,585 1,244 608 455 382 559 977 2,218 2,626 1992 2,529 2,180 1,620 1,371 837 541 485 421 727 1,106 1,792 3,065 1993 3,658 2,509 2,611 1,686 1,005 644 608 530 741 1,172 2,236 2,961 1994 2,722 2,915 2,180 1,600 1,005 614 461 396 535 1,184 2,115 2,986 1995 3,072 2,398 2,441 1,796 1,264 704

  7. Nebraska 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 2001 3,350 3,088 2,887 3,230 2,646 2,637 5,283 3,782 3,414 2,746 3,947 3,135 2002 3,374 3,222 2,416 2,786 2,840 1,919 5,602 4,879 4,369 2,846 2,950 3,224 2003 3,384 3,125 2,517 2,548 2,640 1,816 4,392 4,190 4,005 3,644 2,863 2,991 2004 3,428 3,291 2,458 2,973 2,584 3,188 4,366 4,402 2,170 2,830 3,472 3,704 2005 3,450 3,453 2,623 2,975 2,545 2,597 4,393 4,914 3,613 3,175 3,696 3,514 2006 4,851 4,406 3,758 4,299 3,657 4,541 5,326 5,689 4,415

  8. New York 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 1960's 3,837 4,632 4,861 1970's 3,358 2,202 3,679 4,539 4,990 7,628 9,235 10,682 13,900 15,500 1980's 15,643 16,074 15,877 17,836 25,200 31,561 29,964 25,676 23,455 20,433 1990's 25,023 22,777 23,508 21,183 20,465 18,400 18,131 16,188 16,699 16,122 2000's 17,757 27,787 36,816 36,137 46,050 55,180 55,980 54,942 50,320 44,849 2010's 35,813 31,124 26,424 23,458 20,201

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

  9. Oklahoma 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 1989 11,577 13,137 12,277 5,784 3,043 2,169 1,858 1,654 1,886 2,571 4,798 11,039 1990 14,092 10,213 8,262 6,640 4,024 2,206 1,679 1,599 1,563 2,416 4,675 8,248 1991 15,898 11,165 8,216 4,711 2,853 1,985 1,747 1,573 1,741 2,327 6,915 10,069 1992 12,164 10,656 7,235 5,961 3,219 2,549 1,949 1,712 1,775 2,236 4,722 11,635 1993 14,565 12,460 12,131 8,019 3,907 2,331 1,832 1,612 1,729 2,317 6,783 10,675 1994 13,551 13,450 9,884 5,919 3,639 2,014

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2001 5,971 7,343 5,742 5,695 5,456 6,550 6,621 8,791 7,952 8,062 6,832 7,527 2002 7,332 5,748 6,225 2,355 2,073 3,093 2,066 4,899 5,614 5,579 5,330 5,541 2003 7,862 5,409 4,352 1,994 1,537 3,203 9,285 9,064 9,436 8,083 7,783 6,392 2004 8,070 7,672 5,888 5,633 4,756 4,199 8,724 9,401 8,320 8,314 9,292 8,464 2005 8,480 8,335 8,641 7,944 1,561 2,690 6,970 9,097 8,251 8,661 8,210 9,159 2006 3,510 5,417 6,304 588 711 2,700 9,740 9,646

  11. Pennsylvania 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 1989 42,523 40,317 37,886 26,310 15,825 8,128 6,400 6,014 6,716 13,222 22,442 44,960 1990 46,618 34,274 31,872 24,487 13,211 8,393 5,973 5,697 6,665 10,603 20,874 31,349 1991 42,638 38,146 32,729 22,324 11,101 6,704 5,716 5,399 6,792 13,403 23,637 34,139 1992 44,113 41,812 36,068 26,243 13,989 8,047 6,134 5,902 6,950 15,853 24,806 36,609 1993 41,969 45,019 42,350 24,988 11,007 8,560 5,614 5,688 6,754 15,261 24,357 37,429 1994 55,091 47,970

