National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for gas sng plant

  1. EIS-0002: Allocation of Petroleum Feedstock, Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., Sollers Point SNG Plant, Sollers Point, Baltimore County, MD

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Economic Regulatory Administration (ERA) developed this EIS to evaluate the social, economic and environmental impacts which may occur within the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BG&E) service area as a result of the ERA' s proposed decision to allocate up to 2,186,000 barrels per year of naphtha feedstock to BG&E to operate BG&E's existing synthetic natural gas facility located on Sollers Point in Baltimore County, Maryland.

  2. Comparative life-cycle air emissions of coal, domestic natural gas, LNG, and SNG for electricity generation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Paulina Jaramillo; W. Michael Griffin; H. Scott Matthews

    2007-09-15

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that in the coming decades the United States' natural gas (NG) demand for electricity generation will increase. Estimates also suggest that NG supply will increasingly come from imported liquefied natural gas (LNG). Additional supplies of NG could come domestically from the production of synthetic natural gas (SNG) via coal gasification-methanation. The objective of this study is to compare greenhouse gas (GHG), SOx, and NOx life-cycle emissions of electricity generated with NG/LNG/SNG and coal. This life-cycle comparison of air emissions from different fuels can help us better understand the advantages and disadvantages of using coal versus globally sourced NG for electricity generation. Our estimates suggest that with the current fleet of power plants, a mix of domestic NG, LNG, and SNG would have lower GHG emissions than coal. If advanced technologies with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) are used, however, coal and a mix of domestic NG, LNG, and SNG would have very similar life-cycle GHG emissions. For SOx and NOx we find there are significant emissions in the upstream stages of the NG/LNG life-cycles, which contribute to a larger range in SOx and NOx emissions for NG/LNG than for coal and SNG. 38 refs., 3 figs., 2 tabs.

  3. Development of a Hydrogasification Process for Co-Production of Substitute Natural Gas (SNG) and Electric Power from Western Coals

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sun, Xiaolei; Rink, Nancy

    2011-04-30

    This report presents the results of the research and development conducted on an Advanced Hydrogasification Process (AHP) conceived and developed by Arizona Public Service Company (APS) under U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) contract: DE-FC26-06NT42759 for Substitute Natural Gas (SNG) production from western coal. A double-wall (i.e., a hydrogasification contained within a pressure shell) down-flow hydrogasification reactor was designed, engineered, constructed, commissioned and operated by APS, Phoenix, AZ. The reactor is ASME-certified under Section VIII with a rating of 1150 pounds per square inch gage (psig) maximum allowable working pressure at 1950 degrees Fahrenheit ({degrees}F). The reaction zone had a 1.75 inch inner diameter and 13 feet length. The initial testing of a sub-bituminous coal demonstrated ~ 50% carbon conversion and ~10% methane yield in the product gas under 1625{degrees}F, 1000 psig pressure, with a 11 seconds (s) residence time, and 0.4 hydrogen-to-coal mass ratio. Liquid by-products mainly contained Benzene, Toluene, Xylene (BTX) and tar. Char collected from the bottom of the reactor had 9000-British thermal units per pound (Btu/lb) heating value. A three-dimensional (3D) computational fluid dynamic model simulation of the hydrodynamics around the reactor head was utilized to design the nozzles for injecting the hydrogen into the gasifier to optimize gas-solid mixing to achieve improved carbon conversion. The report also presents the evaluation of using algae for carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) management and biofuel production. Nannochloropsis, Selenastrum and Scenedesmus were determined to be the best algae strains for the project purpose and were studied in an outdoor system which included a 6-meter (6M) radius cultivator with a total surface area of 113 square meters (m{sup 2}) and a total culture volume between 10,000 to 15,000 liters (L); a CO{sub 2} on-demand feeding system; an on-line data collection system for temperature, pH, Photosynthetically Activate Radiation (PAR) and dissolved oxygen (DO); and a ~2 gallons per minute (gpm) algae culture dewatering system. Among the three algae strains, Scenedesmus showed the most tolerance to temperature and irradiance conditions in Phoenix and the best self-settling characteristics. Experimental findings and operational strategies determined through these tests guided the operation of the algae cultivation system for the scale-up study. Effect of power plant flue gas, especially heavy metals, on algae growth and biomass adsorption were evaluated as well.

  4. Development of a Hydrogasification Process for Co-Production of Substitute Natural Gas (SNG) and Electric Power from Western Coals-Phase I

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Raymond Hobbs

    2007-05-31

    The Advanced Hydrogasification Process (AHP)--conversion of coal to methane--is being developed through NETL with a DOE Grant and has successfully completed its first phase of development. The results so far are encouraging and have led to commitment by DOE/NETL to begin a second phase--bench scale reactor vessel testing, expanded engineering analysis and economic perspective review. During the next decade new means of generating electricity, and other forms of energy, will be introduced. The members of the AHP Team envision a need for expanded sources of natural gas or substitutes for natural gas, to fuel power generating plants. The initial work the team has completed on a process to use hydrogen to convert coal to methane (pipeline ready gas) shows promising potential. The Team has intentionally slanted its efforts toward the needs of US electric utilities, particularly on fuels that can be used near urban centers where the greatest need for new electric generation is found. The process, as it has evolved, would produce methane from coal by adding hydrogen. The process appears to be efficient using western coals for conversion to a highly sought after fuel with significantly reduced CO{sub 2} emissions. Utilities have a natural interest in the preservation of their industry, which will require a dramatic reduction in stack emissions and an increase in sustainable technologies. Utilities tend to rank long-term stable supplies of fuel higher than most industries and are willing to trade some ratio of cost for stability. The need for sustainability, stability and environmentally compatible production are key drivers in the formation and progression of the AHP development. In Phase II, the team will add a focus on water conservation to determine how the basic gasification process can be best integrated with all the plant components to minimize water consumption during SNG production. The process allows for several CO{sub 2} reduction options including consumption of the CO{sub 2} in the original process as converted to methane. The process could under another option avoid emissions following the conversion to SNG through an adjunct algae conversion process. The algae would then be converted to fuels or other products. An additional application of the algae process at the end use natural gas fired plant could further reduce emissions. The APS team fully recognizes the competition facing the process from natural gas and imported liquid natural gas. While we expect those resources to set the price for methane in the near-term, the team's work to date indicates that the AHP process can be commercially competitive, with the added benefit of assuring long-term energy supplies from North American resources. Conversion of coal to a more readily transportable fuel that can be employed near load centers with an overall reduction of greenhouses gases is edging closer to reality.

  5. Sorption-Enhanced Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG) Production from Syngas. A Novel Process Combining CO Methanation, Water-Gas Shift, and CO2 Capture

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lebarbier, Vanessa M.C.; Dagle, Robert A.; Kovarik, Libor; Albrecht, Karl O.; Li, Xiaohong S.; Li, Liyu; Taylor, Charles E.; Bao, Xinhe; Wang, Yong

    2013-07-08

    Synthetic natural gas (SNG) production from syngas is under investigation again due to the desire for less dependency from imports and the opportunity for increasing coal utilization and reducing green house gas emission. CO methanation is highly exothermic and substantial heat is liberated which can lead to process thermal imbalance and deactivation of the catalyst. As a result, conversion per pass is limited and substantial syngas recycle is employed in conventional processes. Furthermore, the conversion of syngas to SNG is typically performed at moderate temperatures (275 to 325°C) to ensure high CH4 yields since this reaction is thermodynamically limited. In this study, the effectiveness of a novel integrated process for the SNG production from syngas at high temperature (i.e. 600?C) was investigated. This integrated process consists of combining a CO methanation nickel-based catalyst with a high temperature CO2 capture sorbent in a single reactor. Integration with CO2 separation eliminates the reverse-water-gas shift and the requirement for a separate water-gas shift (WGS) unit. Easing of thermodynamic constraint offers the opportunity of enhancing yield to CH4 at higher operating temperature (500-700ºC) which also favors methanation kinetics and improves the overall process efficiency due to exploitation of reaction heat at higher temperatures. Furthermore, simultaneous CO2 capture eliminates green house gas emission. In this work, sorption-enhanced CO methanation was demonstrated using a mixture of a 68% CaO/32% MgAl2O4 sorbent and a CO methanation catalyst (Ni/Al2O3, Ni/MgAl2O4, or Ni/SiC) utilizing a syngas ratio (H2/CO) of 1, gas-hour-space velocity (GHSV) of 22 000 hr-1, pressure of 1 bar and a temperature of 600oC. These conditions resulted in ~90% yield to methane, which was maintained until the sorbent became saturated with CO2. By contrast, without the use of sorbent, equilibrium yield to methane is only 22%. Cyclic stability of the methanation catalyst and durability of the sorbent were also studied in the multiple carbonation-decarbonation cycle studies proving the potential of this integrated process in a practical application.

