National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for gas combined-cycle plants

  1. Efficiency combined cycle power plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pavel, J.; Meyers, G.A.; Baldwin, T.S.

    1990-06-12

    This patent describes a method of operating a combined cycle power plant. It comprises: flowing exhaust gas from a combustion turbine through a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG); flowing feed water through an economizer section of the HRSG at a flow rate and providing heated feed water; flowing a first portion of the heated feed water through an evaporator section of the HRSG and producing saturated steam at a production rate, the flow rate of the feed water through the economizer section being greater than required to sustain the production rate of steam in the evaporator section; flowing fuel for the turbine through a heat exchanger; and, flowing a second portion of the heated feed water provided by the economizer section through the heat exchanger then to an inlet of the economizer section, thereby heating the fuel flowing through the heat exchanger.

  2. Recovery Act: Johnston Rhode Island Combined Cycle Electric Generating Plant Fueled by Waste Landfill Gas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Galowitz, Stephen

    2013-06-30

    The primary objective of the Project was to maximize the productive use of the substantial quantities of waste landfill gas generated and collected at the Central Landfill in Johnston, Rhode Island. An extensive analysis was conducted and it was determined that utilization of the waste gas for power generation in a combustion turbine combined cycle facility was the highest and best use. The resulting project reflected a cost effective balance of the following specific sub-objectives. 1) Meet environmental and regulatory requirements, particularly the compliance obligations imposed on the landfill to collect, process and destroy landfill gas. 2) Utilize proven and reliable technology and equipment. 3) Maximize electrical efficiency. 4) Maximize electric generating capacity, consistent with the anticipated quantities of landfill gas generated and collected at the Central Landfill. 5) Maximize equipment uptime. 6) Minimize water consumption. 7) Minimize post-combustion emissions. To achieve the Project Objective the project consisted of several components. 1) The landfill gas collection system was modified and upgraded. 2) A State-of-the Art gas clean up and compression facility was constructed. 3) A high pressure pipeline was constructed to convey cleaned landfill gas from the clean-up and compression facility to the power plant. 4) A combined cycle electric generating facility was constructed consisting of combustion turbine generator sets, heat recovery steam generators and a steam turbine. 5) The voltage of the electricity produced was increased at a newly constructed transformer/substation and the electricity was delivered to the local transmission system. The Project produced a myriad of beneficial impacts. 1) The Project created 453 FTE construction and manufacturing jobs and 25 FTE permanent jobs associated with the operation and maintenance of the plant and equipment. 2) By combining state-of-the-art gas clean up systems with post combustion emissions control systems, the Project established new national standards for best available control technology (BACT). 3) The Project will annually produce 365,292 MWh�s of clean energy. 4) By destroying the methane in the landfill gas, the Project will generate CO{sub 2} equivalent reductions of 164,938 tons annually. The completed facility produces 28.3 MWnet and operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

  3. Recovery Act: Brea California Combined Cycle Electric Generating Plant Fueled by Waste Landfill Gas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Galowitz, Stephen

    2012-12-31

    The primary objective of the Project was to maximize the productive use of the substantial quantities of waste landfill gas generated and collected at the Olinda Landfill near Brea, California. An extensive analysis was conducted and it was determined that utilization of the waste gas for power generation in a combustion turbine combined cycle facility was the highest and best use. The resulting Project reflected a cost effective balance of the following specific sub-objectives: • Meeting the environmental and regulatory requirements, particularly the compliance obligations imposed on the landfill to collect, process and destroy landfill gas • Utilizing proven and reliable technology and equipment • Maximizing electrical efficiency • Maximizing electric generating capacity, consistent with the anticipated quantities of landfill gas generated and collected at the Olinda Landfill • Maximizing equipment uptime • Minimizing water consumption • Minimizing post-combustion emissions • The Project produced and will produce a myriad of beneficial impacts. o The Project created 360 FTE construction and manufacturing jobs and 15 FTE permanent jobs associated with the operation and maintenance of the plant and equipment. o By combining state-of-the-art gas clean up systems with post combustion emissions control systems, the Project established new national standards for best available control technology (BACT). o The Project will annually produce 280,320 MWh’s of clean energy o By destroying the methane in the landfill gas, the Project will generate CO2 equivalent reductions of 164,938 tons annually. The completed facility produces 27.4 MWnet and operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

  4. Combined cycle power plant incorporating coal gasification

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Liljedahl, Gregory N. (Tariffville, CT); Moffat, Bruce K. (Simsbury, CT)

    1981-01-01

    A combined cycle power plant incorporating a coal gasifier as the energy source. The gases leaving the coal gasifier pass through a liquid couplant heat exchanger before being used to drive a gas turbine. The exhaust gases of the gas turbine are used to generate both high pressure and low pressure steam for driving a steam turbine, before being exhausted to the atmosphere.

  5. Development of a dynamic simulator for a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plant with post-combustion carbon capture

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Liese, E.; Zitney, S.

    2012-01-01

    The AVESTAR Center located at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory and West Virginia University is a world-class research and training environment dedicated to using dynamic process simulation as a tool for advancing the safe, efficient and reliable operation of clean energy plants with CO{sub 2} capture. The AVESTAR Center was launched with a high-fidelity dynamic simulator for an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant with pre-combustion carbon capture. The IGCC dynamic simulator offers full-scope Operator Training Simulator (OTS) Human Machine Interface (HMI) graphics for realistic, real-time control room operation and is integrated with a 3D virtual Immersive Training Simulator (ITS), thus allowing joint control room and field operator training. The IGCC OTS/ITS solution combines a “gasification with CO{sub 2} capture” process simulator with a “combined cycle” power simulator into a single high-performance dynamic simulation framework. This presentation will describe progress on the development of a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) dynamic simulator based on the syngas-fired combined cycle portion of AVESTAR’s IGCC dynamic simulator. The 574 MW gross NGCC power plant design consisting of two advanced F-class gas turbines, two heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs), and a steam turbine in a multi-shaft 2x2x1 configuration will be reviewed. Plans for integrating a post-combustion carbon capture system will also be discussed.

  6. 90 MW build/own/operate gas turbine combined cycle cogeneration project with sludge drying plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Schroppe, J.T.

    1986-04-01

    This paper will discuss some of the unique aspects of a build/own/operate cogeneration project for an oil refinery in which Foster Wheeler is involved. The organization is constructing a 90 MW plant that will supply 55 MW and 160,000 lb/hr of 600 psi, 700F steam to the Tosco Corporation's 130,000 bd Avon Oil Refinery in Martinez, California. (The refinery is located about 45 miles northeast of San Francisco.) Surplus power production will be sold to the local utility, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG and E). Many of the aspects of this project took on a different perspective, since the contractor would build, own and operate the plant.

  7. Hybrid solar central receiver for combined cycle power plant

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Bharathan, D.; Bohn, M.S.; Williams, T.A.

    1995-05-23

    A hybrid combined cycle power plant is described including a solar central receiver for receiving solar radiation and converting it to thermal energy. The power plant includes a molten salt heat transfer medium for transferring the thermal energy to an air heater. The air heater uses the thermal energy to preheat the air from the compressor of the gas cycle. The exhaust gases from the gas cycle are directed to a steam turbine for additional energy production. 1 figure.

  8. Hybrid solar central receiver for combined cycle power plant

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Bharathan, Desikan (Lakewood, CO); Bohn, Mark S. (Golden, CO); Williams, Thomas A. (Arvada, CO)

    1995-01-01

    A hybrid combined cycle power plant including a solar central receiver for receiving solar radiation and converting it to thermal energy. The power plant includes a molten salt heat transfer medium for transferring the thermal energy to an air heater. The air heater uses the thermal energy to preheat the air from the compressor of the gas cycle. The exhaust gases from the gas cycle are directed to a steam turbine for additional energy production.

  9. Steam turbine development for advanced combined cycle power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Oeynhausen, H.; Bergmann, D.; Balling, L.; Termuehlen, H.

    1996-12-31

    For advanced combined cycle power plants, the proper selection of steam turbine models is required to achieve optimal performance. The advancements in gas turbine technology must be followed by advances in the combined cycle steam turbine design. On the other hand, building low-cost gas turbines and steam turbines is desired which, however, can only be justified if no compromise is made in regard to their performance. The standard design concept of two-casing single-flow turbines seems to be the right choice for most of the present and future applications worldwide. Only for very specific applications it might be justified to select another design concept as a more suitable option.

  10. Solid-Fueled Pressurized Chemical Looping with Flue-Gas Turbine Combined Cycle for Improved Plant Efficiency and CO{sub 2} Capture

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Liu, Kunlei; Chen, Liangyong; Zhang, Yi; Richburg, Lisa; Simpson, James; White, Jay; Rossi, Gianalfredo

    2013-12-31

    The purpose of this document is to report the final result of techno-economic analysis for the proposed 550MWe integrated pressurized chemical looping combustion combined cycle process. An Aspen Plus based model is delivered in this report along with the results from three sensitivity scenarios including the operating pressure, excess air ratio and oxygen carrier performance. A process flow diagram and detailed stream table for the base case are also provided with the overall plant energy balance, carbon balance, sulfur balance and water balance. The approach to the process and key component simulation are explained. The economic analysis (OPEX and CAPX) on four study cases via DOE NETL Reference Case 12 are presented and explained.

  11. Model Predictive Control of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Power Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    B. Wayne Bequette; Priyadarshi Mahapatra

    2010-08-31

    The primary project objectives were to understand how the process design of an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant affects the dynamic operability and controllability of the process. Steady-state and dynamic simulation models were developed to predict the process behavior during typical transients that occur in plant operation. Advanced control strategies were developed to improve the ability of the process to follow changes in the power load demand, and to improve performance during transitions between power levels. Another objective of the proposed work was to educate graduate and undergraduate students in the application of process systems and control to coal technology. Educational materials were developed for use in engineering courses to further broaden this exposure to many students. ASPENTECH software was used to perform steady-state and dynamic simulations of an IGCC power plant. Linear systems analysis techniques were used to assess the steady-state and dynamic operability of the power plant under various plant operating conditions. Model predictive control (MPC) strategies were developed to improve the dynamic operation of the power plants. MATLAB and SIMULINK software were used for systems analysis and control system design, and the SIMULINK functionality in ASPEN DYNAMICS was used to test the control strategies on the simulated process. Project funds were used to support a Ph.D. student to receive education and training in coal technology and the application of modeling and simulation techniques.

  12. NOVEL GAS CLEANING/CONDITIONING FOR INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED CYCLE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dennis A. Horazak; Richard A. Newby; Eugene E. Smeltzer; Rachid B. Slimane; P. Vann Bush; James L. Aderhold Jr; Bruce G. Bryan

    2005-12-01

    Development efforts have been underway for decades to replace dry-gas cleaning technology with humid-gas cleaning technology that would maintain the water vapor content in the raw gas by conducting cleaning at sufficiently high temperature to avoid water vapor condensation and would thus significantly simplify the plant and improve its thermal efficiency. Siemens Power Generation, Inc. conducted a program with the Gas Technology Institute (GTI) to develop a Novel Gas Cleaning process that uses a new type of gas-sorbent contactor, the ''filter-reactor''. The Filter-Reactor Novel Gas Cleaning process described and evaluated here is in its early stages of development and this evaluation is classified as conceptual. The commercial evaluations have been coupled with integrated Process Development Unit testing performed at a GTI coal gasifier test facility to demonstrate, at sub-scale the process performance capabilities. The commercial evaluations and Process Development Unit test results are presented in Volumes 1 and 2 of this report, respectively. Two gas cleaning applications with significantly differing gas cleaning requirements were considered in the evaluation: IGCC power generation, and Methanol Synthesis with electric power co-production. For the IGCC power generation application, two sets of gas cleaning requirements were applied, one representing the most stringent ''current'' gas cleaning requirements, and a second set representing possible, very stringent ''future'' gas cleaning requirements. Current gas cleaning requirements were used for Methanol Synthesis in the evaluation because these cleaning requirements represent the most stringent of cleaning requirements and the most challenging for the Filter-Reactor Novel Gas Cleaning process. The scope of the evaluation for each application was: (1) Select the configuration for the Filter-Reactor Novel Gas Cleaning Process, the arrangement of the individual gas cleaning stages, and the probable operating conditions of the gas cleaning stages to conceptually satisfy the gas cleaning requirements; (2) Estimate process material & energy balances for the major plant sections and for each gas cleaning stage; (3) Conceptually size and specify the major gas cleaning process equipment; (4) Determine the resulting overall performance of the application; and (5) Estimate the investment cost and operating cost for each application. Analogous evaluation steps were applied for each application using conventional gas cleaning technology, and comparison was made to extract the potential benefits, issues, and development needs of the Filter-Reactor Novel Gas Cleaning technology. The gas cleaning process and related gas conditioning steps were also required to meet specifications that address plant environmental emissions, the protection of the gas turbine and other Power Island components, and the protection of the methanol synthesis reactor. Detailed material & energy balances for the gas cleaning applications, coupled with preliminary thermodynamic modeling and laboratory testing of candidate sorbents, identified the probable sorbent types that should be used, their needed operating conditions in each stage, and their required levels of performance. The study showed that Filter-Reactor Novel Gas Cleaning technology can be configured to address and conceptually meet all of the gas cleaning requirements for IGCC, and that it can potentially overcome several of the conventional IGCC power plant availability issues, resulting in improved power plant thermal efficiency and cost. For IGCC application, Filter-Reactor Novel Gas Cleaning yields 6% greater generating capacity and 2.3 percentage-points greater efficiency under the Current Standards case, and more than 9% generating capacity increase and 3.6 percentage-points higher efficiency in the Future Standards case. While the conceptual equipment costs are estimated to be only slightly lower for the Filter-Reactor Novel Gas Cleaning processes than for the conventional processes, the improved power plant capacity results in the potentia

  13. Catalytic combustor for integrated gasification combined cycle power plant

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Bachovchin, Dennis M. (Mauldin, SC); Lippert, Thomas E. (Murrysville, PA)

    2008-12-16

    A gasification power plant 10 includes a compressor 32 producing a compressed air flow 36, an air separation unit 22 producing a nitrogen flow 44, a gasifier 14 producing a primary fuel flow 28 and a secondary fuel source 60 providing a secondary fuel flow 62 The plant also includes a catalytic combustor 12 combining the nitrogen flow and a combustor portion 38 of the compressed air flow to form a diluted air flow 39 and combining at least one of the primary fuel flow and secondary fuel flow and a mixer portion 78 of the diluted air flow to produce a combustible mixture 80. A catalytic element 64 of the combustor 12 separately receives the combustible mixture and a backside cooling portion 84 of the diluted air flow and allows the mixture and the heated flow to produce a hot combustion gas 46 provided to a turbine 48. When fueled with the secondary fuel flow, nitrogen is not combined with the combustor portion.

  14. Single pressure steam bottoming cycle for gas turbines combined cycle

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zervos, N.

    1990-01-30

    This patent describes a process for recapturing waste heat from the exhaust of a gas turbine to drive a high pressure-high temperature steam turbine and a low pressure steam turbine. It comprises: delivering the exhaust of the gas turbine to the hot side of an economizer-reheater apparatus; delivering a heated stream of feedwater and recycled condensate through the cold side of the economizer-reheater apparatus in an indirect heat exchange relationship with the gas turbine exhaust on the hot side of the economizer-reheater apparatus to elevate the temperature below the pinch point of the boiler; delivering the discharge from the high pressure-high temperature steam turbine through the economizer-reheater apparatus in an indirect heat exchange relationship with the gas turbine exhaust on the hot side of the economizer-reheater apparatus; driving the high pressure-high temperature steam turbine with the discharge stream of feedwater and recycled condensate which is heated to a temperature below the pinch point of the boiler by the economizer-reheater apparatus; and driving the low pressure steam turbine with the discharged stream of the high pressure-high temperature steam turbine reheated below the pinch point of the boiler by the economizer-reheater apparatus.

  15. Tsiklauri-Durst combined cycle (T-D Cycle{trademark}) application for nuclear and fossil-fueled power generating plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tsiklauri, B.; Korolev, V.N.; Durst, B.M.; Shen, P.K.

    1998-07-01

    The Tsiklauri-Durst combined cycle is a combination of the best attributes of both nuclear power and combined cycle gas power plants. A technology patented in 1994 by Battelle Memorial Institute offers a synergistic approach to power generation. A typical combined cycle is defined as the combination of gas turbine Brayton Cycle, topping steam turbine Rankine Cycle. Exhaust from the gas turbine is used in heat recovery steam generators to produce steam for a steam turbine. In a standard combined cycle gas turbine-steam turbine application, the gas turbine generates about 65 to 70 percent of system power. The thermal efficiency for such an installation is typically about 45 to 50 percent. A T-D combined cycle takes a new, creative approach to combined cycle design by directly mixing high enthalpy steam from the heat recovery steam generator, involving the steam generator at more than one pressure. Direct mixing of superheated and saturated steam eliminates the requirement for a large heat exchanger, making plant modification simple and economical.

  16. Method and system to estimate variables in an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Kumar, Aditya; Shi, Ruijie; Dokucu, Mustafa

    2013-09-17

    System and method to estimate variables in an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant are provided. The system includes a sensor suite to measure respective plant input and output variables. An extended Kalman filter (EKF) receives sensed plant input variables and includes a dynamic model to generate a plurality of plant state estimates and a covariance matrix for the state estimates. A preemptive-constraining processor is configured to preemptively constrain the state estimates and covariance matrix to be free of constraint violations. A measurement-correction processor may be configured to correct constrained state estimates and a constrained covariance matrix based on processing of sensed plant output variables. The measurement-correction processor is coupled to update the dynamic model with corrected state estimates and a corrected covariance matrix. The updated dynamic model may be configured to estimate values for at least one plant variable not originally sensed by the sensor suite.

  17. Pressurized solid oxide fuel cell/gas turbine combined cycle systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    George, R.A.

    1997-12-31

    Over the last 10 years, Westinghouse Electric Corporation has made great strides in advancing tubular solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) technology towards commercialization by the year 2001. In 1993, Westinghouse initiated a program to develop pressurized solid oxide fuel cell/gas turbine (PSOFC/GT) combined cycle power systems because of the ultra-high electrical efficiencies, 60-75% (net AC/LHV CH4), inherent with these systems. This paper will discuss SOFC technology advancements in recent years, and the final phase development program which will focus on the development and demonstration of PSOFC/GT power systems for distributed power applications.

  18. A dynamic process model of a natural gas combined cycle -- Model development with startup and shutdown simulations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Liese, Eric; Zitney, Stephen E.

    2013-01-01

    Research in dynamic process simulation for integrated gasification combined cycles (IGCC) with carbon capture has been ongoing at the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), culminating in a full operator training simulator (OTS) and immersive training simulator (ITS) for use in both operator training and research. A derivative work of the IGCC dynamic simulator has been a modification of the combined cycle section to more closely represent a typical natural gas fired combined cycle (NGCC). This paper describes the NGCC dynamic process model and highlights some of the simulator’s current capabilities through a particular startup and shutdown scenario.

  19. Steam Generator Component Model in a Combined Cycle of Power Conversion Unit for Very High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Oh, Chang H; Han, James; Barner, Robert; Sherman, Steven R

    2007-06-01

    The Department of Energy and the Idaho National Laboratory are developing a Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP), Very High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (VHTR) to serve as a demonstration of state-of-the-art nuclear technology. The purpose of the demonstration is two fold 1) efficient low cost energy generation and 2) hydrogen production. Although a next generation plant could be developed as a single-purpose facility, early designs are expected to be dual-purpose. While hydrogen production and advanced energy cycles are still in its early stages of development, research towards coupling a high temperature reactor, electrical generation and hydrogen production is under way. A combined cycle is considered as one of the power conversion units to be coupled to the very high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (VHTR). The combined cycle configuration consists of a Brayton top cycle coupled to a Rankine bottoming cycle by means of a steam generator. A detailed sizing and pressure drop model of a steam generator is not available in the HYSYS processes code. Therefore a four region model was developed for implementation into HYSYS. The focus of this study was the validation of a HYSYS steam generator model of two phase flow correlations. The correlations calculated the size and heat exchange of the steam generator. To assess the model, those calculations were input into a RELAP5 model and its results were compared with HYSYS results. The comparison showed many differences in parameters such as the heat transfer coefficients and revealed the different methods used by the codes. Despite differences in approach, the overall results of heat transfer were in good agreement.

  20. CoalFleet RD&D augmentation plan for integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2007-01-15

    To help accelerate the development, demonstration, and market introduction of integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) and other clean coal technologies, EPRI formed the CoalFleet for Tomorrow initiative, which facilitates collaborative research by more than 50 organizations from around the world representing power generators, equipment suppliers and engineering design and construction firms, the U.S. Department of Energy, and others. This group advised EPRI as it evaluated more than 120 coal-gasification-related research projects worldwide to identify gaps or critical-path activities where additional resources and expertise could hasten the market introduction of IGCC advances. The resulting 'IGCC RD&D Augmentation Plan' describes such opportunities and how they could be addressed, for both IGCC plants to be built in the near term (by 2012-15) and over the longer term (2015-25), when demand for new electric generating capacity is expected to soar. For the near term, EPRI recommends 19 projects that could reduce the levelized cost-of-electricity for IGCC to the level of today's conventional pulverized-coal power plants with supercritical steam conditions and state-of-the-art environmental controls. For the long term, EPRI's recommended projects could reduce the levelized cost of an IGCC plant capturing 90% of the CO{sub 2} produced from the carbon in coal (for safe storage away from the atmosphere) to the level of today's IGCC plants without CO{sub 2} capture. EPRI's CoalFleet for Tomorrow program is also preparing a companion RD&D augmentation plan for advanced-combustion-based (i.e., non-gasification) clean coal technologies (Report 1013221). 7 refs., 30 figs., 29 tabs., 4 apps.

  1. Gas cleanup for combined cycle power generation using a hot gas conditioning catalyst

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Paisley, M.A.; Gebhard, S.C.

    1995-11-01

    Biomass gasification provides the potential to efficiently and economically produce a renewable source of a clean gaseous fuel suitable for power generation or synthesis gas (syngas) applications. Biomass as the feedstock for the process is uniquely suited to this application because it provides the means to increase the nation`s energy security, and also, to potentially provide a more stable agricultural industry. An important side benefit of the use of biomass is the effective minimization of the primary greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}), by providing a means to close-loop the CO{sub 2} cycle. However, high molecular weight hydrocarbon constituents (tar) in the product gas from gasification can complicate the downstream uses of the gas. This paper discusses both the development of a low cost, disposable catalyst system that can eliminate these heavy hydrocarbons from the gas and the use of the catalyst in conjunction with the Battelle high-throughput gasification process for power generation systems.

  2. Base-Load and Peak Electricity from a Combined Nuclear Heat and Fossil Combined-Cycle Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Conklin, James C.; Forsberg, Charles W.