  12. Tennessee 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 1989 8,323 8,151 7,961 4,311 2,220 1,347 1,041 961 1,044 1,683 3,555 8,601 1990 11,556 6,514 5,575 4,407 2,119 1,304 993 963 1,017 1,582 4,018 6,293 1991 9,950 8,803 6,940 3,245 1,629 1,128 1,034 961 1,069 1,898 5,085 7,616 1992 10,132 8,849 6,002 4,859 2,186 1,437 1,120 1,051 1,100 1,885 4,473 9,125 1993 10,319 9,273 10,041 5,755 2,317 1,365 1,109 1,011 1,111 1,839 5,774 9,003 1994 13,829 11,693 7,753 4,606 2,027 1,350 1,133 1,081 1,145 1,668

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Thousand Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 2.65 2.36 2.96 3.57 3.52 3.39 3.37 3.21 3.49 3.95 4.09 4.28 2003 5.11 6.91 7.20 5.20 W 5.97 5.27 5.06 4.91 4.62 4.49 5.39 2004 5.92 5.41 5.22 5.54 6.14 6.45 6.07 5.86 5.13 5.85 6.57 6.59 2005 6.01 6.04 6.47 7.07 6.66 6.88 7.29 8.41 10.43 11.30 9.32 10.72 2006 8.48 7.48 6.76 6.82 6.34 6.08 6.06 7.03 5.83 5.09 6.87 6.92 2007 6.42 7.34 6.90 7.29 7.51 7.48 6.55 6.19 5.88 6.68 6.58 7.00 2008 7.73 8.08 8.92 9.95 10.48

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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 64,000 64,000 64,000

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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 13,845 13,845

  20. 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 376,301 376,301 376,301

  1. 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 34,850 34,850 34,850

  2. 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 ...

  3. Utah 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 1989 8,316 8,290 5,786 3,585 2,215 1,763 1,374 1,235 1,322 1,718 3,640 5,923 1990 7,169 6,949 5,699 3,287 2,576 1,880 1,314 1,236 1,222 1,932 3,699 6,463 1991 9,582 7,276 5,715 4,514 3,544 2,041 1,348 1,269 1,347 1,802 4,293 7,841 1992 8,422 7,132 4,869 3,184 1,986 1,524 1,406 1,255 1,321 1,802 3,844 7,957 1993 8,919 8,045 6,589 4,375 3,055 1,845 1,533 1,353 1,449 2,322 4,676 7,619 1994 7,251 7,329 4,831 3,524 1,577 1,404 1,369 1,306 1,457

  4. West Virginia 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 1989 5,838 5,621 5,179 3,608 2,263 1,001 741 695 824 1,738 3,240 6,382 1990 6,858 4,690 4,174 3,403 1,747 1,055 724 696 800 1,353 3,031 4,069 1991 5,561 5,527 4,858 2,876 1,372 707 629 622 765 1,738 3,210 4,722 1992 6,183 6,231 4,328 4,038 2,076 1,105 683 661 819 1,899 3,120 4,146 1993 5,220 5,960 5,767 3,560 1,608 962 533 620 740 1,818 3,347 5,072 1994 7,397 6,344 5,136 3,281 1,841 926 541 625 789 1,511 2,462 4,348 1995 5,783 6,546 4,592

  5. Wyoming 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 1989 1,923 1,964 1,597 1,180 743 517 344 259 350 518 973 1,412 1990 1,832 1,692 1,511 1,140 849 585 320 288 256 484 973 1,556 1991 2,238 1,668 1,340 1,124 922 463 293 259 274 568 1,179 1,665 1992 1,876 1,492 1,146 951 613 431 323 278 360 551 1,071 1,803 1993 2,142 1,797 1,653 1,164 809 506 366 292 380 641 1,181 1,731 1994 1,849 1,790 1,371 1,121 652 352 276 257 333 662 1,210 1,690 1995 2,037 1,496 1,453 1,200 1,006 681 347 271 361 611 1,125

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Thousand 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 2.86 2.58 2.98 2000's 4.52 5.20 3.57 5.81 6.24 9.67 7.32 7.19 10.03 4.30 2010's 4.85 W 3.09 4.14 4.74 3.06