  6. 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...

  7. Cost and performance baseline for fossil energy plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2007-05-15

    The objective of this report is to present performance and cost data for fossil energy power systems, specifically integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC), pulverized coal (PC), and natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants, in a consistent technical and economic manner that accurately reflects current market conditions for plants starting operation in 2010. This is Volume 2 of the three-volume report. Twelve different power plant design configurations were analyzed. These include six IGCC cases utilizing the General Electric Energy (GEE), ConocoPhillips (CoP), and Shell gasifiers each with and without CO{sub 2} capture, and six cases representing conventional technologies: PC-subcritical, PC-supercritical, and NGCC plants both with and without CO{sub 2} capture. Cases 7 and 8 were originally included in this study and involve production of synthetic natural gas (SNG) and the repowering of an existing NGCC facility using SNG. The two SNG cases were subsequently moved to Volume 2 of this report resulting in the discontinuity of case numbers (1-6 and 9-14). Chapter 2 provides the basis for technical, environmental and cost evaluations. Chapter 3 describes the IGCC technologies modeled and presents the results for the six IGCC cases. Chapter 4 describes the PC technologies modeled and presents the results for the four PC cases. Chapter 5 described the NGCC technologies modeled and presents the results for the two NGCC cases. Chapter 6 contains the reference list. 64 refs., 253 exhibits.

  8. 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...

  9. ,"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...

  10. ,"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...

  11. 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...

  12. 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,...

  13. 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...

  14. 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...

  15. 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...

  16. 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...

  17. 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...

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. 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...

  14. 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

  15. 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...

  16. EIS-0002: Final Environmental Impact Statement

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    Allocation of Petroleum Feedstock, Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., Sollers Point SNG Plant, Sollers Point, Baltimore County, Maryland

  17. 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...

  18. 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...

  19. 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...

  20. 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...

  1. ,"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...

  2. ,"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...

  3. ,"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...

  4. 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...

  5. ,"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...

  6. 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...

  7. ,"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...

  8. ,"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...

  9. ,"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...

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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"

  13. 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)

  14. 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...

  15. 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...

  16. 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...

  17. 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...

  18. 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...

  19. 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...

  20. 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...

  1. 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...

  2. 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...

  3. 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...

  4. 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...

  5. 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...

  6. 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...

  7. 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...

  8. 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...

  9. 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...

  10. 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...

  11. 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...

  12. 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...

  13. 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...

  14. 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...

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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.

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  1. 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:

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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:

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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.

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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:

  7. 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:

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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,

  11. 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,

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. ,"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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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.

  20. 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)

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  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 ft²) membrane modules. For the long term, a new fluoropolymer membrane platform based on poly(vinylidene fluoride) [PVDF] chemistry was developed using a copolymer approach as improved capture membrane materials with superior chemical resistance to flue-gas contaminants (moisture, SO?, NOx, etc.). Specific objectives were: - Development of new, highly chemically resistant, fluorinated polymers as membrane materials with minimum selectivity of 30 for CO? over N? and CO? permeance greater than 300 gas permeation units (GPU) targeted; - Development of next-generation polycarbonate hollow-fiber membranes and membrane modules with higher CO? permeance than current commercial polycarbonate membranes; - Development and fabrication of membrane hollow fibers and modules from candidate polymers; - Development of a CO? capture membrane process design and integration strategy suitable for end-of-pipe, retrofit installation; and - Techno-economic evaluation of the "best" integrated CO? capture membrane process design package In this report, the results of the project research and development efforts are discussed and include the post-combustion capture properties of the two membrane material platforms and the hollow-fiber membrane modules developed from them and the multi-stage process design and analysis developed for 90% CO? capture with 95% captured CO? purity.

  7. 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.

  8. 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

  9. 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 =

  10. 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 =

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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:

  10. 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

  11. 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.

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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:

  17. 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:

  18. 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:

  19. 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:

  20. 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:

  1. 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

  2. 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:

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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:

  6. 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

  7. 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:

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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:

  11. 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:

  12. 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:

  13. 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:

  14. 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

  15. 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.

  16. 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

  17. 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.

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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:

  7. 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:

  8. 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:

  9. 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

  10. 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:

  11. 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:

  12. 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 =

  13. 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

  14. 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:

  15. 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:

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. ,"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

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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.

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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.

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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 =

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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:

  14. 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; -- =

  15. 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;

  16. 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 =

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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 =

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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 =

  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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...

  14. Production of Substitute Natural Gas from Coal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Andrew Lucero

    2009-01-31

    The goal of this research program was to develop and demonstrate a novel gasification technology to produce substitute natural gas (SNG) from coal. The technology relies on a continuous sequential processing method that differs substantially from the historic methanation or hydro-gasification processing technologies. The thermo-chemistry relies on all the same reactions, but the processing sequences are different. The proposed concept is appropriate for western sub-bituminous coals, which tend to be composed of about half fixed carbon and about half volatile matter (dry ash-free basis). In the most general terms the process requires four steps (1) separating the fixed carbon from the volatile matter (pyrolysis); (2) converting the volatile fraction into syngas (reforming); (3) reacting the syngas with heated carbon to make methane-rich fuel gas (methanation and hydro-gasification); and (4) generating process heat by combusting residual char (combustion). A key feature of this technology is that no oxygen plant is needed for char combustion.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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 - =

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  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. 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.

  11. 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...

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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

  15. 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.

  16. 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...

  17. 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.

  18. 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...

  19. 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...

  20. 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...

  1. 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...

  2. 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...

  3. 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...

  4. 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...

  5. 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...

  6. 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...

  7. 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...

  8. 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...

  9. 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)...

  10. 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

  11. 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...

  12. 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.

  13. 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...

  14. 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.

  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. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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...

  3. 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.

  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. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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...

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. Ohio Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Ohio (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Extracted in Ohio (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Ohio (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 33,332 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Ohio-Ohio Natural Gas Plant Processing

  15. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore - Louisiana and Alabama Natural Gas Plant

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore - Louisiana and Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 614 566 532 512 575 1990's 519 545 472 490 500 496 621 785 776 833 2000's 921 785 783 598 615 603 575 528 464 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  16. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore - Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore - Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 62 66 64 88 80 100 89 89 78 1990's 82 79 118 115 103 134 132 121 143 161 2000's 153 182 182 119 98 85 74 92 83 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  17. California--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Future Production (Million Barrels) Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) California--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 9 1980's 11 6 6 6 5 6 7 7 7 4 1990's 5 4 5 6 5 4 3 4 5 7 2000's 10 8 10 8 8 9 8 9 6 6 2010's 5 4 4 4 4

  18. California--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Future Production (Million Barrels) San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) California--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 74 1980's 74 51 118 111 100 115 104 102 96 91 1990's 82 71 79 81 71 77 77 79 57 59 2000's 63 51 68 78 94 110 100 103 97 113 2010's 98 78 77 85 96