    2007-07-01

    A combined-cycle power plant is proposed that uses heat from a high-temperature reactor and fossil fuel to meet base-load and peak electrical demands. The high temperature gas turbine produces shaft power to turn an electric generator. The hot exhaust is then fed to a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) that provides steam to a steam turbine for added electrical power production. A simplified computational model of the thermal power conversion system was developed in order to parametrically investigate two different steady-state operation conditions: base load nuclear heat only from an Advanced High Temperature Reactor (AHTR), and combined nuclear heat with fossil heat to increase the turbine inlet temperature. These two cases bracket the expected range of power levels, where any intermediate power level can result during electrical load following. The computed results indicate that combined nuclear-fossil systems have the potential to offer both low-cost base-load electricity and lower-cost peak power relative to the existing combination of base-load nuclear plants and separate fossil-fired peak-electricity production units. In addition, electric grid stability, reduced greenhouse gases, and operational flexibility can also result with using the conventional technology presented here for the thermal power conversion system coupled with the AHTR. (authors)

  3. Base-Load and Peak Electricity from a Combined Nuclear Heat and Fossil Combined-Cycle Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Conklin, Jim; Forsberg, Charles W

    2007-01-01

    A combined-cycle power plant is proposed that uses heat from a high-temperature reactor and fossil fuel to meet base-load and peak electrical demands. The high-temperature gas turbine produces shaft power to turn an electric generator. The hot exhaust is then fed to a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) that provides steam to a steam turbine for added electrical power production. A simplified computational model of the thermal power conversion system was developed in order to parametrically investigate two different steady-state operation conditions: base load nuclear heat only from an Advanced High Temperature Reactor (AHTR), and combined nuclear heat with fossil heat to increase the turbine inlet temperature. These two cases bracket the expected range of power levels, where any intermediate power level can result during electrical load following. The computed results indicate that combined nuclear-fossil systems have the potential to offer both low-cost base-load electricity and lower-cost peak power relative to the existing combination of base-load nuclear plants and separate fossil-fired peak-electricity production units. In addition, electric grid stability, reduced greenhouse gases, and operational flexibility can also result with using the conventional technology presented here for the thermal power conversion system coupled with the AHTR.

  4. The importance of combined cycle generating plants in integrating large levels of wind power generation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Puga, J. Nicolas

    2010-08-15

    Integration of high wind penetration levels will require fast-ramping combined cycle and steam cycles that, due to higher operating costs, will require proper pricing of ancillary services or other forms of compensation to remain viable. Several technical and policy recommendations are presented to help realign the generation mix to properly integrate the wind. (author)

  5. Heat recovery steam generator outlet temperature control system for a combined cycle power plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Martens, A.; Myers, G.A.; McCarty, W.L.; Wescott, K.R.

    1986-04-01

    This patent describes a command cycle electrical power plant including: a steam turbine and at least one set comprising a gas turbine, an afterburner and a heat recovery steam generator having an attemperator for supplying from an outlet thereof to the steam turbine superheated steam under steam turbine operating conditions requiring predetermined superheated steam temperature, flow and pressure; with the gas turbine and steam turbine each generating megawatts in accordance with a plant load demand; master control means being provided for controlling the steam turbine and the heat recovery steam generator so as to establish the steam operating conditions; the combination of: first control means responsive to the gas inlet temperature of the heat recovery steam generator and to the plant load demand for controlling the firing of the afterburner; second control means responsive to the superheated steam predetermined temperature and to superheated steam temperature from the outlet for controlling the attemperator between a closed and an open position; the first and second control means being operated concurrently to maintain the superheated steam outlet temperature while controlling the load of the gas turbine independently of the steam turbine operating conditions.

  6. Combined cycle comes to the Philippines

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-03-01

    The first combined cycle power station in the Philippines has gone into operation at National Power Corporation`s (NPC) Limay Bataan site, some 40 km west of Manila. The plant comprises two 300 MW blocks in 3+3+1 configuration, based on ABB Type GT11N gas turbines. It was built by a consortium of ABB, with their Japanese licensee Kawasaki Heavy Industries, and Marubeni Corporation. This paper discusses Philippine power production, design and operation of the Limay Bataan plant, and conversion of an existing turbine of the nuclear plant project that was abandoned earlier, into a combined cycle operation. 6 figs.

  7. Results of heat tests of the TGE-435 main boiler in the PGU-190/220 combined-cycle plant of the Tyumen' TETs-2 cogeneration plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    A.V. Kurochkin; A.L. Kovalenko; V.G. Kozlov; A.I. Krivobok

    2007-01-15

    Special features of operation of a boiler operating as a combined-cycle plant and having its own furnace and burner unit are descried. The flow of flue gases on the boiler is increased due to feeding of exhaust gases of the GTU into the furnace, which intensifies the convective heat exchange. In addition, it is not necessary to preheat air in the convective heating surfaces (the boiler has no air preheater). The convective heating surfaces of the boiler are used for heating the feed water, thus replacing the regeneration extractions of the steam turbine (HPP are absent in the circuit) and partially replacing the preheating of condensate (the LPP in the circuit of the unit are combined with preheaters of delivery water). Regeneration of the steam turbine is primarily used for the district cogeneration heating purposes. The furnace and burner unit of the exhaust-heat boiler (which is a new engineering solution for the given project) ensures utilization of not only the heat of the exhaust gases of the GTU but also of their excess volume, because the latter contains up to 15% oxygen that oxidizes the combustion process in the boiler. Thus, the gas temperature at the inlet to the boiler amounts to 580{sup o}C at an excess air factor a = 3.50; at the outlet these parameters are utilized to T{sub out} = 139{sup o}C and a{sub out} = 1.17. The proportions of the GTU/boiler loads that can actually be organized at the generating unit (and have been checked by testing) are presented and the proportions of loads recommended for the most efficient operation of the boiler are determined. The performance characteristics of the boiler are presented for various proportions of GTU/boiler loads. The operating conditions of the superheater and of the convective trailing heating surfaces are presented as well as the ecological parameters of the generating unit.

  8. Apparatus and methods of reheating gas turbine cooling steam and high pressure steam turbine exhaust in a combined cycle power generating system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Tomlinson, Leroy Omar (Niskayuna, NY); Smith, Raub Warfield (Ballston Lake, NY)

    2002-01-01

    In a combined cycle system having a multi-pressure heat recovery steam generator, a gas turbine and steam turbine, steam for cooling gas turbine components is supplied from the intermediate pressure section of the heat recovery steam generator supplemented by a portion of the steam exhausting from the HP section of the steam turbine, steam from the gas turbine cooling cycle and the exhaust from the HP section of the steam turbine are combined for flow through a reheat section of the HRSG. The reheated steam is supplied to the IP section inlet of the steam turbine. Thus, where gas turbine cooling steam temperature is lower than optimum, a net improvement in performance is achieved by flowing the cooling steam exhausting from the gas turbine and the exhaust steam from the high pressure section of the steam turbine in series through the reheater of the HRSG for applying steam at optimum temperature to the IP section of the steam turbine.

  9. Pros and cons of power combined cycle in Venezuela

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Alvarez, C.; Hernandez, S.

    1997-09-01

    In Venezuela combined cycle power has not been economically attractive to electric utility companies, mainly due to the very low price of natural gas. Savings in cost of natural gas due to a higher efficiency, characteristic of this type of cycle, does not compensate additional investments required to close the simple cycle (heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) and steam turbine island). Low gas prices have contributed to create a situation characterized by investors` reluctance to commit capital in gas pipe lines and associated equipment. The Government is taking measures to improve economics. Recently (January 1, 1997), the Ministry of Energy and Mines raised the price of natural gas, and established a formula to tie its price to the exchange rate variation (dollar/bolivar) in an intent to stimulate investments in this sector. This is considered a good beginning after a price freeze for about three years. Another measure that has been announced is the implementation of a corporate policy of outsourcing to build new gas facilities such as pipe lines and measuring and regulation stations. Under these new circumstances, it seems that combined cycle will play an important role in the power sector. In fact, some power generation projects are considering building new plants using this technology. An economical comparative study is presented between simple and combined cycles power plant. Screening curves are showed with a gas price forecast based on the government decree recently issued, as a function of plant capacity factor.

  10. Combined cycle phosphoric acid fuel cell electric power system

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mollot, D.J.; Micheli, P.L.

    1995-12-31

    By arranging two or more electric power generation cycles in series, combined cycle systems are able to produce electric power more efficiently than conventional single cycle plants. The high fuel to electricity conversion efficiency results in lower plant operating costs, better environmental performance, and in some cases even lower capital costs. Despite these advantages, combined cycle systems for the 1 - 10 megawatt (MW) industrial market are rare. This paper presents a low noise, low (oxides of nitrogen) NOx, combined cycle alternative for the small industrial user. By combining a commercially available phosphoric acid fuel cell (PAFC) with a low-temperature Rankine cycle (similar to those used in geothermal applications), electric conversion efficiencies between 45 and 47 percent are predicted. While the simple cycle PAFC is competitive on a cost of energy basis with gas turbines and diesel generators in the 1 to 2 MW market, the combined cycle PAFC is competitive, on a cost of energy basis, with simple cycle diesel generators in the 4 to 25 MW market. In addition, the efficiency and low-temperature operation of the combined cycle PAFC results in a significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions with NO{sub x} concentration on the order of 1 parts per million (per weight) (ppmw).

  11. The NuGas{sup TM} Concept - Combining a Nuclear Power Plant with a Gas-Fired Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Willson, Paul; Smith, Alistair

    2007-07-01

    Nuclear power plants produce low carbon emissions and stable, low cost electricity. Combined cycle gas-fired power plants are cheap and quick to build and have very flexible operation. If you could combine these two technologies, you could have an ideal base-load power plant. (authors)

  12. INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED CYCLE PROJECT 2 MW FUEL CELL DEMONSTRATION

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    FuelCell Energy

    2005-05-16

    With about 50% of power generation in the United States derived from coal and projections indicating that coal will continue to be the primary fuel for power generation in the next two decades, the Department of Energy (DOE) Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program (CCTDP) has been conducted since 1985 to develop innovative, environmentally friendly processes for the world energy market place. The 2 MW Fuel Cell Demonstration was part of the Kentucky Pioneer Energy (KPE) Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) project selected by DOE under Round Five of the Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program. The participant in the CCTDP V Project was Kentucky Pioneer Energy for the IGCC plant. FuelCell Energy, Inc. (FCE), under subcontract to KPE, was responsible for the design, construction and operation of the 2 MW fuel cell power plant. Duke Fluor Daniel provided engineering design and procurement support for the balance-of-plant skids. Colt Engineering Corporation provided engineering design, fabrication and procurement of the syngas processing skids. Jacobs Applied Technology provided the fabrication of the fuel cell module vessels. Wabash River Energy Ltd (WREL) provided the test site. The 2 MW fuel cell power plant utilizes FuelCell Energy's Direct Fuel Cell (DFC) technology, which is based on the internally reforming carbonate fuel cell. This plant is capable of operating on coal-derived syngas as well as natural gas. Prior testing (1992) of a subscale 20 kW carbonate fuel cell stack at the Louisiana Gasification Technology Inc. (LGTI) site using the Dow/Destec gasification plant indicated that operation on coal derived gas provided normal performance and stable operation. Duke Fluor Daniel and FuelCell Energy developed a commercial plant design for the 2 MW fuel cell. The plant was designed to be modular, factory assembled and truck shippable to the site. Five balance-of-plant skids incorporating fuel processing, anode gas oxidation, heat recovery, water treatment/instrument air, and power conditioning/controls were built and shipped to the site. The two fuel cell modules, each rated at 1 MW on natural gas, were fabricated by FuelCell Energy in its Torrington, CT manufacturing facility. The fuel cell modules were conditioned and tested at FuelCell Energy in Danbury and shipped to the site. Installation of the power plant and connection to all required utilities and syngas was completed. Pre-operation checkout of the entire power plant was conducted and the plant was ready to operate in July 2004. However, fuel gas (natural gas or syngas) was not available at the WREL site due to technical difficulties with the gasifier and other issues. The fuel cell power plant was therefore not operated, and subsequently removed by October of 2005. The WREL fuel cell site was restored to the satisfaction of WREL. FuelCell Energy continues to market carbonate fuel cells for natural gas and digester gas applications. A fuel cell/turbine hybrid is being developed and tested that provides higher efficiency with potential to reach the DOE goal of 60% HHV on coal gas. A system study was conducted for a 40 MW direct fuel cell/turbine hybrid (DFC/T) with potential for future coal gas applications. In addition, FCE is developing Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) power plants with Versa Power Systems (VPS) as part of the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) program and has an on-going program for co-production of hydrogen. Future development in these technologies can lead to future coal gas fuel cell applications.

  13. A combined cycle engine test facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Engers, R.; Cresci, D.; Tsai, C.

    1995-09-01

    Rocket-Based Combined-Cycle (RBCC) engines intended for missiles and/or space launch applications incorporate features of rocket propulsion systems operating in concert with airbreathing engine cycles. Performance evaluation of these types of engines, which are intended to operate from static sea level take-off to supersonic cruise or accerlerate to orbit, requires ground test capabilities which integrate rocket component testing with airbreathing engine testing. A combined cycle engine test facility has been constructed in the General Applied Science Laboratories, Inc. (GASL) Aeropropulsion Test Laboratory to meet this requirement. The facility was designed to support the development of an innovative combined cycle engine concept which features a rocket based ramjet combustor. The test requirements included the ability to conduct tests in which the propulsive force was generated by rocket only, the ramjet only and simultaneous rocket and ramjet power (combined cycle) to evaluate combustor operation over the entire engine cycle. The test facility provides simulation over the flight Mach number range of 0 to 8 and at various trajectories. The capabilities of the combined cycle engine test facility are presented.

  14. A Flashing Binary Combined Cycle For Geothermal Power Generation...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Flashing Binary Combined Cycle For Geothermal Power Generation Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Journal Article: A Flashing Binary Combined Cycle...

  15. INTEGRATED PYROLYSIS COMBINED CYCLE BIOMASS POWER SYSTEM CONCEPT DEFINITION

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Eric Sandvig; Gary Walling; Robert C. Brown; Ryan Pletka; Desmond Radlein; Warren Johnson

    2003-03-01

    Advanced power systems based on integrated gasification/combined cycles (IGCC) are often presented as a solution to the present shortcomings of biomass as fuel. Although IGCC has been technically demonstrated at full scale, it has not been adopted for commercial power generation. Part of the reason for this situation is the continuing low price for coal. However, another significant barrier to IGCC is the high level of integration of this technology: the gas output from the gasifier must be perfectly matched to the energy demand of the gas turbine cycle. We are developing an alternative to IGCC for biomass power: the integrated (fast) pyrolysis/ combined cycle (IPCC). In this system solid biomass is converted into liquid rather than gaseous fuel. This liquid fuel, called bio-oil, is a mixture of oxygenated organic compounds and water that serves as fuel for a gas turbine topping cycle. Waste heat from the gas turbine provides thermal energy to the steam turbine bottoming cycle. Advantages of the biomass-fueled IPCC system include: combined cycle efficiency exceeding 37 percent efficiency for a system as small as 7.6 MW{sub e}; absence of high pressure thermal reactors; decoupling of fuel processing and power generation; and opportunities for recovering value-added products from the bio-oil. This report provides a technical overview of the system including pyrolyzer design, fuel clean-up strategies, pyrolysate condenser design, opportunities for recovering pyrolysis byproducts, gas turbine cycle design, and Rankine steam cycle. The report also reviews the potential biomass fuel supply in Iowa, provide and economic analysis, and present a summery of benefits from the proposed system.

  16. Performance evaluation of a combined-cycle cogeneration system

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Huang, F.F.; Naumowicz, T.

    1999-07-01

    A methodology for performance evaluation of a combined-cycle cogeneration system has been presented. Results for such a system using an advanced gas-turbine as the prime mover show that it is a very versatile system. It can produce a large power-to-heat ratio together with a high second-law efficiency over a wide range of process steam pressures. This work also demonstrates once again that the most appropriate and useful performance parameters for decision-making in cogeneration system design are the second-law efficiency and the power-to-heat ratio.

  17. Fossil fuel combined cycle power generation method

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Labinov, Solomon D [Knoxville, TN; Armstrong, Timothy R [Clinton, TN; Judkins, Roddie R [Knoxville, TN

    2008-10-21

    A method for converting fuel energy to electricity includes the steps of converting a higher molecular weight gas into at least one mixed gas stream of lower average molecular weight including at least a first lower molecular weight gas and a second gas, the first and second gases being different gases, wherein the first lower molecular weight gas comprises H.sub.2 and the second gas comprises CO. The mixed gas is supplied to at least one turbine to produce electricity. The mixed gas stream is divided after the turbine into a first gas stream mainly comprising H.sub.2 and a second gas stream mainly comprising CO. The first and second gas streams are then electrochemically oxidized in separate fuel cells to produce electricity. A nuclear reactor can be used to supply at least a portion of the heat the required for the chemical conversion process.

  18. An inlet air washer/chiller system for combined cycle planet repowering

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sengupta, U.; Soroka, G. )

    1989-01-01

    A conditioning method to achieve increased output at any relative humidity condition is an air washer and absorption chiller arrangement. At elevated temperatures and low humidity, the air washer operates as an evaporative cooler without the chiller in operation. In this mode, the air washer will give similar results as a media type evaporative cooler at a fraction of the pressure loss. In the air washer plus chiller operating mode the chiller maintains cooling effectiveness of the air washer during periods of high relative humidity. This makes such a system very appropriate anywhere relative humidity is high. Many combined cycle plants utilize supplemental firing of the heat recovery steam generators to offset the loss of gas turbine power at high ambient temperatures. This paper shows that in contrast to supplementary firing, the combination air washer/chiller system can generate power more efficiently and at lower cost.

  19. Tampa Electric Company`s Polk Power Station Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jenkins, S.D.; Shafer, J.R.

    1994-12-31

    Tampa Electric Company (TEC) is in the construction phase for the new Polk Power Station, Unit {number_sign}1. This will be the first unit at a new site and will use Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology for power generation. The unit will utilize oxygen-blown entrained-flow coal gasification, along with combined cycle technology, to provide nominal net 26OMW of generation. As part of the environmental features of this process, the sulfur species in the coal will be recovered as a commercial grade sulfuric acid by-product. The sulfur will be removed from the synthesis gas utilizing a cold gas clean-up system (CGCU).

  20. Hydrogen-or-Fossil-Combustion Nuclear Combined-Cycle Systems for Base- and Peak-Load Electricity Production

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Forsberg, Charles W; Conklin, Jim

    2007-09-01

    A combined-cycle power plant is described that uses (1) heat from a high-temperature nuclear reactor to meet base-load electrical demands and (2) heat from the same high-temperature reactor and burning natural gas, jet fuel, or hydrogen to meet peak-load electrical demands. For base-load electricity production, fresh air is compressed; then flows through a heat exchanger, where it is heated to between 700 and 900 C by heat provided by a high-temperature nuclear reactor via an intermediate heat-transport loop; and finally exits through a high-temperature gas turbine to produce electricity. The hot exhaust from the Brayton-cycle gas turbine is then fed to a heat recovery steam generator that provides steam to a steam turbine for added electrical power production. To meet peak electricity demand, the air is first compressed and then heated with the heat from a high-temperature reactor. Natural gas, jet fuel, or hydrogen is then injected into the hot air in a combustion chamber, combusts, and heats the air to 1300 C-the operating conditions for a standard natural-gas-fired combined-cycle plant. The hot gas then flows through a gas turbine and a heat recovery steam generator before being sent to the exhaust stack. The higher temperatures increase the plant efficiency and power output. If hydrogen is used, it can be produced at night using energy from the nuclear reactor and stored until needed. With hydrogen serving as the auxiliary fuel for peak power production, the electricity output to the electric grid can vary from zero (i.e., when hydrogen is being produced) to the maximum peak power while the nuclear reactor operates at constant load. Because nuclear heat raises air temperatures above the auto-ignition temperatures of the various fuels and powers the air compressor, the power output can be varied rapidly (compared with the capabilities of fossil-fired turbines) to meet spinning reserve requirements and stabilize the electric grid. This combined cycle uses the unique characteristics of high-temperature reactors (T>700 C) to produce electricity for premium electric markets whose demands can not be met by other types of nuclear reactors. It may also make the use of nuclear reactors economically feasible in smaller electrical grids, such as those found in many developing countries. The ability to rapidly vary power output can be used to stabilize electric grid performance-a particularly important need in small electrical grids.

  1. Fossil fuel combined cycle power system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Labinov, Solomon Davidovich; Armstrong, Timothy Robert; Judkins, Roddie Reagan

    2006-10-10

    A system for converting fuel energy to electricity includes a reformer for converting a higher molecular weight gas into at least one lower molecular weight gas, at least one turbine to produce electricity from expansion of at least one of the lower molecular weight gases, and at least one fuel cell. The system can further include at least one separation device for substantially dividing the lower molecular weight gases into at least two gas streams prior to the electrochemical oxidization step. A nuclear reactor can be used to supply at least a portion of the heat the required for the chemical conversion process.

  2. Olinda Landfill Gas Recovery Plant Biomass Facility | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Olinda Landfill Gas Recovery Plant Biomass Facility Jump to: navigation, search Name Olinda Landfill Gas Recovery Plant Biomass Facility Facility Olinda Landfill Gas Recovery Plant...

  3. Apparatus and methods for supplying auxiliary steam in a combined cycle system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Gorman, William G. (Ballston Spa, NY); Carberg, William George (Ballston Spa, NY); Jones, Charles Michael (Ballston Lake, NY)

    2002-01-01

    To provide auxiliary steam, a low pressure valve is opened in a combined cycle system to divert low pressure steam from the heat recovery steam generator to a header for supplying steam to a second combined cycle's steam turbine seals, sparging devices and cooling steam for the steam turbine if the steam turbine and gas turbine lie on a common shaft with the generator. Cooling steam is supplied the gas turbine in the combined cycle system from the high pressure steam turbine. Spent gas turbine cooling steam may augment the low pressure steam supplied to the header by opening a high pressure valve whereby high and low pressure steam flows are combined. An attemperator is used to reduce the temperature of the combined steam in response to auxiliary steam flows above a predetermined flow and a steam header temperature above a predetermined temperature. The auxiliary steam may be used to start additional combined cycle units or to provide a host unit with steam turbine cooling and sealing steam during full-speed no-load operation after a load rejection.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7. Natural Gas Processing Plants in Alaska, 2009 Figure 7. Natural Gas Processing Plants in Alaska, 2009...

  5. ,"Natural Gas Plant Liquids Proved Reserves"

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

    ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Natural Gas Plant Liquids Proved Reserves",49,"Annual",2013,"06301979" ,"Release...

  6. ,"Texas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

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

    ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","930...

  7. Conceptual design and techno-economic assessment of integrated solar combined cycle system with DSG technology

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Nezammahalleh, H.; Farhadi, F.; Tanhaemami, M.

