National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for gas plant operators

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Plant Operational Status - Pantex Plant

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

    Plant Operational Status Plant Operational Status Page Content Shift 1 - Day The Pantex Plant is open for normal Day Shift operations. Plant personnel are to report as assigned. Personnel may call 477-3000, Option 1 for additional details. Shift 2 - Swing The Pantex Plant is open for normal Swing Shift operations. Plant personnel are to report as assigned. Personnel may call 477-3000, Option 1 for additional details. Shift 3 - Grave The Pantex Plant is open for normal Graveyard Shift operations.

  5. Purge gas protected transportable pressurized fuel cell modules and their operation in a power plant

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Zafred, Paolo R. (Pittsburgh, PA); Dederer, Jeffrey T. (Valencia, PA); Gillett, James E. (Greensburg, PA); Basel, Richard A. (Plub Borough, PA); Antenucci, Annette B. (Pittsburgh, PA)

    1996-01-01

    A fuel cell generator apparatus and method of its operation involves: passing pressurized oxidant gas, (O) and pressurized fuel gas, (F), into fuel cell modules, (10 and 12), containing fuel cells, where the modules are each enclosed by a module housing (18), surrounded by an axially elongated pressure vessel (64), where there is a purge gas volume, (62), between the module housing and pressure vessel; passing pressurized purge gas, (P), through the purge gas volume, (62), to dilute any unreacted fuel gas from the modules; and passing exhaust gas, (82), and circulated purge gas and any unreacted fuel gas out of the pressure vessel; where the fuel cell generator apparatus is transpatable when the pressure vessel (64) is horizontally disposed, providing a low center of gravity.

  6. Purge gas protected transportable pressurized fuel cell modules and their operation in a power plant

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Zafred, P.R.; Dederer, J.T.; Gillett, J.E.; Basel, R.A.; Antenucci, A.B.

    1996-11-12

    A fuel cell generator apparatus and method of its operation involves: passing pressurized oxidant gas and pressurized fuel gas into modules containing fuel cells, where the modules are each enclosed by a module housing surrounded by an axially elongated pressure vessel, and where there is a purge gas volume between the module housing and pressure vessel; passing pressurized purge gas through the purge gas volume to dilute any unreacted fuel gas from the modules; and passing exhaust gas and circulated purge gas and any unreacted fuel gas out of the pressure vessel; where the fuel cell generator apparatus is transportable when the pressure vessel is horizontally disposed, providing a low center of gravity. 11 figs.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. Overview of SoCalGas/SDG&E System Design & Operations

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

    Design & Operations SoCalGasSDG&E Gas Transmission System with Electric Generation Plants 2 SoCalGasSDG&E Gas Transmission System 24,100 square mile service territory ...

  10. 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.

  11. Wave-operated power plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ghesquiere, H.

    1980-08-12

    This wave-operated power plant comprises a perforated caisson breakwater in which propellers, or turbines, are mounted in the perforations or openings and drives hydraulic pumps connected thereto, which in turn drives a hydraulic motor coupled to an electric generator. One-way flap valves are mounted in the openings. Some of said flap valves allow the rushing waves to enter the caisson, while the other flap valves allow the water to flow out of the caisson.

  12. 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...

  13. Successful operation of a large LPG plant. [Kuwait

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shtayieh, S.; Durr, C.A.; McMillan, J.C.; Collins, C.

    1982-03-01

    The LPG plant located at Mina-Al Ahmadi, Kuwait, is the heart of Kuwait Oil Co.'s massive Gas Project to use the associated gas from Kuwait's oil production. Operation of this three-train plant has been very successful. A description is given of the three process trains consisting of four basic units: extraction, fractionation, product treating, and refrigeration. Initial problems relating to extraction, fractionation, product treating and, refrigeration are discussed. 1 ref.

  14. 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)

  15. Type IV COPV Cold Gas Operation Challenges

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

    Type IV COPV Cold Gas Operation Challenges DAVID W. GOTTHOLD November 30, 2015 1 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Cold Gas Motivation and Challenges November 30, 2015 2 200 K H 2 Lower pressure Higher density H 2 CGO ~25% CF savings Cost Savings from reduced CF use Cold gas operation allows for reduced pressures for the same volume for significant CF and cost reductions. Materials properties change significantly at cold gas temperatures and must be studied. Example: HDPE DBT ~ 200 K Higher

  16. 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...

  17. Impact of operating parameters changing on energy, environment and economic efficiencies of a lean burn gas engine used in a cogeneration plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lemoult, B.; Tazerout, M.; Rousseau, S.

    1998-07-01

    The facts that national electrical company Electricite de France (EDF) has a monopoly on electrical power production in France and an extensive installed base of nuclear power plants, explain the difficulty encountered in developing cogeneration technology in France. Cogeneration only really first appeared in this country in the early 1990's, with the liberalization of energy markets and the government's encouragement. Since then, the number of cogeneration plants has continuously increased and electrical generating capacity is now approximately 1,200 MWe. Turbine and reciprocating engines (most of which are natural gas fired) account respectively for about 55% and 45% of the installed power. Unlike other countries, such as Germany--which has about two thousand 500 kWe and smaller units--the future of low-power cogeneration in France is far from assured, and there are currently less than 10 such plants. To help develop this efficient technology for producing electrical power and hot water, the Ecole des Mines de Nantes purchased a 210 kWe cogeneration generator set in 1996. This facility provides all or part of the school's electrical and heat requirements during five months between November and March. This cogeneration facility is also used during the rest of the year to perform research experiments in the field of lean-burn natural gas combustion. Lastly, it is also used to provide training for industry in cogeneration technology. Within this context, work was undertaken to study the set's energy and emissions performance, in relation to such parameters as spark advance and air factor, and at various loads.

  18. ,"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...

  19. ,"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...

  20. Hydrate Control for Gas Storage Operations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jeffrey Savidge

    2008-10-31

    The overall objective of this project was to identify low cost hydrate control options to help mitigate and solve hydrate problems that occur in moderate and high pressure natural gas storage field operations. The study includes data on a number of flow configurations, fluids and control options that are common in natural gas storage field flow lines. The final phase of this work brings together data and experience from the hydrate flow test facility and multiple field and operator sources. It includes a compilation of basic information on operating conditions as well as candidate field separation options. Lastly the work is integrated with the work with the initial work to provide a comprehensive view of gas storage field hydrate control for field operations and storage field personnel.

  1. Compact simulators can improve fossil plant operation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fray, R.; Divakaruni, S.M. )

    1995-01-01

    This article examines new and affordable technology that can simulate operations in real time and is finding application across a broad spectrum of power plant designs. A significant breakthrough for utilities, compact simulator technology, has reduced the cost of replica simulators by a factor of five to 10. This affordable technology, combined with innovative software developments, can realistically simulate the operation of fossil power plants in real time on low-cost PC or workstation platforms.

  2. 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...

  3. 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,...

  4. 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...

  5. 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...

  6. 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...

  7. 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...

  8. VACASULF operation at Citizens Gas and Coke Utility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Currey, J.H.

    1995-12-01

    Citizens Gas and Coke Utility is a Public Charitable Trust which operates as the Department of Utilities of the City of Indianapolis, Indiana. Indianapolis Coke, the trade name for the Manufacturing Division of the Utility, operates a by-products coke plant in Indianapolis, Indiana. The facility produces both foundry and blast furnace coke. Surplus Coke Oven gas, generated by the process, is mixed with Natural Gas for sale to industrial and residential customers. In anticipation of regulatory developments, beginning in 1990, Indianapolis Coke undertook the task to develop an alternate Coke Oven Gas desulfurization technology for its facility. The new system was intended to perform primary desulfurization of the gas, dramatically extending the oxide bed life, thus reducing disposal liabilities. Citizens Gas chose the VACASULF technology for its primary desulfurization system. VACASULF requires a single purchased material, Potassium Hydroxide (KOH). The KOH reacts with Carbon Dioxide in the coke Oven Gas to form Potassium Carbonate (potash) which in turn absorbs the Hydrogen Sulfide. The rich solution releases the absorbed sulfide under strong vacuum in the desorber column. Operating costs are reduced through utilization of an inherent heat source which is transferred indirectly via attendant reboilers. The Hydrogen Sulfide is transported by the vacuum pumps to the Claus Kiln and Reactor for combustion, reaction, and elemental Sulfur recovery. Regenerated potash solution is returned to the Scrubber.

  9. 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...

  10. Cold Test Operation of the German VEK Vitrification Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fleisch, J.; Schwaab, E.; Weishaupt, M. [WAK GmbH, Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen (Germany); Gruenewald, W.; Roth, G.; Tobie, W. [Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Institut fur Nukleare Entsorgung, Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen (Germany)

    2008-07-01

    In 2007 the German High-Level Liquid Waste (HLLW) Vitrification plant VEK (Verglasungseinrichtung Karlsruhe) has passed a three months integral cold test operation as final step before entering the hot phase. The overall performance of the vitrification process equipment with a liquid-fed ceramic glass melter as main component proved to be completely in line with the requirements of the regulatory body. The retention efficiency of main radioactive-bearing elements across melter and wet off-gas treatment system exceeded the design values distinctly. The strategy to produce a specified waste glass could be successfully demonstrated. The results of the cold test operation allow entering the next step of hot commissioning, i.e. processing of approximately 2 m{sup 3} of diluted HLLW. In summary: An important step of the VEK vitrification plant towards hot operation has been the performance of the cold test operation from April to July 2007. This first integral operation was carried out under boundary conditions and rules established for radioactive operation. Operation and process control were carried out following the procedure as documented in the licensed operational manuals. The function of the process technology and the safe operation could be demonstrated. No severe problems were encountered. Based on the positive results of the cold test, application of the license for hot operation has been initiated and is expected in the near future. (authors)

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators...

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

    Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1...

  5. 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...

  6. 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.

  7. 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

  8. 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...

  9. Strings of liquid beads for gas-liquid contact operations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hattori, Kenji; Ishikawa, Mitsukuni; Mori, Y.H. . Dept. of Mechanical Engineering)

    1994-12-01

    Energy recovery from hot gases exhausted from power plants, garbage incineration facilities, and many industrial processes has been growing due to demands for saving the primary-energy consumption. A novel device for gas-liquid contact operations is proposed to feed a liquid onto wires (or threads) hanging down in a gas stream is proposed. The liquid disintegrates into beads strung on each wire at regular intervals; if the wire is moderately wettable, a thin film forms to sheathe the wire, thereby interconnecting the beads. Since the beads fall down slowly, which possibly renews the film flowing down even more slowly, a sufficient gas-liquid contact time is available even in a contactor with considerably limited height. An approximate calculation method is developed for predicting the variation in the temperature effectiveness for the liquid (the fractional approach of the liquid exit temperature to the gas inlet temperature) with the falling distance, assuming an applicability of strings-of-beads contactors to thermal energy recovery from hot gas streams.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. Design, start up, and three years operating experience of an ammonia scrubbing, distillation, and destruction plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gambert, G.

    1996-12-31

    When the rebuilt Coke Plant started operations in November of 1992, it featured a completely new closed circuit secondary cooler, ammonia scrubbing, ammonia distillation, and ammonia destruction plants. This is the second plant of this type to be built in North America. To remove the ammonia from the gas, it is scrubbed with three liquids: Approximately 185 gallons/minute of cooled stripped liquor from the ammonia stills; Light oil plant condensate; and Optionally, excess flushing liquor. These scrubbers typically reduce ammonia content in the gas from 270 Grains/100 standard cubic feet to 0.2 Grains/100 standard cubic feet.

  13. 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.

  14. Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    340 340 340 340 340 340 1997-2015 Base Gas 340 340 340 340 340 340 1997-2015 Working Gas 1997-2011 Net Withdrawals 1998-2006 Injections 1997-2005 Withdrawals 1997-2006 Change in...

  15. 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.

  16. ,"U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators",3,"Annual",2014,"06301935" ,"Release Date:","09302015" ,"Next Release Date:","10302015" ,"Excel File...

  17. Design and operation of small biogas plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Abdel-Dayem, A.M.; Hamad, M.A.

    1980-12-01

    This paper concentrates on the experience gained from the adaptation of the Chinese biogas technology to rural areas of Egypt. Three different prototype digesters have been constructed. The first is a 10 M/sup 3/ rectangular digester of the water pressure type, the second is a 6 M/sup 3/ circular and shallow digester with domed roof and dished bottom. The third prototype unit with a capacity of 7 M/sup 3/ has been recently constructed. It combines the features of both plug flow and the Indian movable cap types. Provisions for solar heating of feed water, composting of effluent and attachments to both latrine and animal shed were incorporated in the unit. The structural theory, design criteria, construction technique and cost estimation of the circular digester are described. Some operation and performance data of the circular digester are presented. This covers the effects of variation of ambient temperature on internal temperature, effects of temperature and pressure on the gas production rate and composition.

  18. Gas characterization system operation, maintenance, and calibration plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tate, D.D.

    1996-03-04

    This document details the responsibilities and requirements for operation, maintenance, and calibration of the Gas Characterization Systems (GCS) analytical instrumentation. It further, defines the division of responsibility between the Characterization Monitoring Development organization and Tank Farms Operations.

  19. Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    243,636 245,363 249,470 265,864 279,888 285,012 1990-2015 Base Gas 116,631 116,607 116,612 116,600 116,614 116,610 1990-2015 Working Gas 127,005 128,757 132,858 149,263 163,275...

