National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for gas storage reservoirs

  1. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Salt Cavern Storage Reservoir...

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

    Salt Cavern Underground Natural Gas Storage Reservoir Configuration Salt Cavern Underground Natural Gas Storage Reservoir Configuration Source: PB Energy Storage Services Inc.

  2. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Depleted Reservoir Storage

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Configuration Depleted Reservoir Storage Configuration About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates Depleted Production Reservoir Underground Natural Gas Storage Well Configuration Depleted Production Reservoir Storage

  3. Underground natural gas storage reservoir management

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ortiz, I.; Anthony, R.

    1995-06-01

    The objective of this study is to research technologies and methodologies that will reduce the costs associated with the operation and maintenance of underground natural gas storage. This effort will include a survey of public information to determine the amount of natural gas lost from underground storage fields, determine the causes of this lost gas, and develop strategies and remedial designs to reduce or stop the gas loss from selected fields. Phase I includes a detailed survey of US natural gas storage reservoirs to determine the actual amount of natural gas annually lost from underground storage fields. These reservoirs will be ranked, the resultant will include the amount of gas and revenue annually lost. The results will be analyzed in conjunction with the type (geologic) of storage reservoirs to determine the significance and impact of the gas loss. A report of the work accomplished will be prepared. The report will include: (1) a summary list by geologic type of US gas storage reservoirs and their annual underground gas storage losses in ft{sup 3}; (2) a rank by geologic classifications as to the amount of gas lost and the resultant lost revenue; and (3) show the level of significance and impact of the losses by geologic type. Concurrently, the amount of storage activity has increased in conjunction with the net increase of natural gas imports as shown on Figure No. 3. Storage is playing an ever increasing importance in supplying the domestic energy requirements.

  4. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Depleted Reservoir Storage...

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

    Gas based on data through 20072008 with selected updates Depleted Production Reservoir Underground Natural Gas Storage Well Configuration Depleted Production Reservoir Storage

  5. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Aquifer Storage Reservoir

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Configuration Aquifer Storage Reservoir Configuration About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates Aquifer Underground Natural Gas Storage Reservoir Configuration Aquifer Underground Natural Gas Well

  6. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Salt Cavern Storage Reservoir

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Configuration Salt Cavern Storage Reservoir Configuration About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates Salt Cavern Underground Natural Gas Storage Reservoir Configuration Salt Cavern Underground Natural Gas Storage Reservoir Configuration Source: PB Energy Storage Services Inc.

  7. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Aquifer Storage Reservoir...

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

    Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 20072008 with selected updates Aquifer Underground Natural Gas Storage Reservoir Configuration Aquifer Underground Natural Gas Well

  8. Underground natural gas storage reservoir management: Phase 2. Final report, June 1, 1995--March 30, 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ortiz, I.; Anthony, R.V.

    1996-12-31

    Gas storage operators are facing increased and more complex responsibilities for managing storage operations under Order 636 which requires unbundling of storage from other pipeline services. Low cost methods that improve the accuracy of inventory verification are needed to optimally manage this stored natural gas. Migration of injected gas out of the storage reservoir has not been well documented by industry. The first portion of this study addressed the scope of unaccounted for gas which may have been due to migration. The volume range was estimated from available databases and reported on an aggregate basis. Information on working gas, base gas, operating capacity, injection and withdrawal volumes, current and non-current revenues, gas losses, storage field demographics and reservoir types is contained among the FERC Form 2, EIA Form 191, AGA and FERC Jurisdictional databases. The key elements of this study show that gas migration can result if reservoir limits have not been properly identified, gas migration can occur in formation with extremely low permeability (0.001 md), horizontal wellbores can reduce gas migration losses and over-pressuring (unintentionally) storage reservoirs by reinjecting working gas over a shorter time period may increase gas migration effects.

  9. Potential hazards of compressed air energy storage in depleted natural gas reservoirs.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cooper, Paul W.; Grubelich, Mark Charles; Bauer, Stephen J.

    2011-09-01

    This report is a preliminary assessment of the ignition and explosion potential in a depleted hydrocarbon reservoir from air cycling associated with compressed air energy storage (CAES) in geologic media. The study identifies issues associated with this phenomenon as well as possible mitigating measures that should be considered. Compressed air energy storage (CAES) in geologic media has been proposed to help supplement renewable energy sources (e.g., wind and solar) by providing a means to store energy when excess energy is available, and to provide an energy source during non-productive or low productivity renewable energy time periods. Presently, salt caverns represent the only proven underground storage used for CAES. Depleted natural gas reservoirs represent another potential underground storage vessel for CAES because they have demonstrated their container function and may have the requisite porosity and permeability; however reservoirs have yet to be demonstrated as a functional/operational storage media for compressed air. Specifically, air introduced into a depleted natural gas reservoir presents a situation where an ignition and explosion potential may exist. This report presents the results of an initial study identifying issues associated with this phenomena as well as possible mitigating measures that should be considered.

  10. CO2 utilization and storage in shale gas reservoirs: Experimental results and economic impacts

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

    Schaef, Herbert T.; Davidson, Casie L.; Owen, Antionette Toni; Miller, Quin R. S.; Loring, John S.; Thompson, Christopher J.; Bacon, Diana H.; Glezakou, Vassiliki Alexandra; McGrail, B. Peter

    2014-12-31

    Natural gas is considered a cleaner and lower-emission fuel than coal, and its high abundance from advanced drilling techniques has positioned natural gas as a major alternative energy source for the U.S. However, each ton of CO2 emitted from any type of fossil fuel combustion will continue to increase global atmospheric concentrations. One unique approach to reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions involves coupling CO2 based enhanced gas recovery (EGR) operations in depleted shale gas reservoirs with long-term CO2 storage operations. In this paper, we report unique findings about the interactions between important shale minerals and sorbing gases (CH4 and CO2) andmore » associated economic consequences. Where enhanced condensation of CO2 followed by desorption on clay surface is observed under supercritical conditions, a linear sorption profile emerges for CH4. Volumetric changes to montmorillonites occur during exposure to CO2. Theory-based simulations identify interactions with interlayer cations as energetically favorable for CO2 intercalation. Thus, experimental evidence suggests CH4 does not occupy the interlayer and has only the propensity for surface adsorption. Mixed CH4:CO2 gas systems, where CH4 concentrations prevail, indicate preferential CO2 sorption as determined by in situ infrared spectroscopy and X-ray diffraction techniques. Collectively, these laboratory studies combined with a cost-based economic analysis provide a basis for identifying favorable CO2-EOR opportunities in previously fractured shale gas reservoirs approaching final stages of primary gas production. Moreover, utilization of site-specific laboratory measurements in reservoir simulators provides insight into optimum injection strategies for maximizing CH4/CO2 exchange rates to obtain peak natural gas production.« less

  11. Preliminary formation analysis for compressed air energy storage in depleted natural gas reservoirs : a study for the DOE Energy Storage Systems Program.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gardner, William Payton

    2013-06-01

    The purpose of this study is to develop an engineering and operational understanding of CAES performance for a depleted natural gas reservoir by evaluation of relative permeability effects of air, water and natural gas in depleted natural gas reservoirs as a reservoir is initially depleted, an air bubble is created, and as air is initially cycled. The composition of produced gases will be evaluated as the three phase flow of methane, nitrogen and brine are modeled. The effects of a methane gas phase on the relative permeability of air in a formation are investigated and the composition of the produced fluid, which consists primarily of the amount of natural gas in the produced air are determined. Simulations of compressed air energy storage (CAES) in depleted natural gas reservoirs were carried out to assess the effect of formation permeability on the design of a simple CAES system. The injection of N2 (as a proxy to air), and the extraction of the resulting gas mixture in a depleted natural gas reservoir were modeled using the TOUGH2 reservoir simulator with the EOS7c equation of state. The optimal borehole spacing was determined as a function of the formation scale intrinsic permeability. Natural gas reservoir results are similar to those for an aquifer. Borehole spacing is dependent upon the intrinsic permeability of the formation. Higher permeability allows increased injection and extraction rates which is equivalent to more power per borehole for a given screen length. The number of boreholes per 100 MW for a given intrinsic permeability in a depleted natural gas reservoir is essentially identical to that determined for a simple aquifer of identical properties. During bubble formation methane is displaced and a sharp N2methane boundary is formed with an almost pure N2 gas phase in the bubble near the borehole. During cycling mixing of methane and air occurs along the boundary as the air bubble boundary moves. The extracted gas mixture changes as a function of time and proximity of the bubble boundary to the well. For all simulations reported here, with a formation radius above 50 m the maximum methane composition in the produced gas phase was less than 0.5%. This report provides an initial investigation of CAES in a depleted natural gas reservoir, and the results will provide useful guidance in CAES system investigation and design in the future.

  12. CO2 utilization and storage in shale gas reservoirs: Experimental results and economic impacts

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Schaef, Herbert T.; Davidson, Casie L.; Owen, Antionette Toni; Miller, Quin R. S.; Loring, John S.; Thompson, Christopher J.; Bacon, Diana H.; Glezakou, Vassiliki Alexandra; McGrail, B. Peter

    2014-12-31

    Natural gas is considered a cleaner and lower-emission fuel than coal, and its high abundance from advanced drilling techniques has positioned natural gas as a major alternative energy source for the U.S. However, each ton of CO2 emitted from any type of fossil fuel combustion will continue to increase global atmospheric concentrations. One unique approach to reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions involves coupling CO2 based enhanced gas recovery (EGR) operations in depleted shale gas reservoirs with long-term CO2 storage operations. In this paper, we report unique findings about the interactions between important shale minerals and sorbing gases (CH4 and CO2) and associated economic consequences. Where enhanced condensation of CO2 followed by desorption on clay surface is observed under supercritical conditions, a linear sorption profile emerges for CH4. Volumetric changes to montmorillonites occur during exposure to CO2. Theory-based simulations identify interactions with interlayer cations as energetically favorable for CO2 intercalation. Thus, experimental evidence suggests CH4 does not occupy the interlayer and has only the propensity for surface adsorption. Mixed CH4:CO2 gas systems, where CH4 concentrations prevail, indicate preferential CO2 sorption as determined by in situ infrared spectroscopy and X-ray diffraction techniques. Collectively, these laboratory studies combined with a cost-based economic analysis provide a basis for identifying favorable CO2-EOR opportunities in previously fractured shale gas reservoirs approaching final stages of primary gas production. Moreover, utilization of site-specific laboratory measurements in reservoir simulators provides insight into optimum injection strategies for maximizing CH4/CO2 exchange rates to obtain peak natural gas production.

  13. CHARACTERIZATION OF CONDITIONS OF NATURAL GAS STORAGE RESERVOIRS AND DESIGN AND DEMONSTRATION OF REMEDIAL TECHNIQUES FOR DAMAGE MECHANISMS FOUND THEREIN

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    J.H. Frantz Jr; K.G. Brown; W.K. Sawyer; P.A. Zyglowicz; P.M. Halleck; J.P. Spivey

    2004-12-01

    The underground gas storage (UGS) industry uses over 400 reservoirs and 17,000 wells to store and withdrawal gas. As such, it is a significant contributor to gas supply in the United States. It has been demonstrated that many UGS wells show a loss of deliverability each year due to numerous damage mechanisms. Previous studies estimate that up to one hundred million dollars are spent each year to recover or replace a deliverability loss of approximately 3.2 Bscf/D per year in the storage industry. Clearly, there is a great potential for developing technology to prevent, mitigate, or eliminate the damage causing deliverability losses in UGS wells. Prior studies have also identified the presence of several potential damage mechanisms in storage wells, developed damage diagnostic procedures, and discussed, in general terms, the possible reactions that need to occur to create the damage. However, few studies address how to prevent or mitigate specific damage types, and/or how to eliminate the damage from occurring in the future. This study seeks to increase our understanding of two specific damage mechanisms, inorganic precipitates (specifically siderite), and non-darcy damage, and thus serves to expand prior efforts as well as complement ongoing gas storage projects. Specifically, this study has resulted in: (1) An effective lab protocol designed to assess the extent of damage due to inorganic precipitates; (2) An increased understanding of how inorganic precipitates (specifically siderite) develop; (3) Identification of potential sources of chemical components necessary for siderite formation; (4) A remediation technique that has successfully restored deliverability to storage wells damaged by the inorganic precipitate siderite (one well had nearly a tenfold increase in deliverability); (5) Identification of the types of treatments that have historically been successful at reducing the amount of non-darcy pressure drop in a well, and (6) Development of a tool that can be used by operators to guide treatment selection in wells with significant non-darcy damage component. In addition, the effectiveness of the remediation treatment designed to reduce damage caused by the inorganic precipitate siderite was measured, and the benefits of this work are extrapolated to the entire U.S. storage industry. Similarly the potential benefits realized from more effective identification and treatment of wells with significant nondarcy damage component are also presented, and these benefits are also extrapolated to the entire U.S. storage industry.