  19. Texas - RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 23 1980's 24 26 29 43 39 40 35 27 30 25 1990's 26 28 27 26 26 26 46 54 38 167 2000's 55 40 39 29 36 36 42 49 49 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  20. Texas - RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 375 1980's 369 364 391 413 440 433 428 417 363 342 1990's 328 356 336 329 326 353 332 382 354 217 2000's 369 335 353 347 420 423 466 534 554 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  1. Texas - RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 64 1980's 64 88 75 99 103 100 89 102 92 72 1990's 80 75 80 86 86 93 93 87 85 76 2000's 72 67 71 69 79 91 90 111 105 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  2. Texas - RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 231 1980's 216 230 265 285 270 260 237 241 208 213 1990's 181 208 211 253 254 272 289 286 246 226 2000's 209 226 241 207 221 226 234 271 196 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  3. Texas - RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 248 1980's 252 260 289 292 295 269 281 277 260 260 1990's 279 273 272 278 290 287 323 347 363 422 2000's 406 378 370 287 326 309 333 327 310 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  4. Texas - RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 34 1980's 44 49 53 73 74 77 86 88 81 88 1990's 81 71 71 64 59 54 54 35 35 32 2000's 49 49 50 51 53 48 53 56 132 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  5. Texas - RRC District 6 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 6 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 272 1980's 321 308 278 342 298 293 277 264 263 266 1990's 247 243 251 248 265 271 290 260 276 223 2000's 283 269 277 248 304 333 357 426 396 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  6. Texas - RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 64 1980's 85 102 105 133 106 104 109 92 98 73 1990's 76 82 68 79 62 70 65 59 51 36 2000's 34 29 25 32 43 90 133 203 274 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  7. Texas - RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 182 1980's 135 186 199 219 233 256 246 243 238 238 1990's 256 241 289 273 265 274 303 327 282 305 2000's 434 290 351 345 383 411 439 491 432 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  8. Texas - RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 505 1980's 498 537 588 681 691 665 717 640 547 554 1990's 558 477 444 439 414 444 429 459 491 495 2000's 526 525 510 498 499 575 566 558 543 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  9. Texas - RRC District 8A Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 8A Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 351 1980's 290 335 296 262 282 283 331 307 326 332 1990's 354 333 257 298 267 284 262 290 226 223 2000's 217 251 181 163 197 250 233 262 199 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  10. Texas - RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 79 1980's 92 86 119 121 119 111 119 115 106 94 1990's 104 101 92 92 98 94 119 98 93 158 2000's 161 189 238 236 235 285 385 367 366 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  11. U.S. Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) U.S. Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 679 681 638 622 678 1990's 619 640 610 630 624 655 776 920 931 998 2000's 1,078 976 973 725 721 696 653 624 548 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  12. ,"Utah and Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    and Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Utah and Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2006 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  13. Missouri Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 494 0 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas

  14. Nevada Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Nevada Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980's 0 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 53 30 21 16 1 11 9 9 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas

  15. Delaware Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

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

  16. Idaho Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Idaho Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 38 5 6 22 4 1980's 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Lease and

  17. NGNP: High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor Key Definitions, Plant Capabilities, and Assumptions

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wayne Moe

    2013-05-01

    This document provides key definitions, plant capabilities, and inputs and assumptions related to the Next Generation Nuclear Plant to be used in ongoing efforts related to the licensing and deployment of a high temperature gas-cooled reactor. These definitions, capabilities, and assumptions were extracted from a number of NGNP Project sources such as licensing related white papers, previously issued requirement documents, and preapplication interactions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

  18. pH Adjustment of Power Plant Cooling Water with Flue Gas/ Fly Ash - Energy

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

    Innovation Portal Advanced Materials Advanced Materials Find More Like This Return to Search pH Adjustment of Power Plant Cooling Water with Flue Gas/ Fly Ash Sandia National Laboratories Contact SNL About This Technology Publications: PDF Document Publication Market Sheet (801 KB) Technology Marketing SummaryIncreased recycling of power plant cooling water calls for low-cost means of preventing the formation of calcium carbonate and silicate scale. Hardness (Ca and Mg) and silica are two of

  19. MEMBRANE PROCESS TO SEQUESTER CO2 FROM POWER PLANT FLUE GAS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tim Merkel; Karl Amo; Richard Baker; Ramin Daniels; Bilgen Friat; Zhenjie He; Haiqing Lin; Adrian Serbanescu

    2009-03-31

    The objective of this project was to assess the feasibility of using a membrane process to capture CO2 from coal-fired power plant flue gas. During this program, MTR developed a novel membrane (Polaris™) with a CO2 permeance tenfold higher than commercial CO2-selective membranes used in natural gas treatment. The Polaris™ membrane, combined with a process design that uses a portion of combustion air as a sweep stream to generate driving force for CO2 permeation, meets DOE post-combustion CO2 capture targets. Initial studies indicate a CO2 separation and liquefaction cost of $20 - $30/ton CO2 using about 15% of the plant energy at 90% CO2 capture from a coal-fired power plant. Production of the Polaris™ CO2 capture membrane was scaled up with MTR’s commercial casting and coating equipment. Parametric tests of cross-flow and countercurrent/sweep modules prepared from this membrane confirm their near-ideal performance under expected flue gas operating conditions. Commercial-scale, 8-inch diameter modules also show stable performance in field tests treating raw natural gas. These findings suggest that membranes are a viable option for flue gas CO2 capture. The next step will be to conduct a field demonstration treating a realworld power plant flue gas stream. The first such MTR field test will capture 1 ton CO2/day at Arizona Public Service’s Cholla coal-fired power plant, as part of a new DOE NETL funded program.

  20. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Field Production

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

    2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Liquids 757,019 808,865 881,306 951,057 1,100,298 1,194,630 1981-2015 Pentanes Plus 101,155 106,284 116,002 126,809 143,831 156,568 1981-2015 Liquefied Petroleum Gases 655,864 702,581 765,304 824,248 956,467 1,038,062 1981-2015 Ethane 317,180 337,972 356,592 354,089 398,206 404,287 1981-2015 Propane 213,782 230,227 260,704 300,348 359,430 407,750 1981-2015 Normal Butane 56,655 57,399 65,555 80,045 100,930 118,151 1981-2015 Isobutane 68,247

  1. Simulated coal gas MCFC power plant system verification. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1998-07-30

    The objective of the main project is to identify the current developmental status of MCFC systems and address those technical issues that need to be resolved to move the technology from its current status to the demonstration stage in the shortest possible time. The specific objectives are separated into five major tasks as follows: Stack research; Power plant development; Test facilities development; Manufacturing facilities development; and Commercialization. This Final Report discusses the M-C power Corporation effort which is part of a general program for the development of commercial MCFC systems. This final report covers the entire subject of the Unocal 250-cell stack. Certain project activities have been funded by organizations other than DOE and are included in this report to provide a comprehensive overview of the work accomplished.

  2. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Field Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 View History Natural Gas Liquids 101,809 102,880 100,283 106,269 103,071 104,629 1981-2015 Pentanes Plus 14,341 14,218 13,829 13,963 12,798 12,666 1981-2015 Liquefied Petroleum Gases 87,468 88,662 86,454 92,306 90,273 91,963 1981-2015 Ethane 32,934 34,146 32,977 35,905 36,534 37,506 1981-2015 Propane 34,853 34,959 34,187 36,192 34,569 35,143 1981-2015 Normal Butane 9,970 10,248 10,103 10,387 10,054 9,735 1981-2015 Isobutane 9,711 9,309 9,187 9,822 9,116

  3. Microbial Gas Generation Under Expected Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Repository Conditions: Final Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gillow, J.B.; Francis, A.

    2011-07-01

    Gas generation from the microbial degradation of the organic constituents of transuranic (TRU) waste under conditions expected in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) was investigated. The biodegradation of mixed cellulosic materials and electron-beam irradiated plastic and rubber materials (polyethylene, polyvinylchloride, hypalon, leaded hypalon, and neoprene) was examined. We evaluated the effects of environmental variables such as initial atmosphere (air or nitrogen), water content (humid ({approx}70% relative humidity, RH) and brine inundated), and nutrient amendments (nitogen phosphate, yeast extract, and excess nitrate) on microbial gas generation. Total gas production was determined by pressure measurement and carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) and methane (CH{sub 4}) were analyzed by gas chromatography; cellulose degradation products in solution were analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography. Microbial populations in the samples were determined by direct microscopy and molecular analysis. The results of this work are summarized.

  4. Gas turbines for coal-fired turbocharged PFBC boiler power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wenglarz, R.; Drenker, S.

    1984-11-01

    A coal-fired turbocharged boiler using fluidized bed combustion at high pressure would be more compact than a pulverized coal fired boiler. The smaller boiler size could permit the utility industry to adopt efficient modular construction methods now widely used in other industries. A commercial turbocharger of the capacity needed to run a 250 MW /SUB e/ power plant does not exist; commercial gas turbines of the correct capacity exist, but they are not matched to this cycle's gas temperature of less than 538/sup 0/C (1000/sup 0/F). In order to avoid impeding the development of the technology, it will probably be desirable to use existing machines to the maximum extent possible. This paper explores the advantages and disadvantages of applying either standard gas turbines or modified standard gas turbines to the turbocharged boiler.