  20. Pennsylvania Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    544,435 595,871 619,332 654,511 693,267 724,856 1990-2015 Base Gas 341,189 341,421 343,961 343,965 343,975 344,161 1990-2015 Working Gas 203,246 254,450 275,371 310,546 349,293...

  1. Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    20,941 537,873 555,603 576,235 610,054 650,392 1990-2015 Base Gas 275,536 276,493 276,439 276,503 276,497 276,513 1990-2015 Working Gas 245,405 261,379 279,164 299,733 333,557...

  2. Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    304,759 322,480 331,194 337,339 345,498 358,954 1990-2015 Base Gas 184,522 184,522 184,522 184,522 184,522 185,345 1990-2015 Working Gas 120,237 137,958 146,672 152,818 160,976...

  3. Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    181,783 187,320 193,049 199,343 207,126 216,591 1990-2015 Base Gas 112,977 112,976 112,974 112,973 112,971 112,969 1990-2015 Working Gas 68,806 74,345 80,075 86,370 94,155 103,623...

  4. Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    783,708 813,749 846,434 880,855 918,466 955,422 1990-2015 Base Gas 699,984 701,159 701,159 701,159 701,532 701,732 1990-2015 Working Gas 83,725 112,590 145,276 179,696 216,934...

  5. Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    419,170 445,831 470,992 498,643 521,532 532,840 1990-2015 Base Gas 340,158 340,158 340,158 340,158 340,158 340,158 1990-2015 Working Gas 79,011 105,673 130,833 158,485 181,373...

  6. Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    658,807 682,571 684,134 690,360 725,652 767,699 1990-2015 Base Gas 297,789 297,723 297,947 297,777 297,542 297,441 1990-2015 Working Gas 361,017 384,847 386,186 392,583 428,110...

  7. Iowa Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    223,762 230,724 233,287 246,900 263,036 277,160 1990-2015 Base Gas 197,897 197,897 197,897 197,897 197,897 197,897 1990-2015 Working Gas 25,865 32,827 35,390 49,004 65,140 79,263...

  8. Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    98,063 103,173 108,960 112,142 116,465 117,867 1990-2015 Base Gas 69,525 69,525 69,525 69,525 69,525 69,525 1990-2015 Working Gas 28,538 33,648 39,435 42,617 46,940 48,342...

  9. FORM EIA-923 POWER PLANT OPERATIONS REPORT INSTRUCTIONS

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    FORM EIA-923 POWER PLANT OPERATIONS REPORT INSTRUCTIONS OMB No. 1905-0129 Approval Expires: 0 5 /31/2017 Burden: 2.3 Hours Page 1 of 38 PURPOSE Form EIA-923 collects information on the operation of electric power plants and combined heat and power (CHP) plants in the United States (see Required Respondents below). Data collected on this form include electric power generation, fuel consumption, fossil fuel stocks, delivered fossil fuel cost, combustion by-products, operational cooling water data,

  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. 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.

  12. 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...

  13. 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...

  14. 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...

  15. 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...

  16. ,"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...

  17. ,"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...

  18. ,"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...

  19. 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...

  20. ,"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...

  1. 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...

  2. ,"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...

  3. ,"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...

  4. ,"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...

  5. Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    91,886 90,669 90,354 91,501 92,834 94,020 1990-2015 Base Gas 67,815 67,798 67,815 67,815 67,815 67,815 1990-2015 Working Gas 24,071 22,871 22,539 23,686 25,018 26,205 1990-2015 Net...

  6. Arkansas Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    11,004 11,361 11,798 12,201 12,342 12,949 1990-2015 Base Gas 9,648 9,648 9,648 9,648 9,648 10,727 1990-2015 Working Gas 1,357 1,714 2,151 2,553 2,694 2,222 1990-2015 Net...

  7. Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    89,100 92,039 94,724 98,220 102,095 104,142 1990-2015 Base Gas 77,198 77,198 77,198 77,198 77,198 77,198 1990-2015 Working Gas 11,902 14,841 17,526 21,022 24,897 26,944 1990-2015...

  8. Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    3,643 56,220 58,660 61,446 61,818 62,080 1990-2015 Base Gas 45,677 45,677 45,677 45,677 45,677 45,677 1990-2015 Working Gas 7,965 10,543 12,982 15,768 16,141 16,403 1990-2015 Net...

  9. Washington Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7,688 37,525 37,248 41,994 45,053 44,760 1990-2015 Base Gas 22,300 22,300 22,300 22,300 22,300 22,300 1990-2015 Working Gas 15,388 15,225 14,948 19,694 22,753 22,460 1990-2015 Net...

  10. Colorado Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    84,790 91,608 96,656 101,837 107,087 111,229 1990-2015 Base Gas 58,456 58,455 58,457 58,466 58,465 58,457 1990-2015 Working Gas 26,335 33,152 38,199 43,370 48,622 52,772 1990-2015...

  11. Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    5,940 5,976 6,153 6,355 6,573 6,835 1990-2015 Base Gas 4,848 4,848 4,848 4,848 4,848 4,848 1990-2015 Working Gas 1,092 1,128 1,305 1,507 1,725 1,987 1990-2015 Net Withdrawals 6 -37...

  12. Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    13,417 13,400 13,384 13,368 13,933 14,186 1990-2015 Base Gas 7,845 7,845 7,845 7,845 7,845 7,845 1990-2015 Working Gas 5,571 5,555 5,538 5,522 6,088 6,341 1990-2015 Net Withdrawals...

  13. Nebraska Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    28,976 30,316 30,389 31,346 32,639 33,828 1990-2015 Base Gas 20,031 20,031 20,031 20,031 20,031 20,031 1990-2015 Working Gas 8,945 10,285 10,358 11,315 12,608 13,797 1990-2015 Net...

  14. Alabama Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    29,436 30,170 31,141 30,084 32,501 32,916 1995-2015 Base Gas 9,640 9,640 9,640 9,640 9,640 9,640 1995-2015 Working Gas 19,796 20,530 21,501 20,444 22,861 23,276 1995-2015 Net...

  15. Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    38,476 38,554 38,725 38,832 38,740 38,815 2013-2015 Base Gas 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 2013-2015 Working Gas 24,279 24,357 24,528 24,635 24,543 24,618 2013-2015 Net...

  16. Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    792,764 874,549 950,215 1,007,582 1,004,079 972,600 1990-2015 Base Gas 394,117 386,527 387,027 385,038 385,038 385,038 1990-2015 Working Gas 398,647 488,022 563,188 622,544 619,041 587,562 1990-2015 Net Withdrawals -74,938 -81,284 -75,170 -60,050 3,499 30,889 1990-2015 Injections 76,118 81,978 75,748 61,449 16,963 8,301 1990-2015 Withdrawals 1,181 694 578 1,399 20,462 39,190 1990-2015 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 25,058 21,959 18,206 31,809 79,508 95,361 1990-2015

  17. Oregon Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    25,927 26,550 28,025 29,347 28,207 25,868 1990-2015 Base Gas 11,186 11,186 11,186 11,186 11,186 11,186 1990-2015 Working Gas 14,741 15,364 16,839 18,162 17,021 14,682 1990-2015 Net Withdrawals 2 -685 -1,482 -1,330 1,139 2,338 1990-2015 Injections 523 745 1,488 1,395 294 143 1990-2015 Withdrawals 525 60 5 65 1,433 2,481 1990-2015 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 47 -1,227 -1,177 -359 494 -578 1990-2015 Percent 0.3 -7.4 -6.5 -1.9 3.0 -3.8 1990

  18. Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    7,405 7,913 8,536 9,080 9,351 9,302 1997-2015 Base Gas 4,100 4,100 4,100 4,100 4,100 4,100 1997-2015 Working Gas 3,305 3,813 4,436 4,980 5,251 5,202 1997-2015 Net Withdrawals -87 -508 -623 -545 -270 48 1995-2015 Injections 1,111 1,007 1,146 1,077 722 392 1997-2015 Withdrawals 1,025 498 523 533 451 440 1997-2015 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume -460 231 6 -88 358 468 1997-2015 Percent -12.2 6.5 0.1 -1.7 7.3 9.9 1997

  19. Paducah Plant Begins Enrichment Operations after Five Parties Strike

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Agreement | Department of Energy Plant Begins Enrichment Operations after Five Parties Strike Agreement Paducah Plant Begins Enrichment Operations after Five Parties Strike Agreement May 1, 2012 - 12:00pm Addthis This cylinder hauler at Paducah’s Babcock & Wilcox Conversion Services plant delivers the first of DOE’s 14-ton depleted uranium cylinders to USEC for re-enrichment as part of a five-party agreement that is extending enrichment operations at the 60-year-old plant for

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. Montana Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    197,870 201,315 203,416 204,466 202,011 198,390 1990-2015 Base Gas 178,500 178,500 178,500 178,500 178,501 178,501 1990-2015 Working Gas 19,370 22,815 24,916 25,966 23,510 19,890 1990-2015 Net Withdrawals -3,385 -3,445 -2,101 -1,050 2,456 3,620 1990-2015 Injections 3,487 3,535 2,260 1,313 153 50 1990-2015 Withdrawals 102 90 159 264 2,609 3,670 1990-2015 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 1,409 2,782 2,931 2,239 3,471 3,197 1990-2015 Percent 7.8 13.9 13.3 9.4 17.3 19

  4. California Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    540,076 538,318 544,899 563,608 557,909 513,822 1990-2015 Base Gas 225,550 225,550 225,550 225,845 225,845 225,845 1990-2015 Working Gas 314,527 312,769 319,349 337,762 332,064 287,977 1990-2015 Net Withdrawals -8,522 1,758 -6,577 -18,709 5,699 44,087 1990-2015 Injections 17,988 11,934 17,273 23,871 12,263 6,630 1990-2015 Withdrawals 9,466 13,692 10,696 5,163 17,961 50,717 1990-2015 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 72,393 48,583 42,845 34,374 31,566 2,217 1990-2015

  5. Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    249,874 259,109 273,140 279,038 271,202 259,809 1990-2015 Base Gas 164,301 164,287 164,273 164,258 164,258 164,242 1990-2015 Working Gas 85,573 94,822 108,867 114,780 106,944 95,567 1990-2015 Net Withdrawals -16,737 -9,249 -14,045 -5,912 7,836 11,377 1990-2015 Injections 17,987 10,619 14,623 8,529 4,047 6,394 1990-2015 Withdrawals 1,250 1,370 578 2,617 11,883 17,770 1990-2015 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 10,849 12,201 13,639 10,295 14,194 11,455 1990-2015 Percent

  6. DOE Orders Mirant Power Plant to Operate Under Limited Circumstances |

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Department of Energy Orders Mirant Power Plant to Operate Under Limited Circumstances DOE Orders Mirant Power Plant to Operate Under Limited Circumstances Docket No. EO-05-01. Order No. 202-05-3: Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today issued an order requiring Mirant Corporation's Potomac River Generating Station in Alexandria, Virginia (Mirant) to immediately resume limited operation. The order will help provide electric reliability for Washington, D.C., and will do so at the lowest

  7. NREL Document Profiles Natural Gas Fueling, Fleet Operation

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

    Document Profiles Natural Gas Fueling, Fleet Operation Media may contact: George Douglas, 303-275-4096 email: George Douglas Steve Ginter, Mack, 610-709-3259 Golden, Colo., June 7, 2000 - A unique and successful natural gas fueling and fleet operation involving trash haulers is discussed in a recent document issued by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The NREL document, Waste Management's LNG Truck Fleet Start-Up Experience, offers solid evidence that

  8. New Claus tail-gas process proved in German operation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kettner, R.; Liermann, N.

    1988-01-11

    A process for removing sulfur components from Claus-plant tail gases increases sulfur-recovery rates to 99.5%. It has been in use for more than 4 years. In December 1983, a tail-gas cleaning unit was started up for the sulfur-recovery plants of the Nordeutsche Erdgas Aufbereitungsgesellschaft (NEAG) natural-gas treating complex at Voigten, West Germany. NEAG, a joint venture of Exxon, Shell, and Mobil Oil, desulfurizes 7.7 million normal cu m/day (approximately 271.2 million cfd) of sour gas in three plants. Up to 1,050 tons/day of elemental sulfur are produced (Fig. 1). Mobil Oil AG developed the process which has been dubbed the Mobil direct-oxidation process (Modop).

  9. Innovation that Improves Safety, Efficiency of Energy Plant Operations Nets

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

    R&D 100 Award for NETL, WVU and Schneider Electric Researchers | Department of Energy Innovation that Improves Safety, Efficiency of Energy Plant Operations Nets R&D 100 Award for NETL, WVU and Schneider Electric Researchers Innovation that Improves Safety, Efficiency of Energy Plant Operations Nets R&D 100 Award for NETL, WVU and Schneider Electric Researchers November 20, 2015 - 8:28am Addthis Innovation that Improves Safety, Efficiency of Energy Plant Operations Nets R&D

  10. 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"

  11. Davis PV plant operation and maintenance manual

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1994-09-01

    This operation and maintenance manual contains the information necessary to run the Photovoltaics for Utility Scale Applications (PVUSA) test facility in Davis, California. References to more specific information available in drawings, data sheets, files, or vendor manuals are included. The PVUSA is a national cooperative research and demonstration program formed in 1987 to assess the potential of utility scale photovoltaic systems.