  14. The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage

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

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

  15. Gas Storage Technology Consortium

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Joel L. Morrison; Sharon L. Elder

    2007-06-30

    Gas storage is a critical element in the natural gas industry. Producers, transmission and distribution companies, marketers, and end users all benefit directly from the load balancing function of storage. The unbundling process has fundamentally changed the way storage is used and valued. As an unbundled service, the value of storage is being recovered at rates that reflect its value. Moreover, the marketplace has differentiated between various types of storage services and has increasingly rewarded flexibility, safety, and reliability. The size of the natural gas market has increased and is projected to continue to increase towards 30 trillion cubic feet over the next 10 to 15 years. Much of this increase is projected to come from electric generation, particularly peaking units. Gas storage, particularly the flexible services that are most suited to electric loads, is crucial in meeting the needs of these new markets. To address the gas storage needs of the natural gas industry, an industry-driven consortium was created--the Gas Storage Technology Consortium (GSTC). The objective of the GSTC is to provide a means to accomplish industry-driven research and development designed to enhance the operational flexibility and deliverability of the nation's gas storage system, and provide a cost-effective, safe, and reliable supply of natural gas to meet domestic demand. This report addresses the activities for the quarterly period of April 1, 2007 through June 30, 2007. Key activities during this time period included: (1) Organizing and hosting the 2007 GSTC Spring Meeting; (2) Identifying the 2007 GSTC projects, issuing award or declination letters, and begin drafting subcontracts; (3) 2007 project mentoring teams identified; (4) New NETL Project Manager; (5) Preliminary planning for the 2007 GSTC Fall Meeting; (6) Collecting and compiling the 2005 GSTC project final reports; and (7) Outreach and communications.

  16. compressed-gas storage

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

    compressed-gas storage - Sandia Energy Energy Search Icon Sandia Home Locations Contact Us Employee Locator Energy & Climate Secure & Sustainable Energy Future Stationary Power Energy Conversion Efficiency Solar Energy Wind Energy Water Power Supercritical CO2 Geothermal Natural Gas Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & Engineering Grid Modernization Battery Testing Nuclear Fuel Cycle Defense Waste Management Programs Advanced

  17. Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure

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

    Gas in Underground Storage Figure Working Gas in Underground Storage Compared with 5-Year Range Graph...

  18. Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure

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

    Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure Working Gas in Underground Storage Compared with 5-Year Range Graph....

  19. Gas Storage Technology Consortium

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Joel Morrison; Elizabeth Wood; Barbara Robuck

    2010-09-30

    The EMS Energy Institute at The Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) has managed the Gas Storage Technology Consortium (GSTC) since its inception in 2003. The GSTC infrastructure provided a means to accomplish industry-driven research and development designed to enhance the operational flexibility and deliverability of the nation's gas storage system, and provide a cost-effective, safe, and reliable supply of natural gas to meet domestic demand. The GSTC received base funding from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) Oil & Natural Gas Supply Program. The GSTC base funds were highly leveraged with industry funding for individual projects. Since its inception, the GSTC has engaged 67 members. The GSTC membership base was diverse, coming from 19 states, the District of Columbia, and Canada. The membership was comprised of natural gas storage field operators, service companies, industry consultants, industry trade organizations, and academia. The GSTC organized and hosted a total of 18 meetings since 2003. Of these, 8 meetings were held to review, discuss, and select proposals submitted for funding consideration. The GSTC reviewed a total of 75 proposals and committed co-funding to support 31 industry-driven projects. The GSTC committed co-funding to 41.3% of the proposals that it received and reviewed. The 31 projects had a total project value of $6,203,071 of which the GSTC committed $3,205,978 in co-funding. The committed GSTC project funding represented an average program cost share of 51.7%. Project applicants provided an average program cost share of 48.3%. In addition to the GSTC co-funding, the consortium provided the domestic natural gas storage industry with a technology transfer and outreach infrastructure. The technology transfer and outreach were conducted by having project mentoring teams and a GSTC website, and by working closely with the Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI) to jointly host technology transfer meetings and occasional field excursions. A total of 15 technology transfer/strategic planning workshops were held.

  20. Storage capacity in hot dry rock reservoirs

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Brown, D.W.

    1997-11-11

    A method is described for extracting thermal energy, in a cyclic manner, from geologic strata which may be termed hot dry rock. A reservoir comprised of hot fractured rock is established and water or other liquid is passed through the reservoir. The water is heated by the hot rock, recovered from the reservoir, cooled by extraction of heat by means of heat exchange apparatus on the surface, and then re-injected into the reservoir to be heated again. Water is added to the reservoir by means of an injection well and recovered from the reservoir by means of a production well. Water is continuously provided to the reservoir and continuously withdrawn from the reservoir at two different flow rates, a base rate and a peak rate. Increasing water flow from the base rate to the peak rate is accomplished by rapidly decreasing backpressure at the outlet of the production well in order to meet periodic needs for amounts of thermal energy greater than a baseload amount, such as to generate additional electric power to meet peak demands. The rate of flow of water provided to the hot dry rock reservoir is maintained at a value effective to prevent depletion of the liquid inventory of the reservoir. 4 figs.

  1. Storage capacity in hot dry rock reservoirs

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Brown, Donald W. (Los Alamos, NM)

    1997-01-01

    A method of extracting thermal energy, in a cyclic manner, from geologic strata which may be termed hot dry rock. A reservoir comprised of hot fractured rock is established and water or other liquid is passed through the reservoir. The water is heated by the hot rock, recovered from the reservoir, cooled by extraction of heat by means of heat exchange apparatus on the surface, and then re-injected into the reservoir to be heated again. Water is added to the reservoir by means of an injection well and recovered from the reservoir by means of a production well. Water is continuously provided to the reservoir and continuously withdrawn from the reservoir at two different flow rates, a base rate and a peak rate. Increasing water flow from the base rate to the peak rate is accomplished by rapidly decreasing backpressure at the outlet of the production well in order to meet periodic needs for amounts of thermal energy greater than a baseload amount, such as to generate additional electric power to meet peak demands. The rate of flow of water provided to the hot dry rock reservoir is maintained at a value effective to prevent depletion of the liquid

  2. EIA - Natural Gas Storage Data & Analysis

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

    Storage Weekly Working Gas in Underground Storage U.S. Natural gas inventories held in underground storage facilities by East, West, and Producing regions (weekly). Underground...

  3. Gas hydrate cool storage system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Ternes, M.P.; Kedl, R.J.

    1984-09-12

    The invention presented relates to the development of a process utilizing a gas hydrate as a cool storage medium for alleviating electric load demands during peak usage periods. Several objectives of the invention are mentioned concerning the formation of the gas hydrate as storage material in a thermal energy storage system within a heat pump cycle system. The gas hydrate was formed using a refrigerant in water and an example with R-12 refrigerant is included. (BCS)

  4. Tight gas reservoirs: A visual depiction

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-12-01

    Future gas supplies in the US will depend on an increasing contribution from unconventional sources such as overpressured and tight gas reservoirs. Exploitation of these resources and their conversion to economically producible gas reserves represents a major challenge. Meeting this challenge will require not only the continuing development and application of new technologies, but also a detailed understanding of the complex nature of the reservoirs themselves. This report seeks to promote understanding of these reservoirs by providing examples. Examples of gas productive overpressured tight reservoirs in the Greater Green River Basin, Wyoming are presented. These examples show log data (raw and interpreted), well completion and stimulation information, and production decline curves. A sampling of wells from the Lewis and Mesaverde formations are included. Both poor and good wells have been chosen to illustrate the range of productivity that is observed. The second section of this document displays decline curves and completion details for 30 of the best wells in the Greater Green River Basin. These are included to illustrate the potential that is present when wells are fortuitously located with respect to local stratigraphy and natural fracturing, and are successfully hydraulically fractured.

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

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

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

  6. EIA - Analysis of Natural Gas Storage

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  10. Texas Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields...

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

    New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3...

  11. Gas Hydrate Storage of Natural Gas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rudy Rogers; John Etheridge

    2006-03-31

    Environmental and economic benefits could accrue from a safe, above-ground, natural-gas storage process allowing electric power plants to utilize natural gas for peak load demands; numerous other applications of a gas storage process exist. A laboratory study conducted in 1999 to determine the feasibility of a gas-hydrates storage process looked promising. The subsequent scale-up of the process was designed to preserve important features of the laboratory apparatus: (1) symmetry of hydrate accumulation, (2) favorable surface area to volume ratio, (3) heat exchanger surfaces serving as hydrate adsorption surfaces, (4) refrigeration system to remove heat liberated from bulk hydrate formation, (5) rapid hydrate formation in a non-stirred system, (6) hydrate self-packing, and (7) heat-exchanger/adsorption plates serving dual purposes to add or extract energy for hydrate formation or decomposition. The hydrate formation/storage/decomposition Proof-of-Concept (POC) pressure vessel and supporting equipment were designed, constructed, and tested. This final report details the design of the scaled POC gas-hydrate storage process, some comments on its fabrication and installation, checkout of the equipment, procedures for conducting the experimental tests, and the test results. The design, construction, and installation of the equipment were on budget target, as was the tests that were subsequently conducted. The budget proposed was met. The primary goal of storing 5000-scf of natural gas in the gas hydrates was exceeded in the final test, as 5289-scf of gas storage was achieved in 54.33 hours. After this 54.33-hour period, as pressure in the formation vessel declined, additional gas went into the hydrates until equilibrium pressure/temperature was reached, so that ultimately more than the 5289-scf storage was achieved. The time required to store the 5000-scf (48.1 hours of operating time) was longer than designed. The lower gas hydrate formation rate is attributed to a lower heat transfer rate in the internal heat exchanger than was designed. It is believed that the fins on the heat-exchanger tubes did not make proper contact with the tubes transporting the chilled glycol, and pairs of fins were too close for interior areas of fins to serve as hydrate collection sites. A correction of the fabrication fault in the heat exchanger fin attachments could be easily made to provide faster formation rates. The storage success with the POC process provides valuable information for making the process an economically viable process for safe, aboveground natural-gas storage.

  12. On Leakage from Geologic Storage Reservoirs of CO2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pruess, Karsten

    2006-02-14

    Large amounts of CO2 would need to be injected underground to achieve a significant reduction of atmospheric emissions. The large areal extent expected for CO2 plumes makes it likely that caprock imperfections will be encountered, such as fault zones or fractures, which may allow some CO2 to escape from the primary storage reservoir. Leakage of CO2 could also occur along wellbores. Concerns with escape of CO2 from a primary geologic storage reservoir include (1) acidification of groundwater resources, (2) asphyxiation hazard when leaking CO2 is discharged at the land surface, (3) increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2, and (4) damage from a high-energy, eruptive discharge (if such discharge is physically possible). In order to gain public acceptance for geologic storage as a viable technology for reducing atmospheric emissions of CO2, it is necessary to address these issues and demonstrate that CO2 can be injected and stored safely in geologic formations.

  13. Underground Natural Gas Storage by Storage Type

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 View History All Operators Natural Gas in Storage 7,306,429 7,615,688 7,988,797 8,317,848 8,305,034 8,039,759 1973-2015 Base Gas 4,371,340 4,363,455 4,364,233 4,364,778 4,367,380 4,362,559 1973-2015 Working Gas 2,935,089 3,252,232 3,624,564 3,953,070 3,937,654 3,677,200 1973-2015 Net Withdrawals -282,834 -309,104 -371,987 -331,026 12,618 264,608 1973-2015 Injections 378,490 394,079 435,352 401,063 201,400 138,069 1973-2015 Withdrawals 95,656 84,975

  14. Compressed gas fuel storage system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Wozniak, John J. (Columbia, MD); Tiller, Dale B. (Lincoln, NE); Wienhold, Paul D. (Baltimore, MD); Hildebrand, Richard J. (Edgemere, MD)

    2001-01-01

    A compressed gas vehicle fuel storage system comprised of a plurality of compressed gas pressure cells supported by shock-absorbing foam positioned within a shape-conforming container. The container is dimensioned relative to the compressed gas pressure cells whereby a radial air gap surrounds each compressed gas pressure cell. The radial air gap allows pressure-induced expansion of the pressure cells without resulting in the application of pressure to adjacent pressure cells or physical pressure to the container. The pressure cells are interconnected by a gas control assembly including a thermally activated pressure relief device, a manual safety shut-off valve, and means for connecting the fuel storage system to a vehicle power source and a refueling adapter. The gas control assembly is enclosed by a protective cover attached to the container. The system is attached to the vehicle with straps to enable the chassis to deform as intended in a high-speed collision.