  5. Carbon dioxide absorber and regeneration assemblies useful for power plant flue gas

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Vimalchand, Pannalal; Liu, Guohai; Peng, Wan Wang

    2012-11-06

    Disclosed are apparatus and method to treat large amounts of flue gas from a pulverized coal combustion power plant. The flue gas is contacted with solid sorbents to selectively absorb CO.sub.2, which is then released as a nearly pure CO.sub.2 gas stream upon regeneration at higher temperature. The method is capable of handling the necessary sorbent circulation rates of tens of millions of lbs/hr to separate CO.sub.2 from a power plant's flue gas stream. Because pressurizing large amounts of flue gas is cost prohibitive, the method of this invention minimizes the overall pressure drop in the absorption section to less than 25 inches of water column. The internal circulation of sorbent within the absorber assembly in the proposed method not only minimizes temperature increases in the absorber to less than 25.degree. F., but also increases the CO.sub.2 concentration in the sorbent to near saturation levels. Saturating the sorbent with CO.sub.2 in the absorber section minimizes the heat energy needed for sorbent regeneration. The commercial embodiments of the proposed method can be optimized for sorbents with slower or faster absorption kinetics, low or high heat release rates, low or high saturation capacities and slower or faster regeneration kinetics.

  6. Integration and optimization of the gas removal system for hybrid-cycle OTEC power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rabas, T.J.; Panchal, C.B.; Stevens, H.C. )

    1990-02-01

    A preliminary design of the noncondensible gas removal system for a 10 mWe, land-based hybrid-cycle OTEC power plant has been developed and is presented herein. This gas removal system is very different from that used for conventional power plants because of the substantially larger and continuous noncondensible gas flow rates and lower condenser pressure levels which predicate the need for higher-efficiency components. Previous OTEC studies discussed the need for multiple high-efficiency compressors with intercoolers; however, no previous design effort was devoted to the details of the intercoolers, integration and optimization of the intercoolers with the compressors, and the practical design constraints and feasibility issues of these components. The resulting gas removal system design uses centrifugal (radial) compressors with matrix-type crossflow aluminum heat exchangers as intercoolers. Once-through boiling of ammonia is used as the heat sink for the cooling and condensing of the steam-gas mixture. A computerized calculation method was developed for the performance analysis and subsystem optimization. For a specific number of compressor units and the stream arrangement, the method is used to calculate the dimensions, speeds, power requirements, and costs of all the components.

  7. Coke oven gas treatment and by-product plant of Magnitogorsk Integrated Iron and Steel Works

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Egorov, V.N.; Anikin, G.J.; Gross, M.

    1995-12-01

    Magnitogorsk Integrated Iron and Steel Works, Russia, decided to erect a new coke oven gas treatment and by-product plant to replace the existing obsolete units and to improve the environmental conditions of the area. The paper deals with the technological concept and the design requirements. Commissioning is scheduled at the beginning of 1996. The paper describes H{sub 2}S and NH{sub 3} removal, sulfur recovery and ammonia destruction, primary gas cooling and electrostatic tar precipitation, and the distributed control system that will be installed.

  8. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Acquisitions (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Acquisitions (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Acquisitions (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 1,051 550 512 433 554 596 1,048 771 332 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Liquids Reserves Acquisitions

  9. 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.

  10. Calif--Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  11. Calif--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  12. Calif--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  13. ,"Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  14. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  15. ,"North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  16. ,"Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  17. ,"Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  18. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  19. ,"Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  20. Arizona Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Arizona Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 33 20 34 1970's 50 50 44 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980's 0 222 7 7 7 6 5 6 5 35 1990's 71 45 41 49 61 57 58 51 46 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring

  1. Oregon Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 32 30 37 30 30 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 120 131 130 115 59 1990's 93 60 68 118 95 66 40 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring

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

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

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

  3. South Dakota Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) South Dakota Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980's 0 0 63 61 76 93 70 125 123 112 1990's 158 393 451 452 437 404 424 911 848 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release

  4. Tennessee Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 355 753 986 1970's 1,265 1,524 1,150 1,263 1,087 387 537 509 516 616 1980's 0 0 78 113 153 138 98 93 60 45 1990's 74 44 39 49 44 47 37 45 31 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016

  5. Virginia Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Virginia Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 128 211 1970's 252 213 157 170 307 168 157 157 191 266 1980's 240 361 181 124 272 443 438 669 536 425 1990's 489 327 653 1,120 1,102 1,296 1,183 1,330 1,243 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  6. Texas--RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

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

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 16 1980's 18 20 24 35 33 33 30 22 23 15 1990's 20 23 24 23 23 23 44 46 32 161 2000's 49 35 34 24 31 31 32 43 44 87 2010's 163 158 197 233 343 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  7. Texas--RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

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

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 356 1980's 350 349 376 397 425 416 411 402 351 331 1990's 318 346 327 316 305 343 323 372 342 191 2000's 191 311 326 315 373 367 396 458 473 494 2010's 566 578 522 481 598 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  8. Texas--RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

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

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 45 1980's 48 68 52 73 81 76 69 70 67 56 1990's 63 61 66 72 74 82 85 75 75 64 2000's 59 53 60 56 64 72 74 94 88 77 2010's 113 203 374 698 1,037 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  9. Texas--RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

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

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 177 1980's 164 179 212 228 217 211 184 166 150 140 1990's 132 160 172 196 200 204 210 170 169 152 2000's 140 144 170 135 149 148 159 143 131 127 2010's 129 158 184 196 199 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA =

  10. Texas--RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

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

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 172 1980's 177 183 204 212 208 183 197 197 186 188 1990's 208 204 207 213 220 217 241 261 267 300 2000's 316 281 279 202 253 238 246 250 231 231 2010's 258 402 562 1,069 987 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA =

  11. Texas--RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

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

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 24 1980's 32 42 44 61 61 62 73 76 72 65 1990's 61 53 55 50 50 47 48 31 31 24 2000's 24 43 39 40 44 40 42 50 126 192 2010's 225 237 214 183 193 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure

  12. Texas--RRC District 6 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

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

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 6 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 228 1980's 268 259 232 280 253 247 224 213 210 212 1990's 195 195 205 202 218 223 242 221 235 182 2000's 182 215 213 195 233 264 279 324 318 330 2010's 369 360 269 376 387 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  13. Texas--RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

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

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 62 1980's 82 99 99 129 103 101 106 90 95 71 1990's 74 81 67 73 61 69 64 57 48 34 2000's 34 28 24 31 42 89 131 200 269 326 2010's 359 416 295 332 312 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  14. Texas--RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

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

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 168 1980's 120 172 184 204 219 242 232 231 226 225 1990's 234 218 266 250 241 255 285 309 266 291 2000's 291 271 326 319 365 391 404 464 402 412 2010's 465 549 524 438 473 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  15. Texas--RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

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

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 452 1980's 452 498 554 650 662 646 697 623 530 542 1990's 545 466 426 430 398 432 417 447 479 479 2000's 479 504 488 484 487 559 547 525 524 536 2010's 618 689 802 830 1,240 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  16. Texas--RRC District 8A Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

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

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 8A Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 350 1980's 289 335 296 262 282 282 331 307 325 332 1990's 353 333 257 297 267 284 262 290 226 222 2000's 222 250 180 163 197 248 231 260 194 201 2010's 230 239 242 239 245 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  17. Texas--RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

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

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 75 1980's 81 81 111 115 113 106 112 107 102 90 1990's 100 96 89 88 94 90 116 96 91 156 2000's 156 182 229 228 228 276 372 347 348 419 2010's 488 552 542 578 662 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  18. Texas--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

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

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

  19. New Mexico--East Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

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

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) New Mexico--East Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 192 1980's 192 197 193 216 206 192 200 176 193 179 1990's 200 187 204 215 222 236 287 253 243 230 2000's 302 259 266 251 245 237 264 274 261 289 2010's 342 350 310 329 443 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  20. New Mexico--West Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

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

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) New Mexico--West Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 273 1980's 286 299 282 279 256 203 314 532 733 684 1990's 715 653 790 710 724 645 711 561 633 666 2000's 502 535 513 573 560 544 540 514 465 426 2010's 422 426 352 350 346 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  1. ,"Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  2. ,"Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  3. ,"Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  4. ,"Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  5. ,"Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  6. ,"Louisiana--North Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana--North Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  7. ,"Louisiana--South Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana--South Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  8. ,"Lower 48 States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Lower 48 States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  9. ,"Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  10. ,"Miscellaneous States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Miscellaneous States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  11. Indiana Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 5 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1980's 7 51 10 4 12 11 10 7 12 10 1990's 13 5 5 6 2 5 8 12 13 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  12. Maryland Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 257 310 381 1970's 319 451 67 474 392 277 415 342 889 2,488 1980's 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1990's 1 0 0 1 1 1 3 3 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. NGNP: High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor Key Definitions, Plant Capabilities, and Assumptions

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Phillip Mills

    2012-02-01

    This document is intended to provide a Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project tool in which to collect and identify key definitions, plant capabilities, and inputs and assumptions to be used in ongoing efforts related to the licensing and deployment of a high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR). These definitions, capabilities, and assumptions are extracted from a number of sources, including NGNP Project documents such as licensing related white papers [References 1-11] and previously issued requirement documents [References 13-15]. Also included is information agreed upon by the NGNP Regulatory Affairs group's Licensing Working Group and Configuration Council. The NGNP Project approach to licensing an HTGR plant via a combined license (COL) is defined within the referenced white papers and reference [12], and is not duplicated here.