  12. Fire protection considerations for the design and operation of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) storage facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1989-01-01

    This standard addresses the design, operation, and maintenance of LPG storage facilities from the standpoint of prevention and control of releases, fire-protection design, and fire-control measures, as well as the history of LPG storage facility failure, facility design philosophy, operating and maintenance procedures, and various fire-protection and firefighting approaches and presentations. The storage facilities covered are LPG installations (storage vessels and associated loading/unloading/transfer systems) at marine and pipeline terminals, natural gas processing plants, refineries, petrochemical plants, and tank farms.

  13. 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...

  14. 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...

  15. 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...

  16. 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...

  17. 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...

  18. 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...

  19. 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...

  20. 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...

  1. 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...

  2. 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...

  3. 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...

  4. 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...

  5. 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...

  6. 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...

  7. 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...

  8. 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...

  9. 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...

  10. 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...

  11. 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...

  12. 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...

  13. 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...

  14. US nuclear power plant operating cost and experience summaries

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kohn, W.E.; Reid, R.L.; White, V.S.

    1998-02-01

    NUREG/CR-6577, U.S. Nuclear Power Plant Operating Cost and Experience Summaries, has been prepared to provide historical operating cost and experience information on U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. Cost incurred after initial construction are characterized as annual production costs, representing fuel and plant operating and maintenance expenses, and capital expenditures related to facility additions/modifications which are included in the plant capital asset base. As discussed in the report, annual data for these two cost categories were obtained from publicly available reports and must be accepted as having different degrees of accuracy and completeness. Treatment of inconclusive and incomplete data is discussed. As an aid to understanding the fluctuations in the cost histories, operating summaries for each nuclear unit are provided. The intent of these summaries is to identify important operating events; refueling, major maintenance, and other significant outages; operating milestones; and significant licensing or enforcement actions. Information used in the summaries is condensed from annual operating reports submitted by the licensees, plant histories contained in Nuclear Power Experience, trade press articles, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) web site (www.nrc.gov).

  15. 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.

  16. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (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 16,327 13,253 15,555 - = 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: Injections of Natural Gas into

  17. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (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 -16,327 -13,253 -15,555 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Net Withdrawals of Natural Gas

  18. South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (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 48 80 70 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas

  19. Georgia Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Georgia Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (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 123 366 - = 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: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground

  20. Georgia Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Georgia Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (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 -90 -339 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Net Withdrawals of Natural Gas from

  1. Idaho Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Idaho Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (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 112 395 - = 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: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground

  2. Idaho Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Idaho Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (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 -112 -395 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Net Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground

  3. Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (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 166 - = 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: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground

  4. Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (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 -166 331 428 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Net Withdrawals of Natural Gas from

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  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. Dynamic Operations Wayfinding System (DOWS) for Nuclear Power Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boring, Ronald Laurids; Ulrich, Thomas Anthony; Lew, Roger Thomas

    2015-08-01

    A novel software tool is proposed to aid reactor operators in respond- ing to upset plant conditions. The purpose of the Dynamic Operations Wayfind- ing System (DOWS) is to diagnose faults, prioritize those faults, identify paths to resolve those faults, and deconflict the optimal path for the operator to fol- low. The objective of DOWS is to take the guesswork out of the best way to combine procedures to resolve compound faults, mitigate low threshold events, or respond to severe accidents. DOWS represents a uniquely flexible and dy- namic computer-based procedure system for operators.

  10. Property:EIA/861/OperatesGeneratingPlant | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    type Boolean. Description: Operates Generating Plant Entity operates power generating plants (Y or N) 1 References EIA Form EIA-861 Final Data File for 2008 - F861 File...

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  1. Operating experience review of an INL gas monitoring system

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cadwallader, Lee C.; DeWall, K. G.; Herring, J. S.

    2015-03-12

    This article describes the operations of several types of gas monitors in use at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) High Temperature Electrolysis Experiment (HTE) laboratory. The gases monitored in the lab room are hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and oxygen. The operating time, calibration, and both actual and unwanted alarms are described. The calibration session time durations are described. In addition, some simple calculations are given to estimate the reliability of these monitors and the results are compared to operating experiences of other types of monitors.

  2. Operating experience review of an INL gas monitoring system

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

    Cadwallader, Lee C.; DeWall, K. G.; Herring, J. S.

    2015-03-01

    This article describes the operations of several types of gas monitors in use at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) High Temperature Electrolysis Experiment (HTE) laboratory. The gases monitored in the lab room are hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and oxygen. The operating time, calibration, and both actual and unwanted alarms are described. The calibration session time durations are described. Some simple calculations are given to estimate the reliability of these monitors and the results are compared to operating experiences of other types of monitors.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. Paducah and Portsmouth Sites Advance Operations at DUF6 Plants | Department

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    of Energy and Portsmouth Sites Advance Operations at DUF6 Plants Paducah and Portsmouth Sites Advance Operations at DUF6 Plants November 1, 2011 - 12:00pm Addthis First cylinder enters plant. First cylinder enters plant. Paducah and Portsmouth Sites Advance Operations at DUF6 Plants First cylinder enters plant. Paducah and Portsmouth Sites Advance Operations at DUF6 Plants Paducah and Portsmouth - Babcock & Wilcox Conversion Services (BWCS) began work at the Paducah and Portsmouth sites

  8. Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - = 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: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground Storage

  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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:

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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:

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

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

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

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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. Inertial Fusion Power Plant Concept of Operations and Maintenance

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Anklam, T.; Knutson, B.; Dunne, A. M.; Kasper, J.; Sheehan, T.; Lang, D.; Roberts, V.; Mau, D.

    2015-01-15

    Parsons and LLNL scientists and engineers performed design and engineering work for power plant pre-conceptual designs based on the anticipated laser fusion demonstrations at the National Ignition Facility (NIF). Work included identifying concepts of operations and maintenance (O&M) and associated requirements relevant to fusion power plant systems analysis. A laser fusion power plant would incorporate a large process and power conversion facility with a laser system and fusion engine serving as the heat source, based in part on some of the systems and technologies advanced at NIF. Process operations would be similar in scope to those used in chemical, oil refinery, and nuclear waste processing facilities, while power conversion operations would be similar to those used in commercial thermal power plants. While some aspects of the tritium fuel cycle can be based on existing technologies, many aspects of a laser fusion power plant presents several important and unique O&M requirements that demand new solutions. For example, onsite recovery of tritium; unique remote material handling systems for use in areas with high radiation, radioactive materials, or high temperatures; a five-year fusion engine target chamber replacement cycle with other annual and multi-year cycles anticipated for major maintenance of other systems, structures, and components (SSC); and unique SSC for fusion target waste recycling streams. This paper describes fusion power plant O&M concepts and requirements, how O&M requirements could be met in design, and how basic organizational and planning issues can be addressed for a safe, reliable, economic, and feasible fusion power plant.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. Operating limit evaluation for disposal of uranium enrichment plant wastes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lee, D.W.; Kocher, D.C.; Wang, J.C.

    1996-02-01

    A proposed solid waste landfill at Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) will accept wastes generated during normal plant operations that are considered to be non-radioactive. However, nearly all solid waste from any source or facility contains small amounts of radioactive material, due to the presence in most materials of trace quantities of such naturally occurring radionuclides as uranium and thorium. This paper describes an evaluation of operating limits, which are protective of public health and the environment, that would allow waste materials containing small amounts of radioactive material to be sent to a new solid waste landfill at PGDP. The operating limits are expressed as limits on concentrations of radionuclides in waste materials that could be sent to the landfill based on a site-specific analysis of the performance of the facility. These limits are advantageous to PGDP and DOE for several reasons. Most importantly, substantial cost savings in the management of waste is achieved. In addition, certain liabilities that could result from shipment of wastes to a commercial off-site solid waste landfill are avoided. Finally, assurance that disposal operations at the PGDP landfill are protective of public health and the environment is provided by establishing verifiable operating limits for small amounts of radioactive material; rather than relying solely on administrative controls. The operating limit determined in this study has been presented to the Commonwealth of Kentucky and accepted as a condition to be attached to the operating permit for the solid waste landfill.

  19. Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (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 293 769 314 1970's 770 937 1,496 413 403 3,912 - = 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

  20. Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (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 -174 -102 253 1970's -200 -96 -1,074 2,468 1,707 -2,185 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring

  1. New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (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 805 975 1,281 1970's 1,447 1,626 1,765 1,867 3,953 6,378 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:

  2. North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (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 97 2,626 2,019 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: Injections

  3. Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (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 97 243 137 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: Injections of

  4. Connecticut Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Connecticut Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (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 683 740 746 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: Injections of

  5. Connecticut Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Connecticut Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (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 -242 501 1,271 1990's 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Net Withdrawals of

  6. Delaware Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Delaware Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (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 1,274 1,500 179 1970's 391 189 255 2,012 - = 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: Injections

  7. Delaware Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Delaware Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (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 -294 -245 699 1970's 211 -189 -255 -549 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Net

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. Residual Gas Analysis for Long-Pulse, Advanced Tokamak Operation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Klepper, C Christopher; Hillis, Donald Lee; Bucalossi, J.; Douai, D.; OddonCEA, IRFM, P.; VartanianCEA-Cadarach, S.; Colas, L.; Manenc, L.; Pegourie, B.

    2010-01-01

    A shielded residual gas analyzer RGA system on Tore Supra can function during plasma operation and is set up to monitor the composition of the neutral gas in one of the pumping ducts of the toroidal pumped limited. This diagnostic RGA has been used in long-pulse up to 6 min discharges for continuous monitoring of up to 15 masses simultaneously. Comparison of the RGA-measured evolution of the H2 /D2 isotopic ratio in the exhaust gas to that measured by an energetic neutral particle analyzer in the plasma core provides a way to monitor the evolution of particle balance. RGA monitoring of corrective H2 injection to maintain proper minority heating is providing a database for improved ion cyclotron resonance heating, potentially with RGA-base feedback control. In very long pulses 4 min absence of significant changes in the RGA-monitored, hydrocarbon particle pressures is an indication of proper operation of the actively cooled, carbon-based plasma facing components. Also H2 could increase due to thermodesorption of overheated plasma facing components. 2010 American Institute of Physics.

  13. Field testing the Raman gas composition sensor for gas turbine operation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Buric, M.; Chorpening, B.; Mullem, J.; Ranalli, J.; Woodruff, S.

    2012-01-01

    A gas composition sensor based on Raman spectroscopy using reflective metal lined capillary waveguides is tested under field conditions for feed-forward applications in gas turbine control. The capillary waveguide enables effective use of low powered lasers and rapid composition determination, for computation of required parameters to pre-adjust burner control based on incoming fuel. Tests on high pressure fuel streams show sub-second time response and better than one percent accuracy on natural gas fuel mixtures. Fuel composition and Wobbe constant values are provided at one second intervals or faster. The sensor, designed and constructed at NETL, is packaged for Class I Division 2 operations typical of gas turbine environments, and samples gas at up to 800 psig. Simultaneous determination of the hydrocarbons methane, ethane, and propane plus CO, CO2, H2O, H2, N2, and O2 are realized. The capillary waveguide permits use of miniature spectrometers and laser power of less than 100 mW. The capillary dimensions of 1 m length and 300 μm ID also enable a full sample exchange in 0.4 s or less at 5 psig pressure differential, which allows a fast response to changes in sample composition. Sensor operation under field operation conditions will be reported.

  14. 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 MTRs 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 Services Cholla coal-fired power plant, as part of a new DOE NETL funded program.

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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:

  3. 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:

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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,

  7. 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,

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. ,"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

  11. Budgeting for Solar PV Plant Operations & Maintenance: Practices and Pricing.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Enbar, Nadav; Weng, Dean; Klise, Geoffrey Taylor

    2016-01-01

    With rising grid interconnections of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, greater attention is being trained on lifecycle performance, reliability, and project economics. Expected to meet production thresholds over a 20-30 year timeframe, PV plants require a steady diet of operations and maintenance (O&M) oversight to meet contractual terms. However, industry best practices are only just beginning to emerge, and O&M budgets—given the arrangement of the solar project value chain—appear to vary widely. Based on insights from in-depth interviews and survey research, this paper presents an overview of the utility-scale PV O&M budgeting process along with guiding rationales, before detailing perspectives on current plant upkeep activities and price points largely in the U.S. It concludes by pondering potential opportunities for improving upon existing O&M budgeting approaches in ways that can benefit the industry at-large.

  12. Budgeting for Solar PV Plant Operations & Maintenance: Practices and Pricing.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Enbar, Nadav; Weng, Dean; Klise, Geoffrey Taylor

    2015-12-01

    With rising grid interconnections of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, greater attention is being trained on lifecycle performance, reliability, and project economics. Expected to meet production thresholds over a 20-30 year timeframe, PV plants require a steady diet of operations and maintenance (O&M) oversight to meet contractual terms. However, industry best practices are only just beginning to emerge, and O&M budgets—given the arrangement of the solar project value chain—appear to vary widely. Based on insights from in-depth interviews and survey research, this paper presents an overview of the utility-scale PV O&M budgeting process along with guiding rationales, before detailing perspectives on current plant upkeep activities and price points largely in the U.S. It concludes by pondering potential opportunities for improving upon existing O&M budgeting approaches in ways that can benefi t the industry at-large.

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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)

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. Natural Gas Weekly Update

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    planning information that will assist in maintaining the operational integrity and reliability of pipeline service, as well as providing gas-fired power plant operators with...