  15. Reservoir Engineering for Unconventional Gas Reservoirs: What Do We Have to Consider?

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Clarkson, Christopher R

    2011-01-01

    The reservoir engineer involved in the development of unconventional gas reservoirs (UGRs) is required to integrate a vast amount of data from disparate sources, and to be familiar with the data collection and assessment. There has been a rapid evolution of technology used to characterize UGR reservoir and hydraulic fracture properties, and there currently are few standardized procedures to be used as guidance. Therefore, more than ever, the reservoir engineer is required to question data sources and have an intimate knowledge of evaluation procedures. We propose a workflow for the optimization of UGR field development to guide discussion of the reservoir engineer's role in the process. Critical issues related to reservoir sample and log analysis, rate-transient and production data analysis, hydraulic and reservoir modeling and economic analysis are raised. Further, we have provided illustrations of each step of the workflow using tight gas examples. Our intent is to provide some guidance for best practices. In addition to reviewing existing methods for reservoir characterization, we introduce new methods for measuring pore size distribution (small-angle neutron scattering), evaluating core-scale heterogeneity, log-core calibration, evaluating core/log data trends to assist with scale-up of core data, and modeling flow-back of reservoir fluids immediately after well stimulation. Our focus in this manuscript is on tight and shale gas reservoirs; reservoir characterization methods for coalbed methane reservoirs have recently been discussed.

  16. Variations in dissolved gas compositions of reservoir fluids...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    distinct regions of single-phase (liquid) reservoir are present and possess distinctive gas and liquid compositions. Relationships in soluble and insoluble gases preclude...

  17. ,"New Mexico Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old...

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

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic...

  18. ,"Texas Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields...

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

    ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic...

  19. Methodologies for Reservoir Characterization Using Fluid Inclusion Gas Chemistry

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Methodologies for Reservoir Characterization Using Fluid Inclusion Gas Chemistry presentation at the April 2013 peer review meeting held in Denver, Colorado.

  20. Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity - Methodology

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  1. Weekly Working Gas in Underground Storage

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

    company data. Notes: This table tracks U.S. natural gas inventories held in underground storage facilities. The weekly stocks generally are the volumes of working gas as...

  2. Gas storage materials, including hydrogen storage materials

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Mohtadi, Rana F; Wicks, George G; Heung, Leung K; Nakamura, Kenji

    2014-11-25

    A material for the storage and release of gases comprises a plurality of hollow elements, each hollow element comprising a porous wall enclosing an interior cavity, the interior cavity including structures of a solid-state storage material. In particular examples, the storage material is a hydrogen storage material, such as a solid state hydride. An improved method for forming such materials includes the solution diffusion of a storage material solution through a porous wall of a hollow element into an interior cavity.

  3. Gas storage materials, including hydrogen storage materials

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Mohtadi, Rana F; Wicks, George G; Heung, Leung K; Nakamura, Kenji

    2013-02-19

    A material for the storage and release of gases comprises a plurality of hollow elements, each hollow element comprising a porous wall enclosing an interior cavity, the interior cavity including structures of a solid-state storage material. In particular examples, the storage material is a hydrogen storage material such as a solid state hydride. An improved method for forming such materials includes the solution diffusion of a storage material solution through a porous wall of a hollow element into an interior cavity.

  4. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Underground Natural Gas Storage

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

    Facilities Map Storage > U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Facilities Map About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Facilities, Close of 2007 more recent map U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Facilities, 2008 The EIA has determined that the informational map displays here do not raise security concerns, based on the application of the Federal Geographic Data Committee's

  5. Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report

    Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report (EIA)

    Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report PERFORMANCE EVALUATION for 2011 through 2013 Independent Statistics & Analysis www.eia.gov U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 September 2014 U.S. Energy Information Administration | PERFORMANCE EVALUATION for 2011 through 2013 i This report was prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. By law, EIA's data, analyses, and forecasts are independent of

  6. Gas hydrate cool storage system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Ternes, Mark P. (Knoxville, TN); Kedl, Robert J. (Oak Ridge, TN)

    1985-01-01

    This invention is a process for formation of a gas hydrate to be used as a cool storage medium using a refrigerant in water. Mixing of the immiscible refrigerant and water is effected by addition of a surfactant and agitation. The difficult problem of subcooling during the process is overcome by using the surfactant and agitation and performance of the process significantly improves and approaches ideal.

  7. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  8. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

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

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

  9. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Underground Natural Gas Storage

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

    Storage About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates Underground Natural Gas Storage Overview | Regional Breakdowns Overview Underground natural gas storage provides pipelines, local distribution companies, producers, and pipeline shippers with an inventory management tool, seasonal supply backup, and access to natural gas needed to avoid imbalances between receipts and deliveries on a pipeline network. There are three

  10. US production of natural gas from tight reservoirs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-10-18

    For the purposes of this report, tight gas reservoirs are defined as those that meet the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission`s (FERC) definition of tight. They are generally characterized by an average reservoir rock permeability to gas of 0.1 millidarcy or less and, absent artificial stimulation of production, by production rates that do not exceed 5 barrels of oil per day and certain specified daily volumes of gas which increase with the depth of the reservoir. All of the statistics presented in this report pertain to wells that have been classified, from 1978 through 1991, as tight according to the FERC; i.e., they are ``legally tight`` reservoirs. Additional production from ``geologically tight`` reservoirs that have not been classified tight according to the FERC rules has been excluded. This category includes all producing wells drilled into legally designated tight gas reservoirs prior to 1978 and all producing wells drilled into physically tight gas reservoirs that have not been designated legally tight. Therefore, all gas production referenced herein is eligible for the Section 29 tax credit. Although the qualification period for the credit expired at the end of 1992, wells that were spudded (began to be drilled) between 1978 and May 1988, and from November 5, 1990, through year end 1992, are eligible for the tax credit for a subsequent period of 10 years. This report updates the EIA`s tight gas production information through 1991 and considers further the history and effect on tight gas production of the Federal Government`s regulatory and tax policy actions. It also provides some high points of the geologic background needed to understand the nature and location of low-permeability reservoirs.

  11. ,"Underground Natural Gas Storage by Storage Type"

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

    by Storage Type" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","All Operators",6,"Monthly"...

  12. Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0 0...

  13. Tennessee Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0...

  14. Texas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 134,707 134,707...

  15. Washington Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Washington Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 21,300 21,300...

  16. Alaska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 7,622 14,197...

  17. Utah Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 46,944 46,944...

  18. Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0...

  19. Missouri Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 21,600 21,600...

  20. Maryland Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 46,677 46,677...

  1. Indiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 74,572 74,572...

  2. Kentucky Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 105,889 105,889...

  3. Washington Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) ...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Washington Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 8,882...

  4. Missouri Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 8,081...

  5. Michigan Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 395,529 395,529...

  6. Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 115,418...

  7. Minnesota Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 4,655 4,655...

  8. Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 27,491...

  9. Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990...

  10. Ohio Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 338,916 338,916...

  11. Alabama Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1995 499 497...

  12. Wyoming Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 31,205 31,205...

  13. Ohio Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 100,467...

  14. Arkansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 19,202 19,202...

  15. Arkansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 8,676...

  16. Oklahoma Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 167,385 163,458...

  17. Oregon Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 3,291 3,291 3,291...

  18. Utah Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 12,862 9,993...

  19. Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 46,050...

  20. Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 262,136...

  1. Alabama Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1995 880 880 880 880...

  2. Nebraska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 55,226...

  3. Nebraska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 27,312 27,312...

  4. Iowa Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Iowa Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 153,933 153,933...

  5. Oklahoma Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 129,245...

  6. Oregon Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 3,705 2,366...

  7. Maryland Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 4,303...

  8. Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 39,062 39,062...

  9. Alaska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 8,956...

  10. Tennessee Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0...

  11. Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas)...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 33,234...

  12. New York Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) New York Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 88,911 88,911...

  13. ,"Arkansas Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Arkansas Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  14. ,"Maryland Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Maryland Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  15. ,"Nevada Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Nevada Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  16. ,"Nebraska Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Nebraska Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  17. ,"Wisconsin Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Wisconsin Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  18. ,"Wisconsin Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Wisconsin Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  19. ,"Connecticut Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Connecticut Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  20. ,"Idaho Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Idaho Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  1. ,"Tennessee Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Tennessee Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  2. ,"Indiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Indiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  3. ,"Missouri Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Missouri Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  4. ,"Pennsylvania Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Pennsylvania Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  5. ,"Minnesota Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Minnesota Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  6. ,"Nevada Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Nevada Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  7. ,"Pennsylvania Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Pennsylvania Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  8. ,"California Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  9. ,"Georgia Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Georgia Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  10. ,"Washington Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Washington Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  11. ,"Oregon Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Oregon Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  12. ,"Connecticut Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Connecticut Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  13. ,"Delaware Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Delaware Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  14. ,"Tennessee Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Tennessee Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  15. ,"Maryland Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Maryland Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  16. ,"Arkansas Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Arkansas Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  17. ,"Louisiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  18. ,"Alaska Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Alaska Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

  19. ,"Missouri Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Missouri Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  20. ,"Texas Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  1. ,"Colorado Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Colorado Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  2. ,"Washington Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Washington Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  3. ,"Alabama Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alabama Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  4. ,"Georgia Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Georgia Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  5. ,"Virginia Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Virginia Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  6. ,"California Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  7. ,"Virginia Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Virginia Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  8. ,"Indiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Indiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  9. ,"Massachusetts Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Massachusetts Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  10. ,"Louisiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  11. ,"Minnesota Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Minnesota Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  12. ,"Oregon Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Oregon Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  13. ,"Idaho Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Idaho Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  14. ,"Delaware Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Delaware Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  15. ,"Nebraska Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Nebraska Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  16. ,"Alabama Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alabama Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  17. ,"Massachusetts Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Massachusetts Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  18. ,"Maine Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Maine Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","930...

  19. ,"Maine Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Maine Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015"...

  20. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  1. ,"Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  4. ,"Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  5. ,"California Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  6. ,"Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  7. ,"Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  8. ,"Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  9. ,"Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  10. ,"Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals ...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  11. ,"Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  12. ,"Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  13. ,"Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  14. ,"Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  15. ,"Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  16. ,"Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  17. ,"Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  18. ,"Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  19. ,"Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  20. ,"Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  1. ,"Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  2. ,"Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  3. ,"Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  4. ,"Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  5. ,"Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  6. ,"Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  7. ,"Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  8. ,"Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  9. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  10. ,"Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity "

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

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

  11. Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report - EIA

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

    See All Natural Gas Reports Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report for week ending January 29, 2016 | Released: February 4, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. | Next Release: February 11, 2016...

  12. US Geological Survey publications on western tight gas reservoirs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Krupa, M.P.; Spencer, C.W.

    1989-02-01

    This bibliography includes reports published from 1977 through August 1988. In 1977 the US Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the US Department of Energy's, (DOE), Western Gas Sands Research program, initiated a geological program to identify and characterize natural gas resources in low-permeability (tight) reservoirs in the Rocky Mountain region. These reservoirs are present at depths of less than 2,000 ft (610 m) to greater than 20,000 ft (6,100 m). Only published reports readily available to the public are included in this report. Where appropriate, USGS researchers have incorporated administrative report information into later published studies. These studies cover a broad range of research from basic research on gas origin and migration to applied studies of production potential of reservoirs in individual wells. The early research included construction of regional well-log cross sections. These sections provide a basic stratigraphic framework for individual areas and basins. Most of these sections include drill-stem test and other well-test data so that the gas-bearing reservoirs can be seen in vertical and areal dimensions. For the convenience of the reader, the publications listed in this report have been indexed by general categories of (1) authors, (2) states, (3) geologic basins, (4) cross sections, (5) maps (6) studies of gas origin and migration, (7) reservoir or mineralogic studies, and (8) other reports of a regional or specific topical nature.