    2010-09-15

    Direct steam generation (DSG) in parabolic trough collectors causes an increase to competitiveness of solar thermal power plants (STPP) by substitution of oil with direct steam generation that results in lower investment and operating costs. In this study the integrated solar combined cycle system with DSG technology is introduced and techno-economic assessment of this plant is reported compared with two conventional cases. Three considered cases are: an integrated solar combined cycle system with DSG technology (ISCCS-DSG), a solar electric generating system (SEGS), and an integrated solar combined cycle system with HTF (heat transfer fluid) technology (ISCCS-HTF). This study shows that levelized energy cost (LEC) for the ISCCS-DSG is lower than the two other cases due to reducing O and M costs and also due to increasing the heat to electricity net efficiency of the power plant. Among the three STPPs, SEGS has the lowest CO{sub 2} emissions, but it will operate during daytime only. (author)

  8. EIS-0409: Kemper County Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Project, Mississippi

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    This EIS analyzes DOE's decision to provide funding for the Kemper County Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Project in Kemper County, Mississippi to assess the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of a project proposed by Southern Power Company, through its affiliate Mississippi Power Company, which has been selected by DOE for consideration under the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) program.

  9. Second-Generation Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion: Small gas turbine induustrial plant study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shenker, J.; Garland, R.; Horazak, D.; Seifert, F.; Wenglarz, R.

    1992-07-01

    Second-Generation Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion (PFBC) plants provide a coal-fired, high-efficiency, combined-cycle system for the generation of electricity and steam. The plants use lime-based sorbents in PFB combustors to meet environmental air standards without back-end gas desulfurization equipment. The second-generation system is an improvement over earlier PFBC concepts because it can achieve gas temperatures of 2100[degrees]F and higher for improved cycle efficiency while maintaining the fluidized beds at 1600[degrees]F for enhanced sulfur capture and minimum alkali release. Second-generation PFBC systems are capable of supplying the electric and steam process needs of industrial plants. The basic second-generation system can be applied in different ways to meet a variety of process steam and electrical requirements. To evaluate the potential of these systems in the industrial market, conceptual designs have been developed for six second-generation PFBC plants. These plants cover a range of electrical outputs from 6.3 to 41.5 MWe and steam flows from 46,067 to 442,337 lb/h. Capital and operating costs have been estimated for these six plants and for equivalent (in size) conventional, coal-fired atmospheric fluidized bed combustion cogeneration plants. Economic analyses were conducted to compare the cost of steam for both the second-generation plants and the conventional plants.

  10. Second-Generation Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion: Small gas turbine industrial plant study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shenker, J.; Garland, R.; Horazak, D.; Seifert, F.; Wenglarz, R.

    1992-07-01

    Second-Generation Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion (PFBC) plants provide a coal-fired, high-efficiency, combined-cycle system for the generation of electricity and steam. The plants use lime-based sorbents in PFB combustors to meet environmental air standards without back-end gas desulfurization equipment. The second-generation system is an improvement over earlier PFBC concepts because it can achieve gas temperatures of 2100{degrees}F and higher for improved cycle efficiency while maintaining the fluidized beds at 1600{degrees}F for enhanced sulfur capture and minimum alkali release. Second-generation PFBC systems are capable of supplying the electric and steam process needs of industrial plants. The basic second-generation system can be applied in different ways to meet a variety of process steam and electrical requirements. To evaluate the potential of these systems in the industrial market, conceptual designs have been developed for six second-generation PFBC plants. These plants cover a range of electrical outputs from 6.3 to 41.5 MWe and steam flows from 46,067 to 442,337 lb/h. Capital and operating costs have been estimated for these six plants and for equivalent (in size) conventional, coal-fired atmospheric fluidized bed combustion cogeneration plants. Economic analyses were conducted to compare the cost of steam for both the second-generation plants and the conventional plants.

  11. Environmental Assessment for the Warren Station externally fired combined cycle demonstration project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-04-01

    The proposed Penelec project is one of 5 projects for potential funding under the fifth solicitation under the Clean Coal Technology program. In Penelec, two existing boilers would be replaced at Warren Station, PA; the new unit would produce 73 MW(e) in a combined cycle mode (using both gas-fired and steam turbines). The project would fill the need for a full utility-size demonstration of externally fire combined cycle (EFCC) technology as the next step toward commercialization. This environmental assessment was prepared for compliance with NEPA; its purpose is to provide sufficient basis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or to issue a finding of no significant impact. It is divided into the sections: purpose and need for proposed action; alternatives; brief description of affected environment; environmental consequences, including discussion of commercial operation beyond the demonstration period.

  12. Model predictive control system and method for integrated gasification combined cycle power generation

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Kumar, Aditya; Shi, Ruijie; Kumar, Rajeeva; Dokucu, Mustafa

    2013-04-09

    Control system and method for controlling an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant are provided. The system may include a controller coupled to a dynamic model of the plant to process a prediction of plant performance and determine a control strategy for the IGCC plant over a time horizon subject to plant constraints. The control strategy may include control functionality to meet a tracking objective and control functionality to meet an optimization objective. The control strategy may be configured to prioritize the tracking objective over the optimization objective based on a coordinate transformation, such as an orthogonal or quasi-orthogonal projection. A plurality of plant control knobs may be set in accordance with the control strategy to generate a sequence of coordinated multivariable control inputs to meet the tracking objective and the optimization objective subject to the prioritization resulting from the coordinate transformation.

  13. Renewable Energy Plants in Your Gas Tank: From Photosynthesis...

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

    Plants in Your Gas Tank: From Photosynthesis to Ethanol (4 Activities) Renewable Energy Plants in Your Gas Tank: From Photosynthesis to Ethanol (4 Activities) Below is information...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    1. Natural Gas Processing Plants and Production Basins, 2009 Figure 1. Natural Gas Processing Plants and Production Basins, 2009 Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration,...

  15. 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...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    3. Natural Gas Processing Plants Utilization Rates Based on 2008 Flows Figure 3. Natural Gas Processing Plants Utilization Rates Based on 2008 Flows Note: Average utilization rates...

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

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

    5. Natural Gas Processing Plants, Production Basins, and Plays in the Rocky Mountain States and California, 2009 Figure 5. Natural Gas Processing Plants, Production Basins, and...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6. Natural Gas Processing Plants, Production Basins, and Plays in the Midwestern and Eastern States, 2009 Figure 6. Natural Gas Processing Plants, Production Basins, and Plays in...

  19. Renewable Energy: Plants in Your Gas Tank

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

    Plants in Your Gas Tank: From Photosynthesis to Ethanol Grades: 5-8, 9-12 Topic: Biomass Authors: Chris Ederer, Eric Benson, Loren Lykins Owner: ACTS This educational material is...

  20. Combined-cycle cogeneration to power oil refinery

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Broeker, R.J.

    1986-11-01

    A cogeneration plant now under construction at an oil refinery in Martinez, California, is an example of how the energy industry has been responding to the fundamental economic and technological challenges it has been facing over the past ten years. The industry is re-examining cogeneration as one way of meeting the requirements of the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act. The new plant is located at Tosco Corporation's Avon Oil Refinery, 45 miles northeast of San Francisco. It was designed by Foster Wheeler to supply process steam for the refinery as well as for a water-treatment installation that will benefit the Contra Costa Water District. Electric power produced will be used primarily by the refinery, with the balance purchased by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

  1. Gas Turbine/Solar Parabolic Trough Hybrid Designs: Preprint

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Turchi, C. S.; Ma, Z.; Erbes, M.

    2011-03-01

    A strength of parabolic trough concentrating solar power (CSP) plants is the ability to provide reliable power by incorporating either thermal energy storage or backup heat from fossil fuels. Yet these benefits have not been fully realized because thermal energy storage remains expensive at trough operating temperatures and gas usage in CSP plants is less efficient than in dedicated combined cycle plants. For example, while a modern combined cycle plant can achieve an overall efficiency in excess of 55%; auxiliary heaters in a parabolic trough plant convert gas to electricity at below 40%. Thus, one can argue the more effective use of natural gas is in a combined cycle plant, not as backup to a CSP plant. Integrated solar combined cycle (ISCC) systems avoid this pitfall by injecting solar steam into the fossil power cycle; however, these designs are limited to about 10% total solar enhancement. Without reliable, cost-effective energy storage or backup power, renewable sources will struggle to achieve a high penetration in the electric grid. This paper describes a novel gas turbine / parabolic trough hybrid design that combines solar contribution of 57% and higher with gas heat rates that rival that for combined cycle natural gas plants. The design integrates proven solar and fossil technologies, thereby offering high reliability and low financial risk while promoting deployment of solar thermal power.

  2. Ohio Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 2,211 33,031 344,073 1981-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 118 1,367 24,411 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 0 0 0 155 2,116 33,332 1981

  3. Florida Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 2,915 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 173 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 0 0 0 0 0 233 1968

  4. Illinois Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 164 5,393 294 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 24 231 40 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 31 345 1,043 0 0 47 1967

  5. Integration of oxygen plants and gas turbines in IGCC facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, A.R.; Sorensen, J.C.; Woodward, D.W.

    1996-10-01

    The commercialization of Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (IGCC) power has been aided by concepts involving the integration of a cryogenic air separation unit (ASU) with the gas turbine combined-cycle module. It is known and now widely accepted that an ASU designed for elevated pressure service and optimally integrated with the gas turbine can increase overall IGCC power output, increase overall efficiency, and decrease the net cost of power generation compared to non-integrated facilities employing low pressure ASU`s. Depending upon the specific gas turbine, gasification technology, NO{sub x} emission specification, and other site specific factors, various degrees of compressed air and nitrogen integration are optimal. Air Products has supplied ASU`s with no integration (Destec/Plaquemine IGCC), nitrogen-only integration (Tampa Electric/Polk County IGCC), and full air and nitrogen integration (Demkolec/Buggenum IGCC). Continuing advancements in both air separation and gas turbine technologies offer new integration opportunities to further improve performance and reduce costs. This paper reviews basic integration principles, highlights the integration scheme used at Polk County, and describes some advanced concepts based on emerging gas turbines. Operability issues associated with integration will be reviewed and control measures described for the safe, efficient, and reliable operation of these facilities.

  6. Gas treating alternatives for LNG plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Clarke, D.S.; Sibal, P.W.

    1998-12-31

    This paper covers the various gas treating processes available for treating sour natural gas to specifications required for LNG production. The LNG product specification requires that the total sulfur level be less than 30--40 ppmv, the CO{sub 2} level be less than 50 ppmv and the water level be less than 100 ppmv to prevent freezing problems in the LNG cryogenic column. A wide variety of natural gas compositions are encountered in the various fields and the gas treating process selection is dependent on the type of impurities present in the gas, namely, levels of H{sub 2}S, CO{sub 2}, mercaptans and other organic sulfur compounds. This paper discusses the implications various components in the feed to the LNG plant can have on process selection, and the various treating processes that are available to condition the gas. Process selection criteria, design and operating philosophies are discussed. An economic comparison for two treating schemes is provided.

  7. Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 215,951 218,840 126,859 6,865 4,527 5,633 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 12,591 12,618 7,732 377 359 365 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 18,354 18,405 11,221 486 466 495 1967

  8. Montana Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 12,415 12,391 11,185 12,727 14,575 14,751 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 1,409 989 927 1,115 1,235 1,254 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 1,853 1,367 1,252 1,491 1,645 1,670 1967

  9. Safety aspects of gas centrifuge enrichment plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hansen, A.H.

    1987-01-01

    Uranium enrichment by gas centrifuge is a commercially proven, viable technology. Gas centrifuge enrichment plant operations pose hazards that are also found in other industries as well as unique hazards as a result of processing and handling uranium hexafluoride and the handling of enriched uranium. Hazards also found in other industries included those posed by the use of high-speed rotating equipment and equipment handling by use of heavy-duty cranes. Hazards from high-speed rotating equipment are associated with the operation of the gas centrifuges themselves and with the operation of the uranium hexafluoride compressors in the tail withdrawal system. These and related hazards are discussed. It is included that commercial gas centrifuge enrichment plants have been designed to operate safely.

  10. Michigan Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 23,819 22,405 21,518 21,243 21,416 18,654 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 2,409 2,207 2,132 2,046 2,005 1,593 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 2,334 2,943 2,465 2,480 2,345 1,922 1967

  11. Utah Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 412,639 454,832 490,233 535,365 448,687 419,773 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 6,527 7,648 10,805 11,441 11,279 13,343 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 8,489 9,978 14,910 15,637 15,409 18,652 1967

  12. Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 1,507,142 1,642,190 1,634,364 1,614,320 1,517,876 1,526,746 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 64,581 63,857 66,839 70,737 52,999 54,933 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 93,796 92,777 97,588 102,549 74,409 76,943 1967

  13. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 1,112,510 1,110,236 1,218,855 1,310,331 1,377,119 1,696,107 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 77,140 83,174 91,963 96,237 98,976 117,057 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 112,891 120,631 134,032 139,928 142,595 169,864 1967

  14. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 22,364 56,162 131,959 236,817 396,726 301,514 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 975 3,421 6,721 8,882 15,496 27,903 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 1,295 4,578 8,931 12,003 20,936 39,989 1967

  15. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 1,233,260 1,434,003 1,507,467 1,464,261 1,373,046 1,495,360 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 47,705 57,924 63,075 57,379 51,978 60,850 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 67,607 82,637 90,801 82,042 87,513 85,198 1967

  16. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 370,670 341,778 322,944 259,565 190,503 191,034 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 18,863 18,424 18,098 14,844 10,900 11,611 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 26,948 26,251 25,804 21,220 15,446 16,515 1967

  17. Methods of natural gas liquefaction and natural gas liquefaction plants utilizing multiple and varying gas streams

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Wilding, Bruce M; Turner, Terry D

    2014-12-02

    A method of natural gas liquefaction may include cooling a gaseous NG process stream to form a liquid NG process stream. The method may further include directing the first tail gas stream out of a plant at a first pressure and directing a second tail gas stream out of the plant at a second pressure. An additional method of natural gas liquefaction may include separating CO.sub.2 from a liquid NG process stream and processing the CO.sub.2 to provide a CO.sub.2 product stream. Another method of natural gas liquefaction may include combining a marginal gaseous NG process stream with a secondary substantially pure NG stream to provide an improved gaseous NG process stream. Additionally, a NG liquefaction plant may include a first tail gas outlet, and at least a second tail gas outlet, the at least a second tail gas outlet separate from the first tail gas outlet.

  18. Syngas treating options for IGCC power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wen, H.; Mohammad-zadeh, Y.

    1996-12-31

    Increased environmental awareness, lower cost of gas turbine based combined cycle power plants, and advances in gasification processes have made the integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) a viable technology to convert solid fuel to useful energy. The raw solid fuel derived synthesis gas (syngas) contains contaminants that should be removed before combustion in a gas turbine. Therefore, an important process in a gasification based plant is the cleaning of syngas. This paper provides information about various syngas treating technologies and describes their optimal selections for power generation or cogeneration of steam for industrial applications.

  19. Louisiana Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet) Decade...

  20. Natural Gas Plant Liquids Proved Reserves

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Natural Gas Plant Liquids contained in Total Natural Gas Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Period: Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History U.S. 8,557 9,809 10,825 10,777 11,943 15,029 1979-2014 Alabama 55 68 68 55 51 59 1979-2014 Alaska 299 288 288 288 288 241 1979-2014 Arkansas 2 2 3 3 4 5 1979-2014 California 129 114 94 99 102 112 1979-2014 Coastal Region Onshore 10 11 12

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

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

    4. Natural Gas Processing Plants, Production Basins, and Plays in the Gulf of Mexico States, 2009 Figure 4. Natural Gas Processing Plants, Production Basins, and Plays in the Gulf...

  2. Texas Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  3. New York Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million...

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

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

  4. Federal Offshore California Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production...

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

    Next Release Date: 10312014 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent at Processing Plants Federal Offshore California Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and Production...

  5. California--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production...

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

    2014 Next Release Date: 10312014 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent at Processing Plants California State Offshore Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and Production...

  6. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

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

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","930...

  7. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf...

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

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",1998 ,"Release...

  8. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic...

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

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

  9. Texas (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3...

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

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

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

  11. West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

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

    Extracted in West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  12. ,"Texas--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future...

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

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million...

  13. ,"Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected...

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

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million...

  14. ,"California--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected...

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

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million...

  15. Tapping Landfill Gas to Provide Significant Energy Savings and Greenhouse

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

    Gas Reductions - Case Study, 2013 | Department of Energy Tapping Landfill Gas to Provide Significant Energy Savings and Greenhouse Gas Reductions - Case Study, 2013 Tapping Landfill Gas to Provide Significant Energy Savings and Greenhouse Gas Reductions - Case Study, 2013 BroadRock Renewables LLC, in collaboration with DCO Energy, operates combined cycle electric generating plants at the Central Landfill in Johnston, Rhode Island, and Olinda Alpha Landfill in Brea, California. The Rhode

  16. Qualifications of Candle Filters for Combined Cycle Combustion Applications

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tomasz Wiltowski

    2008-08-31

    The direct firing of coal produces particulate matter that has to be removed for environmental and process reasons. In order to increase the current advanced coal combustion processes, under the U.S. Department of Energy's auspices, Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation (SWPC) has developed ceramic candle filters that can operate at high temperatures. The Coal Research Center of Southern Illinois University (SIUC), in collaboration with SWPC, developed a program for long-term filter testing at the SIUC Steam Plant followed by experiments using a single-filter reactor unit. The objectives of this program funded by the U.S. Department of Energy were to identify and demonstrate the stability of porous candle filter elements for use in high temperature atmospheric fluidized-bed combustion (AFBC) process applications. These verifications were accomplished through extended time slipstream testing of a candle filter array under AFBC conditions using SIUC's existing AFBC boiler. Temperature, mass flow rate, and differential pressure across the filter array were monitored for a duration of 45 days. After test exposure at SIUC, the filter elements were characterized using Scanning Electron Microscopy and BET surface area analyses. In addition, a single-filter reactor was built and utilized to study long term filter operation, the permeability exhibited by a filter element before and after the slipstream test, and the thermal shock resilience of a used filter by observing differential pressure changes upon rapid heating and cooling of the filter. The data acquired during the slipstream test and the post-test evaluations demonstrated the suitability of filter elements in advanced power generation applications.

  17. How Gas Turbine Power Plants Work | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    How Gas Turbine Power Plants Work How Gas Turbine Power Plants Work The combustion (gas) turbines being installed in many of today's natural-gas-fueled power plants are complex machines, but they basically involve three main sections: The compressor, which draws air into the engine, pressurizes it, and feeds it to the combustion chamber at speeds of hundreds of miles per hour. The combustion system, typically made up of a ring of fuel injectors that inject a steady stream of fuel into combustion

  18. South Dakota Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

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

  19. HIGH EFFICIENCY FOSSIL POWER PLANT (HEFPP) CONCEPTUALIZATION PROGRAM

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    J.L. Justice

    1999-03-25

    This study confirms the feasibility of a natural gas fueled, 20 MW M-C Power integrated pressurized molten carbonate fuel cell combined in a topping cycle with a gas turbine generator plant. The high efficiency fossil power plant (HEFPP) concept has a 70% efficiency on a LHV basis. The study confirms the HEFPP has a cost advantage on a cost of electricity basis over the gas turbine based combined cycle plants in the 20 MW size range. The study also identifies the areas of further development required for the fuel cell, gas turbine generator, cathode blower, inverter, and power module vessel. The HEFPP concept offers an environmentally friendly power plant with minuscule emission levels when compared with the combined cycle power plant.

  20. Table 17. Estimated natural gas plant liquids and dry natural gas content of tot

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

    Estimated natural gas plant liquids and dry natural gas content of total natural gas proved reserves, 2014" "million barrels and billion cubic feet" ,"Total Wet Natural Gas Proved Reserves",,,,"Estimated content of proved reserves" " State and Subdivision",,2014,,,"Natural Gas Plant Liquids",,"Dry Natural Gas" ,,"billion cubic feet",,,"million barrels",,"billion cubic feet"

  1. Texas Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

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

    Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 0 - No...

  2. Alaska--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production,...

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

    Alaska--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9...

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

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

    has in the past accounted for the majority of natural gas production. Processing plants are especially important in this part of the country because of the amount of NGLs in...

  4. 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...

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

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

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

  6. Texas Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

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

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

  7. Texas Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

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

    New Mexico (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in New Mexico (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5...

  8. Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels...

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

    Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8...

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

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

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

  10. Texas Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Oklahoma (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Oklahoma (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  11. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas...

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

    Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7...

  12. Texas Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  13. West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production...

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

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5...

  14. West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8...

  15. Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

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

    Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  16. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in...

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

    New Mexico (Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in New Mexico (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  17. Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million...

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0...

  18. Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

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

    Alabama (Million Cubic Feet) Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alabama (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  19. Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

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

    Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet) Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5...

  20. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in...

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

    Texas (Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7...

  1. Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

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

    Mississippi (Million Cubic Feet) Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Mississippi (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5...

  2. Evaluation of innovative fossil fuel power plants with CO{sub 2} removal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2000-07-15

    This interim report presents initial results of an ongoing study of the potential cost of electricity produced in both conventional and innovative fossil fueled power plants that incorporate carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) removal for subsequent sequestration or use. The baseline cases are natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) and ultra-supercritical pulverized coal (PC) plants, with and without post combustion CO{sub 2} removal, and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants, with and without pre-combustion CO{sub 2} removal.

  3. Pennsylvania-Ohio Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 51,023 5,826 2013-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 1,201 248 2013-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 346

  4. Florida-Florida Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 2,915 2014-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 173 2014-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 233 2014

  5. Illinois-Illinois Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 294 2014-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 40 2014-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 47 2014

  6. Advanced integration concepts for oxygen plants and gas turbines in gasification/IGCC facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, A.R.; Klosek, J.; Woodward, D.W.

    1996-12-31

    The commercialization of Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (IGCC) power has been aided by concepts involving the integration of a cryogenic air separation unit (ASU) with the gas turbine combined-cycle module. Other processes, such as coal-based ironmaking and combined power and industrial gas production facilities, can benefit from the integration of these two units. It is known and now widely accepted that an ASU designed for elevated pressure service and optimally integrated with the gas turbine can increase overall IGCC power output, increase overall efficiency, and decrease the net cost of power generation compared to non-integrated facilities employing low pressure ASU`s. Depending upon the specific gas turbine, gasification technology, NOx emission specification, and other site specific factors, various degrees of compressed air and nitrogen integration are optimal. Air Products has supplied ASU`s with no integration (Destec/Plaquemine IGCC), nitrogen-only integration (Tampa Electric/Polk County IGCC), and full air and nitrogen integration (Demkolec/Buggenum IGCC). Continuing advancements in both air separation and gas turbine technologies offer new integration opportunities to further improve performance and reduce costs. This paper will review basic integration principles and describe advanced concepts based on emerging high compression ratio gas turbines. Humid Air Turbine (HAT) cycles, and integration of compression heat and refrigeration sources from the ASU. Operability issues associated with integration will be reviewed and control measures described for the safe, efficient, and reliable operation of these facilities.