  16. 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.

  17. Near-Zero Emissions Oxy-Combustion Flue Gas Purification - Power Plant Performance

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Andrew Seltzer; Zhen Fan

    2011-03-01

    A technical feasibility assessment was performed for retrofitting oxy-fuel technology to an existing power plant burning low sulfur PRB fuel and high sulfur bituminous fuel. The focus of this study was on the boiler/power generation island of a subcritical steam cycle power plant. The power plant performance in air and oxy-firing modes was estimated and modifications required for oxy-firing capabilities were identified. A 460 MWe (gross) reference subcritical PC power plant was modeled. The reference air-fired plant has a boiler efficiency (PRB/Bituminous) of 86.7%/89.3% and a plant net efficiency of 35.8/36.7%. Net efficiency for oxy-fuel firing including ASU/CPU duty is 25.6%/26.6% (PRB/Bituminous). The oxy-fuel flue gas recirculation flow to the boiler is 68%/72% (PRB/bituminous) of the flue gas (average O{sub 2} in feed gas is 27.4%/26.4%v (PRB/bituminous)). Maximum increase in tube wall temperature is less than 10ºF for oxy-fuel firing. For oxy-fuel firing, ammonia injected to the SCR was shut-off and the FGD is applied to remove SOx from the recycled primary gas stream and a portion of the SOx from the secondary stream for the high sulfur bituminous coal. Based on CFD simulations it was determined that at the furnace outlet compared to air-firing, SO{sub 3}/SO{sub 2} mole ratio is about the same, NOx ppmv level is about the same for PRB-firing and 2.5 times for bituminous-firing due to shutting off the OFA, and CO mole fraction is approximately double. A conceptual level cost estimate was performed for the incremental equipment and installation cost of the oxyfuel retrofit in the boiler island and steam system. The cost of the retrofit is estimated to be approximately 81 M$ for PRB low sulfur fuel and 84 M$ for bituminous high sulfur fuel.

  18. ,"California--Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California--Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release

  19. ,"California--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release

  20. ,"California--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Galowitz, Stephen

    2012-12-31

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

  2. Approach to IAEA material-balance verification at the Portsmouth Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gordon, D.M.; Sanborn, J.B.; Younkin, J.M.; DeVito, V.J.

    1983-01-01

    This paper describes a potential approach by which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) might verify the nuclear-material balance at the Portsmouth Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant (GCEP). The strategy makes use of the attributes and variables measurement verification approach, whereby the IAEA would perform independent measurements on a randomly selected subset of the items comprising the U-235 flows and inventories at the plant. In addition, the MUF-D statistic is used as the test statistic for the detection of diversion. The paper includes descriptions of the potential verification activities, as well as calculations of: (1) attributes and variables sample sizes for the various strata, (2) standard deviations of the relevant test statistics, and (3) the detection sensitivity which the IAEA might achieve by this verification strategy at GCEP.

  3. Alabama Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 162 152 150 1970's 214 476 1,070 1,329 1,301 1,968 2,714 5,444 3,371 21,454 1980's 9,990 5,804 5,037 4,729 5,332 5,476 5,442 6,878 6,655 6,152 1990's 9,881 8,627 12,868 13,365 0 14,274 13,319 9,488 10,041 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  4. Alaska Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 1,659 2,240 6,864 1970's 4,748 8,459 16,056 15,217 14,402 17,842 15,972 17,336 15,895 12,153 1980's 30,250 15,249 94,232 97,828 111,069 64,148 72,686 116,682 153,670 192,239 1990's 193,875 223,194 234,716 237,702 238,156 292,811 295,834 271,284 281,872 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable;

  5. Arkansas Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 10,267 4,027 6,268 1970's 9,184 6,433 4,740 3,000 4,246 4,200 4,049 4,032 3,760 7,661 1980's 1,949 2,549 5,096 5,384 5,922 12,439 9,062 11,990 12,115 11,586 1990's 7,101 1,406 5,838 6,405 4,750 5,551 5,575 6,857 8,385 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld

  6. Michigan Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 2,798 2,012 2,074 1970's 3,440 2,145 2,143 2,551 3,194 8,420 7,647 8,022 11,076 14,695 1980's 6,494 3,461 9,699 8,130 8,710 8,195 7,609 9,616 8,250 8,003 1990's 9,094 9,595 7,274 8,171 9,766 9,535 8,489 12,060 9,233 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld

  7. Montana Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 5,904 5,188 6,183 1970's 5,091 6,148 5,924 4,281 3,683 2,315 2,754 2,972 2,792 4,796 1980's 3,425 1,832 2,012 1,970 2,069 2,138 1,808 2,088 1,994 1,766 1990's 2,262 1,680 1,871 2,379 2,243 2,238 2,401 2,277 2,000 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  8. Nebraska Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 2,164 1,945 1,877 1970's 1,650 1,275 814 1,809 1,194 1,036 708 695 1,160 1,867 1980's 3,779 132 107 94 105 87 59 74 47 34 1990's 26 31 40 56 89 60 46 45 37 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  9. New Mexico Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 46,793 46,331 45,309 1970's 47,998 46,114 48,803 52,553 43,452 38,604 49,160 43,751 37,880 50,798 1980's 36,859 22,685 55,722 47,630 50,662 46,709 35,615 48,138 41,706 42,224 1990's 65,889 44,766 53,697 49,658 54,786 52,589 81,751 64,458 59,654 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not

  10. North Dakota Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) North Dakota Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 17,133 16,163 14,691 1970's 14,067 13,990 12,773 12,462 11,483 12,008 15,998 13,697 12,218 3,950 1980's 1,017 13,759 3,514 4,100 4,563 4,710 3,974 5,194 4,014 3,388 1990's 6,939 11,583 8,462 8,256 11,306 11,342 11,603 8,572 8,309 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA =

  11. Ohio Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 2,656 3,505 2,879 1970's 3,140 4,302 3,397 3,548 2,957 2,925 2,742 2,814 3,477 22,094 1980's 1,941 1,776 3,671 4,377 5,741 5,442 5,243 5,802 4,869 3,876 1990's 5,129 1,476 1,450 1,366 1,332 1,283 1,230 1,201 1,125 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  12. Oklahoma Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 65,167 84,259 103,361 1970's 98,417 101,126 98,784 80,233 80,780 79,728 84,025 77,631 82,046 128,475 1980's 59,934 56,785 91,465 79,230 91,707 88,185 84,200 104,415 100,926 90,225 1990's 111,567 88,366 92,978 99,869 91,039 80,846 73,039 81,412 61,543 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable;

  13. Utah Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 1,956 1,503 2,113 1970's 633 2,115 1,978 2,435 4,193 7,240 9,150 7,585 8,325 14,123 1980's 7,594 511 5,965 4,538 8,375 9,001 13,289 17,671 16,889 16,211 1990's 19,719 13,738 12,611 12,526 13,273 27,012 27,119 24,619 27,466 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  14. Colorado Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 2,668 2,361 2,604 1970's 2,726 3,231 4,676 7,202 5,822 7,673 7,739 9,124 10,619 21,610 1980's 7,041 7,093 13,673 10,000 10,560 10,829 9,397 12,095 11,622 12,221 1990's 17,343 23,883 21,169 24,832 24,347 25,130 27,492 29,585 31,074 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available;