    2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Wellhead Price 4.46 1967-2010 Pipeline and Distribution Use Price 1967-2005 Citygate Price 6.46 5.80 5.18 4.65 4.93 NA 1984-2015 Residential Price 15.79 15.08 16.20 15.47 14.59 13.95 1967-2015 Percentage of Total Residential Deliveries

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Thousand 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 1.74 1.80 1.59 2000's 1.77 2.36 2.27 2.29 2.79 3.42 3.65 3.58 W W 2010's W 5.04 4.32 4.73 5.06 5.40

    2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Wellhead Price 3.17 1967-2010 Exports Price 12.19 12.88 15.71 -- 15.74 1989-2014 Pipeline and Distribution Use Price 1970-2005 Citygate Price 6.67 6.53 6.14 6.02 6.34 6.57 1988-2015 Residential Price 8.89 8.77 8.47 8.85 9.11 9.68 1967-2015

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Thousand 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 2.69 2.29 2.59 2000's 4.46 4.44 3.59 4.37 6.19 8.59 6.38 7.04 9.23 4.14 2010's 5.11 W 3.19 4.32

    2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Wellhead Price 3.84 1967-2010 Pipeline and Distribution Use Price 1967-2005 Citygate Price 6.76 6.27 5.36 4.99 5.84 4.76 1984-2015 Residential Price 11.53 11.46 11.82 10.46 10.39 11.20 1967-2015 Percentage of Total Residential Deliveries included in

  9. 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 1991 657 638 525 665 651 635 507 611 607 1992 665 667 720 787 782 766 787 513 840 822 915 821 1993 1,034 857 948 531 965 949 922 936 879 982 976 1,016 1994 1,024 885 999 948 553 949 969 999 1,000 1,003 1,010 1,009 1995 1,594 931 2,253 893 1,451 1,976 976 958 1,256 830 929 993 1996 954 931 858 862 907 849 880 865 762 1,028 957 863 1997 543 530 578 485 612 618 588 623 609 609 712 664 1998 594 589 751 704 764 400 626 641 604 677 588 306 1999 556

  10. 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 1991 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1992 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2006 0 0 0 0

  11. Louisiana 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 1991 5,244 4,734 4,225 4,287 4,497 4,051 3,869 2,184 3,937 4,254 2,076 1,935 1992 3,882 3,446 3,606 3,528 3,694 3,572 3,661 3,278 3,265 3,553 3,480 3,668 1993 3,051 2,763 2,983 2,907 3,017 2,891 2,959 2,994 2,996 3,134 3,065 3,144 1994 3,119 2,825 3,049 2,971 3,083 2,955 3,024 3,060 3,062 3,204 3,133 3,215 1995 3,033 2,747 2,965 2,887 2,993 2,869 2,939 2,977 2,978 3,118 3,048 3,130 1996 3,068 2,866 3,008 2,923 3,036 3,346 3,525 3,543 3,488

  12. 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 1960's 77,130 79,015 84,406 1970's 86,811 87,617 89,042 86,670 82,999 82,380 87,408 77,575 83,391 82,784 1980's 68,080 70,423 67,500 64,716 73,012 68,399 71,896 70,670 74,918 75,138 1990's 66,428 69,235 75,122 76,871 76,688 76,552 85,533 77,500 68,057 74,848 2000's 84,082 70,691 80,122 90,669 86,382 85,768 71,345 83,457 81,180 82,699 2010's 83,830 77,838 70,346 83,341 90,542 81,592

    Total Consumption (Million Cubic

  13. Michigan 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 1996 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 1997 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 1998 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 1999 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 2000 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 2001 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 2002 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 2003 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 2004 195 195 195 195