  7. Pennsylvania-Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 131,959 226,544 159,840 194,075 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 8,687 8,346 17,765 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 25,308

  8. South Dakota Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 113 86 71 2012-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 23 19 16 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 0 0 0 30 25 21 1977

  9. Tennessee-Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 6,200 6,304 5,721 5,000 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 343 340 281 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 382 2014

  10. Michigan-Michigan Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 21,518 21,243 21,416 18,654 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 2,046 2,005 1,593 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 1,922 2014

  11. Mississippi-Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 5,415 5,021 4,527 5,633 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 350 359 365 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 495 2014

  12. Wyoming-Colorado Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 69,827 75,855 136,964 2012-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 5,481 5,903 12,130 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 16,070

  13. Wyoming-Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 1,622,025 1,544,493 1,442,021 1,389,782 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 65,256 47,096 42,803 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 60,873

  14. Ohio-Ohio Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 2,211 32,760 344,073 2012-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 118 1,353 24,411 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 33,332 2014-2014

  15. Alaska Onshore Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 2,811,384 2,735,783 2013-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 17,670 15,724 2013-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 18,434 2014

  16. Arkansas-Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 5,611 6,872 7,781 8,058 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 336 378 457 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 582 2014

  17. Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant Safeguards System Modeling

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Elayat, H A; O'Connell, W J; Boyer, B D

    2006-06-05

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is interested in developing tools and methods for potential U.S. use in designing and evaluating safeguards systems used in enrichment facilities. This research focuses on analyzing the effectiveness of the safeguards in protecting against the range of safeguards concerns for enrichment plants, including diversion of attractive material and unauthorized modes of use. We developed an Extend simulation model for a generic medium-sized centrifuge enrichment plant. We modeled the material flow in normal operation, plant operational upset modes, and selected diversion scenarios, for selected safeguards systems. Simulation modeling is used to analyze both authorized and unauthorized use of a plant and the flow of safeguards information. Simulation tracks the movement of materials and isotopes, identifies the signatures of unauthorized use, tracks the flow and compilation of safeguards data, and evaluates the effectiveness of the safeguards system in detecting misuse signatures. The simulation model developed could be of use to the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA, enabling the IAEA to observe and draw conclusions that uranium enrichment facilities are being used only within authorized limits for peaceful uses of nuclear energy. It will evaluate improved approaches to nonproliferation concerns, facilitating deployment of enhanced and cost-effective safeguards systems for an important part of the nuclear power fuel cycle.

  18. Natural Gas Plant Field Production: Natural Gas Liquids

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Product: Natural Gas Liquids Pentanes Plus Liquefied Petroleum Gases Ethane Propane Normal Butane Isobutane Period-Unit: Monthly-Thousand Barrels Monthly-Thousand Barrels per Day Annual-Thousand Barrels Annual-Thousand Barrels per Day Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Product Area Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 View History U.S. 101,809 102,880 100,283 106,269 103,071 104,629 1981-2015 PADD 1

  19. Natural Gas Plant Stocks of Natural Gas Liquids

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Product: Natural Gas Liquids Pentanes Plus Liquefied Petroleum Gases Ethane Propane Normal Butane Isobutane Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Product Area Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 View History U.S. 6,491 6,324 6,877 6,774 5,691 4,837 1993-2015 PADD 1 260 192 186 222 215 218 1993-2015 East Coast 4 4 7 7 1993-2015 Appalachian No. 1 260 192 182 218 208 211 1993-2015

  20. Gulf of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 1,317,031 1,002,608 1,000,964 2012-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 60,320 49,143 52,331 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 0 0 0 87,478 70,292 75,648 2007

  1. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    Federal Offshore Gulf of Mexico Alabama Alaska Arkansas California Colorado Florida Illinois Indiana Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Michigan Mississippi Montana Nebraska New Mexico North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 View History Natural Gas

  2. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    Plant Processing Area: U.S. Alabama Alabama Onshore-Alabama Alabama Offshore-Alabama Alaska Alaska Onshore Arkansas Arkansas-Arkansas California California Onshore-California California Offshore-California Colorado Colorado-Colorado Colorado-Kansas Colorado-Utah Florida Florida-Florida Gulf of Mexico Gulf of Mexico-Alabama Gulf of Mexico-Louisiana Gulf of Mexico-Mississippi Gulf of Mexico-Texas Illinois Illinois-Illinois Kansas Kansas-Kansas Kansas-Oklahoma Kansas-Texas Kentucky

  3. Gas engines provide cogeneration service for Fantoni MDF plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chellini, R.

    1996-12-01

    A large MDF (medium density fiberboard) plant recently started industrial production at the headquarters of Fantoni, in Osoppo (UDINE) Italy. Providing electric power and thermal energy to the process is a cogeneration plant based on four large spark-ignited gas engines. The new Osoppo MDF plant processes 800 m{sup 3} of finished boards per day in a manufacturing line that combines the most advanced technologies available from several European equipment manufacturers. The cogeneration plant features four type 12VA32G spark-ignited gas engines from Fincantieri`s Diesel Engine Division, driving 50Hz, 6.3 kV, 5400 kVA Ansaldo generators at 750 r/min. The turbocharged and intercooled engines are a spark-ignited version of the company`s A32 diesel. They feature 12 Vee-arranged cylinders with 320 mm bore and 390 mm stroke. 5 figs.

  4. New Mexico - East Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) New Mexico - East Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 209 1980's 209 214 209 232 221 209 217 192 208 196 1990's 222 205 223 233 234 247 299 273 262 255 2000's 333 279 290 272 274 271 295 306 318 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  5. New Mexico - West Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) New Mexico - West Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 321 1980's 332 346 322 319 290 236 360 579 815 737 1990's 768 703 843 763 777 696 760 596 667 699 2000's 563 594 548 603 590 569 566 538 486 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  6. Louisiana - North Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Louisiana - North Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 96 1980's 95 99 85 74 57 65 57 50 56 60 1990's 58 59 60 57 69 79 85 80 57 61 2000's 61 62 49 67 74 83 89 100 95 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015

  7. Louisiana - South Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Louisiana - South Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 676 1980's 540 544 501 527 454 442 428 429 421 411 1990's 431 417 380 334 337 495 411 333 325 364 2000's 337 269 226 182 153 168 159 168 142 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  8. Louisiana State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Louisiana State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 70 39 46 40 51 1990's 49 50 55 30 28 27 47 24 29 32 2000's 38 60 48 46 36 41 32 35 63 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release

  9. California - Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) California - Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 22 1980's 23 14 16 17 15 16 15 13 13 11 1990's 12 12 10 12 11 8 9 9 9 31 2000's 27 16 17 15 19 16 22 14 10 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  10. California - Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) California - Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 10 1980's 15 6 6 6 5 6 8 8 7 4 1990's 5 4 5 6 5 4 3 4 5 7 2000's 10 8 10 8 8 9 10 9 6 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  11. California - San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) California - San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 77 1980's 81 57 124 117 105 120 109 107 101 95 1990's 86 75 83 85 75 80 80 82 58 60 2000's 64 52 68 78 95 112 100 103 97 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  12. California Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) California Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 0 1980's 0 3 2 15 17 21 25 1990's 18 16 20 25 21 25 23 14 12 4 2000's 4 9 8 8 8 8 4 4 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next

  13. California State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) California State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 2 1980's 1 2 6 2 2 2 3 1990's 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  14. California--Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Future Production (Million Barrels) Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) California--Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 22 1980's 23 14 16 17 14 15 15 13 13 11 1990's 12 11 9 10 9 7 9 9 9 31 2000's 27 16 17 15 19 16 22 14 10 10 2010's 11 12 18 13 12

  15. Texas State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 13 18 11 10 10 9 9 5 6 1990's 5 5 4 4 2 2 1 3 4 4 2000's 4 5 5 5 5 3 4 3 4 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016

  16. Greenhouse gas emissions from landfill leachate treatment plants: A

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    comparison of young and aged landfill (Journal Article) | SciTech Connect Greenhouse gas emissions from landfill leachate treatment plants: A comparison of young and aged landfill Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Greenhouse gas emissions from landfill leachate treatment plants: A comparison of young and aged landfill Highlights: * Young and aged leachate works accounted for 89.1% and 10.9% of 33.35 Gg CO{sub 2} yr{sup -1}. * Fresh leachate owned extremely low ORP and high organic

  17. Nebraska Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 34 35 30 19 31 21 13 1990's 0 14 9 0 3 2 3 7 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Fuel

  18. Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 6 3 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 148 145 150 142 128 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption

  19. Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 2010's 506 516 501 488 382 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Processing NGPL

  20. Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 3 3 7 2010's 8 11 11 11 13 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production

  1. Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 51 58 64 2010's 63 66 71 53 55 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production

  2. Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

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

    Barrels) Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 822 887 1,010 2010's 1,001 1,122 1,064 894 881 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Liquids

  3. Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

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

    Barrels) Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 56 54 116 2010's 132 196 181 169 206 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Liquids Proved

  4. Utah and Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

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

    (Million Barrels) and Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Utah and Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 280 1980's 294 363 381 483 577 681 700 701 932 704 1990's 641 580 497 458 440 503 639 680 600 531 2000's 858 782 806 756 765 710 686 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  5. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 769,783 737,187 795,069 777,099 746,010 802,343 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 64,965 62,965 61,857 57,949 59,475 61,295 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 94,840 91,963 90,291 84,562 86,795 88,894 1967

  6. North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 87,977 91,539 112,206 208,598 270,001 337,490 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 7,852 8,842 10,199 19,186 26,000 36,276 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 10,140 11,381 14,182 26,114 36,840 50,590 1967

  7. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Processing

    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 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 16,267,757 16,566,883 17,538,026 17,884,427 19,754,802 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 749,095 792,481 873,563 937,591 1,124,416 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 1,066,366 1,134,473 1,250,012

  8. Water Extraction from Coal-Fired Power Plant Flue Gas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bruce C. Folkedahl; Greg F. Weber; Michael E. Collings

    2006-06-30

    The overall objective of this program was to develop a liquid disiccant-based flue gas dehydration process technology to reduce water consumption in coal-fired power plants. The specific objective of the program was to generate sufficient subscale test data and conceptual commercial power plant evaluations to assess process feasibility and merits for commercialization. Currently, coal-fired power plants require access to water sources outside the power plant for several aspects of their operation in addition to steam cycle condensation and process cooling needs. At the present time, there is no practiced method of extracting the usually abundant water found in the power plant stack gas. This project demonstrated the feasibility and merits of a liquid desiccant-based process that can efficiently and economically remove water vapor from the flue gas of fossil fuel-fired power plants to be recycled for in-plant use or exported for clean water conservation. After an extensive literature review, a survey of the available physical and chemical property information on desiccants in conjunction with a weighting scheme developed for this application, three desiccants were selected and tested in a bench-scale system at the Energy and Environmental Research Center (EERC). System performance at the bench scale aided in determining which desiccant was best suited for further evaluation. The results of the bench-scale tests along with further review of the available property data for each of the desiccants resulted in the selection of calcium chloride as the desiccant for testing at the pilot-scale level. Two weeks of testing utilizing natural gas in Test Series I and coal in Test Series II for production of flue gas was conducted with the liquid desiccant dehumidification system (LDDS) designed and built for this study. In general, it was found that the LDDS operated well and could be placed in an automode in which the process would operate with no operator intervention or adjustment. Water produced from this process should require little processing for use, depending on the end application. Test Series II water quality was not as good as that obtained in Test Series I; however, this was believed to be due to a system upset that contaminated the product water system during Test Series II. The amount of water that can be recovered from flue gas with the LDDS is a function of several variables, including desiccant temperature, L/G in the absorber, flash drum pressure, liquid-gas contact method, and desiccant concentration. Corrosion will be an issue with the use of calcium chloride as expected but can be largely mitigated through proper material selection. Integration of the LDDS with either low-grade waste heat and or ground-source heating and cooling can affect the parasitic power draw the LDDS will have on a power plant. Depending on the amount of water to be removed from the flue gas, the system can be designed with no parasitic power draw on the power plant other than pumping loads. This can be accomplished in one scenario by taking advantage of the heat of absorption and the heat of vaporization to provide the necessary temperature changes in the desiccant with the flue gas and precipitates that may form and how to handle them. These questions must be addressed in subsequent testing before scale-up of the process can be confidently completed.

  9. Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 10 1980's 16 11 18 19 18 21 16 16 11 16 1990's 15 14 12 8 8 8 7 5 5 8 2000's 4 5 6 8 6 9 10 11 11 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Liquids

  10. Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 21 1980's 27 17 11 17 17 14 9 16 10 1990's 8 7 8 9 18 17 22 17 18 16 2000's 11 12 14 17 12 7 3 2 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas

  11. Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 17 1980's 16 16 15 11 12 11 16 16 13 9 1990's 9 5 4 4 6 6 4 7 5 5 2000's 5 5 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Liquids

  12. California--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) California--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 2 1980's 1 2 6 5 2 2 2 3 1990's 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  13. California--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 0 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Liquids

  14. California Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  15. California Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    California (Million Cubic Feet) Plant Liquids Production Extracted in California (Million Cubic Feet) California Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in California (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 12,755 13,192 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  16. Nebraska Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 1,170 794 598 1970's 555 599 539 474 460 313 259 226 168 139 1980's 126 153 133 137 132 115 77 81 59 29 1990's 0 13 3 8 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  17. South Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) South Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 86 4 0 1980's 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 30 25 21 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous

  18. Washington Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Washington Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 440 326 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural

  19. Alabama Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alabama

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alabama (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alabama (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 3,978 3,721 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production,

  20. Alabama Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alabama

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alabama (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alabama (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 3,132 3,323 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production,

  1. Alaska Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alaska

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alaska (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alaska (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 18,434 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous

  2. Indiana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 72 1980's 74 19 12 0 1990's 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  3. ,"Natural Gas Plant Field Production: Natural Gas Liquids "

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

    Field Production: Natural Gas Liquids " ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Natural Gas Plant Field Production: Natural Gas Liquids ",16,"Monthly","12/2015","1/15/1981" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel

  4. Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Mississippi

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Extracted in Mississippi (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Mississippi (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 495 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  5. Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Wyoming (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 27 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Montana-Wyoming

  6. Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Wyoming (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 469 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Utah-Wyoming

  7. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Pennsylvania

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Pennsylvania (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 25,308 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  8. Gas Reactor Plant Analyzer and Simulator for Hydrogen Production

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    2004-01-01

    This software is used to study and analyze various configurations of plant equipment for gas cooled nuclear reactor applications. The user of this software would likely be interested in optimizing the economic, safety, and operating performance of this type of reactor. The code provides the capability for the user through his input to configure networks of nuclear reactor components. The components available include turbine, compressor, heat exchanger, reactor core, coolers, bypass valves, and control systems.

  9. Trash-fired boiler cuts plant's gas use 30%

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Watson, F

    1983-06-27

    A Minneapolis bottling plant will burn trash in a 450-horsepower boiler/incinerator to reduce natural gas consumption 30% and eliminate the costs of hauling and disposing of trash. Combined with a CA1500 heat-recovery system installed in 1982, the project will have a two-year payback. The system is clean enough that even old tires can be burned and still meet air pollution regulations. (DCK)

  10. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 13 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Colorado-Kansas

  11. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Utah (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Utah (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Utah (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 34 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Colorado-Utah

  12. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Oklahoma (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  13. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 12 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Kansas-Texas

  14. The U.S. Department of Energy`s integrated gasification combined cycle research, development and demonstration program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brdar, R.D.; Cicero, D.C.

    1996-07-01

    Historically, coal has played a major role as a fuel source for power generation both domestically and abroad. Despite increasingly stringent environmental constraints and affordable natural gas, coal will remain one of the primary fuels for producing electricity. This is due to its abundance throughout the world, low price, ease of transport an export, decreasing capital cost for coal-based systems, and the need to maintain fuel diversity. Recognizing the role coal will continue to play, the US Department of Energy (DOE) is working in partnership with industry to develop ways to use this abundant fuel resource in a manner that is more economical, more efficient and environmentally superior to conventional means to burn coal. The most promising of these technologies is integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) systems. Although IGCC systems offer many advantages, there are still several hurdles that must be overcome before the technology achieves widespread commercial acceptance. The major hurdles to commercialization include reducing capital and operating costs, reducing technical risk, demonstrating environmental and technical performance at commercial scale, and demonstrating system reliability and operability. Overcoming these hurdles, as well as continued progress in improving system efficiency, are the goals of the DOE IGCC research, development and demonstrate (RD and D) program. This paper provides an overview of this integrated RD and D program and describes fundamental areas of technology development, key research projects and their related demonstration scale activities.

  15. New generation enrichment monitoring technology for gas centrifuge enrichment plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ianakiev, Kiril D; Alexandrov, Boian S.; Boyer, Brian D.; Hill, Thomas R.; Macarthur, Duncan W.; Marks, Thomas; Moss, Calvin E.; Sheppard, Gregory A.; Swinhoe, Martyn T.

    2008-06-13

    The continuous enrichment monitor, developed and fielded in the 1990s by the International Atomic Energy Agency, provided a go-no-go capability to distinguish between UF{sub 6} containing low enriched (approximately 4% {sup 235}U) and highly enriched (above 20% {sup 235}U) uranium. This instrument used the 22-keV line from a {sup 109}Cd source as a transmission source to achieve a high sensitivity to the UF{sub 6} gas absorption. The 1.27-yr half-life required that the source be periodically replaced and the instrument recalibrated. The instrument's functionality and accuracy were limited by the fact that measured gas density and gas pressure were treated as confidential facility information. The modern safeguarding of a gas centrifuge enrichment plant producing low-enriched UF{sub 6} product aims toward a more quantitative flow and enrichment monitoring concept that sets new standards for accuracy stability, and confidence. An instrument must be accurate enough to detect the diversion of a significant quantity of material, have virtually zero false alarms, and protect the operator's proprietary process information. We discuss a new concept for advanced gas enrichment assay measurement technology. This design concept eliminates the need for the periodic replacement of a radioactive source as well as the need for maintenance by experts. Some initial experimental results will be presented.

  16. CO? Capture Membrane Process for Power Plant Flue Gas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Toy, Lora; Kataria, Atish; Gupta, Raghubir

    2011-09-30

    Because the fleet of coal-fired power plants is of such importance to the nation's energy production while also being the single largest emitter of CO?, the development of retrofit, post-combustion CO? capture technologies for existing and new, upcoming coal power plants will allow coal to remain a major component of the U.S. energy mix while mitigating global warming. Post-combustion carbon capture technologies are an attractive option for coal-fired power plants as they do not require modification of major power-plant infrastructures, such as fuel processing, boiler, and steam-turbine subsystems. In this project, the overall objective was to develop an advanced, hollow-fiber, polymeric membrane process that could be cost-effectively retrofitted into current pulverized coal-fired power plants to capture at least 90% of the CO? from plant flue gas with 95% captured CO? purity. The approach for this project tackled the technology development on three different fronts in parallel: membrane materials R&D, hollow-fiber membrane module development, and process development and engineering. The project team consisted of RTI (prime) and two industrial partners, Arkema, Inc. and Generon IGS, Inc. Two CO?-selective membrane polymer platforms were targeted for development in this project. For the near term, a next-generation, high-flux polycarbonate membrane platform was spun into hollow-fiber membranes that were fabricated into both lab-scale and larger prototype (~2,200 ft²) membrane modules. For the long term, a new fluoropolymer membrane platform based on poly(vinylidene fluoride) [PVDF] chemistry was developed using a copolymer approach as improved capture membrane materials with superior chemical resistance to flue-gas contaminants (moisture, SO?, NOx, etc.). Specific objectives were: - Development of new, highly chemically resistant, fluorinated polymers as membrane materials with minimum selectivity of 30 for CO? over N? and CO? permeance greater than 300 gas permeation units (GPU) targeted; - Development of next-generation polycarbonate hollow-fiber membranes and membrane modules with higher CO? permeance than current commercial polycarbonate membranes; - Development and fabrication of membrane hollow fibers and modules from candidate polymers; - Development of a CO? capture membrane process design and integration strategy suitable for end-of-pipe, retrofit installation; and - Techno-economic evaluation of the "best" integrated CO? capture membrane process design package In this report, the results of the project research and development efforts are discussed and include the post-combustion capture properties of the two membrane material platforms and the hollow-fiber membrane modules developed from them and the multi-stage process design and analysis developed for 90% CO? capture with 95% captured CO? purity.

  17. Description of the Portsmouth Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Arthur, W.B.

    1980-12-16

    The Portsmouth Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant (GCEP) will be located at the site of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio. The purpose of the facility is to provide enriching services for the production of low assay enriched uranium for civilian nuclear power reactors. The construction and operation of the GCEP is administered by the US Department of Energy. The facility will be operated under contract from the US Government. Control of the GCEP rests solely with the US Government, which holds and controls access to the technology. Construction of GCEP is expected to be completed in the mid-1990's. Many facility design and operating procedures are subject to change. Nonetheless, the design described in this report does reflect current thinking. Descriptions of the general facility and major buildings such as the process buildings, feed and withdrawal building, cylinder storage and transfer, recycle/assembly building, and a summary of the centrifuge uranium enriching process are provided in this report.