  15. Florida Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Florida Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 210 201 176 1970's 234 294 1,782 3,027 2,700 6,304 6,306 4,890 5,314 7,628 1980's 8,284 9,035 10,603 8,520 7,847 7,174 6,156 7,563 7,275 8,942 1990's 1,716 3,751 5,134 1,717 820 765 2,174 2,434 2,329 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  16. Kansas Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 7,842 15,867 17,587 1970's 20,841 27,972 28,183 32,663 35,350 27,212 31,044 29,142 30,491 48,663 1980's 24,521 19,665 41,392 37,901 40,105 42,457 38,885 44,505 45,928 43,630 1990's 40,914 44,614 43,736 56,657 44,611 47,282 49,196 46,846 33,989 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  17. Kentucky Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 1,828 1,992 2,277 1970's 2,317 2,212 1,509 1,238 1,206 1,218 1,040 1,107 1,160 1,214 1980's 989 1,040 9,772 8,361 9,038 9,095 6,335 3,254 2,942 2,345 1990's 3,149 2,432 2,812 3,262 2,773 2,647 2,426 2,457 2,325 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  18. Louisiana Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 195,990 212,134 273,213 1970's 287,222 292,589 312,145 336,832 347,098 301,816 556,772 591,292 558,877 305,181 1980's 196,033 180,687 337,398 275,698 303,284 258,069 243,283 301,279 272,455 256,123 1990's 258,267 195,526 220,711 222,813 207,171 209,670 213,721 227,542 194,963 - = No Data

  19. 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.

  20. West Virginia 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) West Virginia Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 2,052 2,276 0 1970's 2,551 3,043 3,808 2,160 1,909 1,791 1,490 1,527 1,233 1,218 1980's 2,482 2,515 6,426 5,826 7,232 7,190 6,658 8,835 8,343 7,882 1990's 9,631 7,744 8,097 7,065 8,087 8,045 6,554 7,210 6,893 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  1. Wyoming Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming 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 15,722 17,271 19,964 1970's 19,625 20,348 22,402 21,151 14,302 15,102 16,726 16,601 20,363 31,081 1980's 17,763 17,527 26,559 28,010 34,459 34,709 30,599 41,371 40,698 40,361 1990's 41,415 35,142 40,599 20,643 18,615 19,466 19,661 19,696 20,001 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA =

  2. South Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in North Dakota

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Extracted in North Dakota (Million Cubic Feet) South Dakota 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 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 Equivalent South

  3. Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Utah (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Utah (Million Cubic Feet) Utah 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 18,183 - = 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-Utah

  4. North Dakota 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) North Dakota 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 48,504 - = 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-North

  5. New Mexico--East Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) New Mexico--East 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 28 1980's 28 29 28 28 28 27 24 23 24 23 1990's 24 25 28 32 34 34 44 40 39 37 2000's 38 38 38 38 35 33 32 32 30 32 2010's 32 30 29 32 35 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  6. New Mexico--West Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) New Mexico--West 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 15 1980's 16 16 14 12 13 11 10 21 19 20 1990's 22 22 25 26 26 25 31 35 35 37 2000's 39 39 37 38 38 37 36 34 34 33 2010's 31 32 29 28 26 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  7. Federal Offshore--Louisiana and Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Future Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Federal Offshore--Louisiana and Alabama 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 358 336 309 289 297 1990's 261 292 246 255 267 191 199 352 341 403 2000's 487 460 483 347 410 407 390 365 313 301 2010's 340 354 369 292 367 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  8. Federal Offshore--Louisiana and Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Based Production (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Federal Offshore--Louisiana and Alabama 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 53 42 46 44 45 1990's 42 46 41 45 46 31 35 64 63 75 2000's 88 87 89 67 78 59 65 68 52 61 2010's 66 57 54 42 47 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  9. Texas--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--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 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1990's 1 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

  10. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids Reserves, Estimated Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Liquids Reserves, Estimated Production (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids Reserves, Estimated 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 727 1980's 731 741 721 725 776 753 738 747 754 731 1990's 732 754 773 788 791 791 850 864 833 896 2000's 921 884 802 827 788 811 831 840 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  11. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Liquids, New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (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 97 1980's 79 91 109 99 96 85 72 55 72 74 1990's 73 55 64 64 131 67 109 90 88 88 2000's 102 142 78 72 54 42 53 58 68 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  12. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Adjustments (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Adjustments (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Adjustments (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 64 1980's 153 231 299 849 -123 426 367 231 11 -277 1990's -83 233 225 102 43 192 474 -15 -361 99 2000's -83 -429 62 -338 273 -89 173 -139 76 - = 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. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Based Production (Million Barrels) U.S. 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 580 1980's 572 580 564 568 597 585 569 585 592 566 1990's 574 601 626 635 634 646 688 690 655 697 2000's 710 675 677 611 645 614 629 650 667 714 2010's 745 784 865 931 1,124 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  14. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Extensions (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Extensions (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Extensions (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 364 1980's 418 542 375 321 348 337 263 213 268 259 1990's 299 189 190 245 314 432 451 535 383 313 2000's 645 717 612 629 734 863 924 1,030 956 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  15. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves New Field Discoveries (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) New Field Discoveries (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves New Field Discoveries (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 94 1980's 90 131 112 70 55 44 34 39 41 83 1990's 39 25 20 24 54 52 65 114 66 51 2000's 92 138 48 35 26 32 16 30 65 - = 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. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Revision Decreases (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Decreases (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Revision Decreases (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 726 1980's 639 643 832 781 724 744 807 656 715 1,020 1990's 606 695 545 640 676 691 669 910 1,094 1,321 2000's 724 1,089 951 1,043 1,135 947 1,010 765 1,435 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  17. ,"U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016" ,"Excel

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    With ethanol becoming more prevalent in the media and in gas tanks, it is important for students to know where it comes from. This module uses a series of four 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, 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.

  19. 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 controller’s main objective is to track and maintain hybrid operational constraints in the fuel cell’s 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.

  20. 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.

  1. 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.

  2. RADIO FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION DEVICES: EFFECTIVENESS IN IMPROVING SAFEGUARDS AT GAS-CENTRIFUGE URANIUM-ENRICHMENT PLANTS.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    JOE,J.

    2007-07-08

    Recent advances in radio frequency identification devices (RFIDs) have engendered a growing interest among international safeguards experts. Potentially, RFIDs could reduce inspection work, viz. the number of inspections, number of samples, and duration of the visits, and thus improve the efficiency and effectiveness of international safeguards. This study systematically examined the applications of RFIDs for IAEA safeguards at large gas-centrifuge enrichment plants (GCEPs). These analyses are expected to help identify the requirements and desirable properties for RFIDs, to provide insights into which vulnerabilities matter most, and help formulate the required assurance tests. This work, specifically assesses the application of RFIDs for the ''Option 4'' safeguards approach, proposed by Bruce Moran, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), for large gas-centrifuge uranium-enrichment plants. The features of ''Option 4'' safeguards include placing RFIDs on all feed, product and tails (F/P/T) cylinders, along with WID readers in all FP/T stations and accountability scales. Other features of Moran's ''Option 4'' are Mailbox declarations, monitoring of load-cell-based weighing systems at the F/P/T stations and accountability scales, and continuous enrichment monitors. Relevant diversion paths were explored to evaluate how RFIDs improve the efficiency and effectiveness of safeguards. Additionally, the analysis addresses the use of RFIDs in conjunction with video monitoring and neutron detectors in a perimeter-monitoring approach to show that RFIDs can help to detect unidentified cylinders.

  3. 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.

  4. Method of measurement of VOCs in the off-gas and wastewater of wastewater treatment plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Min Wang; Keener, T.C.; Orton, T.L.; Zhu, H.; Bishop, P.; Pekonen, S.; Siddiqui, K.