  3. COMPUTERIZATION OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    OHARA,J.M.; HIGGINS,J.; STUBLER,W.

    2000-07-30

    Emergency operating procedures (EOPs) in nuclear plants guide operators in handling significant process disturbances. Historically these procedures have been paper-based. More recently, computer-based procedure (CBP) systems have been developed to improve the usability of EOPs. The objective of this study was to establish human factors review guidance for CBP systems based on a technically valid methodology. First, a characterization of CBPs was developed for describing their key design features, including both procedure representation and functionality. Then, the research on CBPs and related areas was reviewed. This information provided the technical basis on which the guidelines were developed. For some aspects of CBPs the technical basis was insufficient to develop guidance; these aspects were identified as issues to be addressed in future research.

  4. 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.

  5. Long-range global warming impact of gaseous diffusion plant operation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Trowbridge, L.D.

    1992-09-01

    The DOE gaseous diffusion plant complex makes extensive use of CFC-114 as a primary coolant. As this material is on the Montreal Protocol list of materials scheduled for production curtailment, a substitute must be found. In addition to physical cooling properties, the gaseous diffusion application imposes the unique requirement of chemical inertness to fluorinating agents. This has narrowed the selection of a near-term substitute to two fully fluorinated material, FC-318 and FC-3110, which are likely to be strong, long-lived greenhouse gases. In this document, calculations are presented showing, for a number of plausible scenarios of diffusion plant operation and coolant replacement strategy, the future course of coolant use, greenhouse gas emissions (including coolant and power-related indirect CO{sub 2} emissions), and the consequent global temperature impacts of these scenarios.

  6. 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 ft) 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.

  7. Using Process Safety Management to improve plant operability

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sutton, I.S.

    1995-12-31

    The Process Safety Management (PSM) standard, 29 CFR 1910.119, was published in draft from in July 1990 and has been in force since May 1992. The standard requires that all companies that handle hazardous materials must have in place a management program to minimize the chance of accidents, and to reduce the consequences of such accidents should they occur. The purpose of this paper is to provide some preliminary guidance as to how PSM activities can be managed so that, as the compliance part of the work is completed, the best return on the investment can be achieved. One final point should be made about safety and operability. The two are closely linked, but they are not identical. In other words, a safety improvement program will almost certainly lead to reduced economic losses, similarly a reliability improvement program will almost certainly reduce injuries, but there are some differences that need to be taken account. These include: (1) Additional safety equipment may reduce reliability. (2) A reliable plant does not undergo many shutdowns. Therefore, operators have less practice with the implementation of shutdown and startup procedures than they would otherwise. (3) Unsafe engineering practices, such as the use of temporary bypasses and jumper lines, may increase operability, but they reduce safety.

  8. Hydrogen and Hydrogen/Natural Gas Station and Vehicle Operations - 2006 Summary Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Francfort; Donald Karner; Roberta Brayer

    2006-09-01

    This report is a summary of the operations and testing of internal combustion engine vehicles that were fueled with 100% hydrogen and various blends of hydrogen and compressed natural gas (HCNG). It summarizes the operations of the Arizona Public Service Alternative Fuel Pilot Plant, which produces, compresses, and dispenses hydrogen fuel. Other testing activities, such as the destructive testing of a CNG storage cylinder that was used for HCNG storage, are also discussed. This report highlights some of the latest technology developments in the use of 100% hydrogen fuels in internal combustion engine vehicles. Reports are referenced and WWW locations noted as a guide for the reader that desires more detailed information. These activities are conducted by Arizona Public Service, Electric Transportation Applications, the Idaho National Laboratory, and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity.

  9. 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

  10. 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 =

  11. 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 =

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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:

  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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:

  18. 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:

  19. 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:

  20. 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:

  1. 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:

  2. 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

  3. 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:

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. 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:

  7. 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

  8. 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:

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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:

  12. 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:

  13. 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:

  14. 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:

  15. 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

  16. 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.

  17. 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

  18. 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.

  19. 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

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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:

  8. 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:

  9. 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:

  10. 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

  11. 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:

  12. 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:

  13. 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 =

  14. 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

  15. 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:

  16. 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:

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. ,"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

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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.

  1. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Project Evaluation of Siting a HTGR Co-generation Plant on an Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    L.E. Demick

    2011-10-01

    This paper summarizes an evaluation by the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project of siting a High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR) plant on an existing nuclear plant site that is located in an area of significant industrial activity. This is a co-generation application in which the HTGR Plant will be supplying steam and electricity to one or more of the nearby industrial plants.

  2. Load rejection operation in conventional power plants in ENEL - Italy

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gadda, E. ); Radice, A. )

    1989-09-01

    The capability of maintaining auxiliary load after a main breaker trip following an emergency in the electric power system is of major concern for any thermoelectric generating unit. In ENEL the reliability of run back to house load of fossil fired units has been greatly improved by adopting a new procedure. Instead of that originally recommended the new procedure allows to trip all fuel input to the boiler and maintains house load operating the turbine on mass and energy stored in the boiler. This procedure was qualified a few years ago and since then is used in the 320 MW units in operation (the main bulk of ENEL's thermal capacity) whether equipped with subcritical once through boilers or with assisted circulation drum boilers. A series of test carried out recently on supercritical 660 MW units have shown that adopting the same procedure these larger units can sustain successfully the run back to house load too. Up to now the new procedure has been used in many other thermal units of size ranging between 70 MW to 240 MW and can be performed in most of ENEL's thermal power plants.

  3. Gas-liquid separator and method of operation

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Soloveichik, Grigorii Lev (Latham, NY); Whitt, David Brandon (Albany, NY)

    2009-07-14

    A system for gas-liquid separation in electrolysis processes is provided. The system includes a first compartment having a liquid carrier including a first gas therein and a second compartment having the liquid carrier including a second gas therein. The system also includes a gas-liquid separator fluidically coupled to the first and second compartments for separating the liquid carrier from the first and second gases.

  4. 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.

  5. Oil and Gas Lease Equipment and Operating Costs 1994 Through 2009

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Natural Gas > Publications > Oil and Gas Lease Equipment and Operating Costs 1994 Through 2009 Oil and Gas Lease Equipment and Operating Costs 1994 Through 2009 Released: September 28, 2010 Next Release: Discontinued Excel Spreadsheet Model - 1994-2009 XLS (1,178 KB) Overview Oil and gas well equipment and operating costs, including coal bed methane costs, stopped their upward trend from the 1990s and fell sharply in 2009. The extremely high oil and gas prices during the first half of 2008

  6. The operation results with the modified charging equipment and ignition furnace at Kwangyang No. 2 sinter plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lee, K.J.; Pi, Y.J.; Kim, J.R.; Lee, J.N.

    1996-12-31

    There will be another blast furnace, the production capacity of which is 3.0 million tonnes per year in 1999 and mini mill plant, the production capacity of which is 1.8 million tonnes per year in 1996 at Kwangyang Works. Therefore, the coke oven gas and burnt lime will be deficient and more sinter will be needed. To meet with these situations, the authors modified the charging equipment and ignition furnace at Kwangyang No. 2 sinter plant in April 1995. After the modification of the charging equipment and ignition furnace, the consumption of burnt lime and coke oven gas could be decreased and the sinter productivity increased in spite of the reduction of burnt lime consumption. This report describes the operation results with the modification of the charging equipment and ignition furnace in No. 2 sinter plant Kwangyang works.

  7. Systems acceptance and operability testing for rotary mode core sampling in flammable gas tanks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Corbett, J.E., Westinghouse Hanford

    1996-07-29

    This document provides instructions for the system acceptance and operability testing of the rotary mode core sampling system, modified for use in flammable gas tanks.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1981-12-01

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

  9. SImbol Materials Lithium Extraction Operating Data From Elmore and Featherstone Geothermal Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Stephen Harrison

    2015-07-08

    The data provided in this upload is summary data from its Demonstration Plant operation at the geothermal power production plants in the Imperial Valley. The data provided is averaged data for the Elmore Plant and the Featherstone Plant. Included is both temperature and analytical data (ICP_OES). Provide is the feed to the Simbol Process, post brine treatment and post lithium extraction.

  10. SImbol Materials Lithium Extraction Operating Data From Elmore and Featherstone Geothermal Plants

    DOE Data Explorer [Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)]

    Stephen Harrison

    The data provided in this upload is summary data from its Demonstration Plant operation at the geothermal power production plants in the Imperial Valley. The data provided is averaged data for the Elmore Plant and the Featherstone Plant. Included is both temperature and analytical data (ICP_OES). Provide is the feed to the Simbol Process, post brine treatment and post lithium extraction.

  11. ,"U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    Total Underground Storage",6,"Monthly","72015","01151973" ,"Data 2","Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year",2,"Monthly","72015","01151973" ,"Release...

  12. Operation and Maintenance Manual for the Central Facilities Area Sewage Treatment Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Norm Stanley

    2011-02-01

    This Operation and Maintenance Manual lists operator and management responsibilities, permit standards, general operating procedures, maintenance requirements and monitoring methods for the Sewage Treatment Plant at the Central Facilities Area at the Idaho National Laboratory. The manual is required by the Municipal Wastewater Reuse Permit (LA-000141-03) the sewage treatment plant.

  13. 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 MWhs 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.

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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.

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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 =

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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:

  8. 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; -- =

  9. 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;

  10. 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 =

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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 =

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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 =

  3. 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.

  4. Method and apparatus for optimizing operation of a power generating plant using artificial intelligence techniques

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Wroblewski, David (Mentor, OH); Katrompas, Alexander M. (Concord, OH); Parikh, Neel J. (Richmond Heights, OH)

    2009-09-01

    A method and apparatus for optimizing the operation of a power generating plant using artificial intelligence techniques. One or more decisions D are determined for at least one consecutive time increment, where at least one of the decisions D is associated with a discrete variable for the operation of a power plant device in the power generating plant. In an illustrated embodiment, the power plant device is a soot cleaning device associated with a boiler.

  5. Natural Gas Transportation - Infrastructure Issues and Operational Trends

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2001-01-01

    This report examines how well the current national natural gas pipeline network has been able to handle today's market demand for natural gas. In addition, it identifies those areas of the country where pipeline utilization is continuing to grow rapidly and where new pipeline capacity is needed or is planned over the next several years.

  6. AGA Producing Region Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    1,689,895 1,688,206 1,865,696 2,041,963 2,126,724 2,176,332 1994-2015 Base Gas 1,087,170 1,084,178 1,084,148 1,086,406 1,088,335 1,088,465 1994-2015 Working Gas 602,725 604,028...

  7. New York Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    168,426 181,314 196,634 205,991 214,298 222,715 1990-2015 Base Gas 114,863 114,889 114,898 115,064 114,874 115,037 1990-2015 Working Gas 53,563 66,425 81,736 90,927 99,423 107,677...

  8. Multivariable Robust Control of a Simulated Hybrid Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Gas Turbine Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tsai, Alex; Banta, Larry; Tucker, David; Gemmen, Randall

    2010-08-01

    This work presents a systematic approach to the multivariable robust control of a hybrid fuel cell gas turbine plant. The hybrid configuration under investigation built by the National Energy Technology Laboratory comprises a physical simulation of a 300kW fuel cell coupled to a 120kW auxiliary power unit single spool gas turbine. The public facility provides for the testing and simulation of different fuel cell models that in turn help identify the key difficulties encountered in the transient operation of such systems. An empirical model of the built facility comprising a simulated fuel cell cathode volume and balance of plant components is derived via frequency response data. Through the modulation of various airflow bypass valves within the hybrid configuration, Bode plots are used to derive key input/output interactions in transfer function format. A multivariate system is then built from individual transfer functions, creating a matrix that serves as the nominal plant in an H{sub {infinity}} robust control algorithm. The controllers main objective is to track and maintain hybrid operational constraints in the fuel cells cathode airflow, and the turbo machinery states of temperature and speed, under transient disturbances. This algorithm is then tested on a Simulink/MatLab platform for various perturbations of load and fuel cell heat effluence. As a complementary tool to the aforementioned empirical plant, a nonlinear analytical model faithful to the existing process and instrumentation arrangement is evaluated and designed in the Simulink environment. This parallel task intends to serve as a building block to scalable hybrid configurations that might require a more detailed nonlinear representation for a wide variety of controller schemes and hardware implementations.

  9. Sodium Recycle Economics for Waste Treatment Plant Operations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sevigny, Gary J.; Poloski, Adam P.; Fountain, Matthew S.

    2008-08-31

    Sodium recycle at the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) would reduce the number of glass canisters produced, and has the potential to significantly reduce the cost to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) of treating the tank wastes by hundreds of millions of dollars. The sodium, added in the form of sodium hydroxide, was originally added to minimize corrosion of carbon-steel storage tanks from acidic reprocessing wastes. In the baseline Hanford treatment process, sodium hydroxide is required to leach gibbsite and boehmite from the high level waste (HLW) sludge. In turn, this reduces the amount of HLW glass produced. Currently, a significant amount of additional sodium hydroxide will be added to the process to maintain aluminate solubility at ambient temperatures during ion exchange of cesium. The vitrification of radioactive waste is limited by sodium content, and this additional sodium mass will increase low-activity waste-glass mass. An electrochemical salt-splitting process, based on sodium-ion selective ceramic membranes, is being developed to recover and recycle sodium hydroxide from high-salt radioactive tank wastes in DOEs complex. The ceramic membranes are from a family of materials known as sodium (Na)super-ionic conductors (NaSICON)and the diffusion of sodium ions (Na+) is allowed, while blocking other positively charged ions. A cost/benefit evaluation was based on a strategy that involves a separate caustic-recycle facility based on the NaSICON technology, which would be located adjacent to the WTP facility. A Monte Carlo approach was taken, and several thousand scenarios were analyzed to determine likely economic results. The cost/benefit evaluation indicates that 10,00050,000 metric tons (MT) of sodium could be recycled, and would allow for the reduction of glass production by 60,000300,000 MT. The cost of the facility construction and operation was scaled to the low-activity waste (LAW) vitrification facility, showing cost would be roughly $150 million to $400 million for construction and $10 million to $40 million per year for operations. Depending on the level of aluminate supersaturation allowed in the storage tanks in the LAW Pretreatment Facility, these values indicate a return on investment of up to 25% to 60%.