  18. Illinois Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 13,725 13,657 13,425 1970's 14,165 13,520 13,346 13,534 13,821 12,785 12,477 13,310 13,173 13,484 1980's 13,340 13,264 11,741 12,843 11,687 11,436 9,259 6,662 61 81 1990's 81 100 100 86 80 77 64 200 70 55 2000's 42 35 47 48 49 46 47 48 42 31 2010's 345 1,043 0 0 47 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not

  19. Mississippi Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 8,582 9,158 8,521 1970's 7,893 5,840 9,153 6,152 5,357 7,894 4,836 4,979 5,421 8,645 1980's 4,428 4,028 7,236 6,632 7,202 6,296 6,562 8,091 7,100 5,021 1990's 7,257 4,585 4,945 4,829 3,632 3,507 3,584 3,652 3,710 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  20. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 2,270 1,530 1,924 1970's 2,251 2,419 2,847 2,725 1,649 1,760 3,043 3,210 2,134 2,889 1980's 1,320 1,580 3,278 3,543 5,236 4,575 4,715 5,799 4,983 4,767 1990's 6,031 3,502 3,381 4,145 3,252 3,069 3,299 2,275 1,706 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  1. Texas (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

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

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 2,125 1980's 2,081 2,285 2,393 2,650 2,660 2,610 2,671 2,509 2,339 2,270 1990's 2,305 2,237 2,162 2,211 2,151 2,269 2,337 2,376 2,262 2,257 2000's 2,479 2,318 2,368 2,192 2,466 2,723 2,913 3,158 3,148 3,432 2010's 3,983

  2. California Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 100,497 93,074 82,996 1970's 92,119 75,241 68,738 72,574 71,686 84,843 78,967 79,425 69,624 65,787 1980's 62,824 53,655 22,275 22,231 25,213 25,274 22,973 26,846 22,778 19,586 1990's 22,712 104,251 92,228 87,306 69,639 66,447 67,817 74,182 72,881 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not

  3. Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 2,010 1,723 1970's 1,829 180 2,144 2,886 3,369 9,170 13,865 13,534 17,436 15,954 1980's 15,740 12,478 10,453 8,269 6,631 5,471 4,802 3,884 3,584 3,551 1990's 2,831 1,893 2,563 2,557 1,789 1,630 1,649 1,563 1,523 1,557 2000's 1,354 1,159 855 771 618 495 485 132 22 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 233 - = No Data

  4. Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 121,848 123,993 104,292 102,185 123,008 121,936 134,132 1990's 82,828 83,733 86,623 74,925 66,600 75,845 69,235 71,155 63,368 68,393 2000's 69,174 63,137 63,031 56,018 55,970 45,837 46,205 51,499 42,957 39,002 2010's 40,814 42,633 42,123 34,179 30,527 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  5. Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 115,177 140,290 179,117 1970's 193,209 195,072 197,967 206,833 194,329 189,541 172,584 166,392 161,511 165,515 1980's 142,171 142,423 128,858 124,193 132,501 117,736 115,604 124,890 120,092 121,425 1990's 119,405 129,154 132,656 130,336 128,583 146,048 139,841 150,008 144,609 164,794 2000's 164,908

  6. Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Tennessee

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Extracted in Tennessee (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Tennessee (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 382 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Tennessee-Tennessee

  7. Louisiana Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in

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

    Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 32,212 33,735 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  8. Louisiana Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 325 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Louisiana Onshore-Texas

  9. Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Michigan

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Extracted in Michigan (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Michigan (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 1,922 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Michigan-Michigan

  10. Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Montana (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Montana (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Montana (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 1,340 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Montana-Montana

  11. Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in North Dakota

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) North Dakota (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in North Dakota (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 303 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Montana-North Dakota

  12. Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Colorado (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Colorado (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Colorado (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 16,070 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Wyoming-Colorado

  13. Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Wyoming (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 60,873 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Wyoming-Wyoming

  14. North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Illinois

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois (Million Cubic Feet) North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Illinois (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 2,086 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent North Dakota-Illinois

  15. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Oklahoma

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Oklahoma (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 166,776 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Oklahoma-Oklahoma

  16. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 2,434 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Oklahoma-Texas

  17. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in West

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

    Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 14,335 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  18. Miscellaneous States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Miscellaneous States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 2 1980's 3 21 2 1 2 2 3 3 1990's 2 3 6 6 7 7 7 9 8 8 2000's 7 6 8 8 8 9 11 14 14 0 2010's 9 10 12 32 350 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015

  19. Miscellaneous States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Miscellaneous States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 2 1980's 3 21 4 5 5 3 2 4 5 5 1990's 3 8 8 8 8 7 7 9 8 10 2000's 7 7 9 10 10 12 14 22 25 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  20. Miscellaneous States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Miscellaneous States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 0 1980's 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 2010's 0 0 0 1 24 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release

  1. Mississippi (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Future Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Mississippi (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 5 1980's 5 5 6 6 5 4 3 3 3 3 1990's 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2000's 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 4 2010's 4 6 4 3 4 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  2. Mississippi (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Mississippi (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 0 1980's 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 1 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  3. Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 16 1980's 20 18 18 19 15 12 11 11 12 12 1990's 11 10 9 11 9 8 7 6 8 10 2000's 8 10 8 7 6 7 8 9 9 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural

  4. Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 10 1980's 16 11 18 19 18 21 16 16 11 16 1990's 15 14 12 8 8 8 7 5 5 8 2000's 3 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 11 12 2010's 11 10 10 11 14 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next

  5. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 530 1980's 541 560 531 551 511 445 577 771 1,023 933 1990's 990 908 1,066 996 1,011 943 1,059 869 929 954 2000's 896 873 838 875 864 840 861 844 804 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release

  6. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 43 1980's 44 45 42 40 41 38 34 44 43 43 1990's 46 47 53 58 60 59 75 75 74 74 2000's 77 77 75 76 73 70 68 66 64 65 2010's 63 62 58 60 61 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  7. North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 47 1980's 61 68 71 69 73 74 69 67 52 59 1990's 60 56 64 55 55 53 48 47 48 53 2000's 54 57 47 45 43 49 55 58 55 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  8. North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 2 1980's 3 4 4 5 6 6 5 6 5 5 1990's 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 2000's 5 5 5 4 5 5 6 6 6 8 2010's 9 11 19 26 36 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  9. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 583 1980's 604 631 745 829 769 826 857 781 765 654 1990's 657 628 629 643 652 674 684 685 698 749 2000's 734 694 695 686 790 839 892 949 1,034 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  10. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 59 1980's 62 65 67 70 75 77 76 76 79 73 1990's 75 76 77 77 76 70 74 71 69 70 2000's 69 66 61 59 64 65 67 69 74 77 2010's 82 88 96 99 117 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  11. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 170 1980's 183 195 174 173 142 155 127 142 162 191 1990's 152 181 193 190 210 243 254 244 235 277 2000's 288 298 329 325 362 386 382 452 612 722 2010's 879 925 705 762 813 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  12. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 177 1980's 194 204 186 183 155 173 148 166 181 209 1990's 169 197 226 214 248 273 287 264 260 303 2000's 316 345 396 395 465 484 478 559 716 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  13. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 10 1980's 10 11 10 9 8 9 8 8 9 10 1990's 10 12 13 14 15 18 17 21 18 19 2000's 21 22 23 24 26 26 26 27 38 48 2010's 58 63 57 52 61 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015

  14. Federal Offshore--California Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Federal Offshore--California Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 0 1980's 0 0 0 0 10 12 16 19 1990's 13 11 15 20 17 21 19 10 8 0 2000's 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2010's 1 1 1 2 2 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  15. Federal Offshore--California Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Federal Offshore--California Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 0 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  16. Federal Offshore--Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Federal Offshore--Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 2 1980's 6 5 12 17 36 34 36 29 26 21 1990's 21 26 34 34 25 27 27 27 21 24 2000's 27 25 28 17 13 9 9 4 7 0 2010's 0 0 35 41 30 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  17. Federal Offshore--Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Federal Offshore--Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 1 1980's 1 1 2 2 4 4 5 5 4 4 1990's 4 5 6 6 5 5 6 6 4 5 2000's 5 4 5 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 2010's 0 0 7 7 5 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  18. Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 21 1980's 27 17 11 17 17 14 9 16 10 1990's 8 7 8 9 18 17 22 17 18 16 2000's 11 12 14 17 12 7 3 2 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next

  19. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 400 1980's 387 407 300 441 422 370 437 459 342 327 1990's 311 426 442 378 396 367 336 263 331 355 2000's 303 300 261 245 267 218 204 194 175 162 2010's 195 192 174 138 186 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  20. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 402 1980's 389 409 302 443 424 373 440 462 345 329 1990's 313 428 444 380 398 369 338 271 334 358 2000's 306 302 263 248 271 224 209 198 181 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  1. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 29 1980's 26 24 14 17 20 20 19 19 18 18 1990's 17 26 27 27 29 29 31 24 28 30 2000's 28 26 25 22 22 19 18 18 18 16 2010's 16 16 15 11 12 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  2. Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 26 1980's 25 25 35 31 24 27 29 23 24 15 1990's 24 24 32 25 39 42 45 47 53 69 2000's 56 72 65 65 71 69 104 88 96 101 2010's 124 88 81 95 108 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  3. Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 26 1980's 25 25 35 31 24 27 29 23 24 16 1990's 25 24 32 26 39 43 46 48 54 69 2000's 56 72 66 66 72 70 105 89 100 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  4. Louisiana (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Louisiana (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 400 287 301 294 294 1990's 324 321 317 260 281 430 381 261 234 281 2000's 241 204 186 183 167 191 176 191 201 231 2010's 216 192 189 212 243 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  5. Louisiana (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Louisiana (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 52 38 40 40 39 1990's 45 44 49 42 43 68 65 41 37 45 2000's 41 35 35 33 31 29 28 30 27 26 2010's 25 23 24 29 26 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  6. Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 713 524 525 517 522 1990's 538 526 495 421 434 601 543 437 411 457 2000's 436 391 323 295 263 292 280 303 300 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring

  7. Louisiana--North Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Louisiana--North Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 54 1980's 59 63 59 50 38 47 39 33 39 40 1990's 38 38 41 38 48 55 61 50 34 36 2000's 35 35 30 48 53 57 60 69 68 98 2010's 79 54 35 52 83 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  8. Louisiana--North Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Louisiana--North Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 7 1980's 6 8 7 6 6 6 5 5 6 5 1990's 6 6 6 5 6 7 8 7 5 4 2000's 4 3 3 4 4 4 5 6 6 6 2010's 5 5 5 6 7 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release

  9. Louisiana--South Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Louisiana--South Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 413 1980's 273 291 258 289 225 222 220 235 228 215 1990's 249 242 229 201 214 359 284 199 187 222 2000's 178 128 119 100 87 103 94 97 78 90 2010's 113 94 134 144 145 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld

  10. Louisiana--South Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Louisiana--South Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 59 1980's 39 38 32 33 29 28 29 30 30 28 1990's 33 33 36 34 34 58 48 31 29 37 2000's 32 23 23 20 20 20 19 18 15 15 2010's 15 14 16 20 17 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  11. Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 46 28 33 27 39 1990's 37 41 47 21 19 16 36 12 13 23 2000's 28 41 37 35 27 31 22 25 55 43 2010's 24 44 20 16 15 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  12. Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 6 4 5 4 6 1990's 6 5 7 3 3 3 9 3 3 4 2000's 5 9 9 9 7 5 4 6 6 5 2010's 5 4 3 3 2 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release

  13. Lower 48 Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Lower 48 Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 363 382 350 331 337 1990's 295 329 295 309 309 239 245 389 370 427 2000's 515 486 511 364 423 416 399 369 321 302 2010's 341 355 405 335 399 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  14. Lower 48 Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Lower 48 Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 54 47 51 48 49 1990's 46 51 48 52 52 37 42 71 68 80 2000's 93 91 94 70 81 61 67 69 53 61 2010's 66 57 61 49 52 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  15. Lower 48 States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 579 1980's 572 580 564 568 597 580 566 569 572 549 1990's 556 577 599 608 608 616 655 655 631 649 2000's 688 655 657 593 627 597 615 637 654 701 2010's 734 773 854 920 1,107 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  16. Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 102 1980's 102 93 91 99 77 62 77 90 82 79 1990's 66 54 52 44 43 38 48 45 43 42 2000's 32 41 42 44 44 36 36 50 58 43 2010's 48 38 26 27 24 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  17. Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 112 1980's 112 102 97 105 84 67 88 111 99 97 1990's 81 72 68 57 54 45 53 50 51 48 2000's 35 43 47 48 48 39 42 55 62 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  18. Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 11 1980's 12 12 11 10 10 8 9 8 8 8 1990's 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 2000's 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2010's 3 2 2 2 2 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  19. Alabama (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Alabama (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 31 1980's 33 25 35 50 48 39 38 34 36 38 1990's 48 35 53 55 51 48 52 34 31 57 2000's 104 32 28 33 29 31 41 32 92 55 2010's 68 68 55 51 59 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  20. Alabama (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Alabama (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 2 1980's 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1990's 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 2000's 10 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 7 5 2010's 6 6 5 6 5 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  1. Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 213 1980's 226 192 193 216 200 182 177 166 166 168 1990's 170 145 171 158 142 120 119 93 81 107 2000's 150 64 57 60 50 61 56 53 106 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  2. Alaska (with Total Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Alaska (with Total Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 13 1980's 11 10 9 8 0 382 381 418 401 380 1990's 340 360 347 321 301 306 337 631 320 299 2000's 277 405 405 387 369 352 338 325 312 299 2010's 288 288 288 288 241 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  3. Alaska (with Total Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Alaska (with Total Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 1 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 16 20 17 1990's 18 24 27 27 26 30 33 35 24 21 2000's 22 20 20 18 18 17 14 13 13 13 2010's 11 11 11 11 17 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  4. Alaska Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Alaska Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 23 1980's 11 10 9 8 19 383 381 418 401 380 1990's 340 360 347 321 301 306 337 631 320 299 2000's 277 405 405 387 369 352 338 325 312 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  5. Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 16 1980's 15 15 12 9 10 9 15 15 11 8 1990's 7 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2000's 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2010's 2 3 3 4 5 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  6. California (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) California (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 107 1980's 109 73 146 139 128 124 118 109 1990's 101 87 94 98 86 88 89 92 71 97 2000's 100 75 95 101 121 135 130 126 113 129 2010's 114 94 99 102 112 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  7. California (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) California (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 9 1980's 7 6 12 12 12 12 11 9 1990's 9 8 10 9 8 9 9 8 7 8 2000's 8 8 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 2010's 10 10 10 11 10 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  8. California Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) California Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 111 1980's 120 79 152 134 130 123 113 1990's 105 92 99 104 92 92 92 95 72 98 2000's 101 76 95 101 122 137 132 126 113 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016

  9. ,"Natural Gas Plant Liquids Proved Reserves"

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

    Liquids Proved Reserves" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Natural Gas Plant Liquids Proved Reserves",49,"Annual",2014,"6/30/1979" ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  10. Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 982 966 7,077 4,709 6,270 6,646 7,646 1990's 637 188 268 352 467 468 451 508 405 405 2000's 441 653 890 504 490 433 509 404 470 489 2010's 529 423 622 797 871 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next

  11. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Colorado

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Colorado (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 85,151 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Colorado-Colorado

  12. Illinois Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Illinois

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Liquids Production Extracted in Illinois (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Illinois (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 47 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  13. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 16,496 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Kansas-Kansas

  14. Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kentucky

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kentucky (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 5,006 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Kentucky-Kentucky

  15. Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in West Virginia

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 1,465 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Kentucky-West Virginia

  16. Montana Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 439 457 542 437 449 474 519 1990's 557 518 423 295 206 168 168 188 208 235 2000's 218 396 249 512 606 697 820 816 788 771 2010's 800 604 612 645 657 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release

  17. Ohio Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 50 63 71 69 96 88 87 1990's 14 14 16 20 36 32 37 39 40 42 2000's 43 40 37 17 18 12 8 5 0 0 2010's 0 0 127 202 468 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural

  18. Ohio Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 20 23 29 41 67 68 50 44 46 1990's 58 49 72 95 104 94 85 83 78 78 2000's 78 86 72 68 58 29 5 9 0 0 2010's 0 0 155 2,116 33,332 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring

  19. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 158 171 148 171 205 191 218 1990's 156 159 341 235 116 181 217 253 222 274 2000's 208 272 251 343 395 483 549 495 575 599 2010's 881 963 2,529 9,200 11,602 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next

  20. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Ohio

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Extracted in Ohio (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Ohio (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 346 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Pennsylvania-Ohio

  1. Utah and Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Utah and Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 14 1980's 14 16 15 18 24 27 27 28 38 35 1990's 35 34 32 32 34 37 44 49 40 45 2000's 55 54 55 52 52 50 49 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next

  2. Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Arkansas

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Extracted in Arkansas (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Arkansas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 582 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Arkansas-Arkansas Natural

  3. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

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

    Barrels) Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 465 1980's 478 496 475 495 462 395 514 708 926 863 1990's 915 840 994 925 946 881 998 814 876 896 2000's 804 794 779 824 805 781 804 788 726 715 2010's 764 776 662 679 789 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  4. North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

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

    Barrels) Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 33 1980's 42 52 53 54 57 59 53 53 40 48 1990's 50 47 54 46 46 44 40 40 41 46 2000's 47 50 41 40 39 45 51 54 51 104 2010's 157 193 297 466 540 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  5. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

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

    Barrels) Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 511 1980's 537 565 667 740 683 731 768 702 686 586 1990's 592 567 566 575 592 605 615 610 613 667 2000's 639 605 601 582 666 697 732 797 870 985 2010's 1,270 1,445 1,452 1,408 1,752 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  6. Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Florida (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Liquids Production Extracted in Florida (Million Cubic Feet) Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Florida (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 233 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Florida-Florida

  7. Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 7,025 7,165 6,940 4,056 852 830 627 1990's 657 702 707 689 611 702 682 641 548 641 2000's 419 475 535 536 617 698 653 691 587 391 2010's 772 278 641 280 278 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next

  8. West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

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

    (Million Barrels) Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 74 1980's 97 84 78 90 79 86 87 86 92 99 1990's 85 102 96 107 93 61 60 70 71 72 2000's 104 105 98 67 84 84 109 114 97 108 2010's 122 140 199 320 1,229 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  9. Plants in Your Gas Tank: From Photosynthesis to Ethanol

    K-12 Energy Lesson Plans and Activities Web site (EERE)

    With ethanol becoming more prevalent in the media and in gas tanks, it is important for students to know from where it comes. This module uses a series of activities to show how energy and mass are converted from one form to another. It focuses on the conversion of light energy into chemical energy via photosynthesis. It then goes on to show how the chemical energy in plant sugars can be fermented to produce ethanol. Finally, the reasons for using ethanol as a fuel are discussed.

  10. Compressor discharge bleed air circuit in gas turbine plants and related method

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Anand, Ashok Kumar (Niskayuna, NY); Berrahou, Philip Fadhel (Latham, NY); Jandrisevits, Michael (Clifton Park, NY)

    2003-04-08

    A gas turbine system that includes a compressor, a turbine component and a load, wherein fuel and compressor discharge bleed air are supplied to a combustor and gaseous products of combustion are introduced into the turbine component and subsequently exhausted to atmosphere. A compressor discharge bleed air circuit removes bleed air from the compressor and supplies one portion of the bleed air to the combustor and another portion of the compressor discharge bleed air to an exhaust stack of the turbine component in a single cycle system, or to a heat recovery steam generator in a combined cycle system. In both systems, the bleed air diverted from the combustor may be expanded in an air expander to reduce pressure upstream of the exhaust stack or heat recovery steam generator.

  11. Compressor discharge bleed air circuit in gas turbine plants and related method

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Anand, Ashok Kumar (Niskayuna, NY); Berrahou, Philip Fadhel (Latham, NY); Jandrisevits, Michael (Clifton Park, NY)

    2002-01-01

    A gas turbine system that includes a compressor, a turbine component and a load, wherein fuel and compressor discharge bleed air are supplied to a combustor and gaseous products of combustion are introduced into the turbine component and subsequently exhausted to atmosphere. A compressor discharge bleed air circuit removes bleed air from the compressor and supplies one portion of the bleed air to the combustor and another portion of the compressor discharge bleed air to an exhaust stack of the turbine component in a single cycle system, or to a heat recovery steam generator in a combined cycle system. In both systems, the bleed air diverted from the combustor may be expanded in an air expander to reduce pressure upstream of the exhaust stack or heat recovery steam generator.

  12. Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 1 1980's 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1990's 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2010's 1 1 1 1 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016

  13. Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 10 1980's 10 5 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1990's 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2000's 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016

  14. Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 3 1980's 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1990's 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2000's 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 2010's 5 4 5 5 5 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016

  15. Lower 48 States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 5,191 1980's 5,187 5,478 5,611 6,280 6,121 6,109 6,348 6,327 6,448 6,000 1990's 5,944 5,860 5,878 5,709 5,722 5,896 6,179 6,001 5,868 6,112 2000's 6,596 6,190 6,243 5,857 6,338 6,551 6,795 7,323 7,530 8,258 2010's 9,521 10,537 10,489 11,655 14,788 - = No Data

  16. Lower 48 States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 6,592 1980's 6,717 7,058 7,212 7,893 7,624 7,561 7,784 7,729 7,837 7,389 1990's 7,246 7,104 7,104 6,901 6,869 7,093 7,486 7,342 7,204 7,515 2000's 8,068 7,588 7,589 7,072 7,559 7,813 8,134 8,818 8,963 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  17. Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 1 1980's 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1990's 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016

  18. Systems approach used in the Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rooks, W.A. Jr.

    1982-01-01

    A requirement exists for effective and efficient transfer of technical knowledge from the design engineering team to the production work force. Performance-Based Training (PBT) is a systematic approach to the design, development, and implementation of technical training. This approach has been successfully used by the US Armed Forces, industry, and other organizations. The advantages of the PBT approach are: cost-effectiveness (lowest life-cycle training cost), learning effectiveness, reduced implementation time, and ease of administration. The PBT process comprises five distinctive and rigorous phases: Analysis of Job Performance, Design of Instructional Strategy, Development of Training Materials and Instructional Media, Validation of Materials and Media, and Implementation of the Instructional Program. Examples from the Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant (GCEP) are used to illustrate the application of PBT.

  19. Alabama Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 1,129 1,178 1,249 1,303 1,564 1,634 1,875 1990's 3,710 3,720 4,477 4,453 3,747 3,806 2,827 2,468 2,391 5,336 2000's 5,377 3,491 4,148 3,293 3,914 3,740 6,028 6,269 6,858 6,470 2010's 6,441 6,939 6,616 6,804 6,462 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  20. Alaska Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 1,225 1,736 1,807 1,582 4,278 2,390 2,537 1990's 27,720 36,088 36,741 35,503 37,347 39,116 40,334 40,706 39,601 41,149 2000's 42,519 42,243 44,008 44,762 44,016 43,386 38,938 41,197 40,286 39,447 2010's 37,316 35,339 37,397 36,638 36,707 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld

  1. Alaska Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 188 1970's 264 99 749 986 1,097 1,244 1,229 1,321 954 701 1980's 483 529 468 440 2,849 6,703 4,206 19,590 23,240 19,932 1990's 21,476 28,440 32,004 32,257 30,945 35,052 38,453 41,535 40,120 38,412 2000's 39,324 36,149 34,706 33,316 33,044 27,956 24,638 26,332 24,337 22,925 2010's 20,835 21,554 21,470 20,679

  2. Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 3,499 3,667 3,475 1970's 3,235 2,563 1,197 1,118 952 899 823 674 883 1,308 1980's 1,351 1,327 1,287 1,258 1,200 1,141 1,318 1,275 1,061 849 1990's 800 290 413 507 553 488 479 554 451 431 2000's 377 408 395 320 254 231 212 162 139 168 2010's 213 268 424 486 582 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA =

  3. Illinois Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 4,844 4,379 4,198 3,944 3,378 24 17 1990's 109 132 98 106 101 90 75 80 84 83 2000's 73 60 66 58 63 56 45 45 48 41 2010's 4,559 4,917 4,896 4,917 288 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release

  4. Michigan Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 3,995 4,136 4,142 3,831 4,365 3,896 4,141 1990's 3,212 3,343 3,096 3,282 3,367 3,337 3,011 2,674 3,073 2,912 2000's 2,455 2,587 2,445 2,798 2,419 2,318 2,363 2,076 1,982 1,686 2010's 1,684 1,303 1,174 1,071 1,152 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  5. Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 855 830 641 591 385 298 280 1990's 621 708 573 538 463 399 382 372 363 638 2000's 786 722 758 251 895 1,018 1,138 1,196 1,140 1,150 2010's 1,155 1,042 1,111 1,103 1,310 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  6. Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 1,127 971 1,334 1970's 1,270 1,217 1,058 878 679 567 520 367 485 1,146 1980's 553 830 831 633 618 458 463 437 811 380 1990's 445 511 416 395 425 377 340 300 495 5,462 2000's 11,377 15,454 16,477 11,430 13,697 14,308 14,662 13,097 10,846 18,354 2010's 18,405 11,221 486 466 495 - = No Data Reported; -- =

  7. Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 744 744 705 1970's 3,032 750 839 918 857 831 761 630 503 776 1980's 890 818 940 1,049 1,069 1,189 1,086 1,058 1,072 1,095 1990's 1,091 1,055 907 741 631 597 576 409 410 435 2000's 272 470 575 615 634 1,149 1,422 1,576 1,622 1,853 2010's 1,367 1,252 1,491 1,645 1,670 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable;

  8. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 21,399 20,875 19,415 15,118 19,180 18,418 21,396 1990's 33,316 32,940 38,892 36,826 36,310 36,455 63,850 45,982 41,926 39,345 2000's 41,863 39,501 38,973 37,620 42,601 35,508 33,435 35,600 36,571 36,827 2010's 35,289 38,331 37,195 33,121 35,269 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  9. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 46,149 48,635 50,484 1970's 52,647 53,810 54,157 55,782 54,986 56,109 61,778 72,484 77,653 62,107 1980's 59,457 60,544 56,857 56,304 58,580 53,953 51,295 65,156 63,355 61,594 1990's 66,626 70,463 75,520 83,193 86,607 85,668 108,341 109,046 106,665 107,850 2000's 110,411 108,958 110,036 111,292 105,412