  14. Mississippi 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 1991 2,616 2,686 2,471 1,829 1,467 1,373 1,598 1,758 1,730 2,200 2,025 2,177 1992 2,152 1,997 2,170 2,085 2,270 2,135 2,053 2,031 2,060 2,003 2,016 2,021 1993 1,658 1,080 1,219 1,154 1,199 1,227 1,260 1,063 1,109 1,148 1,060 915 1994 870 784 850 1,004 1,034 953 1,044 1,103 1,174 1,110 1,057 1,100 1995 1,087 1,004 1,048 1,097 1,088 1,014 1,019 886 722 742 733 879 1996 865 842 898 905 892 838 696 685 667 695 678 706 1997 699 703 526 664 728 593

  15. Missouri 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 1991 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1992 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

  16. Montana 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 1996 7 6 6 7 8 7 7 7 5 5 6 6 1997 6 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 1998 6 5 5 8 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 1999 6 5 6 6 5 7 5 5 5 5 5 6 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2004 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2005 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 2006 1 0 4 5 5 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 2007 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2008 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2011 0 0 0 0

  17. 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 1960's 53,819 53,376 55,163 1970's 58,295 57,678 59,978 50,383 49,403 53,803 54,965 52,909 48,193 53,526 1980's 48,915 43,907 51,381 47,236 47,834 46,674 42,303 38,871 43,502 44,804 1990's 41,499 44,671 41,414 48,256 44,397 45,054 48,989 47,105 40,771 40,588 2000's 42,510 46,663 43,826 42,190 38,600 37,963 35,896 38,596 42,357 40,143 2010's 40,132 39,717 31,286 41,229 42,147 33,830

    Total Consumption (Million Cubic

  18. New Mexico 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 1991 1,585 1,316 1,468 1,420 1,417 1,348 1,272 1,370 1,380 1,501 1,484 1,532 1992 1,381 1,233 1,393 1,237 1,500 1,429 1,555 1,390 1,413 1,563 1,247 1,198 1993 1,024 1,175 1,499 1,478 1,540 1,386 1,374 1,442 1,387 1,395 1,329 1,537 1994 1,173 1,346 1,718 1,693 1,765 1,588 1,574 1,652 1,589 1,599 1,523 1,761 1995 594 682 870 858 894 804 797 837 805 810 771 892 1996 884 824 900 864 906 859 816 828 796 806 811 838 1997 904 827 920 887 912 843 883

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  1. Oregon 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 1996 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 1997 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 1998 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1999 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2011 0 0 0 0

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (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...

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

    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...

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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...

  15. 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.

  16. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity

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

    Working Storage Capacity by PAD District as of September 30, 2015 (Thousand Barrels) Commodity 1 2 3 4 5 U.S. Total Ending Stocks Utilization Rate 1 Refineries Crude Oil 14,915 20,106 76,215 4,174 36,136 151,546 102,678 68% Fuel Ethanol 151 139 272 120 69 751 542 72% Natural Gas Plant Liquids and Liquefied Refinery Gases 2 1,179 11,054 28,530 559 2,294 43,616 19,428 45% Propane/Propylene (dedicated) 3 405 3,576 4,991 44 195 9,211 4,567 NA Motor Gasoline (incl. Motor Gasoline Blending Components)

  17. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity

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

    Net Available Shell Storage Capacity by PAD District as of September 30, 2015 (Thousand Barrels) Commodity In Operation Idle 1 In Operation Idle 1 In Operation Idle 1 In Operation Idle 1 In Operation Idle 1 In Operation Idle 1 Refineries Crude Oil 16,853 981 24,677 733 91,650 2,192 4,748 137 40,924 2,201 178,852 6,244 Fuel Ethanol 174 - 171 - 309 - 144 6 77 9 875 15 Natural Gas Plant Liquids and Liquefied Refinery Gases 2 1,328 21 12,256 270 31,315 92 608 1 2,470 - 47,977 384 Propane/Propylene

  18. California 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) California Natural Gas Number of Gas and ... Number of Producing Gas Wells Number of Producing Gas Wells (Summary) California Natural ...

  19. 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.

  20. Injections of Natural Gas into Storage (Annual Supply & Disposition...

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

    Citygate Price Residential Price Commercial Price Industrial Price Electric Power Price ... By Pipeline LNG Exports Underground Storage Capacity Gas in Underground Storage Base ...