  10. Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Costs: A 1995 Update, An

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    1995-01-01

    This report provides an analysis of nuclear power plant operating costs. The Energy Information Administration published three reports on this subject during the period 1988-1995.

  11. Realities of verifying the absence of highly enriched uranium (HEU) in gas centrifuge enrichment plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Swindle, D.W.

    1990-03-01

    Over a two and one-half year period beginning in 1981, representatives of six countries (United States, United Kingdom, Federal Republic of Germany, Australia, The Netherlands, and Japan) and the inspectorate organizations of the International Atomic Energy Agency and EURATOM developed and agreed to a technically sound approach for verifying the absence of highly enriched uranium (HEU) in gas centrifuge enrichment plants. This effort, known as the Hexapartite Safeguards Project (HSP), led to the first international concensus on techniques and requirements for effective verification of the absence of weapons-grade nuclear materials production. Since that agreement, research and development has continued on the radiation detection technology-based technique that technically confirms the HSP goal is achievable. However, the realities of achieving the HSP goal of effective technical verification have not yet been fully attained. Issues such as design and operating conditions unique to each gas centrifuge plant, concern about the potential for sensitive technology disclosures, and on-site support requirements have hindered full implementation and operator support of the HSP agreement. In future arms control treaties that may limit or monitor fissile material production, the negotiators must recognize and account for the realities and practicalities in verifying the absence of HEU production. This paper will describe the experiences and realities of trying to achieve the goal of developing and implementing an effective approach for verifying the absence of HEU production. 3 figs.

  12. 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

  13. Lower 48 States Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    5,996,949 5,804,144 6,125,877 6,622,606 6,984,761 7,267,318 2011-2015 Base Gas 4,345,006 4,345,836 4,345,412 4,347,895 4,356,082 4,357,143 2011-2015 Working Gas 1,651,943 1,458,308...

  14. Lower 48 States Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    6,741,759 6,001,076 5,807,400 6,129,063 6,618,656 6,979,043 2011-2015 Base Gas 4,349,713 4,348,946 4,349,770 4,349,352 4,347,895 4,356,096 2011-2015 Working Gas 2,392,046 1,652,130...

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. Analysis of an industrial cogeneration unit driven by a gas engine. Part 1: Experimental testing under full and part-load operating conditions

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    De Lucia, M.; Lanfranchi, C.

    1994-12-31

    This paper describes and analyzes an industrial cogeneration plant driven by a gas fueled reciprocating engine installed in a textile factory. It presents the results of experimental testing conducted under full and part-load operating conditions, as well as first-law energy considerations. The experimental tests conducted on the cogeneration unit proved the validity of the plant design and also enabled evaluation of part-load performance, which is the most common operating mode in cogeneration plants in the small-size industries which typical of central Italy.

  18. TECHNOLOGIES TO ENHANCE OPERATION OF THE EXISTING NATURAL GAS COMPRESSION INFRASTRUCTURE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Anthony J. Smalley; Ralph E. Harris; Gary D. Bourn

    2003-10-01

    This report documents work performed in the fourth quarter of the project entitled: ''Technologies to Enhance Operation of the Existing Natural Gas Compression Infrastructure''. The project objective is to develop and substantiate methods for operating integral engine/compressors in gas pipeline service, which reduce fuel consumption, increase capacity, and enhance mechanical integrity. The report describes the following work: second field test; test data analysis for the first field test; operational optimization plans.

  19. Midwest Region Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    80,135 2,319,930 2,461,785 2,582,258 2,578,620 2,475,469 2014-2015 Base Gas 1,496,378 1,488,787 1,489,658 1,487,866 1,487,894 1,488,055 2014-2015 Working Gas 683,757 831,144 972,127 1,094,391 1,090,726 987,414 2014-2015 Net Withdrawals -118,778 -139,059 -141,004 -122,971 3,645 102,720 2014-2015 Injections 124,816 142,688 143,230 127,489 46,034 13,041 2014-2015 Withdrawals 6,038 3,629 2,226 4,518 49,679 115,760 2014-2015 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 57,993 42,213

  20. AGA Producing Region Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    1,863,519 1,917,665 2,042,184 2,206,064 2,200,189 2,159,737 1994-2014 Base Gas 1,083,436 1,087,842 1,089,725 1,089,543 1,089,660 1,089,228 1994-2014 Working Gas 780,084 829,824 952,459 1,116,521 1,110,529 1,070,509 1994-2014 Net Withdrawals -91,370 -54,243 -124,698 -164,507 6,452 40,466 1994-2014 Injections 128,251 106,384 153,563 191,243 107,282 80,991 1994-2014 Withdrawals 36,881 52,141 28,864 26,736 113,734 121,457 1994-2014 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume -263,547

  1. Pacific Region Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    603,251 606,862 617,976 638,832 628,206 579,071 2014-2015 Base Gas 259,036 259,036 259,036 259,331 259,331 259,331 2014-2015 Working Gas 344,215 347,827 358,941 379,501 368,875 319,740 2014-2015 Net Withdrawals -8,243 -3,674 -11,035 -20,831 10,625 49,135 2014-2015 Injections 19,718 17,633 22,413 27,233 13,622 8,742 2014-2015 Withdrawals 11,475 13,959 11,378 6,402 24,246 57,876 2014-2015 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 69,490 45,075 40,921 33,861 29,674 -2,781

  2. South Central Region Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    09,107 2,154,799 2,265,050 2,381,950 2,393,620 2,359,631 2014-2015 Base Gas 1,059,103 1,058,987 1,058,721 1,060,652 1,061,199 1,055,894 2014-2015 Working Gas 1,050,004 1,095,812 1,206,329 1,321,297 1,332,421 1,303,737 2014-2015 Net Withdrawals -47,939 -46,205 -110,024 -116,399 -11,936 33,813 2014-2015 Injections 103,901 98,174 147,861 157,461 91,849 81,946 2014-2015 Withdrawals 55,962 51,969 37,838 41,062 79,913 115,758 2014-2015 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume

  3. West Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    417,327 447,637 470,454 479,640 476,839 452,957 1990-2015 Base Gas 269,975 269,975 269,975 269,978 269,978 269,983 1990-2015 Working Gas 147,352 177,663 200,479 209,662 206,862 182,973 1990-2015 Net Withdrawals -28,852 -30,311 -22,820 -9,186 2,845 23,846 1990-2015 Injections 29,540 30,458 22,967 11,101 5,919 3,512 1990-2015 Withdrawals 689 147 147 1,915 8,764 27,358 1990-2015 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 10,718 15,063 13,738 5,456 18,992 25,179 1990-2015 Percent

  4. Water Use in the Development and Operation of Geothermal Power Plants |

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

    Department of Energy assessment_use.pdf More Documents & Publications Water Use in the Development and Operations of Geothermal Power Plants Water Use in the Development and Operations of Geothermal Power Plants Water Efficient Energy Production for Geothermal Resources

  5. Water Use in the Development and Operations of Geothermal Power Plants |

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

    Department of Energy use_draft.pdf More Documents & Publications Water Use in the Development and Operations of Geothermal Power Plants Water Use in the Development and Operation of Geothermal Power Plants GETEM -Geothermal Electricity Technology Evaluation Model

  6. A Monte Carlo Analysis of Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant Process Load Cell Data

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Garner, James R; Whitaker, J Michael

    2013-01-01

    As uranium enrichment plants increase in number, capacity, and types of separative technology deployed (e.g., gas centrifuge, laser, etc.), more automated safeguards measures are needed to enable the IAEA to maintain safeguards effectiveness in a fiscally constrained environment. Monitoring load cell data can significantly increase the IAEA s ability to efficiently achieve the fundamental safeguards objective of confirming operations as declared (i.e., no undeclared activities), but care must be taken to fully protect the operator s proprietary and classified information related to operations. Staff at ORNL, LANL, JRC/ISPRA, and University of Glasgow are investigating monitoring the process load cells at feed and withdrawal (F/W) stations to improve international safeguards at enrichment plants. A key question that must be resolved is what is the necessary frequency of recording data from the process F/W stations? Several studies have analyzed data collected at a fixed frequency. This paper contributes to load cell process monitoring research by presenting an analysis of Monte Carlo simulations to determine the expected errors caused by low frequency sampling and its impact on material balance calculations.

  7. 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...

  8. TECHNOLOGIES TO ENHANCE OPERATION OF THE EXISTING NATURAL GAS COMPRESSION INFRASTRUCTURE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Anthony J. Smalley; Ralph E. Harris; Gary D. Bourn

    2004-08-01

    This report documents work performed in Phase I of the project entitled: ''Technologies to Enhance Operation of the Existing Natural Gas Compression Infracture''. The project objective is to develop and substantiate methods for operating integral engine/compressors in gas pipeline service, which reduce fuel consumption, increase capacity, and enhance mechanical integrity. The report describes a number of potential enhancements to the existing natural gas compression infrastructure that have been identified and tested on four different integral engine/compressors in natural gas transmission service.

  9. TECHNOLOGIES TO ENHANCE OPERATION OF THE EXISTING NATURAL GAS COMPRESSION INFRASTRUCTURE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Anthony J. Smalley; Ralph E. Harris; Gary D. Bourn

    2004-03-01

    This report documents work performed in Phase I of the project entitled: ''Technologies to Enhance Operation of the Existing Natural Gas Compression Infrastructure''. The project objective is to develop and substantiate methods for operating integral engine/compressors in gas pipeline service, which reduce fuel consumption, increase capacity, and enhance mechanical integrity. The report describes a number of potential enhancements to the existing natural gas compression infrastructure that have been identified and qualitatively demonstrated in tests on three different integral engine/compressors in natural gas transmission service.

  10. The new Kaiserstuhl coking plant: The heating system -- Design, construction and initial operating experience

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Strunk, J.

    1996-12-31

    At the end of 1992 the new coke plant Kaiserstuhl in Dortmund/Germany with presently the largest coke ovens world-wide started its production operation in close linkage to the Krupp-Hoesch Metallurgical Works after about 35 months construction time. This plant incorporating comprehensive equipment geared to improve environmental protection is also considered as the most modern coke plant of the world. The heating-system and first results of operation will be presented.

  11. 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.

  12. 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 - =

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. ANALYSIS OF A HIGH TEMPERATURE GAS-COOLED REACTOR POWERED HIGH TEMPERATURE ELECTROLYSIS HYDROGEN PLANT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    M. G. McKellar; E. A. Harvego; A. M. Gandrik

    2010-11-01

    An updated reference design for a commercial-scale high-temperature electrolysis (HTE) plant for hydrogen production has been developed. The HTE plant is powered by a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) whose configuration and operating conditions are based on the latest design parameters planned for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). The current HTGR reference design specifies a reactor power of 600 MWt, with a primary system pressure of 7.0 MPa, and reactor inlet and outlet fluid temperatures of 322°C and 750°C, respectively. The reactor heat is used to produce heat and electric power to the HTE plant. A Rankine steam cycle with a power conversion efficiency of 44.4% was used to provide the electric power. The electrolysis unit used to produce hydrogen includes 1.1 million cells with a per-cell active area of 225 cm2. The reference hydrogen production plant operates at a system pressure of 5.0 MPa, and utilizes a steam-sweep system to remove the excess oxygen that is evolved on the anode (oxygen) side of the electrolyzer. The overall system thermal-to-hydrogen production efficiency (based on the higher heating value of the produced hydrogen) is 42.8% at a hydrogen production rate of 1.85 kg/s (66 million SCFD) and an oxygen production rate of 14.6 kg/s (33 million SCFD). An economic analysis of this plant was performed with realistic financial and cost estimating The results of the economic analysis demonstrated that the HTE hydrogen production plant driven by a high-temperature helium-cooled nuclear power plant can deliver hydrogen at a competitive cost. A cost of $3.03/kg of hydrogen was calculated assuming an internal rate of return of 10% and a debt to equity ratio of 80%/20% for a reactor cost of $2000/kWt and $2.41/kg of hydrogen for a reactor cost of $1400/kWt.

  3. Laboratory optimization tests of technetium decontamination of Hanford Waste Treatment Plant low activity waste melter off-gas condensate simulant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Taylor-Pashow, Kathryn M.L.; McCabe, Daniel J.

    2015-11-01

    The Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Low Activity Waste (LAW) vitrification facility will generate an aqueous condensate recycle stream (LAW Off-Gas Condensate) from the off-gas system. The baseline plan for disposition of this stream is to send it to the WTP Pretreatment Facility, where it will be blended with LAW, concentrated by evaporation and recycled to the LAW vitrification facility again. Alternate disposition of this stream would eliminate recycling of problematic components, and would enable simplified operation of the LAW melter and the Pretreatment Facilities. Eliminating this stream from recycling within WTP would also decrease the LAW vitrification mission duration and quantity of glass waste.