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

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

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 2,086 2,165 2,216 1,957 2,737 2,112 2,005 1990's 4,835 4,777 4,753 4,734 5,059 4,542 4,283 4,420 4,471 4,553 2000's 4,738 3,874 5,141 4,548 4,602 4,816 4,364 4,323 4,283 4,521 2010's 4,294 5,473 5,887 6,707 5,736 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure

  11. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 29,750 31,237 31,121 29,705 35,751 40,508 38,392 1990's 39,249 42,166 39,700 39,211 35,432 34,900 35,236 30,370 26,034 25,055 2000's 25,934 28,266 25,525 26,276 27,818 27,380 28,435 28,213 27,161 24,089 2010's 23,238 24,938 27,809 32,119 36,231 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  12. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 50,952 55,724 57,270 1970's 58,926 55,914 56,376 61,647 62,860 60,008 52,087 55,238 61,868 71,559 1980's 74,434 80,401 85,934 90,772 98,307 99,933 100,305 99,170 103,302 94,889 1990's 96,698 101,851 104,609 101,962 101,564 94,930 100,379 96,830 92,785 93,308 2000's 96,787 88,885 81,287 74,745 84,355 87,404

  13. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 121 116 93 1970's 79 55 70 71 75 68 61 45 64 49 1980's 41 29 40 55 61 145 234 318 272 254 1990's 300 395 604 513 513 582 603 734 732 879 2000's 586 691 566 647 634 700 794 859 1,008 1,295 2010's 4,578 8,931 12,003 20,936 39,989 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure

  14. Utah Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 2,732 2,754 2,715 6,514 8,701 8,919 9,615 1990's 9,146 9,141 8,745 9,285 9,951 8,492 8,549 8,141 7,985 7,880 2000's 8,276 5,436 4,534 4,481 3,370 3,914 3,739 2,779 2,206 1,573 2010's 1,616 3,063 3,031 5,996 4,782 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  15. California Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 7,662 7,715 7,699 7,105 8,780 8,408 8,521 1990's 7,958 7,809 8,008 7,096 6,388 4,287 4,520 4,796 4,511 4,212 2000's 3,572 2,893 2,781 2,568 2,760 2,875 2,475 2,540 2,318 2,611 2010's 2,370 2,253 2,417 2,834 2,361 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  16. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 5,057 5,060 5,243 4,406 5,715 5,541 6,591 1990's 8,455 9,081 12,233 11,863 12,482 13,560 14,894 12,435 12,200 12,863 2000's 13,064 13,871 15,904 15,927 17,093 15,641 16,347 16,218 18,613 21,288 2010's 25,090 28,265 29,383 25,806 30,873 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld

  17. Florida Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Florida Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 7,852 7,425 6,782 5,878 7,250 7,034 8,734 1990's 1,466 1,338 1,315 1,241 167 145 125 113 129 147 2000's 157 127 124 112 102 286 796 671 83 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 272 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next

  18. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 25,430 25,873 27,297 25,616 28,804 29,357 29,665 1990's 22,499 30,800 26,312 36,294 28,988 28,510 30,444 26,205 20,921 19,321 2000's 16,664 10,928 11,723 9,706 6,460 8,100 7,541 5,439 2,331 2,126 2010's 2,102 2,246 2,268 2,189 1,983 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  19. West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 2,106 2,855 2,920 2,809 3,355 3,326 3,679 1990's 3,204 3,391 3,290 3,316 3,272 3,199 2,262 2,710 2,344 2,209 2000's 2,505 2,342 2,186 1,361 723 281 315 309 283 698 2010's 810 1,153 1,812 3,429 6,776 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  20. Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 12,572 16,185 17,090 13,633 16,249 17,446 19,820 1990's 12,182 14,154 13,217 13,051 13,939 14,896 15,409 15,597 16,524 19,272 2000's 20,602 20,991 25,767 28,829 24,053 24,408 23,868 25,276 23,574 25,282 2010's 27,104 28,582 29,157 27,935 25,782 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  1. Assessment and remediation at former manufactured gas plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mehan, D.G.

    1995-12-01

    Over 1,000 former Manufactured Gas Plants (MGP) have been identified in the United States. Gal Plants were used to produce gas for lighting and heating from coal and oil from the mid-1800s until the 1950s. Former MGP sites are typically impacted by a variety of compounds that do not collectively lend themselves to {open_quotes}standard{close_quotes} assessment and remedial solutions. These compounds include the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene, a variety of semi-volatile organic compound, and inorganic compounds (iron and cyanide). The assessment of former MGP sites is complicated because many former sites are now located in developed and industrialized areas. MGP wastes and by-products were typically disposed on-site. Many modern buildings are now located over former MGP sites. Standard assessment tools such as augering and drilling tend to encounter former structures, making their use difficult and ineffective. Assessment by excavation and geophysical methods allows the acquisition of only shallow data. The remediation of impacted soils and ground water at former MGP sites poses significant challenges due to the differing characteristics of the typical MGP compounds. For example, soil vapor extraction and ground water treatment may decrease VOC concentrations, yet be ineffective on the inorganic and PAH compounds. Because of the variety of typical MGP associated wastes, risk assessment is a vital tool in assessing and selecting the appropriate remedial strategies. Several states have aggressively adopted clean-up programs that rely on risk assessment to determine the appropriate remedial strategy at former MGP sites. At numerous sites, no further action is employed because of the VOCs have attenuated over time, the PAH and inorganic compounds are relatively immobile, ground water contamination plumes are limited, and risk assessment indicates acceptable risks.

  2. Garbage In, Power Out: South Carolina BMW Plant Demonstrates Landfill Gas

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

    to Hydrogen Fuel | Department of Energy Garbage In, Power Out: South Carolina BMW Plant Demonstrates Landfill Gas to Hydrogen Fuel Garbage In, Power Out: South Carolina BMW Plant Demonstrates Landfill Gas to Hydrogen Fuel August 25, 2015 - 2:15pm Addthis The plant BMW plant in Greer, South Carolina is home to the world's largest fleet of fuel cell forklifts. | Photo courtesy of BMW Manufacturing. The plant BMW plant in Greer, South Carolina is home to the world's largest fleet of fuel cell

  3. EIS-0140: Ocean State Power Project, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission prepared this statement to evaluate potential impacts of construction and operation of a new natural gas-fired, combined-cycle power plant which would be located on a 40.6-acre parcel in the town of Burrillville, Rhode Island, as well as construction of a 10-mile pipeline to transport process and cooling water to the plant from the Blackstone River and a 7.5-mile pipeline to deliver No. 2 fuel oil to the site for emergency use when natural gas may not be available. The Economic Regulatory Administration adopted the EIS on 7/15/1988.

  4. EIA-816, Monthly Natural Gas Plant Liquids Report Page 1 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    EIA-816, Monthly Natural Gas Plant Liquids Report Page 1 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION Washington, D. C. 20585 OMB No. 1905-0165 Expiration Date: 05/31/2016 (Revised 2013) EIA-816 MONTHLY NATURAL GAS PLANT LIQUIDS REPORT INSTRUCTIONS

  5. Gas Turbine/Solar Parabolic Trough Hybrid Design Using Molten Salt Heat Transfer Fluid: Preprint

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Turchi, C. S.; Ma, Z.

    2011-08-01

    Parabolic trough power plants can provide reliable power by incorporating either thermal energy storage (TES) or backup heat from fossil fuels. This paper describes a gas turbine / parabolic trough hybrid design that combines a solar contribution greater than 50% with gas heat rates that rival those of natural gas combined-cycle plants. Previous work illustrated benefits of integrating gas turbines with conventional oil heat-transfer-fluid (HTF) troughs running at 390?C. This work extends that analysis to examine the integration of gas turbines with salt-HTF troughs running at 450 degrees C and including TES. Using gas turbine waste heat to supplement the TES system provides greater operating flexibility while enhancing the efficiency of gas utilization. The analysis indicates that the hybrid plant design produces solar-derived electricity and gas-derived electricity at lower cost than either system operating alone.

  6. EIS-0428: Department of Energy Loan Guarantee for Mississippi Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, Moss Point, Mississippi

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This EIS evaluates the environmental impacts of a petroleum coke-to-substitute natural gas facility proposed to be built by Mississippi Gasification. The facility would be designed to produce 120 million standard cubic feet of gas per day. Other products would be marketable sulfuric acid, carbon dioxide, argon, and electric power. This project is inactive.

  7. Federal Offshore--Gulf of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2. Processing Plant Capacity and Percent of Total U.S. Capacity, 2009 Figure 2. Processing Plant Capacity and Percent of Total U.S. Capacity, 2009...

  9. Small scale biomass fueled gas turbine power plant. Report for February 1992--October 1997

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Purvis, C.R.; Craig, J.D.

    1998-01-01

    The paper discusses a new-generation, small-scale (<20 MWe) biomass-fueled power plant that is being developed based on a gas turbine (Brayton cycle) prime mover. Such power plants are expected to increase the efficiency and lower the cost of generating power from fuels such as wood. The new power plants are also expected to economically utilize annual plant growth material (e.g., straw, grass, rice hulls, animal manure, cotton gin trash, and nut shells) that are not normally considered as fuel for power plants. The paper summarizes the new power generation concept with emphasis on the engineering challenges presented by the gas turbine component.

  10. Model operating permits for natural gas processing plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Arend, C.

    1995-12-31

    Major sources as defined in Title V of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 that are required to submit an operating permit application will need to: Evaluate their compliance status; Determine a strategic method of presenting the general and specific conditions of their Model Operating Permit (MOP); Maintain compliance with air quality regulations. A MOP is prepared to assist permitting agencies and affected facilities in the development of operating permits for a specific source category. This paper includes a brief discussion of example permit conditions that may be applicable to various types of Title V sources. A MOP for a generic natural gas processing plant is provided as an example. The MOP should include a general description of the production process and identify emission sources. The two primary elements that comprise a MOP are: Provisions of all existing state and/or local air permits; Identification of general and specific conditions for the Title V permit. The general provisions will include overall compliance with all Clean Air Act Titles. The specific provisions include monitoring, record keeping, and reporting. Although Title V MOPs are prepared on a case-by-case basis, this paper will provide a general guideline of the requirements for preparation of a MOP. Regulatory agencies have indicated that a MOP included in the Title V application will assist in preparation of the final permit provisions, minimize delays in securing a permit, and provide support during the public notification process.

  11. Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 236 1970's 225 281 243 199 501 694 661 933 1,967 4,845 1980's 4,371 4,484 4,727 4,709 5,123 5,236 4,836 4,887 4,774 5,022 1990's 4,939 4,997 5,490 5,589 5,647 5,273 5,361 4,637 4,263 18,079 2000's 24,086 13,754 14,826 11,293 15,133 13,759 21,065 19,831 17,222 17,232 2010's 19,059 17,271 7,133 7,675 7,044 - =

  12. Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 3,351 3,244 2,705 1970's 2,330 2,013 1,912 1,581 1,921 2,879 6,665 11,494 14,641 15,686 1980's 15,933 14,540 14,182 13,537 12,829 11,129 11,644 10,876 10,483 9,886 1990's 8,317 8,103 8,093 7,012 6,371 6,328 6,399 6,147 5,938 5,945 2000's 5,322 4,502 4,230 3,838 4,199 3,708 3,277 3,094 3,921 2,334 2010's

  13. North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 5,150 5,428 4,707 1970's 4,490 3,592 3,199 2,969 2,571 2,404 2,421 2,257 2,394 2,986 1980's 3,677 5,008 5,602 7,171 7,860 8,420 6,956 7,859 6,945 6,133 1990's 6,444 6,342 6,055 5,924 5,671 5,327 4,937 5,076 5,481 5,804 2000's 6,021 6,168 5,996 5,818 6,233 6,858 7,254 7,438 7,878 10,140 2010's 11,381

  14. Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 2,633 3,266 3,412 1970's 1,493 3,822 3,382 3,489 3,958 3,659 4,032 4,524 3,570 3,950 1980's 4,075 5,219 3,930 4,180 4,259 3,874 10,139 12,396 21,237 18,302 1990's 17,579 14,392 11,851 13,300 13,780 13,679 10,970 17,872 11,801 11,407 2000's 12,795 11,379 3,352 3,404 3,381 2,815 2,911 2,729 3,280 8,489 2010's

  15. California Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 34,803 32,639 30,334 1970's 29,901 27,585 24,156 17,498 17,201 15,221 14,125 13,567 13,288 10,720 1980's 8,583 7,278 14,113 14,943 15,442 16,973 16,203 15,002 14,892 13,376 1990's 12,424 11,786 12,385 12,053 11,250 11,509 12,169 11,600 10,242 10,762 2000's 11,063 11,060 12,982 13,971 14,061 13,748 14,056

  16. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 4,126 4,546 4,058 1970's 3,405 4,152 4,114 4,674 6,210 9,620 11,944 13,507 13,094 12,606 1980's 12,651 13,427 12,962 11,314 10,771 11,913 10,441 10,195 11,589 13,340 1990's 13,178 15,822 18,149 18,658 19,612 25,225 23,362 28,851 24,365 26,423 2000's 29,105 29,195 31,952 33,650 35,821 34,782 36,317 38,180

  17. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 30,480 29,042 35,813 1970's 38,843 39,741 40,738 43,909 43,416 42,763 40,975 41,971 45,582 45,640 1980's 39,130 36,653 23,023 28,561 29,707 28,964 27,050 28,397 29,800 30,273 1990's 29,642 41,848 42,733 44,014 46,936 47,442 47,996 38,224 45,801 48,107 2000's 44,200 38,517 39,196 34,724 34,573 31,521 30,726

  18. Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 11,500 8,573 8,579 1970's 6,574 6,133 6,063 5,441 5,557 5,454 5,231 4,764 6,192 3,923 1980's 6,845 5,638 6,854 6,213 6,516 6,334 4,466 2,003 2,142 1,444 1990's 1,899 2,181 2,342 2,252 2,024 2,303 2,385 2,404 2,263 2,287 2000's 1,416 1,558 1,836 1,463 2,413 1,716 2,252 1,957 2,401 3,270 2010's 4,576 4,684

  19. West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 14,150 6,024 8,439 1970's 11,062 10,939 9,411 9,428 9,605 9,258 8,284 8,504 8,518 7,973 1980's 8,786 9,060 7,086 7,505 8,638 9,590 8,681 8,830 9,839 10,121 1990's 9,108 9,745 9,436 10,830 10,901 7,396 7,093 7,179 7,337 7,334 2000's 10,398 11,094 9,960 7,226 7,656 7,675 8,017 8,071 8,391 8,786 2010's

  20. Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 11,993 11,390 12,540 1970's 12,863 12,802 16,228 16,093 14,072 13,224 14,669 15,625 14,363 14,056 1980's 13,582 15,160 15,482 19,668 29,169 31,871 25,819 24,827 29,434 29,247 1990's 28,591 31,470 31,378 29,118 33,486 36,058 48,254 49,333 44,358 50,639 2000's 65,085 65,740 74,387 69,817 70,831 67,563 67,435

  1. New Measures to Safeguard Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Whitaker, Jr., James; Garner, James R; Whitaker, Michael; Lockwood, Dunbar; Gilligan, Kimberly V; Younkin, James R; Hooper, David A; Henkel, James J; Krichinsky, Alan M

    2011-01-01

    As Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants (GCEPs) increase in separative work unit (SWU) capacity, the current International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) model safeguards approach needs to be strengthened. New measures to increase the effectiveness of the safeguards approach are being investigated that will be mutually beneficial to the facility operators and the IAEA. One of the key concepts being studied for application at future GCEPs is embracing joint use equipment for process monitoring of load cells at feed and withdrawal (F/W) stations. A mock F/W system was built at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to generate and collect F/W data from an analogous system. The ORNL system has been used to collect data representing several realistic normal process and off-normal (including diversion) scenarios. Emphasis is placed on the novelty of the analysis of data from the sensors as well as the ability to build information out of raw data, which facilitates a more effective and efficient verification process. This paper will provide a progress report on recent accomplishments and next steps.

  2. Case studies on recent fossil-fired plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Henderson, C.

    2007-12-31

    The article summarises the findings of case studies on fossil-fired power plants carried out by the IEA Clean Coal Centre for the IEA at the request of world leaders at the Gleneagles G8 Summit in July 2005. The studies compared the cost, efficiency and emissions of eight recently constructed coal-fired plants using pulverized coal combustion with subcritical, supercritical or ultra-supercritical steam turbine cycles. Also included was a review of IGCC developments. A case study of a natural gas combined-cycle plant was included for comparison. The full report has been published by the IEA. 1 tab.

  3. Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) demonstration project, Polk Power Station -- Unit No. 1. Annual report, October 1993--September 1994

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-05-01

    This describes the Tampa Electric Company`s Polk Power Station Unit 1 (PPS-1) Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) demonstration project which will use a Texaco pressurized, oxygen-blown, entrained-flow coal gasifier to convert approximately 2,300 tons per day of coal (dry basis) coupled with a combined cycle power block to produce a net 250 MW electrical power output. Coal is slurried in water, combined with 95% pure oxygen from an air separation unit, and sent to the gasifier to produce a high temperature, high pressure, medium-Btu syngas with a heat content of about 250 Btu/scf (LHV). The syngas then flows through a high temperature heat recovery unit which cools the syngas prior to its entering the cleanup systems. Molten coal ash flows from the bottom of the high temperature heat recovery unit into a water-filled quench chamber where it solidifies into a marketable slag by-product.

  4. Transport Membrane Condenser for Water and Energy Recovery from Power Plant Flue Gas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dexin Wang

    2012-03-31

    The new waste heat and water recovery technology based on a nanoporous ceramic membrane vapor separation mechanism has been developed for power plant flue gas application. The recovered water vapor and its latent heat from the flue gas can increase the power plant boiler efficiency and reduce water consumption. This report describes the development of the Transport Membrane Condenser (TMC) technology in details for power plant flue gas application. The two-stage TMC design can achieve maximum heat and water recovery based on practical power plant flue gas and cooling water stream conditions. And the report includes: Two-stage TMC water and heat recovery system design based on potential host power plant coal fired flue gas conditions; Membrane performance optimization process based on the flue gas conditions, heat sink conditions, and water and heat transport rate requirement; Pilot-Scale Unit design, fabrication and performance validation test results. Laboratory test results showed the TMC system can exact significant amount of vapor and heat from the flue gases. The recovered water has been tested and proved of good quality, and the impact of SO{sub 2} in the flue gas on the membrane has been evaluated. The TMC pilot-scale system has been field tested with a slip stream of flue gas in a power plant to prove its long term real world operation performance. A TMC scale-up design approach has been investigated and an economic analysis of applying the technology has been performed.

  5. 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...

  6. EIS-0429: Department of Energy Loan Guarantee for Indiana Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, Rockport, IN

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This EIS evaluates the environmental impacts of a coal-to-substitute natural gas facility proposed to be built in Rockport, IN by Indiana Gasification. The facility would utilize Illinois Basin coal. Other products would be marketable sulfuric acid, argon, and electric power. This project is inactive.

  7. Tapping Landfill Gas to Provide Significant Energy Savings and...

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

    BroadRock Renewables LLC, in collaboration with DCO Energy, operates combined cycle electric generating plants at the Central Landfill in Johnston, Rhode Island, and Olinda Alpha ...

  8. Defining the needs for gas centrifuge enrichment plants advanced safeguards

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boyer, Brian David; Erpenbeck, Heather H; Miller, Karen A; Swinhoe, Martyn T; Ianakiev, Kiril; Marlow, Johnna B

    2010-04-05

    Current safeguards approaches used by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at gas centrifuge enrichment plants (GCEPs) need enhancement in order to verify declared low-enriched (LEU) production, detect undeclared LEU production and detect highly enriched uranium (HEU) production with adequate detection probability using nondestructive assay (NDA) techniques. At present inspectors use attended systems, systems needing the presence of an inspector for operation, during inspections to verify the mass and {sup 235}U enrichment of declared UF{sub 6} containers used in the process of enrichment at GCEPs. In verifying declared LEU production, the inspectors also take samples for off-site destructive assay (DA) which provide accurate data, with 0.1% to 0.5% measurement uncertainty, on the enrichment of the UF{sub 6} feed, tails, and product. However, taking samples of UF{sub 6} for off-site analysis is a much more labor and resource intensive exercise for the operator and inspector. Furthermore, the operator must ship the samples off-site to the IAEA laboratory which delays the timeliness of results and interruptions to the continuity of knowledge (CofK) of the samples during their storage and transit. This paper contains an analysis of possible improvements in unattended and attended NDA systems such as process monitoring and possible on-site analysis of DA samples that could reduce the uncertainty of the inspector's measurements and provide more effective and efficient IAEA GCEPs safeguards. We also introduce examples advanced safeguards systems that could be assembled for unattended operation.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    3. Btu Content at Plant Inlets for Processing Plants in the United States, 2009 Minimum Annual Btu Content Maximum Annual Btu Content Average Annual Btu Content Alaska 850 1071 985...

  10. Synthesis Gas Demonstration Plant, Baskett, Kentucky: environmental report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1980-01-01

    A summary of the potential environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed plant is presented. The construction and operation of the plant are discussed in detail.

  11. Gas treatment and by-products recovery of Thailand`s first coke plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Diemer, P.E.; Seyfferth, W.

    1997-12-31

    Coke is needed in the blast furnace as the main fuel and chemical reactant and the main product of a coke plant. The second main product of the coke plant is coke oven gas. During treatment of the coke oven gas some coal chemicals like tar, ammonia, sulphur and benzole can be recovered as by-products. Since the market prices for these by-products are rather low and often erratic it does not in most cases justify the investment to recover these products. This is the reason why modern gas treatment plants only remove those impurities from the crude gas which must be removed for technical and environmental reasons. The cleaned gas, however, is a very valuable product as it replaces natural gas in steel work furnaces and can be used by other consumers. The surplus can be combusted in the boiler of a power plant. A good example for an optimal plant layout is the new coke oven facility of Thai Special Steel Industry (TSSI) in Rayong. The paper describes the TSSI`s coke oven gas treatment plant.

  12. One Man's Trash, Another Man's Fuel: BMW Plant Converts Landfill Gas to

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

    Hydrogen Fuel | Department of Energy One Man's Trash, Another Man's Fuel: BMW Plant Converts Landfill Gas to Hydrogen Fuel One Man's Trash, Another Man's Fuel: BMW Plant Converts Landfill Gas to Hydrogen Fuel August 25, 2015 - 3:08pm Addthis A worker drives a material handling train powered by hydrogen fuel cells at the BMW plant in Greer, South Carolina. The plant is home to the world's largest fleet of fuel cell forklifts. | Photo courtesy of BMW Manufacturing. A worker drives a material

  13. Gas turbine power plant with supersonic shock compression ramps

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Lawlor, Shawn P. (Bellevue, WA); Novaresi, Mark A. (San Diego, CA); Cornelius, Charles C. (Kirkland, WA)

    2008-10-14

    A gas turbine engine. The engine is based on the use of a gas turbine driven rotor having a compression ramp traveling at a local supersonic inlet velocity (based on the combination of inlet gas velocity and tangential speed of the ramp) which compresses inlet gas against a stationary sidewall. The supersonic compressor efficiently achieves high compression ratios while utilizing a compact, stabilized gasdynamic flow path. Operated at supersonic speeds, the inlet stabilizes an oblique/normal shock system in the gasdynamic flow path formed between the rim of the rotor, the strakes, and a stationary external housing. Part load efficiency is enhanced by use of a lean pre-mix system, a pre-swirl compressor, and a bypass stream to bleed a portion of the gas after passing through the pre-swirl compressor to the combustion gas outlet. Use of a stationary low NOx combustor provides excellent emissions results.