  1. 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...

  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. 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. ...

  4. 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...

  5. 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...

  6. 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...

  7. 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...

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. EIS-0164: Pacific Gas Transmission/Pacific Gas and Electric and Altamont Natural Gas Pipeline Project

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    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. "

  11. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Interstate Pipelines Segment

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

    Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Segment About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Segment Two-thirds of the lower 48 States are almost totally dependent upon the interstate pipeline system for their supplies of natural gas. On the interstate pipeline grid, the long-distance, wide-diameter (20-42 inch), high capacity trunklines carry most of the natural gas that is transported throughout the

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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 ...

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. Voluntary Initiative: Partnering to Enhance Program Capacity...

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

    Voluntary Initiative: Partnering to Enhance Program Capacity Better Buildings Residential Network Program Sustainability Peer Exchange Call Series: Voluntary Initiative: Partnering ...

  19. High current capacity electrical connector

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Bettis, Edward S.; Watts, Harry L.

    1976-01-13

    An electrical connector is provided for coupling high current capacity electrical conductors such as copper busses or the like. The connector is arranged in a "sandwiched" configuration in which a conductor plate contacts the busses along major surfaces thereof clamped between two stainless steel backing plates. The conductor plate is provided with a plurality of contact buttons affixed therein in a spaced array such that the caps of the buttons extend above the conductor plate surface to contact the busses. When clamping bolts provided through openings in the sandwiched arrangement are tightened, Belleville springs provided under the rim of each button cap are compressed and resiliently force the caps into contact with the busses' contacting surfaces to maintain a predetermined electrical contact area provided by the button cap tops. The contact area does not change with changing thermal or mechanical stresses applied to the coupled conductors.

  20. 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%.

  1. Multiple volume compressor for hot gas engine

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Stotts, Robert E.

    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.

  2. 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)

  3. 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.

  4. Gas separating

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Gollan, Arye

    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. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. Natural Gas Market Digest (formerly Year in Review) - U.S. Energy

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

    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

  10. WINDExchange: U.S. Installed Wind Capacity

    Wind Powering America (EERE)

    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,

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. Increasing the Capacity of Existing Power Lines

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

    ... Improved line capacity forecasting The research team continues to validate and refine its weather simulation model to run faster and generate increasingly more accurate results for ...

  14. 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 ...

  15. 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...

  16. High Capacity Hydrogen Storage Nanocomposite - Energy Innovation...

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

    Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Energy Storage Energy Storage Advanced Materials Advanced Materials Find More Like This Return to Search High Capacity Hydrogen...

  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. 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...

  19. 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...

  20. ,,,,,,"Capacity MW",,,,,"Customers",,,,,"Energy Sold Back MWh...

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

    Technologies" ,,,,,,"Capacity MW",,,,,"Customers",,,,,"Energy Sold Back MWh",,,,,"Capacity MW",,,,,"Customers",,,,,"Energy Sold Back MWh",,,,,"Capacity MW",,,,,"Customers",,,,,"En...

  1. 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...

  2. 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...

  3. 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...

  4. 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...

  5. 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...

  6. 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...

  7. 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...

  8. 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.

  9. 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...

  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

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

    Energy Conversion Efficiency Solar Energy Wind Energy Water Power Supercritical CO2 Geothermal Natural Gas Safety, ... Analysis of Technology and Policy Tradeoffs, Energy Policy, ...