  4. A Guidance Document for Kentucky's Oil and Gas Operators

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bender, Rick

    2002-03-18

    The accompanying report, manual and assimilated data represent the initial preparation for submission of an Application for Primacy under the Class II Underground Injection Control (UIC) program on behalf of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The purpose of this study was to identify deficiencies in Kentucky law and regulation that would prevent the Kentucky Division of Oil and Gas from receiving approval of primacy of the UIC program, currently under control of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Atlanta, Georgia.

  5. Mountain Region Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    595,505 610,816 626,924 638,383 633,170 611,934 2014-2015 Base Gas 423,690 423,699 423,698 423,690 425,847 426,205 2014-2015 Working Gas 171,815 187,116 203,226 214,692 207,323 185,729 2014-2015 Net Withdrawals -17,214 -15,317 -16,112 -11,462 5,213 21,235 2014-2015 Injections 20,404 20,025 19,990 16,279 8,918 5,903 2014-2015 Withdrawals 3,190 4,707 3,878 4,817 14,131 27,138 2014-2015 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 31,353 29,400 28,615 27,317 32,540 33,887 2014-2015

  6. East Region Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    1,779,707 1,884,448 1,978,322 2,037,633 2,032,760 1,975,139 2014-2015 Base Gas 1,118,936 1,118,750 1,118,923 1,119,041 1,118,912 1,118,877 2014-2015 Working Gas 660,771 765,699 859,399 918,593 913,849 856,262 2014-2015 Net Withdrawals -90,489 -104,741 -93,904 -59,311 4,874 57,566 2014-2015 Injections 108,787 114,704 101,174 71,777 40,221 27,722 2014-2015 Withdrawals 18,299 9,963 7,271 12,466 45,095 85,288 2014-2015 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 79,834 76,371 53,666

  7. New Mexico Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    67,225 68,654 69,930 72,188 74,320 74,935 1990-2015 Base Gas 29,362 29,362 29,362 29,362 29,362 29,362 1990-2015 Working Gas 37,863 39,292 40,568 42,826 44,957 45,573 1990-2015 Net Withdrawals -1,726 -1,429 -1,275 -2,258 -2,132 -616 1990-2015 Injections 1,964 1,864 1,638 2,301 2,406 1,844 1990-2015 Withdrawals 238 435 363 43 274 1,228 1990-2015 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 13,358 15,886 17,120 16,909 18,841 19,897 1990-2015 Percent 54.5 67.9 73.0 65.2 72.1 77.5

  8. Membrane Process to Capture CO{sub 2} from Coal-Fired Power Plant Flue Gas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Merkel, Tim; Wei, Xiaotong; Firat, Bilgen; He, Jenny; Amo, Karl; Pande, Saurabh; Baker, Richard; Wijmans, Hans; Bhown, Abhoyjit

    2012-03-31

    This final report describes work conducted for the U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE NETL) on development of an efficient membrane process to capture carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) from power plant flue gas (award number DE-NT0005312). The primary goal of this research program was to demonstrate, in a field test, the ability of a membrane process to capture up to 90% of CO{sub 2} in coal-fired flue gas, and to evaluate the potential of a full-scale version of the process to perform this separation with less than a 35% increase in the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). Membrane Technology and Research (MTR) conducted this project in collaboration with Arizona Public Services (APS), who hosted a membrane field test at their Cholla coal-fired power plant, and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and WorleyParsons (WP), who performed a comparative cost analysis of the proposed membrane CO{sub 2} capture process. The work conducted for this project included membrane and module development, slipstream testing of commercial-sized modules with natural gas and coal-fired flue gas, process design optimization, and a detailed systems and cost analysis of a membrane retrofit to a commercial power plant. The Polaris? membrane developed over a number of years by MTR represents a step-change improvement in CO{sub 2} permeance compared to previous commercial CO{sub 2}-selective membranes. During this project, membrane optimization work resulted in a further doubling of the CO{sub 2} permeance of Polaris membrane while maintaining the CO{sub 2}/N{sub 2} selectivity. This is an important accomplishment because increased CO{sub 2} permeance directly impacts the membrane skid cost and footprint: a doubling of CO{sub 2} permeance halves the skid cost and footprint. In addition to providing high CO{sub 2} permeance, flue gas CO{sub 2} capture membranes must be stable in the presence of contaminants including SO{sub 2}. Laboratory tests showed no degradation in Polaris membrane performance during two months of continuous operation in a simulated flue gas environment containing up to 1,000 ppm SO{sub 2}. A successful slipstream field test at the APS Cholla power plant was conducted with commercialsize Polaris modules during this project. This field test is the first demonstration of stable performance by commercial-sized membrane modules treating actual coal-fired power plant flue gas. Process design studies show that selective recycle of CO{sub 2} using a countercurrent membrane module with air as a sweep stream can double the concentration of CO{sub 2} in coal flue gas with little energy input. This pre-concentration of CO{sub 2} by the sweep membrane reduces the minimum energy of CO{sub 2} separation in the capture unit by up to 40% for coal flue gas. Variations of this design may be even more promising for CO{sub 2} capture from NGCC flue gas, in which the CO{sub 2} concentration can be increased from 4% to 20% by selective sweep recycle. EPRI and WP conducted a systems and cost analysis of a base case MTR membrane CO{sub 2} capture system retrofitted to the AEP Conesville Unit 5 boiler. Some of the key findings from this study and a sensitivity analysis performed by MTR include: The MTR membrane process can capture 90% of the CO{sub 2} in coal flue gas and produce high-purity CO{sub 2} (>99%) ready for sequestration. CO{sub 2} recycle to the boiler appears feasible with minimal impact on boiler performance; however, further study by a boiler OEM is recommended. For a membrane process built today using a combination of slight feed compression, permeate vacuum, and current compression equipment costs, the membrane capture process can be competitive with the base case MEA process at 90% CO{sub 2} capture from a coal-fired power plant. The incremental LCOE for the base case membrane process is about equal to that of a base case MEA process, within the uncertainty in the analysis. With advanced membranes (5,000 gpu for CO{sub 2} and 50 for CO{sub 2}/N{sub 2}), operating with no feed compression and low-cost CO{sub 2} compression equipment, an incremental LCOE of $33/MWh at 90% capture can be achieved (40% lower than the advanced MEA case). Even with lower cost compression, it appears unlikely that a membrane process using high feed compression (>5 bar) can be competitive with amine absorption, due to the capital cost and energy consumption of this equipment. Similarly, low vacuum pressure (<0.2 bar) cannot be used due to poor efficiency and high cost of this equipment. High membrane permeance is important to reduce the capital cost and footprint of the membrane unit. CO{sub 2}/N{sub 2} selectivity is less important because it is too costly to generate a pressure ratio where high selectivity can be useful. A potential cost ?sweet spot? exists for use of membrane-based technology, if 50-70% CO{sub 2} capture is acceptable. There is a minimum in the cost of CO{sub 2} avoided/ton that membranes can deliver at 60% CO{sub 2} capture, which is 20% lower than the cost at 90% capture. Membranes operating with no feed compression are best suited for lower capture rates. Currently, it appears that the biggest hurdle to use of membranes for post-combustion CO{sub 2} capture is compression equipment cost. An alternative approach is to use sweep membranes in parallel with another CO{sub 2} capture technology that does not require feed compression or vacuum equipment. Hybrid designs that utilize sweep membranes for selective CO{sub 2} recycle show potential to significantly reduce the minimum energy of CO{sub 2} separation.

  9. 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...

  10. Drilling and operating oil, gas, and geothermal wells in an H/sub 2/S environment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dosch, M.W.; Hodgson, S.F.

    1981-01-01

    The following subjects are covered: facts about hydrogen sulfides; drilling and operating oil, gas, and geothermal wells; detection devices and protective equipment; hazard levels and safety procedures; first aid; and H/sub 2/S in California oil, gas, and geothermal fields. (MHR)

  11. Knowledge and abilities catalog for nuclear power plant operators: boiling water reactors

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1986-09-01

    The Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Boiling-Water Reactors (BWR) (NUREG-1123) provides the basis for the development of content-valid licensing examinations for reactor operators (ROs) and senior reactor operators (SROs). The examinations developed using the BWR Catalog and Examiners' Handbook for Developing Operator Licensing Examinations (NUREG-1121) will cover those topics listed under Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 55. The BWR Catalog contains approximately 7000 knowledge and ability (K/A) statements for ROs and SROs at boiling water reactors. Each K/A statement has been rated for its importance to the safe operation of the plant in a manner ensuring personnel and public health and safety. The BWR K/A Catalog is organized into five major sections: Plant-wide Generic Knowledge and Ability Statements, Plant Systems grouped by Safety Function, Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions, Components, and Theory. The BWR Catalog represents a modification of the form and content of the K/A Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Pressurized Water Reactors (NUREG-1122). First, categories of knowledge and ability statements have been redefined. Second, the scope of the definition of emergency and abnormal plant evolutions has been revised in line with a symptom-based approach. Third, K/As related to the operational applications of theory have been incorporated into the delineations for both plant systems and emergency and abnormal plant evolutions, while K/As pertaining to theory fundamental to plant operation have been delineated in a separate theory section. Finally, the components section has been revised.

  12. 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 Energys 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 AVESTARs 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.

  13. TECHNOLOGIES TO ENHANCE OPERATION OF THE EXISTNG NATURAL GAS COMPRESSION INFRASTRUCTURE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Anthony J. Smalle; Ralph E. Harris; Gary D. Bourn

    2003-07-01

    This report documents work performed in the third quarter of the project entitled: ''Technologies to Enhance Operation of the Existing Natural Gas Compression Infrastructure''. The project objective is to develop and substantiate methods for operating integral engine/compressors in gas pipeline service, which reduce fuel consumption, increase capacity, and enhance mechanical integrity. The report describes the following work: first field test; test data analysis.

  14. TECHNOLOGIES TO ENHANCE OPERATION OF THE EXISTING NATURAL GAS COMPRESSION INFRASTRUCTURE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Anthony J. Smalley; Ralph E. Harris; Gary D. Bourn

    2004-01-01

    This report documents work performed in the fifth quarter of the project entitled: ''Technologies to Enhance Operation of the Existing Natural Gas Compression Infrastructure''. The project objective is to develop and substantiate methods for operating integral engine/compressors in gas pipeline service, which reduce fuel consumption, increase capacity, and enhance mechanical integrity. The report describes the following work: completion of analysis of data from first visit to second site; preparation for follow-up testing.

  15. Operation of cover-gas system during SLSF tests. [LMFBR

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Braid, T.H.; Harper, H.A.; Wilson, R.E.

    1982-01-01

    During two tests in the Sodium Loop Safety Facility (W1 and P4), high resolution gamma-ray spectroscopy was used to detect pin failure by observing radioactive fission product isotopes of Kr and Xe from exposed fuel. A continuous stream of argon cover gas from the in-pile loop was transferred to a shielded sample volume. Two germanium crystal spectrometers continuously recorded spectra of gamma rays in the energy range 80 keV to approx. 2.7 MeV. A very wide range of signal strength was accommodated without saturation by dilution of the sample, reduction of the sample chamber volume and insertion of detecter collimators. The cover gas system provided an unambiguous indication of fuel failure during a series of boiling tests in W1. In P4, spectra were recorded after a power transient that released molten fuel and from a mass of exposed fuel at a range of reactor power levels. Gamma rays were observed from isotopes of Kr and Xe with half-lives from 3.8 m to 5.2 d.

  16. 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...

  17. 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.

  18. 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

  19. 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...

  20. 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.

  1. 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...

  2. 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...

  3. 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...

  4. 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...

  5. 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...

  6. 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...

  7. 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...

  8. 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...

  9. 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...

  10. 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...

  11. 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...

  12. 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)...

  13. 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

  14. 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...

  15. 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.

  16. Knowledge and abilities catalog for nuclear power plant operators: Pressurized water reactors. Revision 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-08-01

    This document provides the basis for the development of content-valid licensing examinations for reactor operators and senior reactor operators. The examinations developed using the PWR catalog will cover those topics listed under Title 10, (ode of Federal Regulations Part 55. The PWR catalog contains approximately 5100 knowledge and ability (K/A) statements for reactor operators and senior reactor operators. The catalog is organized into six major sections: Catalog Organization; Generic Knowledge and Abilities; Plant Systems; Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions; Components and Theory.

  17. EA-0642: Operation of the Pinellas Plant Child Development Center/Partnership School

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This EA evaluates the environmental impacts of a joint venture proposal to operate a Partnership School and Child Development Center at the U.S. Department of Energy's Pinellas Plant in New Mexico.

  18. Water Use in the Development and Operations of Geothermal Power Plants

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

    1 3.4.2 Power Plant: Construction ............................................................................. 12 3.5 Operations ................................................................................................................. 13 3.5.1 Makeup Water ............................................................................................... 14 3.5.2 Cooling Water ............................................................................................... 14 3.6 Water

  19. EIS-0225: Continued Operation of the Pantex Plant and Associated Storage of Nuclear Weapon Components

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This EIS evaluates the potential environemental impact of a proposal to continue operation of the Pantex Plant and associated storage of nuclear weapon components. Alternatives considered include: ...

  20. Natural Gas Compression Technology Improves Transport and Efficiencies, Lowers Operating Costs

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    An award-winning compressor design that decreases the energy required to compress and transport natural gas, lowers operating costs, improves efficiencies and reduces the environmental footprint of well site operations has been developed by a Massachusetts-based company with support from the U.S. Department of Energy

  1. Assessment of LWR piping design loading based on plant operating experience

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Svensson, P. O.