  14. File:BOEMRE oil.gas.plant.platform.sta.brbra.map.4.2010.pdf ...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    oil.gas.plant.platform.sta.brbra.map.4.2010.pdf Jump to: navigation, search File File history File usage Federal Leases in Pacific Ocean, near Santa Barbara Channel Size of this...

  15. Control Scheme Modifications Increase Efficiency of Steam Generation System at Exxon Mobil Gas Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2002-01-01

    This case study highlights control scheme modifications made to the steam system at ExxonMobil's Mary Ann Gas Plant in Mobile, Alabama, which improved steam flow efficiency and reduced energy costs.

  16. Texas--RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based...

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

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

  17. Texas--RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3...

  18. Texas--RRC District 8A Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 8A Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

  19. Texas--RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves...

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

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3...

  20. Texas--RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based...

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

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

  1. Texas--RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3...

  2. Texas--RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

  3. Texas--RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

  4. Texas--RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based...

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

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

  5. Texas--RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based...

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

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

  6. Texas--RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    National Overview Btu Content The natural gas received and transported by the major intrastate and interstate mainline transmission systems must be within a specific energy (Btu)...

  8. Ohio-West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2013 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 271 2013-2013 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 14 2013-2013

  9. 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...

  10. Impact of different plants on the gas profile of a landfill cover

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Reichenauer, Thomas G.; Watzinger, Andrea; Riesing, Johann; Gerzabek, Martin H.

    2011-05-15

    Research highlights: > Plants influence gas profile and methane oxidation in landfill covers. > Plants regulate water content and increase the availability of oxygen for methane oxidation. > Plant species with deep roots like alfalfa showed more stimulation of methane oxidation than plants with shallow root systems like grasses. - Abstract: Methane is an important greenhouse gas emitted from landfill sites and old waste dumps. Biological methane oxidation in landfill covers can help to reduce methane emissions. To determine the influence of different plant covers on this oxidation in a compost layer, we conducted a lysimeter study. We compared the effect of four different plant covers (grass, alfalfa + grass, miscanthus and black poplar) and of bare soil on the concentration of methane, carbon dioxide and oxygen in lysimeters filled with compost. Plants were essential for a sustainable reduction in methane concentrations, whereas in bare soil, methane oxidation declined already after 6 weeks. Enhanced microbial activity - expected in lysimeters with plants that were exposed to landfill gas - was supported by the increased temperature of the gas in the substrate and the higher methane oxidation potential. At the end of the first experimental year and from mid-April of the second experimental year, the methane concentration was most strongly reduced in the lysimeters containing alfalfa + grass, followed by poplar, miscanthus and grass. The observed differences probably reflect the different root morphology of the investigated plants, which influences oxygen transport to deeper compost layers and regulates the water content.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    National Overview Processing Plant Utilization Data collected for 2009 show that the States with the highest total processing capacity are among the States with the highest average...

  12. EIS-0071: Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division Industrial Fuels Gas Demonstration Plant, Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The U.S. Department of Energy developed this EIS to assesses the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of a 3,155-ton-per-day capacity facility, which will demonstrate the technical operability, economic viability, and environmental acceptability of the Memphis Division of Light, Gas and Water coal gasification plant at Memphis, Tennessee.

  13. Selection of an acid-gas removal process for an LNG plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Stone, J.B.; Jones, G.N.; Denton, R.D.

    1996-12-31

    Acid gas contaminants, such as, CO{sub 2}, H{sub 2}S and mercaptans, must be removed to a very low level from a feed natural gas before it is liquefied. CO{sub 2} is typically removed to a level of about 100 ppm to prevent freezing during LNG processing. Sulfur compounds are removed to levels required by the eventual consumer of the gas. Acid-gas removal processes can be broadly classified as: solvent-based, adsorption, cryogenic or physical separation. The advantages and disadvantages of these processes will be discussed along with design and operating considerations. This paper will also discuss the important considerations affecting the choice of the best acid-gas removal process for LNG plants. Some of these considerations are: the remoteness of the LNG plant from the resource; the cost of the feed gas and the economics of minimizing capital expenditures; the ultimate disposition of the acid gas; potential for energy integration; and the composition, including LPG and conditions of the feed gas. The example of the selection of the acid-gas removal process for an LNG plant.

  14. DOE, RTI to Design and Build Gas Cleanup System for IGCC Power Plants |

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Department of Energy DOE, RTI to Design and Build Gas Cleanup System for IGCC Power Plants DOE, RTI to Design and Build Gas Cleanup System for IGCC Power Plants July 13, 2009 - 1:00pm Addthis Washington, DC - The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces a collaborative project with Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International to design, build, and test a warm gas cleanup system to remove multiple contaminants from coal-derived syngas. The 50-MWe system will include technologies to remove

  15. South Dakota-North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 113 86 71 2012-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 23 19 16 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 21 2014

  16. Texas Onshore-New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2012 2013 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 29,056 869 2012-2013 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 3,262 90 2012-2013

  17. California Offshore-California Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) NA 381 2013-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) NA 8 2013-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 9 2014

  18. Greenhouse Gas emissions from California Geothermal Power Plants

    DOE Data Explorer [Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)]

    Sullivan, John

    2014-03-14

    The information given in this file represents GHG emissions and corresponding emission rates for California flash and dry steam geothermal power plants. This stage of the life cycle is the fuel use component of the fuel cycle and arises during plant operation. Despite that no fossil fuels are being consumed during operation of these plants, GHG emissions nevertheless arise from GHGs present in the geofluids and dry steam that get released to the atmosphere upon passing through the system. Data for the years of 2008 to 2012 are analyzed.

  19. Greenhouse Gas emissions from California Geothermal Power Plants

    DOE Data Explorer [Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)]

    Sullivan, John

    The information given in this file represents GHG emissions and corresponding emission rates for California flash and dry steam geothermal power plants. This stage of the life cycle is the fuel use component of the fuel cycle and arises during plant operation. Despite that no fossil fuels are being consumed during operation of these plants, GHG emissions nevertheless arise from GHGs present in the geofluids and dry steam that get released to the atmosphere upon passing through the system. Data for the years of 2008 to 2012 are analyzed.

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

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

    for about 12 percent of total U.S. capacity. As of 2009, there were a total of 4 plants in the State, with the largest one reporting a capacity of 8.5 Bcf per day. Average...

  1. The United States of America and the People`s Republic of China experts report on integrated gasification combined-cycle technology (IGCC)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1996-12-01

    A report written by the leading US and Chinese experts in Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plants, intended for high level decision makers, may greatly accelerate the development of an IGCC demonstration project in the People`s Republic of China (PRC). The potential market for IGCC systems in China and the competitiveness of IGCC technology with other clean coal options for China have been analyzed in the report. Such information will be useful not only to the Chinese government but also to US vendors and companies. The goal of this report is to analyze the energy supply structure of China, China`s energy and environmental protection demand, and the potential market in China in order to make a justified and reasonable assessment on feasibility of the transfer of US Clean Coal Technologies to China. The Expert Report was developed and written by the joint US/PRC IGCC experts and will be presented to the State Planning Commission (SPC) by the President of the CAS to ensure consideration of the importance of IGCC for future PRC power production.

  2. Power plant including an exhaust gas recirculation system for injecting recirculated exhaust gases in the fuel and compressed air of a gas turbine engine

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Anand, Ashok Kumar; Nagarjuna Reddy, Thirumala Reddy; Shaffer, Jason Brian; York, William David

    2014-05-13

    A power plant is provided and includes a gas turbine engine having a combustor in which compressed gas and fuel are mixed and combusted, first and second supply lines respectively coupled to the combustor and respectively configured to supply the compressed gas and the fuel to the combustor and an exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system to re-circulate exhaust gas produced by the gas turbine engine toward the combustor. The EGR system is coupled to the first and second supply lines and configured to combine first and second portions of the re-circulated exhaust gas with the compressed gas and the fuel at the first and second supply lines, respectively.

  3. Pennsylvania-West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 10,273 236,886 101,613 2012-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 195 7,150 9,890 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 14,335

  4. Louisiana Offshore-Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 151,301 99,910 94,790 2012-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 3,378 2,694 2,454 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 5,100 3,585 2012

  5. West Virginia-West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 116,955 189,278 315,229 867,111 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 8,010 14,195 41,116 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 57,582 2014

  6. Texas Onshore-Kansas Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 57,971 63,053 144,573 112,694 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 2,727 5,881 5,145...

  7. California Onshore-California Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 180,648 169,203 164,401 162,413 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 9,923 10,641 9,597 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 12,755 13,192

  8. Alabama Offshore-Alabama Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 53,348 53,771 49,474 2012-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 2,695 2,767 2,519 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 3,978 3,721

  9. Alabama Onshore-Alabama Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 100,491 33,921 35,487 31,116 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 2,614 2,781 2,620 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 3,132 3,323

  10. Ohio Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Ohio (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Extracted in Ohio (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Ohio (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 33,332 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Ohio-Ohio Natural Gas Plant Processing

  11. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore - Louisiana and Alabama Natural Gas Plant

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore - Louisiana and Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 614 566 532 512 575 1990's 519 545 472 490 500 496 621 785 776 833 2000's 921 785 783 598 615 603 575 528 464 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  12. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore - Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore - Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 62 66 64 88 80 100 89 89 78 1990's 82 79 118 115 103 134 132 121 143 161 2000's 153 182 182 119 98 85 74 92 83 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  13. California--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Future Production (Million Barrels) Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) California--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 9 1980's 11 6 6 6 5 6 7 7 7 4 1990's 5 4 5 6 5 4 3 4 5 7 2000's 10 8 10 8 8 9 8 9 6 6 2010's 5 4 4 4 4

  14. California--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Future Production (Million Barrels) San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) California--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 74 1980's 74 51 118 111 100 115 104 102 96 91 1990's 82 71 79 81 71 77 77 79 57 59 2000's 63 51 68 78 94 110 100 103 97 113 2010's 98 78 77 85 96

  15. Texas - RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 23 1980's 24 26 29 43 39 40 35 27 30 25 1990's 26 28 27 26 26 26 46 54 38 167 2000's 55 40 39 29 36 36 42 49 49 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  16. Texas - RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 375 1980's 369 364 391 413 440 433 428 417 363 342 1990's 328 356 336 329 326 353 332 382 354 217 2000's 369 335 353 347 420 423 466 534 554 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  17. Texas - RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 64 1980's 64 88 75 99 103 100 89 102 92 72 1990's 80 75 80 86 86 93 93 87 85 76 2000's 72 67 71 69 79 91 90 111 105 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  18. Texas - RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 231 1980's 216 230 265 285 270 260 237 241 208 213 1990's 181 208 211 253 254 272 289 286 246 226 2000's 209 226 241 207 221 226 234 271 196 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  19. Texas - RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 248 1980's 252 260 289 292 295 269 281 277 260 260 1990's 279 273 272 278 290 287 323 347 363 422 2000's 406 378 370 287 326 309 333 327 310 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  20. Texas - RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 34 1980's 44 49 53 73 74 77 86 88 81 88 1990's 81 71 71 64 59 54 54 35 35 32 2000's 49 49 50 51 53 48 53 56 132 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  1. Texas - RRC District 6 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 6 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 272 1980's 321 308 278 342 298 293 277 264 263 266 1990's 247 243 251 248 265 271 290 260 276 223 2000's 283 269 277 248 304 333 357 426 396 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  2. Texas - RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 64 1980's 85 102 105 133 106 104 109 92 98 73 1990's 76 82 68 79 62 70 65 59 51 36 2000's 34 29 25 32 43 90 133 203 274 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  3. Texas - RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 182 1980's 135 186 199 219 233 256 246 243 238 238 1990's 256 241 289 273 265 274 303 327 282 305 2000's 434 290 351 345 383 411 439 491 432 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  4. Texas - RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 505 1980's 498 537 588 681 691 665 717 640 547 554 1990's 558 477 444 439 414 444 429 459 491 495 2000's 526 525 510 498 499 575 566 558 543 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  5. Texas - RRC District 8A Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 8A Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 351 1980's 290 335 296 262 282 283 331 307 326 332 1990's 354 333 257 298 267 284 262 290 226 223 2000's 217 251 181 163 197 250 233 262 199 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  6. Texas - RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 79 1980's 92 86 119 121 119 111 119 115 106 94 1990's 104 101 92 92 98 94 119 98 93 158 2000's 161 189 238 236 235 285 385 367 366 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  7. U.S. Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) U.S. Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 679 681 638 622 678 1990's 619 640 610 630 624 655 776 920 931 998 2000's 1,078 976 973 725 721 696 653 624 548 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  8. ,"Utah and Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    and Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Utah and Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2006 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  9. Missouri Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 494 0 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas

  10. Nevada Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Nevada Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980's 0 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 53 30 21 16 1 11 9 9 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas

  11. Delaware Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Delaware Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Lease and

  12. Idaho Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Idaho Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 38 5 6 22 4 1980's 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Lease and

  13. NGNP: High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor Key Definitions, Plant Capabilities, and Assumptions

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wayne Moe

    2013-05-01

    This document provides key definitions, plant capabilities, and inputs and assumptions related to the Next Generation Nuclear Plant to be used in ongoing efforts related to the licensing and deployment of a high temperature gas-cooled reactor. These definitions, capabilities, and assumptions were extracted from a number of NGNP Project sources such as licensing related white papers, previously issued requirement documents, and preapplication interactions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

  14. pH Adjustment of Power Plant Cooling Water with Flue Gas/ Fly Ash - Energy

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

    Innovation Portal Advanced Materials Advanced Materials Find More Like This Return to Search pH Adjustment of Power Plant Cooling Water with Flue Gas/ Fly Ash Sandia National Laboratories Contact SNL About This Technology Publications: PDF Document Publication Market Sheet (801 KB) Technology Marketing SummaryIncreased recycling of power plant cooling water calls for low-cost means of preventing the formation of calcium carbonate and silicate scale. Hardness (Ca and Mg) and silica are two of

  15. "Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle"

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

    Status of technologies and components modeled by EIA" ,"Revolutionary","Evolutionary","Mature" "Pulverized Coal",,,"X" "Pulverized Coal with CCS" " - Non-CCS portion of Pulverized ...

  16. MEMBRANE PROCESS TO SEQUESTER CO2 FROM POWER PLANT FLUE GAS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tim Merkel; Karl Amo; Richard Baker; Ramin Daniels; Bilgen Friat; Zhenjie He; Haiqing Lin; Adrian Serbanescu

    2009-03-31

    The objective of this project was to assess the feasibility of using a membrane process to capture CO2 from coal-fired power plant flue gas. During this program, MTR developed a novel membrane (Polaris™) with a CO2 permeance tenfold higher than commercial CO2-selective membranes used in natural gas treatment. The Polaris™ membrane, combined with a process design that uses a portion of combustion air as a sweep stream to generate driving force for CO2 permeation, meets DOE post-combustion CO2 capture targets. Initial studies indicate a CO2 separation and liquefaction cost of $20 - $30/ton CO2 using about 15% of the plant energy at 90% CO2 capture from a coal-fired power plant. Production of the Polaris™ CO2 capture membrane was scaled up with MTR’s commercial casting and coating equipment. Parametric tests of cross-flow and countercurrent/sweep modules prepared from this membrane confirm their near-ideal performance under expected flue gas operating conditions. Commercial-scale, 8-inch diameter modules also show stable performance in field tests treating raw natural gas. These findings suggest that membranes are a viable option for flue gas CO2 capture. The next step will be to conduct a field demonstration treating a realworld power plant flue gas stream. The first such MTR field test will capture 1 ton CO2/day at Arizona Public Service’s Cholla coal-fired power plant, as part of a new DOE NETL funded program.

  17. Development of standardized air-blown coal gasifier/gas turbine concepts for future electric power systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sadowski, R.S.; Brown, M.J.; Hester, J.C.; Harriz, J.T.; Ritz, G.J.

    1991-02-01

    The objective of this study is to develop standardized air blown fixed bed gasification hot gas cleanup integrated gasifier combined cycle (IGCC) systems.

  18. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Field Production

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

    2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Liquids 757,019 808,865 881,306 951,057 1,100,298 1,194,630 1981-2015 Pentanes Plus 101,155 106,284 116,002 126,809 143,831 156,568 1981-2015 Liquefied Petroleum Gases 655,864 702,581 765,304 824,248 956,467 1,038,062 1981-2015 Ethane 317,180 337,972 356,592 354,089 398,206 404,287 1981-2015 Propane 213,782 230,227 260,704 300,348 359,430 407,750 1981-2015 Normal Butane 56,655 57,399 65,555 80,045 100,930 118,151 1981-2015 Isobutane 68,247

  19. Simulated coal gas MCFC power plant system verification. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1998-07-30

    The objective of the main project is to identify the current developmental status of MCFC systems and address those technical issues that need to be resolved to move the technology from its current status to the demonstration stage in the shortest possible time. The specific objectives are separated into five major tasks as follows: Stack research; Power plant development; Test facilities development; Manufacturing facilities development; and Commercialization. This Final Report discusses the M-C power Corporation effort which is part of a general program for the development of commercial MCFC systems. This final report covers the entire subject of the Unocal 250-cell stack. Certain project activities have been funded by organizations other than DOE and are included in this report to provide a comprehensive overview of the work accomplished.

  20. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Field Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 View History Natural Gas Liquids 101,809 102,880 100,283 106,269 103,071 104,629 1981-2015 Pentanes Plus 14,341 14,218 13,829 13,963 12,798 12,666 1981-2015 Liquefied Petroleum Gases 87,468 88,662 86,454 92,306 90,273 91,963 1981-2015 Ethane 32,934 34,146 32,977 35,905 36,534 37,506 1981-2015 Propane 34,853 34,959 34,187 36,192 34,569 35,143 1981-2015 Normal Butane 9,970 10,248 10,103 10,387 10,054 9,735 1981-2015 Isobutane 9,711 9,309 9,187 9,822 9,116

  1. Dynamic model of Italy`s Progetto Energia cogeneration plants aims to better predict plant performance, cut start-up costs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1996-12-31

    Over the next four years, the Progetto Energia project will be building several cogeneration plants to help satisfy the increasing demands of Italy`s industrial users and the country`s demand for electrical power. Located at six different sites within Italy, these combined-cycle cogeneration plants will supply a total of 500 MW of electricity and 100 tons/hr of process steam to Italian industries and residences. To ensure project success, a dynamic model of the 50-MW base unit was developed. The goal established for the model was to predict the dynamic behavior of the complex thermodynamic system in order to assess equipment performance and control system effectiveness for normal operation and, more importantly, abrupt load changes. In addition to fulfilling its goals, the dynamic study guided modifications to controller logic that significantly improved steam drum pressure control and bypassed steam desuperheating performance simulations of normal and abrupt transient events allowed engineers to define optimum controller gain coefficients. The dynamic study will undoubtedly reduce the associated plant start-up costs and contribute to a smooth commercial plant acceptance. As a result of the work, the control system has already been through its check-out and performance evaluation, usually performed during the plant start-up phase. Field engineers will directly benefit from this effort to identify and resolve control system {open_quotes}bugs{close_quotes} before the equipment reaches the field. High thermal efficiency, rapid dispatch and high plant availability were key reasons why the natural gas combined-cycle plant was chosen. Other favorable attributes of the combined-cycle plant contributing to the decision were: Minimal environmental impact; a simple and effective process and control philosophy to result in safe and easy plant operation; a choice of technologies and equipment proven in a large number of applications.

  2. Cost and performance baseline for fossil energy plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2007-05-15

    The objective of this report is to present performance and cost data for fossil energy power systems, specifically integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC), pulverized coal (PC), and natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants, in a consistent technical and economic manner that accurately reflects current market conditions for plants starting operation in 2010. This is Volume 2 of the three-volume report. Twelve different power plant design configurations were analyzed. These include six IGCC cases utilizing the General Electric Energy (GEE), ConocoPhillips (CoP), and Shell gasifiers each with and without CO{sub 2} capture, and six cases representing conventional technologies: PC-subcritical, PC-supercritical, and NGCC plants both with and without CO{sub 2} capture. Cases 7 and 8 were originally included in this study and involve production of synthetic natural gas (SNG) and the repowering of an existing NGCC facility using SNG. The two SNG cases were subsequently moved to Volume 2 of this report resulting in the discontinuity of case numbers (1-6 and 9-14). Chapter 2 provides the basis for technical, environmental and cost evaluations. Chapter 3 describes the IGCC technologies modeled and presents the results for the six IGCC cases. Chapter 4 describes the PC technologies modeled and presents the results for the four PC cases. Chapter 5 described the NGCC technologies modeled and presents the results for the two NGCC cases. Chapter 6 contains the reference list. 64 refs., 253 exhibits.

  3. Microbial Gas Generation Under Expected Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Repository Conditions: Final Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gillow, J.B.; Francis, A.

    2011-07-01

    Gas generation from the microbial degradation of the organic constituents of transuranic (TRU) waste under conditions expected in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) was investigated. The biodegradation of mixed cellulosic materials and electron-beam irradiated plastic and rubber materials (polyethylene, polyvinylchloride, hypalon, leaded hypalon, and neoprene) was examined. We evaluated the effects of environmental variables such as initial atmosphere (air or nitrogen), water content (humid ({approx}70% relative humidity, RH) and brine inundated), and nutrient amendments (nitogen phosphate, yeast extract, and excess nitrate) on microbial gas generation. Total gas production was determined by pressure measurement and carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) and methane (CH{sub 4}) were analyzed by gas chromatography; cellulose degradation products in solution were analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography. Microbial populations in the samples were determined by direct microscopy and molecular analysis. The results of this work are summarized.

  4. Gas turbines for coal-fired turbocharged PFBC boiler power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wenglarz, R.; Drenker, S.

    1984-11-01

    A coal-fired turbocharged boiler using fluidized bed combustion at high pressure would be more compact than a pulverized coal fired boiler. The smaller boiler size could permit the utility industry to adopt efficient modular construction methods now widely used in other industries. A commercial turbocharger of the capacity needed to run a 250 MW /SUB e/ power plant does not exist; commercial gas turbines of the correct capacity exist, but they are not matched to this cycle's gas temperature of less than 538/sup 0/C (1000/sup 0/F). In order to avoid impeding the development of the technology, it will probably be desirable to use existing machines to the maximum extent possible. This paper explores the advantages and disadvantages of applying either standard gas turbines or modified standard gas turbines to the turbocharged boiler.