  13. ADVANCED UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE CONCEPTS REFRIGERATED-MINED CAVERN STORAGE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1998-09-01

    Limited demand and high cost has prevented the construction of hard rock caverns in this country for a number of years. The storage of natural gas in mined caverns may prove technically feasible if the geology of the targeted market area is suitable; and economically feasible if the cost and convenience of service is competitive with alternative available storage methods for peak supply requirements. It is believed that mined cavern storage can provide the advantages of high delivery rates and multiple fill-withdrawal cycles in areas where salt cavern storage is not possible. In this research project, PB-KBB merged advanced mining technologies and gas refrigeration techniques to develop conceptual designs and cost estimates to demonstrate the commercialization potential of the storage of refrigerated natural gas in hard rock caverns. Five regions of the U.S.A. were studied for underground storage development and PB-KBB reviewed the literature to determine if the geology of these regions was suitable for siting hard rock storage caverns. Area gas market conditions in these regions were also studied to determine the need for such storage. Based on an analysis of many factors, a possible site was determined to be in Howard and Montgomery Counties, Maryland. The area has compatible geology and a gas industry infrastructure for the nearby market populous of Baltimore and Washington D.C.. As Gas temperature is lowered, the compressibility of the gas reaches an optimum value. The compressibility of the gas, and the resultant gas density, is a function of temperature and pressure. This relationship can be used to commercial advantage by reducing the size of a storage cavern for a given working volume of natural gas. This study looks at this relationship and and the potential for commercialization of the process in a storage application. A conceptual process design, and cavern design were developed for various operating conditions. Potential site locations were considered and a typical plant layout was developed. In addition a geomechanical review of the proposed cavern design was performed, evaluating the stability of the mine rooms and shafts, and the effects of the refrigerated gas temperatures on the stability of the cavern. Capital and operating cost estimates were also developed for the various temperature cases considered. The cost estimates developed were used to perform a comparative market analysis of this type of gas storage system to other systems that are commercially used in the region of the study.

  14. Underground Natural Gas Storage by Storage Type

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

    2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History All Operators Net Withdrawals -17,009 -347,562 -7,279 545,848 -252,958 -538,735 1967-2015 Injections 3,291,395 3,421,813 2,825,427 3,155,661 3,838,826 3,638,954 1935-2015 Withdrawals 3,274,385 3,074,251 2,818,148 3,701,510 3,585,867 3,100,219 1944-2015 Salt Cavern Storage Fields Net Withdrawals -58,295 -92,413 -19,528 28,713 -81,890 -56,095 1994-2015 Injections 510,691 532,893 465,005 492,143 634,045 607,160 1994-2015 Withdrawals 452,396 440,480 445,477

  15. Storage Gas Water Heaters | Department of Energy

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

    Gas Water Heaters Storage Gas Water Heaters The Department of Energy (DOE) develops standardized data templates for reporting the results of tests conducted in accordance with current DOE test procedures. Templates may be used by third-party laboratories under contract with DOE that conduct testing in support of ENERGY STAR® verification, DOE rulemakings, and enforcement of the federal energy conservation standards. File Water Heaters, Storage Gas -- v2.0 More Documents & Publications

  16. Natural gas storage - end user interaction. Task 2. Topical report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1996-01-01

    New opportunities have been created for underground gas storage as a result of recent regulatory developments in the energy industry. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order 636 directly changed the economics of gas storage nationwide. This paper discusses the storage of natural gas, storage facilities, and factors affecting the current, and future situation for natural gas storage.

  17. The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage - U.S. Energy Information

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Administration The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage Release Date: November 16, 2015 Natural gas-a colorless, odorless, gaseous hydrocarbon-may be stored in a number of different ways. It is most commonly held in inventory underground under pressure in three types of facilities. These underground facilities are depleted reservoirs in oil and/or natural gas fields, aquifers, and salt cavern formations. Natural gas is also stored in liquid or gaseous form in above-ground tanks. Each

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  2. AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage...

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

    Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  9. Eastern Consuming Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net...

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

    Eastern Consuming Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Eastern Consuming Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  18. South Central Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume ...

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

    South Central Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) South Central Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar...

  19. Western Consuming Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net...

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

    Western Consuming Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Western Consuming Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  6. AGA Producing Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

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

    AGA Producing Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Producing Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic...

  7. South Central Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

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

    Central Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) South Central Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  9. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

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

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

  10. The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage

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

    States is in depleted natural gas or oil fields that are close to consumption centers. Conversion of a field from production to storage duty takes advantage of existing wells,...

  11. Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report - EIA

    Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report (EIA)

    August 14, 2015 | Released: August 20, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. | Next Release: August 27, 2015 Working gas in underground storage, Lower 48 states Summary text CSV JSN Historical...

  12. Mississippi Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields

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

    (Billion Cubic Feet) New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic Feet) Mississippi Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion 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 2 65 9 1980's 50 31 24 8 20 11 5 3 9 28 1990's 19 8 9 3 8 2 1 2 0 8 2000's 1 19 27 28 7 3 6 1 3 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 2 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  13. Pennsylvania Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields

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

    (Billion Cubic Feet) New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion 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 0 0 3 1980's 0 4 14 8 0 17 2 0 0 12 1990's 2 3 5 4 29 2 29 5 4 1 2000's 0 1 18 3 3 0 0 3 32 0 2010's 904 322 0 79 6 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  14. The Canoe Ridge Natural Gas Storage Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Reidel, Steve P.; Spane, Frank A.; Johnson, Vernon G.

    2003-06-18

    In 1999 the Pacific Gas and Electric Gas Transmission Northwest (GTN) drilled a borehole to investigate the feasibility of developing a natural gas-storage facility in a structural dome formed in Columbia River basalts in the Columbia Basin of south-central Washington State. The proposed aquifer storage facility will be an unconventional one where natural gas will be initially injected (and later retrieved) in one or multiple previous horizons (interflow zones) that are confined between deep (>700 meters) basalt flows of the Columbia River Basalt Group. This report summarizes the results of joint investigations on that feasibility study by GTN and the US Department of Energy.

  15. Integrated Geothermal-CO2 Storage Reservoirs: FY1 Final Report

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

    Buscheck, Thomas A.

    2012-01-01

    The purpose of phase 1 is to determine the feasibility of integrating geologic CO2 storage (GCS) with geothermal energy production. Phase 1 includes reservoir analyses to determine injector/producer well schemes that balance the generation of economically useful flow rates at the producers with the need to manage reservoir overpressure to reduce the risks associated with overpressure, such as induced seismicity and CO2 leakage to overlying aquifers. This submittal contains input and output files of the reservoir model analyses. A reservoir-model "index-html" file was sent in a previous submittal to organize the reservoir-model input and output files according to sections of the FY1 Final Report to which they pertain. The recipient should save the file: Reservoir-models-inputs-outputs-index.html in the same directory that the files: Section2.1.*.tar.gz files are saved in.

  16. Active Management of Integrated Geothermal-CO2 Storage Reservoirs in Sedimentary Formations

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

    Buscheck, Thomas A.

    2012-01-01

    The purpose of phase 1 is to determine the feasibility of integrating geologic CO2 storage (GCS) with geothermal energy production. Phase 1 includes reservoir analyses to determine injector/producer well schemes that balance the generation of economically useful flow rates at the producers with the need to manage reservoir overpressure to reduce the risks associated with overpressure, such as induced seismicity and CO2 leakage to overlying aquifers. This submittal contains input and output files of the reservoir model analyses. A reservoir-model "index-html" file was sent in a previous submittal to organize the reservoir-model input and output files according to sections of the FY1 Final Report to which they pertain. The recipient should save the file: Reservoir-models-inputs-outputs-index.html in the same directory that the files: Section2.1.*.tar.gz files are saved in.

  17. Active Management of Integrated Geothermal-CO2 Storage Reservoirs in Sedimentary Formations

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

    Buscheck, Thomas A.

    2000-01-01

    The purpose of phase 1 is to determine the feasibility of integrating geologic CO2 storage (GCS) with geothermal energy production. Phase 1 includes reservoir analyses to determine injector/producer well schemes that balance the generation of economically useful flow rates at the producers with the need to manage reservoir overpressure to reduce the risks associated with overpressure, such as induced seismicity and CO2 leakage to overlying aquifers. This submittal contains input and output files of the reservoir model analyses. A reservoir-model "index-html" file was sent in a previous submittal to organize the reservoir-model input and output files according to sections of the FY1 Final Report to which they pertain. The recipient should save the file: Reservoir-models-inputs-outputs-index.html in the same directory that the files: Section2.1.*.tar.gz files are saved in.

  18. Integrated Geothermal-CO2 Storage Reservoirs: FY1 Final Report

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

    Buscheck, Thomas A.

    The purpose of phase 1 is to determine the feasibility of integrating geologic CO2 storage (GCS) with geothermal energy production. Phase 1 includes reservoir analyses to determine injector/producer well schemes that balance the generation of economically useful flow rates at the producers with the need to manage reservoir overpressure to reduce the risks associated with overpressure, such as induced seismicity and CO2 leakage to overlying aquifers. This submittal contains input and output files of the reservoir model analyses. A reservoir-model "index-html" file was sent in a previous submittal to organize the reservoir-model input and output files according to sections of the FY1 Final Report to which they pertain. The recipient should save the file: Reservoir-models-inputs-outputs-index.html in the same directory that the files: Section2.1.*.tar.gz files are saved in.

  19. Active Management of Integrated Geothermal-CO2 Storage Reservoirs in Sedimentary Formations

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

    Buscheck, Thomas A.

    The purpose of phase 1 is to determine the feasibility of integrating geologic CO2 storage (GCS) with geothermal energy production. Phase 1 includes reservoir analyses to determine injector/producer well schemes that balance the generation of economically useful flow rates at the producers with the need to manage reservoir overpressure to reduce the risks associated with overpressure, such as induced seismicity and CO2 leakage to overlying aquifers. This submittal contains input and output files of the reservoir model analyses. A reservoir-model "index-html" file was sent in a previous submittal to organize the reservoir-model input and output files according to sections of the FY1 Final Report to which they pertain. The recipient should save the file: Reservoir-models-inputs-outputs-index.html in the same directory that the files: Section2.1.*.tar.gz files are saved in.

  20. Hydrate Control for Gas Storage Operations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jeffrey Savidge

    2008-10-31

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

  1. Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report - EIA

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

    See All Natural Gas Reports Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report for week ending March 4, 2016 | Released: March 10, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. | Next Release: March 17, 2016 Working gas in underground storage, Lower 48 states Summary text CSV JSN Historical Comparisons Stocks billion cubic feet (Bcf) Year ago (03/04/15) 5-year average (2011-15) Region 03/04/16 02/26/16 net change implied flow Bcf % change Bcf % change East 464 495 -31 -31 322 44.1 363 27.8 Midwest 587 621 -34 -34 320 83.4 400 46.8

  2. Seismic analysis applied to the delimiting of a gas reservoir

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ronquillo, G.; Navarro, M.; Lozada, M.; Tafolla, C.

    1996-08-01

    We present the results of correlating seismic models with petrophysical parameters and well logs to mark the limits of a gas reservoir in sand lenses. To fulfill the objectives of the study, we used a data processing sequence that included wavelet manipulation, complex trace attributes and pseudovelocities inversion, along with several quality control schemes to insure proper amplitude preservation. Based on the analysis and interpretation of the seismic sections, several areas of interest were selected to apply additional signal treatment as preconditioning for petrophysical inversion. Signal classification was performed to control the amplitudes along the horizons of interest, and to be able to find an indirect interpretation of lithologies. Additionally, seismic modeling was done to support the results obtained and to help integrate the interpretation. The study proved to be a good auxiliary tool in the location of the probable extension of the gas reservoir in sand lenses.

  3. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  4. Performance of wells in solution-gas-drive reservoirs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Camacho-V, R.G. ); Raghavan, R. )

    1989-12-01

    The authors examine buildup responses in solution-gas-drive reservoirs. The development presented here parallels the development for single-phase liquid flow. Analogs from pseudopressures and time transformations are presented and gas-drive-solutions are correlated with appropriate liquid-flow solutions. The influence of the skin region is documented. The basis for the success of the producing GOR method to compute the saturation distribution at shut-in is presented. The consequences of using the Perrine-Martin analog to analyze buildup data are discussed.

  5. Geochemical Impacts of Leaking CO2 from Subsurface Storage Reservoirs to Unconfined and Confined Aquifers

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Qafoku, Nikolla; Brown, Christopher F.; Wang, Guohui; Sullivan, E. C.; Lawter, Amanda R.; Harvey, Omar R.; Bowden, Mark

    2013-04-15

    Experimental research work has been conducted and is undergoing at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) to address a variety of scientific issues related with the potential leaks of the carbon dioxide (CO2) gas from deep storage reservoirs. The main objectives of this work are as follows: • Develop a systematic understanding of how CO2 leakage is likely to influence pertinent geochemical processes (e.g., dissolution/precipitation, sorption/desorption and redox reactions) in the aquifer sediments. • Identify prevailing environmental conditions that would dictate one geochemical outcome over another. • Gather useful information to support site selection, risk assessment, policy-making, and public education efforts associated with geological carbon sequestration. In this report, we present results from experiments conducted at PNNL to address research issues related to the main objectives of this effort. A series of batch and column experiments and solid phase characterization studies (quantitative x-ray diffraction and wet chemical extractions with a concentrated acid) were conducted with representative rocks and sediments from an unconfined, oxidizing carbonate aquifer, i.e., Edwards aquifer in Texas, and a confined aquifer, i.e., the High Plains aquifer in Kansas. These materials were exposed to a CO2 gas stream simulating CO2 gas leaking scenarios, and changes in aqueous phase pH and chemical composition were measured in liquid and effluent samples collected at pre-determined experimental times. Additional research to be conducted during the current fiscal year will further validate these results and will address other important remaining issues. Results from these experimental efforts will provide valuable insights for the development of site-specific, generation III reduced order models. In addition, results will initially serve as input parameters during model calibration runs and, ultimately, will be used to test model predictive capability and competency. The results from these investigations will provide useful information to support site selection, risk assessment, and public education efforts associated with geological, deep subsurface CO2 storage and sequestration.