  12. Gas magnetometer

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Walker, Thad Gilbert; Lancor, Brian Robert; Wyllie, Robert

    2016-05-03

    Measurement of a precessional rate of a gas, such as an alkali gas, in a magnetic field is made by promoting a non-uniform precession of the gas in which substantially no net magnetic field affects the gas during a majority of the precession cycle. This allows sensitive gases that would be subject to spin-exchange collision de-phasing to be effectively used for extremely sensitive measurements in the presence of an environmental magnetic field such as the Earth's magnetic field.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. Energy Information Administration/Natural Gas Monthly October 2000

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

    Natural Gas Monthly October 2000 vii Status of Natural Gas Pipeline System Capacity Entering the 2000-2001 Heating Season During the summer and fall of 2000 natural gas prices reached record highs for a nonheating season period. The dramatic rise in prices resulted from an upsurge in natural gas demand, mainly from electric generation needs during a warmer-than-usual spring and summer. The increased demand has occurred while domestic production levels have continued to decrease over the past

  17. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity

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

    Net Available Shell Storage Capacity of Terminals and Tank Farms as of September 30, 2015 (Thousand Barrels, Except Where Noted) Commodity 2 3 4 5 U.S. Total Crude Oil (Excluding SPR) Capacity In Operation 6,686 150,637 260,493 20,397 34,423 472,636 Percent Exclusive Use 2 79% 39% 66% 89% 76% 59% Percent Leased to Others 21% 61% 34% 11% 24% 41% Cushing, Oklahoma Capacity In Operation -- 87,685 -- -- -- 87,685 Percent Exclusive Use 2 -- 17% -- -- -- 17% Percent Leased to Others -- 83% -- -- --

  18. 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.

  19. 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...

  20. Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources:

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

    ... matter with TOC values (in immature samples) of up to 25%. 1 The shales in the Lower ... (USA), may provide additional flow and storage capacity for oil and gas expulsed from ...

  1. Economic Dispatch of Electric Generation Capacity | Department...

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

    Economic Dispatch of Electric Generation Capacity A report to congress and the states pursuant to sections 1234 and 1832 of the Energy Polict Act of 2005. PDF icon Economic ...

  2. 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...

  3. 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...

  4. 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)

  5. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity

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

    Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity November 2015 With Data as of September 30, 2015 Independent Statistics & Analysis www.eia.gov U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 U.S. Energy Information Administration | Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity as of September 30, 2015 This report was prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. By law, EIA's data, analyses, and

  6. 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.

  7. Wet powder seal for gas containment

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Stang, Louis G.

    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.

  8. Wet powder seal for gas containment

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Stang, L.G.

    1979-08-29

    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.

  9. Washington Natural Gas Summary

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

    08 4.25 3.51 3.46 3.21 3.63 1989-2016 Residential 11.71 11.24 9.71 9.15 9.23 10.28 1989-2016 Commercial 9.42 9.32 8.35 7.80 7.85 8.38 1989-2016 Industrial 8.87 8.48 7.87 7.27 7.31 7.66 2001-2016 Electric Power W W W W W W 2002-2016 Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Total Capacity 46,900 46,900 46,900 46,900 46,900 46,900 2002-2016 Gas in Storage 45,053 45,877 42,090 39,380 37,900 32,046 1990-2016 Base Gas 22,300 22,300 22,300 22,300 22,300 22,300 1990-2016 Working Gas 22,753 23,577 19,790

  10. Minnesota Natural Gas Summary

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

    4.49 3.51 4.06 3.65 3.43 3.65 1989-2016 Residential 12.75 9.33 7.71 7.16 7.05 6.93 1989-2016 Commercial 7.72 6.43 6.20 6.10 6.53 6.08 1989-2016 Industrial 4.23 4.31 4.20 4.31 4.43 4.28 2001-2016 Electric Power W W W W W W 2002-2016 Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Total Capacity 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2002-2016 Gas in Storage 6,573 6,835 6,984 6,973 6,658 6,531 1990-2016 Base Gas 4,848 4,848 4,848 4,848 4,848 4,848 1990-2016 Working Gas 1,725 1,987 2,136 2,125 1,810 1,683

  11. 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.

  12. Cracking in liquid petroleum gas Horton spheres

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Trivedi, D.K. Gupta, S.C.