  5. Mesaba next-generation IGCC plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2006-01-01

    Through a US Department of Energy (DOE) cooperative agreement awarded in June 2006, MEP-I LLC plans to demonstrate a next generation integrated gasification-combined cycle (IGCC) electric power generating plant, the Mesaba Energy Project. The 606-MWe plant (the first of two similarly sized plants envisioned by project sponsors) will feature next-generation ConocoPhillips E-Gas{trademark} technology first tested on the DOE-funded Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering project. Mesaba will benefit from recommendations of an industry panel applying the Value Improving Practices process to Wabash cost and performance results. The project will be twice the size of Wabash, while demonstrating better efficient, reliability and pollutant control. The $2.16 billion project ($36 million federal cost share) will be located in the Iron Range region north of Duluth, Minnesota. Mesaba is one of four projects selected under Round II of the Clean Coal Power Initiative. 1 fig.

  6. EIS-0308: Southpoint Power Plant Project

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    This EIS analyzes the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs’ proposed lease of acreage on the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation in Mohave County, Arizona for development of a natural gas-fired 500 megawatt combined cycle power plant. DOE's Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) is a cooperating agency, and the plant would supply power to the WAPA grid. The proposed Southpoint power plant would require construction of an off-site substation and two 230 kV transmission lines in order to wheel power to WAPA’s distribution grid. An Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed substation and transmission line was prepared with the Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management as lead agency and WAPA as a cooperating agency, and a Finding of No Significant Impact was approved on December 2, 1997.

  7. Carbon dioxide absorber and regeneration assemblies useful for power plant flue gas

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Vimalchand, Pannalal; Liu, Guohai; Peng, Wan Wang

    2012-11-06

    Disclosed are apparatus and method to treat large amounts of flue gas from a pulverized coal combustion power plant. The flue gas is contacted with solid sorbents to selectively absorb CO.sub.2, which is then released as a nearly pure CO.sub.2 gas stream upon regeneration at higher temperature. The method is capable of handling the necessary sorbent circulation rates of tens of millions of lbs/hr to separate CO.sub.2 from a power plant's flue gas stream. Because pressurizing large amounts of flue gas is cost prohibitive, the method of this invention minimizes the overall pressure drop in the absorption section to less than 25 inches of water column. The internal circulation of sorbent within the absorber assembly in the proposed method not only minimizes temperature increases in the absorber to less than 25.degree. F., but also increases the CO.sub.2 concentration in the sorbent to near saturation levels. Saturating the sorbent with CO.sub.2 in the absorber section minimizes the heat energy needed for sorbent regeneration. The commercial embodiments of the proposed method can be optimized for sorbents with slower or faster absorption kinetics, low or high heat release rates, low or high saturation capacities and slower or faster regeneration kinetics.

  8. Integration and optimization of the gas removal system for hybrid-cycle OTEC power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rabas, T.J.; Panchal, C.B.; Stevens, H.C. )

    1990-02-01

    A preliminary design of the noncondensible gas removal system for a 10 mWe, land-based hybrid-cycle OTEC power plant has been developed and is presented herein. This gas removal system is very different from that used for conventional power plants because of the substantially larger and continuous noncondensible gas flow rates and lower condenser pressure levels which predicate the need for higher-efficiency components. Previous OTEC studies discussed the need for multiple high-efficiency compressors with intercoolers; however, no previous design effort was devoted to the details of the intercoolers, integration and optimization of the intercoolers with the compressors, and the practical design constraints and feasibility issues of these components. The resulting gas removal system design uses centrifugal (radial) compressors with matrix-type crossflow aluminum heat exchangers as intercoolers. Once-through boiling of ammonia is used as the heat sink for the cooling and condensing of the steam-gas mixture. A computerized calculation method was developed for the performance analysis and subsystem optimization. For a specific number of compressor units and the stream arrangement, the method is used to calculate the dimensions, speeds, power requirements, and costs of all the components.

  9. Biogas, once flared, fuels cogen plant serving two hosts

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Johnson, J.K.; McRae, C.L.

    1995-04-01

    This article reports that digester gas from a wastewater treatment plant meets up to 40% of the fuel needs of this cogenerator. Steam is exported for heating the treatment plant`s digesters and for ice production by a second steam host. The Carson Ice-Gen Project promises to enhance the reliability of electric service to the Sacramento Regional Waste water Treatment Plant (SRWTP), to prevent effluent discharges to nearby water ways during power disruptions, and to reduce air emissions associated with flaring of digester gas. The project comprises a 95-MW combined-cycle cogeneration powerplant and a 300-ton/day ice-production plant. The powerplant features twin LM 6000 gas turbines (GTs). One, used as a 53-MW base-load unit, is paired with a heat-recovery steam generator (HRSG) feeding an extraction/condensing steam turbine/generator (STG). The other GT is used as a 42-MW, simple-cycle peaking unit. Primary fuel is natural gas, which is supplemented by digester gas that is currently being flared at the wastewater treatment plant. Export steam extracted from the STG is used to heat the digesters and to drive ammonia compressors at the ice plant. Steam is also used on-site to chill water in absorption chillers that cool the GT inlet air for power augmentation.

  10. Development of standardized air-blown coal gasifier/gas turbine concepts for future electric power systems. Volume 1, Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sadowski, R.S.; Brown, M.J.; Hester, J.C.; Harriz, J.T.; Ritz, G.J.

    1991-02-01

    The objective of this study is to develop standardized air blown fixed bed gasification hot gas cleanup integrated gasifier combined cycle (IGCC) systems.

  11. Coke oven gas treatment and by-product plant of Magnitogorsk Integrated Iron and Steel Works

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Egorov, V.N.; Anikin, G.J.; Gross, M.

    1995-12-01

    Magnitogorsk Integrated Iron and Steel Works, Russia, decided to erect a new coke oven gas treatment and by-product plant to replace the existing obsolete units and to improve the environmental conditions of the area. The paper deals with the technological concept and the design requirements. Commissioning is scheduled at the beginning of 1996. The paper describes H{sub 2}S and NH{sub 3} removal, sulfur recovery and ammonia destruction, primary gas cooling and electrostatic tar precipitation, and the distributed control system that will be installed.

  12. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Acquisitions (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Acquisitions (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Acquisitions (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 1,051 550 512 433 554 596 1,048 771 332 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Liquids Reserves Acquisitions

  13. Critique of Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant off-gas sampling requirements

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Goles, R.W.

    1996-03-01

    Off-gas sampling and monitoring activities needed to support operations safety, process control, waste form qualification, and environmental protection requirements of the Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant (HWVP) have been evaluated. The locations of necessary sampling sites have been identified on the basis of plant requirements, and the applicability of Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) reference sampling equipment to these HWVP requirements has been assessed for all sampling sites. Equipment deficiencies, if present, have been described and the bases for modifications and/or alternative approaches have been developed.

  14. Calif--Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Calif--Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 2 1980's 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1990's 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2000's 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2010's 1 1 1 1 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  15. Calif--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Calif--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 1 1980's 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1990's 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  16. Calif--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Calif--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 6 1980's 4 4 9 9 9 10 10 10 9 8 1990's 8 7 8 8 7 8 8 7 6 7 2000's 7 7 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 2010's 9 9 9 10 9 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  17. ,"Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  18. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  19. ,"North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  20. ,"Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  1. ,"Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  2. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  3. ,"Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  4. Arizona Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Arizona Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 33 20 34 1970's 50 50 44 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980's 0 222 7 7 7 6 5 6 5 35 1990's 71 45 41 49 61 57 58 51 46 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring

  5. Oregon Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 32 30 37 30 30 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 120 131 130 115 59 1990's 93 60 68 118 95 66 40 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring

  6. Rhode Island Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980's 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural

  7. South Dakota Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) South Dakota Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980's 0 0 63 61 76 93 70 125 123 112 1990's 158 393 451 452 437 404 424 911 848 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release

  8. Tennessee Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 355 753 986 1970's 1,265 1,524 1,150 1,263 1,087 387 537 509 516 616 1980's 0 0 78 113 153 138 98 93 60 45 1990's 74 44 39 49 44 47 37 45 31 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016

  9. Virginia Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Virginia Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 128 211 1970's 252 213 157 170 307 168 157 157 191 266 1980's 240 361 181 124 272 443 438 669 536 425 1990's 489 327 653 1,120 1,102 1,296 1,183 1,330 1,243 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  10. Texas--RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

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

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 16 1980's 18 20 24 35 33 33 30 22 23 15 1990's 20 23 24 23 23 23 44 46 32 161 2000's 49 35 34 24 31 31 32 43 44 87 2010's 163 158 197 233 343 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  11. Texas--RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

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

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 356 1980's 350 349 376 397 425 416 411 402 351 331 1990's 318 346 327 316 305 343 323 372 342 191 2000's 191 311 326 315 373 367 396 458 473 494 2010's 566 578 522 481 598 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  12. Texas--RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

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

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 45 1980's 48 68 52 73 81 76 69 70 67 56 1990's 63 61 66 72 74 82 85 75 75 64 2000's 59 53 60 56 64 72 74 94 88 77 2010's 113 203 374 698 1,037 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  13. Texas--RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

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

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 177 1980's 164 179 212 228 217 211 184 166 150 140 1990's 132 160 172 196 200 204 210 170 169 152 2000's 140 144 170 135 149 148 159 143 131 127 2010's 129 158 184 196 199 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA =

  14. Texas--RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

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

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 172 1980's 177 183 204 212 208 183 197 197 186 188 1990's 208 204 207 213 220 217 241 261 267 300 2000's 316 281 279 202 253 238 246 250 231 231 2010's 258 402 562 1,069 987 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA =

  15. Texas--RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

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

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 24 1980's 32 42 44 61 61 62 73 76 72 65 1990's 61 53 55 50 50 47 48 31 31 24 2000's 24 43 39 40 44 40 42 50 126 192 2010's 225 237 214 183 193 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure

  16. Texas--RRC District 6 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

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

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 6 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 228 1980's 268 259 232 280 253 247 224 213 210 212 1990's 195 195 205 202 218 223 242 221 235 182 2000's 182 215 213 195 233 264 279 324 318 330 2010's 369 360 269 376 387 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  17. Texas--RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

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

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 62 1980's 82 99 99 129 103 101 106 90 95 71 1990's 74 81 67 73 61 69 64 57 48 34 2000's 34 28 24 31 42 89 131 200 269 326 2010's 359 416 295 332 312 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  18. Texas--RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

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

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 168 1980's 120 172 184 204 219 242 232 231 226 225 1990's 234 218 266 250 241 255 285 309 266 291 2000's 291 271 326 319 365 391 404 464 402 412 2010's 465 549 524 438 473 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  19. Texas--RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

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

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 452 1980's 452 498 554 650 662 646 697 623 530 542 1990's 545 466 426 430 398 432 417 447 479 479 2000's 479 504 488 484 487 559 547 525 524 536 2010's 618 689 802 830 1,240 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  20. Texas--RRC District 8A Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

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

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 8A Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 350 1980's 289 335 296 262 282 282 331 307 325 332 1990's 353 333 257 297 267 284 262 290 226 222 2000's 222 250 180 163 197 248 231 260 194 201 2010's 230 239 242 239 245 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  1. Texas--RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

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

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 75 1980's 81 81 111 115 113 106 112 107 102 90 1990's 100 96 89 88 94 90 116 96 91 156 2000's 156 182 229 228 228 276 372 347 348 419 2010's 488 552 542 578 662 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  2. Texas--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

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

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 0 1980's 0 0 5 4 3 5 5 5 2 3 1990's 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 2000's 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  3. New Mexico--East Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

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

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) New Mexico--East Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 192 1980's 192 197 193 216 206 192 200 176 193 179 1990's 200 187 204 215 222 236 287 253 243 230 2000's 302 259 266 251 245 237 264 274 261 289 2010's 342 350 310 329 443 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  4. New Mexico--West Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

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

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) New Mexico--West Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 273 1980's 286 299 282 279 256 203 314 532 733 684 1990's 715 653 790 710 724 645 711 561 633 666 2000's 502 535 513 573 560 544 540 514 465 426 2010's 422 426 352 350 346 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  5. ,"Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  6. ,"Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  7. ,"Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  8. ,"Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  9. ,"Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  10. ,"Louisiana--North Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana--North Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  11. ,"Louisiana--South Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana--South Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  12. ,"Lower 48 States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Lower 48 States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  13. ,"Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  14. ,"Miscellaneous States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Miscellaneous States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  15. Indiana Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 5 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1980's 7 51 10 4 12 11 10 7 12 10 1990's 13 5 5 6 2 5 8 12 13 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  16. Maryland Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 257 310 381 1970's 319 451 67 474 392 277 415 342 889 2,488 1980's 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1990's 1 0 0 1 1 1 3 3 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016

  17. Use of GTE-65 gas turbine power units in the thermal configuration of steam-gas systems for the refitting of operating thermal electric power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lebedev, A. S.; Kovalevskii, V. P.; Getmanov, E. A.; Ermaikina, N. A.

    2008-07-15

    Thermal configurations for condensation, district heating, and discharge steam-gas systems (PGU) based on the GTE-65 gas turbine power unit are described. A comparative multivariant analysis of their thermodynamic efficiency is made. Based on some representative examples, it is shown that steam-gas systems with the GTE-65 and boiler-utilizer units can be effectively used and installed in existing main buildings during technical refitting of operating thermal electric power plants.

  18. Hindered amine development and operating experience at Quirk Creek Gas Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smart, P.; Devenny, I. [Imperial Oil Resources Ltd., Calgary, Alberta (Canada); Rendall, A. [Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals, Calgary, Alberta (Canada)

    1997-12-31

    The Imperial Oil Resources Limited Quirk Creek gas plant has a significant natural gas treating challenge. The natural gas feed contains H{sub 2}S, CO{sub 2}, carbonyl sulfide, mercaptans and elemental sulfur. The trace sulfur components are difficult to remove with conventional solvents. Over its 26 year history, three different solvents have been used. The latest solvent, a hybrid of a hindered amine and a physical solvent, has been operating for over two years, with better than expected performance. This high capacity solvent has lowered operating costs by over $500,000/yr by reducing solids formation. The development work, including pilot testing at Quirk Creek, and the operating history will be reviewed.

  19. NGNP: High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor Key Definitions, Plant Capabilities, and Assumptions

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Phillip Mills

    2012-02-01

    This document is intended to provide a Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project tool in which to collect and identify key definitions, plant capabilities, and inputs and assumptions to be used in ongoing efforts related to the licensing and deployment of a high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR). These definitions, capabilities, and assumptions are extracted from a number of sources, including NGNP Project documents such as licensing related white papers [References 1-11] and previously issued requirement documents [References 13-15]. Also included is information agreed upon by the NGNP Regulatory Affairs group's Licensing Working Group and Configuration Council. The NGNP Project approach to licensing an HTGR plant via a combined license (COL) is defined within the referenced white papers and reference [12], and is not duplicated here.

  20. Near-Zero Emissions Oxy-Combustion Flue Gas Purification - Power Plant Performance

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Andrew Seltzer; Zhen Fan

    2011-03-01

    A technical feasibility assessment was performed for retrofitting oxy-fuel technology to an existing power plant burning low sulfur PRB fuel and high sulfur bituminous fuel. The focus of this study was on the boiler/power generation island of a subcritical steam cycle power plant. The power plant performance in air and oxy-firing modes was estimated and modifications required for oxy-firing capabilities were identified. A 460 MWe (gross) reference subcritical PC power plant was modeled. The reference air-fired plant has a boiler efficiency (PRB/Bituminous) of 86.7%/89.3% and a plant net efficiency of 35.8/36.7%. Net efficiency for oxy-fuel firing including ASU/CPU duty is 25.6%/26.6% (PRB/Bituminous). The oxy-fuel flue gas recirculation flow to the boiler is 68%/72% (PRB/bituminous) of the flue gas (average O{sub 2} in feed gas is 27.4%/26.4%v (PRB/bituminous)). Maximum increase in tube wall temperature is less than 10ºF for oxy-fuel firing. For oxy-fuel firing, ammonia injected to the SCR was shut-off and the FGD is applied to remove SOx from the recycled primary gas stream and a portion of the SOx from the secondary stream for the high sulfur bituminous coal. Based on CFD simulations it was determined that at the furnace outlet compared to air-firing, SO{sub 3}/SO{sub 2} mole ratio is about the same, NOx ppmv level is about the same for PRB-firing and 2.5 times for bituminous-firing due to shutting off the OFA, and CO mole fraction is approximately double. A conceptual level cost estimate was performed for the incremental equipment and installation cost of the oxyfuel retrofit in the boiler island and steam system. The cost of the retrofit is estimated to be approximately 81 M$ for PRB low sulfur fuel and 84 M$ for bituminous high sulfur fuel.

  1. ,"California--Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California--Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release

  2. ,"California--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release

  3. ,"California--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release

  4. Approach to IAEA material-balance verification at the Portsmouth Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gordon, D.M.; Sanborn, J.B.; Younkin, J.M.; DeVito, V.J.

    1983-01-01

    This paper describes a potential approach by which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) might verify the nuclear-material balance at the Portsmouth Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant (GCEP). The strategy makes use of the attributes and variables measurement verification approach, whereby the IAEA would perform independent measurements on a randomly selected subset of the items comprising the U-235 flows and inventories at the plant. In addition, the MUF-D statistic is used as the test statistic for the detection of diversion. The paper includes descriptions of the potential verification activities, as well as calculations of: (1) attributes and variables sample sizes for the various strata, (2) standard deviations of the relevant test statistics, and (3) the detection sensitivity which the IAEA might achieve by this verification strategy at GCEP.

  5. Alabama Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 162 152 150 1970's 214 476 1,070 1,329 1,301 1,968 2,714 5,444 3,371 21,454 1980's 9,990 5,804 5,037 4,729 5,332 5,476 5,442 6,878 6,655 6,152 1990's 9,881 8,627 12,868 13,365 0 14,274 13,319 9,488 10,041 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  6. Alaska Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 1,659 2,240 6,864 1970's 4,748 8,459 16,056 15,217 14,402 17,842 15,972 17,336 15,895 12,153 1980's 30,250 15,249 94,232 97,828 111,069 64,148 72,686 116,682 153,670 192,239 1990's 193,875 223,194 234,716 237,702 238,156 292,811 295,834 271,284 281,872 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable;

  7. Arkansas Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 10,267 4,027 6,268 1970's 9,184 6,433 4,740 3,000 4,246 4,200 4,049 4,032 3,760 7,661 1980's 1,949 2,549 5,096 5,384 5,922 12,439 9,062 11,990 12,115 11,586 1990's 7,101 1,406 5,838 6,405 4,750 5,551 5,575 6,857 8,385 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld

  8. Michigan Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 2,798 2,012 2,074 1970's 3,440 2,145 2,143 2,551 3,194 8,420 7,647 8,022 11,076 14,695 1980's 6,494 3,461 9,699 8,130 8,710 8,195 7,609 9,616 8,250 8,003 1990's 9,094 9,595 7,274 8,171 9,766 9,535 8,489 12,060 9,233 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld

  9. Montana Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 5,904 5,188 6,183 1970's 5,091 6,148 5,924 4,281 3,683 2,315 2,754 2,972 2,792 4,796 1980's 3,425 1,832 2,012 1,970 2,069 2,138 1,808 2,088 1,994 1,766 1990's 2,262 1,680 1,871 2,379 2,243 2,238 2,401 2,277 2,000 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  10. Nebraska Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 2,164 1,945 1,877 1970's 1,650 1,275 814 1,809 1,194 1,036 708 695 1,160 1,867 1980's 3,779 132 107 94 105 87 59 74 47 34 1990's 26 31 40 56 89 60 46 45 37 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  11. New Mexico Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 46,793 46,331 45,309 1970's 47,998 46,114 48,803 52,553 43,452 38,604 49,160 43,751 37,880 50,798 1980's 36,859 22,685 55,722 47,630 50,662 46,709 35,615 48,138 41,706 42,224 1990's 65,889 44,766 53,697 49,658 54,786 52,589 81,751 64,458 59,654 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not

  12. North Dakota Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) North Dakota Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 17,133 16,163 14,691 1970's 14,067 13,990 12,773 12,462 11,483 12,008 15,998 13,697 12,218 3,950 1980's 1,017 13,759 3,514 4,100 4,563 4,710 3,974 5,194 4,014 3,388 1990's 6,939 11,583 8,462 8,256 11,306 11,342 11,603 8,572 8,309 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA =

  13. Ohio Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 2,656 3,505 2,879 1970's 3,140 4,302 3,397 3,548 2,957 2,925 2,742 2,814 3,477 22,094 1980's 1,941 1,776 3,671 4,377 5,741 5,442 5,243 5,802 4,869 3,876 1990's 5,129 1,476 1,450 1,366 1,332 1,283 1,230 1,201 1,125 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  14. Oklahoma Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 65,167 84,259 103,361 1970's 98,417 101,126 98,784 80,233 80,780 79,728 84,025 77,631 82,046 128,475 1980's 59,934 56,785 91,465 79,230 91,707 88,185 84,200 104,415 100,926 90,225 1990's 111,567 88,366 92,978 99,869 91,039 80,846 73,039 81,412 61,543 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable;

  15. Utah Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 1,956 1,503 2,113 1970's 633 2,115 1,978 2,435 4,193 7,240 9,150 7,585 8,325 14,123 1980's 7,594 511 5,965 4,538 8,375 9,001 13,289 17,671 16,889 16,211 1990's 19,719 13,738 12,611 12,526 13,273 27,012 27,119 24,619 27,466 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  16. Colorado Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 2,668 2,361 2,604 1970's 2,726 3,231 4,676 7,202 5,822 7,673 7,739 9,124 10,619 21,610 1980's 7,041 7,093 13,673 10,000 10,560 10,829 9,397 12,095 11,622 12,221 1990's 17,343 23,883 21,169 24,832 24,347 25,130 27,492 29,585 31,074 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available;

  17. Florida Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Florida Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 210 201 176 1970's 234 294 1,782 3,027 2,700 6,304 6,306 4,890 5,314 7,628 1980's 8,284 9,035 10,603 8,520 7,847 7,174 6,156 7,563 7,275 8,942 1990's 1,716 3,751 5,134 1,717 820 765 2,174 2,434 2,329 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  18. Kansas Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 7,842 15,867 17,587 1970's 20,841 27,972 28,183 32,663 35,350 27,212 31,044 29,142 30,491 48,663 1980's 24,521 19,665 41,392 37,901 40,105 42,457 38,885 44,505 45,928 43,630 1990's 40,914 44,614 43,736 56,657 44,611 47,282 49,196 46,846 33,989 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  19. Kentucky Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 1,828 1,992 2,277 1970's 2,317 2,212 1,509 1,238 1,206 1,218 1,040 1,107 1,160 1,214 1980's 989 1,040 9,772 8,361 9,038 9,095 6,335 3,254 2,942 2,345 1990's 3,149 2,432 2,812 3,262 2,773 2,647 2,426 2,457 2,325 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  20. Louisiana Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 195,990 212,134 273,213 1970's 287,222 292,589 312,145 336,832 347,098 301,816 556,772 591,292 558,877 305,181 1980's 196,033 180,687 337,398 275,698 303,284 258,069 243,283 301,279 272,455 256,123 1990's 258,267 195,526 220,711 222,813 207,171 209,670 213,721 227,542 194,963 - = No Data