  6. Pre-injection brine production for managing pressure in compartmentalized CO₂ storage reservoirs

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

    Buscheck, Thomas A.; White, Joshua A.; Chen, Mingjie; Sun, Yunwei; Hao, Yue; Aines, Roger D.; Bourcier, William L.; Bielicki, Jeffrey M.

    2014-12-31

    We present a reservoir management approach for geologic CO₂ storage that combines CO₂ injection with brine extraction. In our approach,dual-mode wells are initially used to extract formation brine and subsequently used to inject CO₂. These wells can also be used to monitor the subsurface during pre-injection brine extraction so that key data is acquired and analyzed prior to CO₂ injection. The relationship between pressure drawdown during pre-injection brine extraction and pressure buildup during CO₂ injection directly informs reservoir managers about CO₂ storage capacity. These data facilitate proactive reservoir management, and thus reduce costs and risks. The brine may be usedmore » directly as make-up brine for nearby reservoir operations; it can also be desalinated and/or treated for a variety of beneficial uses.« less

  7. Pre-injection brine production for managing pressure in compartmentalized CO? storage reservoirs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Buscheck, Thomas A.; White, Joshua A.; Chen, Mingjie; Sun, Yunwei; Hao, Yue; Aines, Roger D.; Bourcier, William L.; Bielicki, Jeffrey M.

    2014-12-31

    We present a reservoir management approach for geologic CO? storage that combines CO? injection with brine extraction. In our approach,dual-mode wells are initially used to extract formation brine and subsequently used to inject CO?. These wells can also be used to monitor the subsurface during pre-injection brine extraction so that key data is acquired and analyzed prior to CO? injection. The relationship between pressure drawdown during pre-injection brine extraction and pressure buildup during CO? injection directly informs reservoir managers about CO? storage capacity. These data facilitate proactive reservoir management, and thus reduce costs and risks. The brine may be used directly as make-up brine for nearby reservoir operations; it can also be desalinated and/or treated for a variety of beneficial uses.

  8. Coiled tubing applications for underground gas storage

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fowler, H.; Holcombe, D.

    1994-12-31

    Technological advances in coiled tubing (CT), CT handling equipment, and application techniques have provided new opportunities for the effective, economic use of CT for gas storage and retrieval. This paper presents a review of the CT capabilities that can be used for improving the performance of gas storage wells and discusses applications that could be performed with CT in the near future. For more than 25 years, coiled tubing has been use as an effective, economic means of performing remedial well services. In response to the demand for better horizontal drilling equipment, the strength and diameter of CT has been increased, while surface equipment and downhole tools have become more sophisticated. CT is also widely used in well servicing after initial completion, especially since declining oil prices have made it imperative that operators find more cost-effective methods of increasing production and reducing maintenance costs. The gas storage industry can effectively take advantage of the many recent advancements in CT technology.

  9. Active Management of Integrated Geothermal-CO2 Storage Reservoirs in Sedimentary Formations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Buscheck, Thomas A.

    2012-01-01

    Active Management of Integrated GeothermalCO2 Storage Reservoirs in Sedimentary Formations: An Approach to Improve Energy Recovery and Mitigate Risk : FY1 Final Report The purpose of phase 1 is to determine the feasibility of integrating geologic CO2 storage (GCS) with geothermal energy production. Phase 1 includes reservoir analyses to determine injector/producer well schemes that balance the generation of economically useful flow rates at the producers with the need to manage reservoir overpressure to reduce the risks associated with overpressure, such as induced seismicity and CO2 leakage to overlying aquifers. This submittal contains input and output files of the reservoir model analyses. A reservoir-model "index-html" file was sent in a previous submittal to organize the reservoir-model input and output files according to sections of the FY1 Final Report to which they pertain. The recipient should save the file: Reservoir-models-inputs-outputs-index.html in the same directory that the files: Section2.1.*.tar.gz files are saved in.

  10. New York Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields...

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

    New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic Feet) New York Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  11. Gas storage carbon with enhanced thermal conductivity

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Burchell, Timothy D. (Oak Ridge, TN); Rogers, Michael Ray (Knoxville, TN); Judkins, Roddie R. (Knoxville, TN)

    2000-01-01

    A carbon fiber carbon matrix hybrid adsorbent monolith with enhanced thermal conductivity for storing and releasing gas through adsorption and desorption is disclosed. The heat of adsorption of the gas species being adsorbed is sufficiently large to cause hybrid monolith heating during adsorption and hybrid monolith cooling during desorption which significantly reduces the storage capacity of the hybrid monolith, or efficiency and economics of a gas separation process. The extent of this phenomenon depends, to a large extent, on the thermal conductivity of the adsorbent hybrid monolith. This invention is a hybrid version of a carbon fiber monolith, which offers significant enhancements to thermal conductivity and potential for improved gas separation and storage systems.

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

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

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

  13. Methodologies for Reservoir Characterization Using Fluid Inclusion Gas Chemistry

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dilley, Lorie M.

    2015-04-13

    The purpose of this project was to: 1) evaluate the relationship between geothermal fluid processes and the compositions of the fluid inclusion gases trapped in the reservoir rocks; and 2) develop methodologies for interpreting fluid inclusion gas data in terms of the chemical, thermal and hydrological properties of geothermal reservoirs. Phase 1 of this project was designed to conduct the following: 1) model the effects of boiling, condensation, conductive cooling and mixing on selected gaseous species; using fluid compositions obtained from geothermal wells, 2) evaluate, using quantitative analyses provided by New Mexico Tech (NMT), how these processes are recorded by fluid inclusions trapped in individual crystals; and 3) determine if the results obtained on individual crystals can be applied to the bulk fluid inclusion analyses determined by Fluid Inclusion Technology (FIT). Our initial studies however, suggested that numerical modeling of the data would be premature. We observed that the gas compositions, determined on bulk and individual samples were not the same as those discharged by the geothermal wells. Gases discharged from geothermal wells are CO2-rich and contain low concentrations of light gases (i.e. H2, He, N, Ar, CH4). In contrast many of our samples displayed enrichments in these light gases. Efforts were initiated to evaluate the reasons for the observed gas distributions. As a first step, we examined the potential importance of different reservoir processes using a variety of commonly employed gas ratios (e.g. Giggenbach plots). The second technical target was the development of interpretational methodologies. We have develop methodologies for the interpretation of fluid inclusion gas data, based on the results of Phase 1, geologic interpretation of fluid inclusion data, and integration of the data. These methodologies can be used in conjunction with the relevant geological and hydrological information on the system to create fluid models for the system. The hope is that the methodologies developed will allow bulk fluid inclusion gas analysis to be a useful tool for estimating relative temperatures, identifying the sources and origins of the geothermal fluids, and developing conceptual models that can be used to help target areas of enhanced permeability.

  14. STORAGE OF CHILLED NATURAL GAS IN BEDDED SALT STORAGE CAVERNS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    JOel D. Dieland; Kirby D. Mellegard

    2001-11-01

    This report provides the results of a two-phase study that examines the economic and technical feasibility of converting a conventional natural gas storage facility in bedded salt into a refrigerated natural gas storage facility for the purpose of increasing the working gas capacity of the facility. The conceptual design used to evaluate this conversion is based on the design that was developed for the planned Avoca facility in Steuben County, New York. By decreasing the cavern storage temperature from 43 C to -29 C (110 F to -20 F), the working gas capacity of the facility can be increased by about 70 percent (from 1.2 x 10{sup 8} Nm{sup 3} or 4.4 billion cubic feet (Bcf) to 2.0 x 10{sup 8} Nm{sup 3} or 7.5 Bcf) while maintaining the original design minimum and maximum cavern pressures. In Phase I of the study, laboratory tests were conducted to determine the thermal conductivity of salt at low temperatures. Finite element heat transfer calculations were then made to determine the refrigeration loads required to maintain the caverns at a temperature of -29 C (-20 F). This was followed by a preliminary equipment design and a cost analysis for the converted facility. The capital cost of additional equipment and its installation required for refrigerated storage is estimated to be about $13,310,000 or $160 per thousand Nm{sup 3} ($4.29 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf)) of additional working gas capacity. The additional operating costs include maintenance refrigeration costs to maintain the cavern at -29 C (-20 F) and processing costs to condition the gas during injection and withdrawal. The maintenance refrigeration cost, based on the current energy cost of about $13.65 per megawatt-hour (MW-hr) ($4 per million British thermal units (MMBtu)), is expected to be about $316,000 after the first year and to decrease as the rock surrounding the cavern is cooled. After 10 years, the cost of maintenance refrigeration based on the $13.65 per MW-hr ($4 per MMBtu) energy cost is estimated to be $132,000. The gas processing costs are estimated to be $2.05 per thousand Nm{sup 3} ($0.055 per Mcf) of gas injected into and withdrawn from the facility based on the $13.65 per MW-hr ($4 per MMBtu) energy cost. In Phase II of the study, laboratory tests were conducted to determine mechanical properties of salt at low temperature. This was followed by thermomechanical finite element simulations to evaluate the structural stability of the cavern during refrigerated storage. The high thermal expansion coefficient of salt is expected to result in tensile stresses leading to tensile failure in the roof, walls, and floor of the cavern as it is cooled. Tensile fracturing of the cavern roof may result in loss of containment of the gas and/or loss of integrity of the casing shoe, deeming the conversion of this facility not technically feasible.

  15. FAQ's for New Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report Regions

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

    FAQs about New Regions for Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report Originally Released: September 29, 2015 Updated: November 5, 2015 What led EIA to change the Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report (WNGSR) reporting from three to five regions? The three storage regions were developed more than 20 years ago when the dynamics of the natural gas market, including producing and consuming regions, were different than they are today. The new storage regions better reflect groupings of storage locations and the

  16. Lower 48 States Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million...

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

    Lower 48 States Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  17. Additions to natural gas in underground storage to be nearly...

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

    Additions to natural gas in underground storage to be nearly 50% higher this summer Although it's still spring, natural gas supply companies and utilities are already preparing for ...

  18. Revision Policy for EIA Weekly Underground Natural Gas Storage Estimates

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

    Revision Policy for EIA Weekly Underground Natural Gas Storage Estimates Latest Update: November 16, 2015 This report consists of the following sections: General EIA Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report Revisions Policy - a description of how revisions to the Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report estimates may occur EIA Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report Policy to Allow Unscheduled Release of Revisions - a description of the policy that will be implemented in the event of an out-of-cycle release

  19. Advanced Hydraulic Fracturing Technology for Unconventional Tight Gas Reservoirs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Stephen Holditch; A. Daniel Hill; D. Zhu

    2007-06-19

    The objectives of this project are to develop and test new techniques for creating extensive, conductive hydraulic fractures in unconventional tight gas reservoirs by statistically assessing the productivity achieved in hundreds of field treatments with a variety of current fracturing practices ranging from 'water fracs' to conventional gel fracture treatments; by laboratory measurements of the conductivity created with high rate proppant fracturing using an entirely new conductivity test - the 'dynamic fracture conductivity test'; and by developing design models to implement the optimal fracture treatments determined from the field assessment and the laboratory measurements. One of the tasks of this project is to create an 'advisor' or expert system for completion, production and stimulation of tight gas reservoirs. A central part of this study is an extensive survey of the productivity of hundreds of tight gas wells that have been hydraulically fractured. We have been doing an extensive literature search of the SPE eLibrary, DOE, Gas Technology Institute (GTI), Bureau of Economic Geology and IHS Energy, for publicly available technical reports about procedures of drilling, completion and production of the tight gas wells. We have downloaded numerous papers and read and summarized the information to build a database that will contain field treatment data, organized by geographic location, and hydraulic fracture treatment design data, organized by the treatment type. We have conducted experimental study on 'dynamic fracture conductivity' created when proppant slurries are pumped into hydraulic fractures in tight gas sands. Unlike conventional fracture conductivity tests in which proppant is loaded into the fracture artificially; we pump proppant/frac fluid slurries into a fracture cell, dynamically placing the proppant just as it occurs in the field. From such tests, we expect to gain new insights into some of the critical issues in tight gas fracturing, in particular the roles of gel damage, polymer loading (water-frac versus gel frac), and proppant concentration on the created fracture conductivity. To achieve this objective, we have designed the experimental apparatus to conduct the dynamic fracture conductivity tests. The experimental apparatus has been built and some preliminary tests have been conducted to test the apparatus.