    1997-07-01

    A gas processing plant on the western coast of India produces sweet gas after processing sour natural gas. Liquid petroleum gas (LPG) is recovered from the sweet gas. The LPG, containing a H{sub 2}S concentration of 10 ppm to 20 ppm, is stored in Horton spheres, each 17 m in diameter with a capacity of {minus}27 C to 55 C. Horton spheres for containing liquid petroleum gas (LPG) were fabricated on-site using prestressed plates of high-strength carbon steel (CS) SA 537 Class-1 with post-weld heat treatment. High-residual tensile stresses and hydrogen absorption from H{sub 2}S present in LPG could be the cause of cracking at weld and heat-affected zone interfaces at high hardness locations. Recommendations are given for inspection and use of lower-strength CS and improved welding procedures.

  13. Reliability of natural gas cogeneration systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-12-01

    Cogeneration systems fueled by natural gas exceed the reliability of most central station power generating units, according to a study conducted by RINC Corporation for Gas Research Institute (GRI). In the study, researchers obtained operating data from 122 natural gas cogeneration units nationwide representing 2,200 megawatts (MW) of capacity and nearly 2 million hours of operating time at 37 facilities. Units were grouped into categories reflecting size (from 60 kilowatts to 100 MW), type of system (gas engine or gas turbine technology), use of emission controls, and type of thermal application. Various types and sizes of gas systems reported average availability factors ranging from 90.0 to 95.8 versus a weighted average of 85.9 percent for fossil-fuel steam, nuclear, and gas-turbine-based central station power generating units. Comparisons are based on study data and data reported by the North American Electric Reliability Council for utility power plants. Gas cogeneration can improve utility operations because as a group the relatively small, dispersed cogeneration units are more reliable than one or more large central station units of similar capacity.

  14. Deliverability on the interstate natural gas pipeline system

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1998-05-01

    Deliverability on the Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline System examines the capability of the national pipeline grid to transport natural gas to various US markets. The report quantifies the capacity levels and utilization rates of major interstate pipeline companies in 1996 and the changes since 1990, as well as changes in markets and end-use consumption patterns. It also discusses the effects of proposed capacity expansions on capacity levels. The report consists of five chapters, several appendices, and a glossary. Chapter 1 discusses some of the operational and regulatory features of the US interstate pipeline system and how they affect overall system design, system utilization, and capacity expansions. Chapter 2 looks at how the exploration, development, and production of natural gas within North America is linked to the national pipeline grid. Chapter 3 examines the capability of the interstate natural gas pipeline network to link production areas to market areas, on the basis of capacity and usage levels along 10 corridors. The chapter also examines capacity expansions that have occurred since 1990 along each corridor and the potential impact of proposed new capacity. Chapter 4 discusses the last step in the transportation chain, that is, deliverability to the ultimate end user. Flow patterns into and out of each market region are discussed, as well as the movement of natural gas between States in each region. Chapter 5 examines how shippers reserve interstate pipeline capacity in the current transportation marketplace and how pipeline companies are handling the secondary market for short-term unused capacity. Four appendices provide supporting data and additional detail on the methodology used to estimate capacity. 32 figs., 15 tabs.

  15. 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.

  16. INVESTING IN NEW BASE LOAD GENERATING CAPACITY

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

    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. 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

  18. 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...

  19. Gas turbine cooling system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Bancalari, Eduardo E.

    2001-01-01

    A gas turbine engine (10) having a closed-loop cooling circuit (39) for transferring heat from the hot turbine section (16) to the compressed air (24) produced by the compressor section (12). The closed-loop cooling system (39) includes a heat exchanger (40) disposed in the flow path of the compressed air (24) between the outlet of the compressor section (12) and the inlet of the combustor (14). A cooling fluid (50) may be driven by a pump (52) located outside of the engine casing (53) or a pump (54) mounted on the rotor shaft (17). The cooling circuit (39) may include an orifice (60) for causing the cooling fluid (50) to change from a liquid state to a gaseous state, thereby increasing the heat transfer capacity of the cooling circuit (39).

  20. Natural Gas Regulation

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Natural Gas Act of 1938, as amended, requires any person who wishes to import and/or export natural gas, (including liquefied natural gas, compressed natural gas, compressed gas liquids, etc.)...