    1997-12-31

    VOCs need to be controlled according to Title 3 of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), so an accurate estimation of the total VOC emissions must be attained. This paper reports on a study where EPA method 624 was revised so that this method could be used for VOC analysis both in the water and off-gas of wastewater treatment plants. The revised method uses the same approach and equipment as water and soil analyses, thereby providing a great time and cost advantage for anyone needing to perform this type of analysis. Without using a cryogenic preconcentration step, gas samples from Tedlar bags are easily analyzed to concentrations of approximately 20 ppb using scan mode in a GC-MS unit. For the wastewater, scan mode was still used for the identification, but Selected Ion Monitoring (SIM) mode was used for quantitative analysis because of lower VOC concentration in the water. The results show that this method`s detection limit (MDL) was lowered 2--3 orders of magnitude when compared with scan mode. The modified method has been successfully applied to the identification and quantitative analysis of wastewater and off-gas VOCs from a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) aeration basin (120 MGD).

  5. ,"U.S. Refinery, Bulk Terminal, and Natural Gas Plant Stocks of Selected Petroleum Products"

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

    Refinery, Bulk Terminal, and Natural Gas Plant Stocks of Selected Petroleum Products" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Refinery, Bulk Terminal, and Natural Gas Plant Stocks of Selected Petroleum Products",13,"Monthly","12/2015","1/15/1993" ,"Release

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) U.S. 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 6,615 1980's 6,728 7,068 7,221 7,901 7,643 7,944 8,165 8,147 8,238 7,769 1990's 7,586 7,464 7,451 7,222 7,170 7,399 7,823 7,973 7,524 7,906 2000's 8,345 7,993 7,994 7,459 7,928 8,165 8,472 9,143 9,275 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  7. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Revision Increases (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Increases (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Revision Increases (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 677 1980's 743 729 811 847 866 906 1,030 847 1,168 1,143 1990's 827 825 806 764 873 968 844 1,199 1,302 2,048 2000's 1,183 957 982 882 1,232 968 845 1,187 1,192 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  8. Table 5.10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production, 1949-2011 (Thousand Barrels)

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

    0 Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production, 1949-2011 (Thousand Barrels) Year Finished Petroleum Products 1 Liquefied Petroleum Gases Pentanes Plus 4 Total Ethane 2 Isobutane Normal Butane 3 Propane 2,3 Total 1949 19,210 3,056 4,182 22,283 27,114 56,634 81,241 157,086 1950 23,931 4,253 4,667 25,323 37,018 71,261 86,769 181,961 1951 26,505 5,545 5,509 27,960 45,798 84,812 93,437 204,754 1952 25,488 7,089 6,568 31,349 54,732 99,738 98,289 223,515 1953 25,739 6,151 7,006 35,308 61,544 110,009 102,831

  9. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. 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 383,077 389,525 367,572 348,731 408,115 398,180 429,269 1990's 428,657 456,954 460,571 448,822 423,878 427,853 450,033 426,873 401,314 399,509 2000's 404,059 371,141 382,503 363,903 366,341 355,193 358,985 365,323 355,590 362,009 2010's 368,830 384,248 408,316 414,796 425,238 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not

  10. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

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

    Barrels) Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) U.S. 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 5,204 1980's 5,198 5,488 5,620 6,288 6,121 6,491 6,729 6,745 6,849 6,380 1990's 6,284 6,220 6,225 6,030 6,023 6,202 6,516 6,632 6,188 6,503 2000's 6,873 6,595 6,648 6,244 6,707 6,903 7,133 7,648 7,842 8,557 2010's 9,809 10,825 10,777 11,943 15,029 - = No Data Reported; --

  11. Mercury Speciation in Coal-Fired Power Plant Flue Gas-Experimental Studies and Model Development

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Radisav Vidic; Joseph Flora; Eric Borguet

    2008-12-31

    The overall goal of the project was to obtain a fundamental understanding of the catalytic reactions that are promoted by solid surfaces present in coal combustion systems and develop a mathematical model that described key phenomena responsible for the fate of mercury in coal-combustion systems. This objective was achieved by carefully combining laboratory studies under realistic process conditions using simulated flue gas with mathematical modeling efforts. Laboratory-scale studies were performed to understand the fundamental aspects of chemical reactions between flue gas constituents and solid surfaces present in the fly ash and their impact on mercury speciation. Process models were developed to account for heterogeneous reactions because of the presence of fly ash as well as the deliberate addition of particles to promote Hg oxidation and adsorption. Quantum modeling was used to obtain estimates of the kinetics of heterogeneous reactions. Based on the initial findings of this study, additional work was performed to ascertain the potential of using inexpensive inorganic sorbents to control mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants without adverse impact on the salability fly ash, which is one of the major drawbacks of current control technologies based on activated carbon.

  12. 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.

  13. OPTIMIZING TECHNOLOGY TO REDUCE MERCURY AND ACID GAS EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jeffrey C. Quick; David E. Tabet; Sharon Wakefield; Roger L. Bon

    2005-10-01

    Maps showing potential mercury, sulfur, chlorine, and moisture emissions for U.S. coal by county of origin were made from publicly available data (plates 1, 2, 3, and 4). Published equations that predict mercury capture by emission control technologies used at U.S. coal-fired utilities were applied to average coal quality values for 169 U.S. counties. The results were used to create five maps that show the influence of coal origin on mercury emissions from utility units with: (1) hot-side electrostatic precipitator (hESP), (2) cold-side electrostatic precipitator (cESP), (3) hot-side electrostatic precipitator with wet flue gas desulfurization (hESP/FGD), (4) cold-side electrostatic precipitator with wet flue gas desulfurization (cESP/FGD), and (5) spray-dry adsorption with fabric filter (SDA/FF) emission controls (plates 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9). Net (lower) coal heating values were calculated from measured coal Btu values, and estimated coal moisture and hydrogen values; the net heating values were used to derive mercury emission rates on an electric output basis (plate 10). Results indicate that selection of low-mercury coal is a good mercury control option for plants having hESP, cESP, or hESP/FGD emission controls. Chlorine content is more important for plants having cESP/FGD or SDA/FF controls; optimum mercury capture is indicated where chlorine is between 500 and 1000 ppm. Selection of low-sulfur coal should improve mercury capture where carbon in fly ash is used to reduce mercury emissions. Comparison of in-ground coal quality with the quality of commercially mined coal indicates that existing coal mining and coal washing practice results in a 25% reduction of mercury in U.S. coal before it is delivered to the power plant. Further pre-combustion mercury reductions may be possible, especially for coal from Texas, Ohio, parts of Pennsylvania and much of the western U.S.

  14. Optical Thin Films for Gas Sensing in Advanced Coal Fired Power Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ohodnicki, Paul; Brown, Thomas; Baltrus John; Chorpening, Benjamin

    2012-08-09

    Even for existing coal based plants, the opportunity for sensors and controls to improve efficiency is great. A wide range of gas species are of interest for relevant applications. Functional sensor layers for embedded sensing must be compatible with extreme conditions (temperature, pressure, corrosive). Au incorporated metal oxides have been looked at by a number of other authors previously for gas sensing, but have often focused on temperatures below 500{degree}C. Au nanoparticle incorporated metal oxide thin films have shown enhanced gas sensing response. In prior work, we have demonstrated that material systems such as Au nanoparticle incorporated TiO{sub 2} films exhibit a potentially useful optical response to changing gas atmospheres at temperatures up to ~800-850{degree}C. Current work is focused on sputter-deposited Au/TiO{sub 2} films. Au and Ti are multi-layered sputter deposited, followed by a 950{degree}C oxidation step. Increasing Au layer thickness yields larger particles. Interband electronic transitions significantly modify the optical constants of Au as compared to the damped free electron theory. A high temperature oxidation (20%O{sub 2}/N{sub 2}) treatment was performed at 700{degree}C followed by a reduction (4%H{sub 2}/N{sub 2}) treatment to illustrate the shift in both absorption and scattering with exposure to reducing gases. Shift of localized surface plasmon resonance (LSPR) absorption peak in changing gas atmospheres is well documented, but shift in the peak associated with diffuse scattering is a new observation. Increasing Au layer-thickness results in an increase in LSPR absorption and a shift to longer wavelengths. Diffuse scattering associated with the LSPR resonance of Au shows a similar trend with increasing Au thickness. To model the temperature dependence of LSPR, the modification to the plasmon frequency, the damping frequency, and the dielectric constant of the oxide matrix must be accounted for. Thermal expansion of Au causes a decrease in free-carrier concentration and plasmon frequency with increasing temperature. Increased scattering of electrons with increasing temperatures results in an increased damping frequency for free carriers. The thermo-optic coefficient of TiO{sub 2} is assumed to be constant or decreasing with increasing temperature. A Custom Designed System Can Be Used to Monitor Optical Transmission and Reflection of Films at Elevated Temperatures and Upon Exposure to Changing Ambient Gas Atmospheres. The calculated extinction peak broadens and reduces peak height with increasing temperature. Extinction spectra measured using the elevated temperature system deviate from measurements performed with an integrating sphere. Modifications to measured transmittance and reflectance spectra are observed with increasing temperatures. Optical constants of Au nanoparticles were measured for elevated temperature. The thermo-optic coefficient of TiO{sub 2} strongly affects the shift in LSPR absorption peak. Peak broadening is dictated by the increased damping frequency of Au. In all cases of the theoretical modeling, we are assuming a particle of Au embedded in a TiO{sub 2} matrix without any interparticle interaction. Localized surface plasmon resonance in noble metal nanoparticles is associated with the free electrons. Surface charges create an internal field that acts as a restoring force on displaced charge carriers resulting in an oscillation with an associated resonance. An estimate of the sensitivity as a function of wavelength for sensing done using a single wavelength transmission measurement can be derived by focusing on the partial derivative of Q{sub abs} with respect to the material parameter that we assume is changing during the experiment. We focus on the free carrier density. However, other material parameters may also change in some cases. Peak sensitivity for transmission or absorption based sensing occurs on either side of the LSPR absorption peak maximum. Theoretically predicted wavelength dependence is consistent with the literature. The wavelength of LSPR ab