    1980-08-01

    The objective of this study has been to: (1) identify current Light Water Reactor (LWR) piping design load parameters, (2) identify significant actual LWR piping loads from plant operating experience, (3) perform a comparison of these two sets of data and determine the significance of any differences, and (4) make an evaluation of the load representation in current LWR piping design practice, in view of plant operating experience with respect to piping behavior and response to loading.

  2. Water Use in the Development and Operations of Geothermal Power Plants |

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

    Department of Energy Water Use in the Development and Operations of Geothermal Power Plants Water Use in the Development and Operations of Geothermal Power Plants This report summarizes what is currently known about the life cycle water requirements of geothermal electric power-generating systems and the water quality of geothermal waters. It is part of a larger effort to compare the life cycle impacts of large-scale geothermal electricity generation with other power generation technologies.

  3. Gas centrifuge enrichment plants inspection frequency and remote monitoring issues for advanced safeguards implementation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boyer, Brian David; Erpenbeck, Heather H; Miller, Karen A; Ianakiev, Kiril D; Reimold, Benjamin A; Ward, Steven L; Howell, John

    2010-09-13

    Current safeguards approaches used by the IAEA at gas centrifuge enrichment plants (GCEPs) need enhancement in order to verify declared low enriched uranium (LEU) production, detect undeclared LEU production and detect high enriched uranium (BEU) production with adequate probability using non destructive 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 cylinders of uranium hexafluoride that are used in the process of enrichment at GCEPs. This paper contains an analysis of how possible improvements in unattended and attended NDA systems including process monitoring and possible on-site destructive analysis (DA) of samples could reduce the uncertainty of the inspector's measurements providing more effective and efficient IAEA GCEPs safeguards. We have also studied a few advanced safeguards systems that could be assembled for unattended operation and the level of performance needed from these systems to provide more effective safeguards. The analysis also considers how short notice random inspections, unannounced inspections (UIs), and the concept of information-driven inspections can affect probability of detection of the diversion of nuclear material when coupled to new GCEPs safeguards regimes augmented with unattended systems. We also explore the effects of system failures and operator tampering on meeting safeguards goals for quantity and timeliness and the measures needed to recover from such failures and anomalies.

  4. Analysis of the effectiveness of gas centrifuge enrichment plants advanced safeguards

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2010-01-01

    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 uranium (LEU) production, detect undeclared LEU production and detect highly enriched uranium (HEU) production with adequate detection probability using non destructive 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 235U enrichment of declared UF6 containers used in the process of enrichment at GCEPs. This paper contains an analysis of possible improvements in unattended and attended NDA systems including process monitoring and possible on-site destructive assay (DA) of samples that could reduce the uncertainty of the inspector's measurements. These improvements could reduce the difference between the operator's and inspector's measurements providing more effective and efficient IAEA GCEPs safeguards. We also explore how a few advanced safeguards systems could be assembled for unattended operation. The analysis will focus on how unannounced inspections (UIs), and the concept of information-driven inspections (IDS) can affect probability of detection of the diversion of nuclear materials when coupled to new GCEPs safeguards regimes augmented with unattended systems.

  5. 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...

  6. H-coal pilot plant. Phase II. Construction. Phase III. Operation. Annual report No. 3

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1981-02-04

    At the request of DOE Oak Ridge, ASFI agreed to assume responsibility for completion of Plant construction in December, 1979, at which time Badger Plants' on-site work was ended. This construction effort consisted of electric heat tracing and insulation of piping and instrumentation. At the close of the reporting period the work was completed, or was projected to be completed, within the ASFI budgeted amounts and by dates that will not impact Plant operations. Engineering design solutions were completed for problems encountered with such equipment as the High Pressure Letdown Valves; Slurry Block Valves; Slurry Pumps; the Bowl Mill System; the Dowtherm System; and the Ebullating Pump. A Corrosion Monitoring Program was established. With the exception of Area 500, the Antisolvent Deashing Unit, all operating units were commissioned and operated during the reporting period. Coal was first introduced into the Plant on May 29, 1980, with coal operations continuing periodically through September 30, 1980. The longest continuous coal run was 119 hours. A total of 677 tons of Kentucky No. 11 Coal were processed during the reporting period. The problems encountered were mechanical, not process, in nature. Various Environmental and Health programs were implemented to assure worker safety and protection and to obtain data from Plant operations for scientific analysis. These comprehensive programs will contribute greatly in determining the acceptability of long term H-Coal Plant operations.

  7. Annual Steam-Electric Plant Operation and Design Data (EIA-767 data file)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Electricity data files > Form EIA-767 Form EIA-767 historical data files Data Released: November 02, 2006 Next Release: None(discontinued) Annual steam-electric plant operation and design data Historical data files contain annual data from organic-fueled or combustible renewable steam-electric plants with a generator nameplate rating of 10 or more megawatts. The data are derived from the Form EIA-767 "Steam-Electric Plant Operation and Design Report." The files contains data on

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. Innovative Sensors and Controls to Support Efficient Operation of State-of-the-Art Power Plants

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy has selected three projects to develop novel sensing and control technologies aimed at the efficient operation of advanced, zero-emission power systems and the improvement of operations at existing fossil energy power plants.

  13. Operation of Concentrating Solar Power Plants in the Western Wind and Solar Integration Phase 2 Study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Denholm, P.; Brinkman, G.; Lew, D.; Hummon, M.

    2014-05-01

    The Western Wind and Solar Integration Study (WWSIS) explores various aspects of the challenges and impacts of integrating large amounts of wind and solar energy into the electric power system of the West. The phase 2 study (WWSIS-2) is one of the first to include dispatchable concentrating solar power (CSP) with thermal energy storage (TES) in multiple scenarios of renewable penetration and mix. As a result, it provides unique insights into CSP plant operation, grid benefits, and how CSP operation and configuration may need to change under scenarios of increased renewable penetration. Examination of the WWSIS-2 results indicates that in all scenarios, CSP plants with TES provides firm system capacity, reducing the net demand and the need for conventional thermal capacity. The plants also reduced demand during periods of short-duration, high ramping requirements that often require use of lower efficiency peaking units. Changes in CSP operation are driven largely by the presence of other solar generation, particularly PV. Use of storage by the CSP plants increases in the higher solar scenarios, with operation of the plant often shifted to later in the day. CSP operation also becomes more variable, including more frequent starts. Finally, CSP output is often very low during the day in scenarios with significant PV, which helps decrease overall renewable curtailment (over-generation). However, the configuration studied is likely not optimal for High Solar Scenario implying further analysis of CSP plant configuration is needed to understand its role in enabling high renewable scenarios in the Western United States.

  14. Knowledge and abilities catalog for nuclear power plant operators: Boiling water reactors, Revision 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-08-01

    The Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Boiling-Water Reactors (BWRs) (NUREG-1123, Revision 1) provides the basis for the development of content-valid licensing examinations for reactor operators (ROs) and senior reactor operators (SROs). The examinations developed using the BWR Catalog along with the Operator Licensing Examiner Standards (NUREG-1021) and the Examiner`s Handbook for Developing Operator Licensing Written Examinations (NUREG/BR-0122), will cover the topics listed under Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 55 (10 CFR 55). The BWR Catalog contains approximately 7,000 knowledge and ability (K/A) statements for ROs and SROs at BWRs. The catalog is organized into six major sections: Organization of the Catalog, Generic Knowledge and Ability Statements, Plant Systems grouped by Safety Functions, Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions, Components, and Theory. Revision 1 to the BWR Catalog represents a modification in form and content of the original catalog. The K/As were linked to their applicable 10 CFR 55 item numbers. SRO level K/As were identified by 10 CFR 55.43 item numbers. The plant-wide generic and system generic K/As were combined in one section with approximately one hundred new K/As. Component Cooling Water and Instrument Air Systems were added to the Systems Section. Finally, High Containment Hydrogen Concentration and Plant Fire On Site evolutions added to the Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions section.

  15. Technical considerations in repowering a nuclear plant for fossil fueled operation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Patti, F.J.

    1996-03-01

    Repowering involves replacement of the reactor by a fossil fuel source of steam. This source can be a conventional fossil fueled boiler or the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) on a gas turbine exhaust. The existing steam turbine plant is used to the extent possible. Alternative fuels for repowering a nuclear plant are coal, natural gas and oil. In today`s world oil is not usually an alternative. Selection of coal or natural gas is largely a matter of availability of the fuel near the location of the plant. Both the fossil boiler and the HRSG produce steam at higher pressures and temperatures than the throttle conditions for a saturated steam nuclear turbine. It is necessary to match the steam conditions from the new source to the existing turbine as closely as possible. Technical approaches to achieve a match range from using a topping turbine at the front end of the cycle to attemperation of the throttle steam with feedwater. The electrical output from the repowered plant is usually greater than that of the original nuclear fueled design. This requires consideration of the ability to use the excess electricity. Interfacing of the new facility with the existing turbine plant requires consideration of facility layout and design. Site factors must also be considered, especially for a coal fired boiler, since rail and coal handling facilities must be added to a site for which these were not considered. Additional site factors that require consideration are ash handling and disposal.

  16. 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...

  17. Standard for the qualification of high capacity fossil fuel fired plant operators

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Axtman, W.

    1996-12-31

    The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, at the request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and, in recognition of the needs and benefits associated with standard qualifications of operators of high capacity fossil fuel fired plants, established the Qualifications of High Capacity Fossil Fuel Fired Operator (QFO) Committee in 1994. The purpose of the QFO Committee is to develop and maintain such a standard for operators. This standard includes qualifications, duties, responsibilities and the certification requirements for operators as appropriate to The Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 for fossil fuel fired plants with inputs equal to or greater than 10,000 Btu/hr. This Standard does not cover the certification or validation of fossil plant operating procedures, operating practices, facility performance, nor compliance with any particular permit requirement. This standard recognizes the titles or positions to which any particular fossil plant operator may apply, will vary within a facility. Therefore, this standard does not attempt to identify the individual who is required to obtain certification in any class designation. The fossil plant owner is urged to contact the local jurisdiction in which the fossil plant is located in this regard. This standard does not in itself require certification but rather it serves as a means for complying with federal, state, and local regulations which require operators of fossil fuel fired boilers with inputs equal to or greater than 10,000,000 But/hr to be certified. Safety codes and standards are intended to enhance public health and safety. Revisions to this Standard result from committee considerations of factors such as technological advances, new data, and changing environmental and industry needs. Revisions do not imply that previous editions of this standard were inadequate.

  18. In-Born Radio Frequency Identification Devices for Safeguards Use at Gas-Centrifuge Enrichment Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ward,R.; Rosenthal,M.

    2009-07-12

    Global expansion of nuclear power has made the need for improved safeguards measures at Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants (GCEPs) imperative. One technology under consideration for safeguards applications is Radio Frequency Identification Devices (RFIDs). RFIDs have the potential to increase IAEA inspector"s efficiency and effectiveness either by reducing the number of inspection visits necessary or by reducing inspection effort at those visits. This study assesses the use of RFIDs as an integral component of the "Option 4" safeguards approach developed by Bruce Moran, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), for a model GCEP [1]. A previous analysis of RFIDs was conducted by Jae Jo, Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), which evaluated the effectiveness of an RFID tag applied by the facility operator [2]. This paper presents a similar evaluation carried out in the framework of Jos paper, but it is predicated on the assumption that the RFID tag is applied by the manufacturer at the birth of the cylinder, rather than by the operator. Relevant diversion scenarios are examined to determine if RFIDs increase the effectiveness and/ or efficiency of safeguards in these scenarios. Conclusions on the benefits offered to inspectors by using in-born RFID tagging are presented.

  19. Rotor dynamic analysis of GCEP (Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant) Tails Withdrawal Test Facility AC-12 compressor

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Spencer, J.W.

    1982-01-22

    The reliable operation of the centrifugal compressors utilized in the gaseous diffusion process is of great importance due to the critical function of these machines in product and tails withdrawal, cascade purge and evacuation processes, the purge cascade and product booster applications. The same compressors will be used in equally important applications within the Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant (GCEP). In response to concern over the excessive vibration exhibited by the AC-12 compressor in the No. 3 position of the GCEP Tails Withdrawal Test Facility, a rotor-bearing dynamic analysis was performed on the compressor. This analysis included the acquisition and reduction of compressor vibration data, characterization and modeling of the rotorbearing system, a computer dynamic study, and recommendations for machine modification. The compressor dynamic analysis was performed for rotor speeds of 9000 rpm and 7200 to 7800 rpm, which includes all possible opreating speeds of the compressor in the GCEP Test Facility. While the analysis was performed on this particular AC-12 compressor, the results should be pertinent to other AC-12 applications as well. Similar diagnostic and analytical techniques can be used to evaluate operation of other types of centrifugal compressors.

  20. TECHNOLOGIES TO ENHANCE OPERATION OF THE EXISTING NATURAL GAS COMPRESSION INFRASTRUCTURE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Anthony J. Smalley; Ralph E. Harris; Gary D. Bourn

    2004-10-01

    This quarterly report documents work performed under Tasks 10 through 14 of the project entitled: Technologies to Enhance Operation of the Existing Natural Gas Compression Infrastructure. The project objective is to develop and substantiate methods for operating integral engine/compressors in gas pipeline service, which reduce fuel consumption, increase capacity, and enhance mechanical integrity. The report documents the second series of tests performed on a GMW10 engine/compressor after modifications to add high pressure Fuel and a Turbocharger. It also presents baseline testing for air balance investigations and initial simulation modeling of the air manifold for a Cooper GMVH6.