  20. Importance of Low Permeability Natural Gas Reservoirs (released in AEO2010)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2010-01-01

    Production from low-permeability reservoirs, including shale gas and tight gas, has become a major source of domestic natural gas supply. In 2008, low-permeability reservoirs accounted for about 40% of natural gas production and about 35% of natural gas consumption in the United States. Permeability is a measure of the rate at which liquids and gases can move through rock. Low-permeability natural gas reservoirs encompass the shale, sandstone, and carbonate formations whose natural permeability is roughly 0.1 millidarcies or below. (Permeability is measured in darcies.)

  1. Midwest Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas...

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

    Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 449,673 237,999 142,513 179,338 317,901 471,765 625,764 788,930 935,822...

  2. Mountain Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 137,378 102,507 83,983 82,058 98,717 121,623 140,461 157,716 174,610 187,375...

  3. Pacific Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas)...

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

    Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 258,736 258,541 258,456 258,619 258,736 258,736 258,736 258,736 258,736...

  4. Mountain Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas...

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

    Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 421,075 420,615 419,767 420,250 420,606 420,353 422,402 422,811 423,525...

  5. East Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas)...

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

    Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 451,335 271,801 167,715 213,475 349,739 474,624 580,937 689,328 805,733...

  6. Pacific Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas...

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

    Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 197,953 115,235 104,941 144,268 200,453 249,196 274,725 302,752 318,020...

  7. Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  8. U.S. Natural Gas Salt - Underground Storage - Base Gas (Million...

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

    - Underground Storage - Base Gas (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Salt - Underground Storage - Base Gas (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov...

  9. Assessing Reservoir Depositional Environments to Develop and Quantify Improvements in CO2 Storage Efficiency. A Reservoir Simulation Approach

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Okwen, Roland; Frailey, Scott; Leetaru, Hannes; Moulton, Sandy

    2014-09-30

    The storage potential and fluid movement within formations are dependent on the unique hydraulic characteristics of their respective depositional environments. Storage efficiency (E) quantifies the potential for storage in a geologic depositional environment and is used to assess basinal or regional CO2 storage resources. Current estimates of storage resources are calculated using common E ranges by lithology and not by depositional environment. The objectives of this project are to quantify E ranges and identify E enhancement strategies for different depositional environments via reservoir simulation studies. The depositional environments considered include deltaic, shelf clastic, shelf carbonate, fluvial deltaic, strandplain, reef, fluvial and alluvial, and turbidite. Strategies considered for enhancing E include CO2 injection via vertical, horizontal, and deviated wells, selective completions, water production, and multi-well injection. Conceptual geologic and geocellular models of the depositional environments were developed based on data from Illinois Basin oil fields and gas storage sites. The geologic and geocellular models were generalized for use in other US sedimentary basins. An important aspect of this work is the development of conceptual geologic and geocellular models that reflect the uniqueness of each depositional environment. Different injection well completions methods were simulated to investigate methods of enhancing E in the presence of geologic heterogeneity specific to a depositional environment. Modeling scenarios included horizontal wells (length, orientation, and inclination), selective and dynamic completions, water production, and multiwell injection. A Geologic Storage Efficiency Calculator (GSECalc) was developed to calculate E from reservoir simulation output. Estimated E values were normalized to diminish their dependency on fluid relative permeability. Classifying depositional environments according to normalized baseline E ranges ranks fluvial deltaic and turbidite highest and shelf carbonate lowest. The estimated average normalized baseline E of turbidite, and shelf carbonate depositional environments are 42.5% and 13.1%, with corresponding standard deviations of 11.3%, and 3.10%, respectively. Simulations of different plume management techniques suggest that the horizontal well, multi-well injection with brine production from blanket vertical producers are the most efficient E enhancement strategies in seven of eight depositional environments; for the fluvial deltaic depositional environment, vertical well with blanket completions is the most efficient. This study estimates normalized baseline E ranges for eight depositional environments, which can be used to assess the CO2 storage resource of candidate formations. This study also improves the general understanding of depositional environment’s influence on E. The lessons learned and results obtained from this study can be extrapolated to formations in other US basins with formations of similar depositional environments, which should be used to further refine regional and national storage resource estimates in future editions of the Carbon Utilization and Storage Atlas of the United States. Further study could consider the economic feasibility of the E enhancement strategies identified here.

  10. Differences Between Monthly and Weekly Working Gas In Storage

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

    Differences Between Monthly and Weekly Working Gas In Storage Latest update: March 3, 2016 Note: The weekly storage estimates are based on a survey sample that does not include all companies that operate underground storage facilities. The sample was selected from the list of storage operators to achieve a target standard error of the estimate of working gas in storage which was no greater than 5 percent for each region. Based on a comparison of weekly estimates and monthly data from January

  11. Advanced Gas Storage Concepts: Technologies for the Future

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Freeway, Katy; Rogers, R.E.; DeVries, Kerry L.; Nieland, Joel D.; Ratigan, Joe L.; Mellegard, Kirby D.

    2000-02-01

    This full text product includes: 1) A final technical report titled Advanced Underground Gas Storage Concepts, Refrigerated-Mined Cavern Storage and presentations from two technology transfer workshops held in 1998 in Houston, Texas, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (both on the topic of Chilled Gas Storage in Mined Caverns); 2) A final technical report titled Natural Gas Hydrates Storage Project, Final Report 1 October 1997 - 31 May 1999; 3) A final technical report titled Natural Gas Hydrates Storage Project Phase II: Conceptual Design and Economic Study, Final Report 9 June - 10 October 1999; 4) A final technical report titled Commerical Potential of Natural Gas Storage in Lined Rock Caverns (LRC) and presentations from a DOE-sponsored workshop on Alternative Gas Storage Technologies, held Feb 17, 2000 in Pittsburgh, PA; and 5) Phase I and Phase II topical reports titled Feasibility Study for Lowering the Minimum Gas Pressure in Solution-Mined Caverns Based on Geomechanical Analyses of Creep-Induced Damage and Healing.

  12. OPTIMIZATION OF INFILL DRILLING IN NATURALLY-FRACTURED TIGHT-GAS RESERVOIRS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lawrence W. Teufel; Her-Yuan Chen; Thomas W. Engler; Bruce Hart

    2004-05-01

    A major goal of industry and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) fossil energy program is to increase gas reserves in tight-gas reservoirs. Infill drilling and hydraulic fracture stimulation in these reservoirs are important reservoir management strategies to increase production and reserves. Phase II of this DOE/cooperative industry project focused on optimization of infill drilling and evaluation of hydraulic fracturing in naturally-fractured tight-gas reservoirs. The cooperative project involved multidisciplinary reservoir characterization and simulation studies to determine infill well potential in the Mesaverde and Dakota sandstone formations at selected areas in the San Juan Basin of northwestern New Mexico. This work used the methodology and approach developed in Phase I. Integrated reservoir description and hydraulic fracture treatment analyses were also conducted in the Pecos Slope Abo tight-gas reservoir in southeastern New Mexico and the Lewis Shale in the San Juan Basin. This study has demonstrated a methodology to (1) describe reservoir heterogeneities and natural fracture systems, (2) determine reservoir permeability and permeability anisotropy, (3) define the elliptical drainage area and recoverable gas for existing wells, (4) determine the optimal location and number of new in-fill wells to maximize economic recovery, (5) forecast the increase in total cumulative gas production from infill drilling, and (6) evaluate hydraulic fracture simulation treatments and their impact on well drainage area and infill well potential. Industry partners during the course of this five-year project included BP, Burlington Resources, ConocoPhillips, and Williams.

  13. Active Management of Integrated Geothermal-CO2 Storage Reservoirs in Sedimentary Formations

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

    Buscheck, Thomas A.

    The purpose of phase 1 is to determine the feasibility of integrating geologic CO2 storage (GCS) with geothermal energy production. Phase 1 includes reservoir analyses to determine injector/producer well schemes that balance the generation of economically useful flow rates at the producers with the need to manage reservoir overpressure to reduce the risks associated with overpressure, such as induced seismicity and CO2 leakage to overlying aquifers. Based on a range of well schemes, techno-economic analyses of the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) are conducted to determine the economic benefits of integrating GCS with geothermal energy production. In addition to considering CO2 injection, reservoir analyses are conducted for nitrogen (N2) injection to investigate the potential benefits of incorporating N2 injection with integrated geothermal-GCS, as well as the use of N2 injection as a potential pressure-support and working-fluid option. Phase 1 includes preliminary environmental risk assessments of integrated geothermal-GCS, with the focus on managing reservoir overpressure. Phase 1 also includes an economic survey of pipeline costs, which will be applied in Phase 2 to the analysis of CO2 conveyance costs for techno-economics analyses of integrated geothermal-GCS reservoir sites. Phase 1 also includes a geospatial GIS survey of potential integrated geothermal-GCS reservoir sites, which will be used in Phase 2 to conduct sweet-spot analyses that determine where promising geothermal resources are co-located in sedimentary settings conducive to safe CO2 storage, as well as being in adequate proximity to large stationary CO2 sources.

  14. Active Management of Integrated Geothermal-CO2 Storage Reservoirs in Sedimentary Formations

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

    Buscheck, Thomas A.

    2012-01-01

    The purpose of phase 1 is to determine the feasibility of integrating geologic CO2 storage (GCS) with geothermal energy production. Phase 1 includes reservoir analyses to determine injector/producer well schemes that balance the generation of economically useful flow rates at the producers with the need to manage reservoir overpressure to reduce the risks associated with overpressure, such as induced seismicity and CO2 leakage to overlying aquifers. Based on a range of well schemes, techno-economic analyses of the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) are conducted to determine the economic benefits of integrating GCS with geothermal energy production. In addition to considering CO2 injection, reservoir analyses are conducted for nitrogen (N2) injection to investigate the potential benefits of incorporating N2 injection with integrated geothermal-GCS, as well as the use of N2 injection as a potential pressure-support and working-fluid option. Phase 1 includes preliminary environmental risk assessments of integrated geothermal-GCS, with the focus on managing reservoir overpressure. Phase 1 also includes an economic survey of pipeline costs, which will be applied in Phase 2 to the analysis of CO2 conveyance costs for techno-economics analyses of integrated geothermal-GCS reservoir sites. Phase 1 also includes a geospatial GIS survey of potential integrated geothermal-GCS reservoir sites, which will be used in Phase 2 to conduct sweet-spot analyses that determine where promising geothermal resources are co-located in sedimentary settings conducive to safe CO2 storage, as well as being in adequate proximity to large stationary CO2 sources.

  15. Notice of Changes to the Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Notice of Changes to the Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report Released: August 31, 2015 EIA will change the Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report regions and revision threshold To enhance the transparency and utility of the Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report (WNGSR), the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) will make several important changes later in 2015: The regional breakdown of the data will now include five regions for working gas in the Lower 48 states. The threshold for published

  16. Inflow performance relationships for solution-gas-drive reservoirs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Camacho-V, R.G.; Raghavan, R.

    1989-05-01

    In this theoretical study, a numerical model was used to examine the influence of pressure level and skin factor on the inflow performance relationships (IPR's) of wells producing under solution-gas-drive systems. Examination of the synthetic deliverability curves suggests that the exponent of the deliverability curve is a function of time and that the exponent is usually greater than unity. The implication of this observation to field data is discussed. The accuracy of procedures given in the literature to predict oilwell deliverabilities is also examined. It is shown that these methods can be used to predict future performance provided that the exponent of the deliverability curve is known and that extrapolations over large time ranges are avoided. If single-point tests are used to predict future performance (such tests assume that the exponent of the deliverability curve is constant), then errors in predictions will be minimized. Although relative permeability and fluid property data are required, the Muskat material-balance equation and the assumption that GOR is independent of distance can be used to predict future production rates. This method avoids problems associated with other methods in the literature and always yields reliable results. New methods to modify the IPR curve to incorporate changes in skin factor are presented. A new flow-efficiency definition based on the structure of the deliverability equations for solution-gas-drive reservoirs is proposed. This definition avoids problems that result when the currently available methods are applied to heavily stimulated wells.