  15. 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

  16. Ames expedited site characterization demonstration at the former manufactured gas plant site, Marshalltown, Iowa

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bevolo, A.J.; Kjartanson, B.H.; Wonder, J.D.

    1996-03-01

    The goal of the Ames Expedited Site Characterization (ESC) project is to evaluate and promote both innovative technologies (IT) and state-of-the-practice technologies (SOPT) for site characterization and monitoring. In April and May 1994, the ESC project conducted site characterization, technology comparison, and stakeholder demonstration activities at a former manufactured gas plant (FMGP) owned by Iowa Electric Services (IES) Utilities, Inc., in Marshalltown, Iowa. Three areas of technology were fielded at the Marshalltown FMGP site: geophysical, analytical and data integration. The geophysical technologies are designed to assess the subsurface geological conditions so that the location, fate and transport of the target contaminants may be assessed and forecasted. The analytical technologies/methods are designed to detect and quantify the target contaminants. The data integration technology area consists of hardware and software systems designed to integrate all the site information compiled and collected into a conceptual site model on a daily basis at the site; this conceptual model then becomes the decision-support tool. Simultaneous fielding of different methods within each of the three areas of technology provided data for direct comparison of the technologies fielded, both SOPT and IT. This document reports the results of the site characterization, technology comparison, and ESC demonstration activities associated with the Marshalltown FMGP site. 124 figs., 27 tabs.

  17. Optimizing Techology to Reduce Mercury and Acid Gas Emissions from Electric Power Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jeffrey C. Quick; David E. Tabet; Sharon Wakefield; Roger L. Bon

    2004-01-31

    More than 56,000 coal quality data records from five public data sets have been selected for use in this project. These data will be used to create maps showing where coals with low mercury and acid-gas emissions might be found for power plants classified by air-pollution controls. Average coal quality values, calculated for 51,156 commercial coals by U.S. county-of-origin, are listed in the appendix. Coal moisture values are calculated for commercially shipped coal from 163 U.S. counties, where the raw assay data (including mercury and chlorine values) are reported on a dry basis. The calculated moisture values are verified by comparison with observed moisture values in commercial coal. Moisture in commercial U.S. coal shows provincial variation. For example, high volatile C bituminous rank coal from the Interior province has 3% to 4% more moisture than equivalent Rocky Mountain province coal. Mott-Spooner difference values are calculated for 4,957 data records for coals collected from coal mines and exploration drill holes. About 90% of the records have Mott-Spooner difference values within {+-}250 Btu/lb.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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 Jo’s 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.

  1. Application of systems engineering techniques (reliability, availability, maintainability, and dollars) to the Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boylan, J.G.; DeLozier, R.C.

    1982-01-01

    The systems engineering function for the Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant (GCEP) covers system requirements definition, analyses, verification, technical reviews, and other system efforts necessary to assure good balance of performance, safety, cost, and scheduling. The systems engineering function will support the design, installation, start-up, and operational phases of GCEP. The principal objectives of the systems engineering function are to: assure that the system requirements of the GCEP process are adequately specified and documented and that due consideration and emphasis are given to all aspects of the project; provide system analyses of the designs as they progress to assure that system requirements are met and that GCEP interfaces are compatible; assist in the definition of programs for the necessary and sufficient verification of GCEP systems; and integrate reliability, maintainability, logistics, safety, producibility, and other related specialties into a total system effort. This paper addresses the GCEP reliability, availability, maintainability, and dollars (RAM dollars) analyses which are the primary systems engineering tools for the development and implementation of trade-off studies. These studies are basic to reaching cost-effective project decisions. The steps necessary to achieve optimum cost-effective design are shown.

  2. 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.

  3. Gas-fired chiller-heaters as a central plant alternative for small office buildings

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Thies, R.M.; Bahnfleth, W.

    1998-01-01

    Gas absorption chillers-heaters have been applied successfully in large projects where use of multiple chillers is feasible. Large facilities typically have a substantial base cooling load. If the base load is greater than 30% of the minimum capacity of the smallest chiller, chiller-heaters alone can be used as the building central plant. However, this study shows that a small office building presents part-load design difficulties that tend to favor the use of other technologies. The engineer can overcome these application problems by a variety of means, as has been illustrated. Manufacturers, too, are addressing the problems associated with low-load operation of direct-fired chiller heaters. A new generation of chiller-heaters that can unload down to 10% of design load will soon be available. If these new machines are capital-cost-competitive and perform up to expectations, the routine application of chiller-heaters in small commercial buildings may be just around the corner.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. STP-ECRTS - THERMAL AND GAS ANALYSES FOR SLUDGE TRANSPORT AND STORAGE CONTAINER (STSC) STORAGE AT T PLANT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    CROWE RD; APTHORPE R; LEE SJ; PLYS MG

    2010-04-29

    The Sludge Treatment Project (STP) is responsible for the disposition of sludge contained in the six engineered containers and Settler tank within the 105-K West (KW) Basin. The STP is retrieving and transferring sludge from the Settler tank into engineered container SCS-CON-230. Then, the STP will retrieve and transfer sludge from the six engineered containers in the KW Basin directly into a Sludge Transport and Storage Containers (STSC) contained in a Sludge Transport System (STS) cask. The STSC/STS cask will be transported to T Plant for interim storage of the STSC. The STS cask will be loaded with an empty STSC and returned to the KW Basin for loading of additional sludge for transportation and interim storage at T Plant. CH2MHILL Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) contracted with Fauske & Associates, LLC (FAI) to perform thermal and gas generation analyses for interim storage of STP sludge in the Sludge Transport and Storage Container (STSCs) at T Plant. The sludge types considered are settler sludge and sludge originating from the floor of the KW Basin and stored in containers 210 and 220, which are bounding compositions. The conditions specified by CHPRC for analysis are provided in Section 5. The FAI report (FAI/10-83, Thermal and Gas Analyses for a Sludge Transport and Storage Container (STSC) at T Plant) (refer to Attachment 1) documents the analyses. The process considered was passive, interim storage of sludge in various cells at T Plant. The FATE{trademark} code is used for the calculation. The results are shown in terms of the peak sludge temperature and hydrogen concentrations in the STSC and the T Plant cell. In particular, the concerns addressed were the thermal stability of the sludge and the potential for flammable gas mixtures. This work was performed with preliminary design information and a preliminary software configuration.

  8. ,"New Mexico--East Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico--East Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  9. ,"New Mexico--West Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico--West Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  10. ,"Texas (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  11. ,"Texas--RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas--RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  12. ,"Texas--RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas--RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  13. ,"Texas--RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas--RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  14. ,"Texas--RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas--RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  15. ,"Texas--RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas--RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  16. ,"Texas--RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas--RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  17. ,"Texas--RRC District 6 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas--RRC District 6 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  18. ,"Texas--RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas--RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  19. ,"Texas--RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas--RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  20. ,"Texas--RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas--RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release