  1. TECHNOLOGIES TO ENHANCE OPERATION OF THE EXISTING NATURAL GAS COMPRESSION INFRASTRUCTURE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Anthony J. Smalley; Ralph E. Harris; Gary D. Bourn

    2004-07-01

    This quarterly report documents work performed in Phase I of the project entitled: ''Technologies to Enhance Operation of the Existing Natural Gas Compression Infrastructure''. The project objective is to develop and substantiate methods for operating integral engine/compressors in gas pipeline service, which reduce fuel consumption, increase capacity, and enhance mechanical integrity. The report documents the second series of tests performed on a turbocharged HBA-6T engine/compressor. It also presents baseline testing for air balance investigations and initial simulation modeling of the air manifold for a Cooper GMVH6.

  2. TECHNOLOGIES TO ENHANCE OPERATION OF THE EXISTING NATURAL GAS COMPRESSION INFRASTRUCTURE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Anthony J. Smalley; Ralph E. Harris

    2003-01-01

    This report documents work performed in the first quarter of the project entitled: ''Technologies to Enhance Operation of the Existing Natural Gas Compression Infrastructure''. The project objective is to develop and substantiate methods for operating integral engine/compressors in gas pipeline service, which reduce fuel consumption, increase capacity, and enhance mechanical integrity. The report describes the following work: preparation and submission of the Research Management Plan; preparation and submission of the Technology Status Assessment; attendance at the Project Kick-Off meeting at DOE-NETL; formation of the Industry Advisory Committee (IAC) for the project; preparation of the Test Plan; acquisition and assembly of the data acquisition system (DAS).

  3. TECHNOLOGIES TO ENHANCE OPERATION OF THE EXISTING NATURAL GAS COMPRESSION INFRASTRUCTURE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Anthony J. Smalley

    2003-04-01

    This report documents work performed in the second quarter of the project entitled: ''Technologies to Enhance Operation of the Existing Natural Gas Compression Infrastructure''. The project objective is to develop and substantiate methods for operating integral engine/compressors in gas pipeline service, which reduce fuel consumption, increase capacity, and enhance mechanical integrity. The report describes the following work: preparation and submission of the Technology Status Assessment; formation of the Industry Advisory Committee (IAC) for the project; attendance at the first IAC meeting; preparation of the Test Plan; completion of the data acquisition system (DAS); plans for the first field test.

  4. 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.

  5. Annual radiological environmental monitoring report: Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 1992. Operations Services/Technical Programs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-04-01

    This report describes the preoperational environmental radiological monitoring program conducted by TVA in the vicinity of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) in 1992. The program includes the collection of samples from the environment and the determination of the concentrations of radioactive materials in the samples. Samples are taken from stations in the general area of the plant and from areas that will not be influenced by plant operations. Material sampled includes air, water, milk, foods, vegetation, soil, fish, sediment, and direct radiation levels. During plant operations, results from stations near the plant will be compared with concentrations from control stations and with preoperational measurements to determine potential impacts to the public. Exposures calculated from environmental samples were contributed by naturally occurring radioactive materials, from materials commonly found in the environment as a result of atmospheric fallout, or from the operation of other nuclear facilities in the area. Since WBN has not operated, there has been no contribution of radioactivity from the plant to the environment.

  6. Final report on evaluation of cyclocraft support of oil and gas operations in wetland areas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Eggington, W.J.; Stevens, P.M.; John, C.J.; Harder, B.J.; Lindstedt, D.M.

    1994-10-01

    The cyclocraft is a proven hybrid aircraft, capable of VTOL, lifting heavy and bulky loads, highly controllable, having high safety characteristics and low operating costs. Mission Research Corporation (MRC), under Department of Energy sponsorship, is evaluating the potential use of cyclocraft in the transport of drill rigs, mud, pipes and other materials and equipment, in a cost effective and environmentally safe manner, to support oil and gas drilling, production, and transportation operations in wetland areas. Based upon the results of an earlier parametric study, a cyclocraft design, having a payload capacity of 45 tons and designated H.1 Cyclocraft, was selected for further study, including the preparation of a preliminary design and a development plan, and the determination of operating costs. This report contains all of the results derived from the program to evaluate the use of cyclocraft in the support of oil and gas drilling and production operations in wetland areas.

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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...

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. Laboratory Evaporation Testing Of Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Low Activity Waste Off-Gas Condensate Simulant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Adamson, Duane J.; Nash, Charles A.; McCabe, Daniel J.; Crawford, Charles L.; Wilmarth, William R.

    2014-01-27

    The Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Low Activity Waste (LAW) vitrification facility will generate an aqueous condensate recycle stream, LAW Off-Gas Condensate, from the off-gas system. The baseline plan for disposition of this stream is to send it to the WTP Pretreatment Facility, where it will be blended with LAW, concentrated by evaporation and recycled to the LAW vitrification facility again. Alternate disposition of this stream would eliminate recycling of problematic components, and would enable de-coupled operation of the LAW melter and the Pretreatment Facilities. Eliminating this stream from recycling within WTP would also decrease the LAW vitrification mission duration and quantity of canistered glass waste forms. This LAW Off-Gas Condensate stream contains components that are volatile at melter temperatures and are problematic for the glass waste form. Because this stream recycles within WTP, these components accumulate in the Condensate stream, exacerbating their impact on the number of LAW glass containers that must be produced. Approximately 32% of the sodium in Supplemental LAW comes from glass formers used to make the extra glass to dilute the halides to be within acceptable concentration ranges in the LAW glass. Diverting the stream reduces the halides in the recycled Condensate and is a key outcome of this work. Additionally, under possible scenarios where the LAW vitrification facility commences operation prior to the WTP Pretreatment facility, identifying a disposition path becomes vitally important. This task examines the impact of potential future disposition of this stream in the Hanford tank farms, and investigates auxiliary evaporation to enable another disposition path. Unless an auxiliary evaporator is used, returning the stream to the tank farms would require evaporation in the 242-A evaporator. This stream is expected to be unusual because it will be very high in corrosive species that are volatile in the melter (chloride, fluoride, sulfur), will have high ammonia, and will contain carryover particulates of glass-former chemicals. These species have potential to cause corrosion of tanks and equipment, precipitation of solids, release of ammonia gas vapors, and scale in the tank farm evaporator. Routing this stream to the tank farms does not permanently divert it from recycling into the WTP, only temporarily stores it prior to reprocessing. Testing is normally performed to demonstrate acceptable conditions and limits for these compounds in wastes sent to the tank farms. The primary parameter of this phase of the test program was measuring the formation of solids during evaporation in order to assess the compatibility of the stream with the evaporator and transfer and storage equipment. The origin of this LAW Off-Gas Condensate stream will be the liquids from the Submerged Bed Scrubber (SBS) and the Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) from the LAW facility melter offgas system. The stream is expected to be a dilute salt solution with near neutral pH, and will likely contain some insoluble solids from melter carryover. The soluble components are expected to be mostly sodium and ammonium salts of nitrate, chloride, and fluoride. This stream has not been generated yet, and, thus, the composition will not be available until the WTP begins operation, but a simulant has been produced based on models, calculations, and comparison with pilot-scale tests. This report discusses results of evaporation testing of the simulant. Two conditions were tested, one with the simulant at near neutral pH, and a second at alkaline pH. The neutral pH test is comparable to the conditions in the Hanford Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF) evaporator, although that evaporator operates at near atmospheric pressure and tests were done under vacuum. For the alkaline test, the target pH was based on the tank farm corrosion control program requirements, and the test protocol and equipment was comparable to that used for routine evaluation of feed compatibility studies for the 242-A evaporator. One of the

  15. An analysis of nuclear power plant operating costs: A 1995 update

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-04-21

    Over the years real (inflation-adjusted) O&M cost have begun to level off. The objective of this report is to determine whether the industry and NRC initiatives to control costs have resulted in this moderation in the growth of O&M costs. Because the industry agrees that the control of O&M costs is crucial to the viability of the technology, an examination of the factors causing the moderation in costs is important. A related issue deals with projecting nuclear operating costs into the future. Because of the escalation in nuclear operating costs (and the fall in fossil fuel prices) many State and Federal regulatory commissions are examining the economics of the continued operation of nuclear power plants under their jurisdiction. The economics of the continued operation of a nuclear power plant is typically examined by comparing the cost of the plants continued operation with the cost of obtaining the power from other sources. This assessment requires plant-specific projections of nuclear operating costs. Analysts preparing these projections look at past industry-wide cost trends and consider whether these trends are likely to continue. To determine whether these changes in trends will continue into the future, information about the causal factors influencing costs and the future trends in these factors are needed. An analysis of the factors explaining the moderation in cost growth will also yield important insights into the question of whether these trends will continue.

  16. EIS-0108: L-Reactor Operation, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared to provide environmental input into the proposed decision to restart L-Reactor operation at the Savannah River Plant (SRP). The Savannah River Plant is a major U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) installation for the production of defense nuclear materials. The proposed restart of L–Reactor would provide defense nuclear materials (i.e. , plutonium) to wet current and near-term needs for national defense purposes.

  17. Nuclear power plant simulators: their use in operator training and requalification

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jones, D.W.; Baer, D.K.; Francis, C.C.

    1980-07-01

    This report presents the results of a study performed for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to evaluate the capabilities and use of nuclear power plant simulators either built or being built by the US nuclear power industry; to determine the adequacy of existing standards for simulator design and for the training of power plant operators on simulators; and to assess the issues about simulator training programs raised by the March 28, 1979, accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2.

  18. Identification, Verification, and Compilation of Produced Water Management Practices for Conventional Oil and Gas Production Operations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rachel Henderson

    2007-09-30

    The project is titled 'Identification, Verification, and Compilation of Produced Water Management Practices for Conventional Oil and Gas Production Operations'. The Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC), headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, is the principal investigator and the IOGCC has partnered with ALL Consulting, Inc., headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in this project. State agencies that also have partnered in the project are the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation, the Kansas Oil and Gas Conservation Division, the Oklahoma Oil and Gas Conservation Division and the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. The objective is to characterize produced water quality and management practices for the handling, treating, and disposing of produced water from conventional oil and gas operations throughout the industry nationwide. Water produced from these operations varies greatly in quality and quantity and is often the single largest barrier to the economic viability of wells. The lack of data, coupled with renewed emphasis on domestic oil and gas development, has prompted many experts to speculate that the number of wells drilled over the next 20 years will approach 3 million, or near the number of current wells. This level of exploration and development undoubtedly will draw the attention of environmental communities, focusing their concerns on produced water management based on perceived potential impacts to fresh water resources. Therefore, it is imperative that produced water management practices be performed in a manner that best minimizes environmental impacts. This is being accomplished by compiling current best management practices for produced water from conventional oil and gas operations and to develop an analysis tool based on a geographic information system (GIS) to assist in the understanding of watershed-issued permits. That would allow management costs to be kept in line with the specific projects and regions, which increases the productive life of wells and increases the ultimate recoverable reserves in the ground. A case study was conducted in Wyoming to validate the applicability of the GIS analysis tool for watershed evaluations under real world conditions. Results of the partnered research will continue to be shared utilizing proven methods, such as on the IGOCC Web site, preparing hard copies of the results, distribution of documented case studies, and development of reference and handbook components to accompany the interactive internet-based GIS watershed analysis tool. Additionally, there have been several technology transfer seminars and presentations. The goal is to maximize the recovery of our nation's energy reserves and to promote water conservation.

  19. Variable Frequency Operations of an Offshore Wind Power Plant with HVDC-VSC: Preprint

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gevorgian, V.; Singh, M.; Muljadi, E.

    2011-12-01

    In this paper, a constant Volt/Hz operation applied to the Type 1 wind turbine generator. Various control aspects of Type 1 generators at the plant level and at the turbine level will be investigated. Based on DOE study, wind power generation may reach 330 GW by 2030 at the level of penetration of 20% of the total energy production. From this amount of wind power, 54 GW of wind power will be generated at offshore wind power plants. The deployment of offshore wind power plants requires power transmission from the plant to the load center inland. Since this power transmission requires submarine cable, there is a need to use High-Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) transmission. Otherwise, if the power is transmitted via alternating current, the reactive power generated by the cable capacitance may cause an excessive over voltage in the middle of the transmission distance which requires unnecessary oversized cable voltage breakdown capability. The use of HVDC is usually required for transmission distance longer than 50 kilometers of submarine cables to be economical. The use of HVDC brings another advantage; it is capable of operating at variable frequency. The inland substation will be operated to 60 Hz synched with the grid, the offshore substation can be operated at variable frequency, thus allowing the wind power plant to be operated at constant Volt/Hz. In this paper, a constant Volt/Hz operation applied to the Type 1 wind turbine generator. Various control aspects of Type 1 generators at the plant level and at the turbine level will be investigated.

  20. Table 1. Updated estimates of power plant capital and operating costs

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

    Updated estimates of power plant capital and operating costs" ,"Plant Characteristics",,,"Plant Costs (2012$)" ,"Nominal Capacity (MW)","Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)",,"Overnight Capital Cost ($/kW)","Fixed O&M Cost ($/kW-yr)","Variable O&M Cost ($/MWh)" ,,,,,,,"NEMS Input" " Coal" "Single Unit Advanced PC",650,8800,,3246,37.8,4.47,"N" "Dual Unit Advanced