  17. Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report Schedule

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

    Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report Schedule Holiday Release Schedule The standard release time and day of the week will be at 10:30 a.m. (Eastern time) on Thursdays with the following exceptions. All times are Eastern. Alternate Release Date Release Day Release Time Holiday 12/31/2014 Wednesday 12:00 p.m. 1/1/2015 (Thursday) is New Year's Day 11/13/2015 Friday 10:30 a.m. 11/11/2015 (Wednesday) is Veteran's Day 11/25/2015 Wednesday 12:00 p.m. 11/26/2015 (Thursday) is Thanksgiving Day 11/23/2016

  18. Geochemical Impacts of Leaking CO2 from Subsurface Storage Reservoirs to an Unconfined Oxidizing Carbonate Aquifer

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wang, Guohui; Qafoku, Nikolla; Lawter, Amanda R.; Bowden, Mark E.; Harvey, Omar; Sullivan, E. C.; Brown, Christopher F.

    2015-07-15

    A series of batch and column experiments combined with solid phase characterization studies (i.e., quantitative x-ray diffraction and wet chemical extractions) were conducted to address a variety of scientific issues and evaluate the impacts of the potential leakage of carbon dioxide (CO2) from deep subsurface storage reservoirs. The main objective was to gain an understanding of how CO2 gas influences: 1) the aqueous phase pH; and 2) mobilization of major, minor, and trace elements from minerals present in an aquifer overlying potential CO2 sequestration subsurface repositories. Rocks and slightly weathered rocks representative of an unconfined, oxidizing carbonate aquifer within the continental US, i.e., the Edwards aquifer in Texas, were used in these studies. These materials were exposed to a CO2 gas stream or were leached with a CO2-saturated influent solution to simulate different CO2 gas leakage scenarios, and changes in aqueous phase pH and chemical composition were measured in the liquid samples collected at pre-determined experimental times (batch experiments) or continuously (column experiments). The results from the strong acid extraction tests confirmed that in addition to the usual elements present in most soils, rocks, and sediments, the Edward aquifer samples contain As, Cd, Pb, Cu, and occasionally Zn, which may potentially be mobilized from the solid to the aqueous phase during or after exposure to CO2. The results from the batch and column experiments confirmed the release of major chemical elements into the contacting aqueous phase (such as Ca, Mg, Ba, Sr, Si, Na, and K); the mobilization and possible rapid immobilization of minor elements (such as Fe, Al, and Mn), which are able to form highly reactive secondary phases; and sporadic mobilization of only low concentrations of trace elements (such as As, Cd, Pb, Cu, Zn, Mo, etc.). The results from this experimental research effort will help in developing a systematic understanding of how CO2 leakage is likely to influence pertinent geochemical processes (e.g., dissolution/precipitation, sorption/desorption) in the aquifer sediments and will support site selection, risk assessment, policy-making, and public education efforts associated with geologic carbon sequestration.

  19. AGA Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas)

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 393,598 297,240 289,617 356,360 461,202 516,155 604,504 678,168 747,928 783,414 775,741 673,670 1995 549,759 455,591 416,294 457,969 533,496 599,582 638,359 634,297 713,319 766,411 700,456 552,458 1996 369,545 263,652 195,447 224,002 279,731 339,263 391,961 474,402 578,991 638,500 562,097

  20. Montana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 184,212 180,918 178,620 181,242 179,235 181,374 183,442 187,348 185,848 181,029 1991 179,697 178,285 176,975 176,918 178,145 179,386 181,094 182,534 182,653 181,271 178,539 174,986 1992 111,256 109,433 109,017 109,150 110,146 110,859 111,885 112,651 112,225 110,868 107,520 101,919 1993 96,819 92,399 89,640 87,930

  1. California Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 1991 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 1992 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 250,206 1993 250,206 250,206

  2. South Central Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas)

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) South Central Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 668,540 452,778 337,592 426,793 560,429 666,015 755,579 806,418 929,012 1,090,604 1,084,413 1,044,833 2015 831,268 576,019 574,918 749,668 920,727 1,002,252 1,050,004 1,095,812 1,206,329 1,321,297 1,332,421 1,303,737 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld

  3. Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 352,686 352,686 352,686 351,920 352,686 352,686 353,407 353,407 353,407 353,407 359,236 358,860 1991 349,459 348,204 334,029 335,229 353,405 349,188 350,902 352,314 353,617 354,010 353,179 355,754 1992 358,198 353,313 347,361 341,498 344,318 347,751 357,498 358,432 359,300 359,504 359,321 362,275 1993 362,222 358,438

  4. West Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 95,718 84,444 80,152 86,360 105,201 122,470 139,486 155,506 168,801 172,513 172,198 155,477 1991 102,542 81,767 79,042 86,494 101,636 117,739 132,999 142,701 151,152 154,740 143,668 121,376 1992 87,088 60,200 32,379 33,725 57,641 75,309 97,090 115,537 128,969 141,790 135,853 143,960 1993 112,049 69,593

  5. Characterization of oil and gas reservoirs and recovery technology deployment on Texas State Lands

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tyler, R.; Major, R.P.; Holtz, M.H.

    1997-08-01

    Texas State Lands oil and gas resources are estimated at 1.6 BSTB of remaining mobile oil, 2.1 BSTB, or residual oil, and nearly 10 Tcf of remaining gas. An integrated, detailed geologic and engineering characterization of Texas State Lands has created quantitative descriptions of the oil and gas reservoirs, resulting in delineation of untapped, bypassed compartments and zones of remaining oil and gas. On Texas State Lands, the knowledge gained from such interpretative, quantitative reservoir descriptions has been the basis for designing optimized recovery strategies, including well deepening, recompletions, workovers, targeted infill drilling, injection profile modification, and waterflood optimization. The State of Texas Advanced Resource Recovery program is currently evaluating oil and gas fields along the Gulf Coast (South Copano Bay and Umbrella Point fields) and in the Permian Basin (Keystone East, Ozona, Geraldine Ford and Ford West fields). The program is grounded in advanced reservoir characterization techniques that define the residence of unrecovered oil and gas remaining in select State Land reservoirs. Integral to the program is collaboration with operators in order to deploy advanced reservoir exploitation and management plans. These plans are made on the basis of a thorough understanding of internal reservoir architecture and its controls on remaining oil and gas distribution. Continued accurate, detailed Texas State Lands reservoir description and characterization will ensure deployment of the most current and economically viable recovery technologies and strategies available.

  6. THE OHIO RIVER VALLEY CO2 STORAGE PROJECT - PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF DEEP SALINE RESERVOIRS AND COAL SEAMS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Michael J. Mudd; Howard Johnson; Charles Christopher; T.S. Ramakrishnan, Ph.D.

    2003-08-01

    This report describes the geologic setting for the Deep Saline Reservoirs and Coal Seams in the Ohio River Valley CO{sub 2} Storage Project area. The object of the current project is to site and design a CO{sub 2} injection facility. A location near New Haven, WV, has been selected for the project. To assess geologic storage reservoirs at the site, regional and site-specific geology were reviewed. Geologic reports, deep well logs, hydraulic tests, and geologic maps were reviewed for the area. Only one well within 25 miles of the site penetrates the deeper sedimentary rocks, so there is a large amount of uncertainty regarding the deep geology at the site. New Haven is located along the Ohio River on the border of West Virginia and Ohio. Topography in the area is flat in the river valley but rugged away from the Ohio River floodplain. The Ohio River Valley incises 50-100 ft into bedrock in the area. The area of interest lies within the Appalachian Plateau, on the western edge of the Appalachian Mountain chain. Within the Appalachian Basin, sedimentary rocks are 3,000 to 20,000 ft deep and slope toward the southeast. The rock formations consist of alternating layers of shale, limestone, dolomite, and sandstone overlying dense metamorphic continental shield rocks. The Rome Trough is the major structural feature in the area, and there may be some faults associated with the trough in the Ohio-West Virginia Hinge Zone. The area has a low earthquake hazard with few historical earthquakes. Target injection reservoirs include the basal sandstone/Lower Maryville and the Rose Run Sandstone. The basal sandstone is an informal name for sandstones that overlie metamorphic shield rock. Regional geology indicates that the unit is at a depth of approximately 9,100 ft below the surface at the project site and associated with the Maryville Formation. Overall thickness appears to be 50-100 ft. The Rose Run Sandstone is another potential reservoir. The unit is located approximately 1,100 ft above the basal sandstone and is 100-200 ft thick. The storage capacity estimates for a 20-mile radius from the injection well ranged from 39-78 million tons (Mt) for each formation. Several other oil and gas plays have hydraulic properties conducive for injection, but the formations are generally only 5-50 ft thick in the study area. Overlying the injection reservoirs are thick sequences of dense, impermeable dolomite, limestone, and shale. These layers provide containment above the potential injection reservoirs. In general, it appears that the containment layers are much thicker and extensive than the injection intervals. Other physical parameters for the study area appear to be typical for the region. Anticipated pressures at maximum depths are approximately 4,100 psi based on a 0.45 psi/ft pressure gradient. Temperatures are likely to be 150 F. Groundwater flow is slow and complex in deep formations. Regional flow directions appear to be toward the west-northwest at less than 1 ft per year within the basal sandstone. Vertical gradients are downward in the study area. A review of brine geochemistry indicates that formation fluids have high salinity and dissolved solids. Total dissolved solids ranges from 200,000-325,000 mg/L in the deep reservoirs. Brine chemistry is similar throughout the different formations, suggesting extensive mixing in a mature basin. Unconsolidated sediments in the Ohio River Valley are the primary source of drinking water in the study area.

  7. Assessing the Effect of Timing of Availability for Carbon Dioxide Storage in the Largest Oil and Gas Pools in the Alberta Basin: Description of Data and Methodology

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dahowski, Robert T.; Bachu, Stefan

    2007-03-05

    Carbon dioxide capture from large stationary sources and storage in geological media is a technologically-feasible mitigation measure for the reduction of anthropogenic emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere in response to climate change. Carbon dioxide (CO2) can be sequestered underground in oil and gas reservoirs, in deep saline aquifers, in uneconomic coal beds and in salt caverns. The Alberta Basin provides a very large capacity for CO2 storage in oil and gas reservoirs, along with significant capacity in deep saline formations and possible unmineable coal beds. Regional assessments of potential geological CO2 storage capacity have largely focused so far on estimating the total capacity that might be available within each type of reservoir. While deep saline formations are effectively able to accept CO2 immediately, the storage potential of other classes of candidate storage reservoirs, primarily oil and gas fields, is not fully available at present time. Capacity estimates to date have largely overlooked rates of depletion in these types of storage reservoirs and typically report the total estimated storage capacity that will be available upon depletion. However, CO2 storage will not (and cannot economically) begin until the recoverable oil and gas have been produced via traditional means. This report describes a reevaluation of the CO2 storage capacity and an assessment of the timing of availability of the oil and gas pools in the Alberta Basin with very large storage capacity (>5 MtCO2 each) that are being looked at as likely targets for early implementation of CO2 storage in the region. Over 36,000 non-commingled (i.e., single) oil and gas pools were examined with effective CO2 storage capacities being individually estimated. For each pool, the life expectancy was estimated based on a combination of production decline analysis constrained by the remaining recoverable reserves and an assessment of economic viability, yielding an estimated depletion date, or year that it will be available for CO2 storage. The modeling framework and assumptions used to assess the impact of the timing of CO2 storage resource availability on the regions deployment of CCS technologies is also described. The purpose of this report is to describe the data and methodology for examining the carbon dioxide (CO2) storage capacity resource of a major hydrocarbon province incorporating estimated depletion dates for its oil and gas fields with the largest CO2 storage capacity. This allows the development of a projected timeline for CO2 storage availability across the basin and enables a more realistic examination of potential oil and gas field CO2 storage utilization by the regions large CO2 point sources. The Alberta Basin of western Canada was selected for this initial examination as a representative mature basin, and the development of capacity and depletion date estimates for the 227 largest oil and gas pools (with a total storage capacity of 4.7 GtCO2) is described, along with the impact on source-reservoir pairing and resulting CO2 transport and storage economics. The analysis indicates that timing of storage resource availability has a significant impact on the mix of storage reservoirs selected for utilization at a given time, and further confirms the value that all available reservoir types offer, providing important insights regarding CO2 storage implementation to this and other major oil and gas basins throughout North America and the rest of the world. For CCS technologies to deploy successfully and offer a meaningful contribution to climate change mitigation, CO2 storage reservoirs must be available not only where needed (preferably co-located with or near large concentrations of CO2 sources or emissions centers) but also when needed. The timing of CO2 storage resource availability is therefore an important factor to consider when assessing the real opportunities for CCS deployment in a given region.

  8. ,"New Hampshire Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Hampshire Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  9. ,"New Jersey Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Jersey Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  10. ,"New York Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New York Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  11. ,"New Hampshire Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Hampshire Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  12. ,"South Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","South Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  13. ,"North Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","North Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  14. ,"Rhode Island Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Rhode Island Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  15. ,"North Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","North Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  16. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  17. ,"New York Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New York Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  18. ,"South Dakota Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","South Dakota Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  19. ,"South Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","South Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  20. ,"Rhode Island Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Rhode Island Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  1. ,"New Jersey Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Jersey Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  2. Laboratory Evaluation of Gas-Fired Tankless and Storage Water...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Technical Report: Laboratory Evaluation of Gas-Fired Tankless and Storage Water Heater Approaches to Combination Water and Space Heating Citation Details In-Document Search Title:...

  3. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  7. Laboratory Evaluation of Gas-Fired Tankless and Storage Water...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Technical Report: Laboratory Evaluation of Gas-Fired Tankless and Storage Water Heater Approaches to Combination Water and Space Heating Citation Details In-Document Search Title: ...

  8. ,"Texas Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2013 ,"Release Date:","2292016" ,"Next Release Date:","3312016" ,"Excel File Name:","ngaepg0salstxmmcfa.xls" ,"Available ...

  9. Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

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

    Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  10. ,"New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","102015" ,"Release Date:","12312015"...

  11. South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

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

    Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  12. ,"Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","102015" ,"Release Date:","12312015"...

  13. ,"Midwest Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

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

    Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest...

  14. North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  15. ,"East Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

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

    Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest...

  16. ,"New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","102015" ,"Release Date:","12312015" ,"Next...

  17. ,"Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","102015" ,"Release Date:","12312015"...

  18. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf...

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","102015" ,"Release Date:","12312015" ,"Next...

  19. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","102015" ,"Release Date:","12312015"...

  20. ,"Mountain Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

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

    Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest...

  1. ,"U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","102015" ,"Release Date:","12312015" ,"Next...

  2. ,"Pacific Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

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

    Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest...

  3. Differences Between Monthly and Weekly Working Gas In Storage

    Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report (EIA)

    levels. These are estimated from volume data provided by a sample of operators that report on Form EIA-912, "Weekly Underground Natural Gas Storage Report." The EIA first...

  4. Notice of Changes to the Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report

    Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report (EIA)

    September 29, 2015 EIA announced important changes to the Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report (WNGSR) with the addition of new regional breakouts. The new regional breakout enhances...

  5. NEW AND NOVEL FRACTURE STIMULATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE REVITALIZATION OF EXISTING GAS STORAGE WELLS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Unknown

    1999-12-01

    Gas storage wells are prone to continued deliverability loss at a reported average rate of 5% per annum (in the U.S.). This is a result of formation damage due to the introduction of foreign materials during gas injection, scale deposition and/or fines mobilization during gas withdrawal, and even the formation and growth of bacteria. As a means to bypass this damage and sustain/enhance well deliverability, several new and novel fracture stimulation technologies were tested in gas storage fields across the U.S. as part of a joint U.S. Department of Energy and Gas Research Institute R&D program. These new technologies include tip-screenout fracturing, hydraulic fracturing with liquid CO{sub 2} and proppant, extreme overbalance fracturing, and high-energy gas fracturing. Each of these technologies in some way address concerns with fracturing on the part of gas storage operators, such as fracture height growth, high permeability formations, and fluid sensitivity. Given the historical operator concerns over hydraulic fracturing in gas storage wells, plus the many other unique characteristics and resulting stimulation requirements of gas storage reservoirs (which are described later), the specific objective of this project was to identify new and novel fracture stimulation technologies that directly address these concerns and requirements, and to demonstrate/test their potential application in gas storage wells in various reservoir settings across the country. To compare these new methods to current industry deliverability enhancement norms in a consistent manner, their application was evaluated on a cost per unit of added deliverability basis, using typical non-fracturing well remediation methods as the benchmark and considering both short-term and long-term deliverability enhancement results. Based on the success (or lack thereof) of the various fracture stimulation technologies investigated, guidelines for their application, design and implementation have been developed. A final research objective was to effectively deploy the knowledge and experience gained from the project to the gas storage industry at-large.

  6. Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working...

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

    Percent) Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 -4.5...

  7. New York Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working...

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

    Percent) New York Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 9.4...

  8. Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas

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

    from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 -2,863 -1,902 -2,297 -1,134 -1,671 -1,997 -907 -144 629 992 2,290 1,354 1991 30,778 27,964 37,141 36,920 15,424 -18,322 -46,969 -63,245 -61,004 -48,820 -54,587 -34,458 1992 6,870 -8,479 -43,753 -43,739 -33,236 -8,601 3,190 9,732 8,583 15,815

  9. Maximizing Storage Rate and Capacity and Insuring the Environmental Integrity of Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Geological Reservoirs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    L.A. Davis; A.L. Graham; H.W. Parker; J.R. Abbott; M.S. Ingber; A.A. Mammoli; L.A. Mondy; Quanxin Guo; Ahmed Abou-Sayed

    2005-12-07

    Maximizing Storage Rate and Capacity and Insuring the Environmental Integrity of Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Geological Formations The U.S. and other countries may enter into an agreement that will require a significant reduction in CO2 emissions in the medium to long term. In order to achieve such goals without drastic reductions in fossil fuel usage, CO2 must be removed from the atmosphere and be stored in acceptable reservoirs. The research outlined in this proposal deals with developing a methodology to determine the suitability of a particular geologic formation for the long-term storage of CO2 and technologies for the economical transfer and storage of CO2 in these formations. A novel well-logging technique using nuclear-magnetic resonance (NMR) will be developed to characterize the geologic formation including the integrity and quality of the reservoir seal (cap rock). Well-logging using NMR does not require coring, and hence, can be performed much more quickly and efficiently. The key element in the economical transfer and storage of the CO2 is hydraulic fracturing the formation to achieve greater lateral spreads and higher throughputs of CO2. Transport, compression, and drilling represent the main costs in CO2 sequestration. The combination of well-logging and hydraulic fracturing has the potential of minimizing these costs. It is possible through hydraulic fracturing to reduce the number of injection wells by an order of magnitude. Many issues will be addressed as part of the proposed research to maximize the storage rate and capacity and insure the environmental integrity of CO2 sequestration in geological formations. First, correlations between formation properties and NMR relaxation times will be firmly established. A detailed experimental program will be conducted to determine these correlations. Second, improved hydraulic fracturing models will be developed which are suitable for CO2 sequestration as opposed to enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Although models that simulate the fracturing process exist, they can be significantly improved by extending the models to account for nonsymmetric, nonplanar fractures, coupling the models to more realistic reservoir simulators, and implementing advanced multiphase flow models for the transport of proppant. Third, it may be possible to deviate from current hydraulic fracturing technology by using different proppants (possibly waste materials that need to be disposed of, e.g., asbestos) combined with different hydraulic fracturing carrier fluids (possibly supercritical CO2 itself). Because current technology is mainly aimed at enhanced oil recovery, it may not be ideally suited for the injection and storage of CO2. Finally, advanced concepts such as increasing the injectivity of the fractured geologic formations through acidization with carbonated water will be investigated. Saline formations are located through most of the continental United States. Generally, where saline formations are scarce, oil and gas reservoirs and coal beds abound. By developing the technology outlined here, it will be possible to remove CO2 at the source (power plants, industry) and inject it directly into nearby geological formations, without releasing it into the atmosphere. The goal of the proposed research is to develop a technology capable of sequestering CO2 in geologic formations at a cost of US $10 per ton.

  10. Reservoir Engineering Optimization Strategies for Subsurface CO{sub 2} Storage

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mclntire, Blayde; McPherson, Brian

    2013-09-30

    The purpose of this report is to outline a methodology for calculating the optimum number of injection wells for geologic CCS. The methodology is intended primarily for reservoir pressure management, and factors in cost as well. Efficiency may come in many forms depending on project goals; therefore, various results are presented simultaneously. The developed methodology is illustrated via application in a case study of the Rocky Mountain Carbon Capture and Storage (RMCCS) project, including a CCS candidate site near Craig, Colorado, USA. The forecasting method provided reasonable estimates of cost and injection volume when compared to simulated results.

  11. Value of Underground Storage in Today's Natural Gas Industry, The

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    1995-01-01

    This report explores the significant and changing role of storage in the industry by examining the value of natural gas storage; short-term relationships between prices, storage levels, and weather; and some longer term impacts of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Order 636.

  12. Working Together to Address Natural Gas Storage Safety

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    As a part of the Administration’s ongoing commitment to support state and industry efforts to ensure the safe storage of natural gas, the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) will formally launch a new Interagency Task Force on Natural Gas Storage Safety.

  13. Covered Product Category: Residential Gas Storage Water Heaters |

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

    Department of Energy Storage Water Heaters Covered Product Category: Residential Gas Storage Water Heaters The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) provides acquisition guidance for gas storage water heaters, which are an ENERGY STAR-qualified product category. Federal laws and requirements mandate that agencies meet these efficiency requirements in all procurement and acquisition actions that are not specifically exempted by law. Most manufacturers display the ENERGY STAR label on

  14. Microsoft Word - NETL-TRS-4-2014_CO2 Storage and Enhanced Gas Recovery_20140924.docx

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

    Investigation of CO 2 Storage and Enhanced Gas Recovery in Depleted Shale Gas Formations Using a Dual- Porosity/Dual-Permeability, Multiphase Reservoir Simulator 25 September 2014 Office of Fossil Energy NETL-TRS-4-2014 Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or

  15. U.S. Natural Gas Non-Salt Underground Storage - Base Gas (Million...

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

    - Base Gas (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Non-Salt Underground Storage - Base Gas (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 4,310,511...

  16. U.S. Total Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) ...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Total Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1973 NA NA...

  17. U.S. Total Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Total Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1973 NA NA NA NA...

  18. Kentucky Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 58,567 62,011 60,735 61,687 66,432 71,791 79,578 86,584 93,785 97,094 92,657 86,693 1991 79,816 76,289 72,654 77,239 79,610 82,915 88,262 91,449 94,895 94,470 87,950 85,249 1992 84,385 83,106 78,213 76,527 75,300 76,861 80,412 82,020 86,208 96,910 95,391 92,376 1993 87,306 76,381 66,748 66,019 72,407 80,245 87,794

  19. Minnesota Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 1,708 1,141 1,211 1,688 2,017 2,129 2,261 2,309 2,370 2,397 2,395 2,007 1991 1,551 1,313 1,207 1,362 1,619 1,931 2,222 2,214 2,307 2,273 2,191 2,134 1992 1,685 1,556 1,228 1,019 1,409 1,716 2,013 2,193 2,319 2,315 2,307 2,104 1993 1,708 1,290 872 824 1,141 1,485 1,894 2,022 2,260 2,344 2,268 1,957 1994 1,430 1,235

  20. Indiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 22,371 18,661 17,042 17,387 20,796 23,060 26,751 30,924 33,456 34,200 30,588 1991 24,821 19,663 16,425 15,850 17,767 18,744 22,065 26,710 31,199 37,933 35,015 30,071 1992 23,328 18,843 14,762 14,340 15,414 17,948 23,103 27,216 32,427 35,283 32,732 29,149 1993 23,702 18,626 15,991 17,160 18,050 20,109 24,565 29,110

  1. Kansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 65,683 55,509 49,604 47,540 48,128 53,233 64,817 76,933 92,574 99,253 115,704 93,290 1991 59,383 54,864 49,504 47,409 53,752 61,489 64,378 67,930 78,575 89,747 80,663 82,273 1992 76,311 63,152 53,718 48,998 51,053 53,700 57,987 69,653 79,756 82,541 73,094 61,456 1993 44,893 33,024 27,680 26,796 46,806 58,528 64,198

  2. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  3. Appraisal of transport and deformation in shale reservoirs using natural noble gas tracers

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Heath, Jason E.; Kuhlman, Kristopher L.; Robinson, David G.; Bauer, Stephen J.; Gardner, William Payton

    2015-09-01

    This report presents efforts to develop the use of in situ naturally-occurring noble gas tracers to evaluate transport mechanisms and deformation in shale hydrocarbon reservoirs. Noble gases are promising as shale reservoir diagnostic tools due to their sensitivity of transport to: shale pore structure; phase partitioning between groundwater, liquid, and gaseous hydrocarbons; and deformation from hydraulic fracturing. Approximately 1.5-year time-series of wellhead fluid samples were collected from two hydraulically-fractured wells. The noble gas compositions and isotopes suggest a strong signature of atmospheric contribution to the noble gases that mix with deep, old reservoir fluids. Complex mixing and transport of fracturing fluid and reservoir fluids occurs during production. Real-time laboratory measurements were performed on triaxially-deforming shale samples to link deformation behavior, transport, and gas tracer signatures. Finally, we present improved methods for production forecasts that borrow statistical strength from production data of nearby wells to reduce uncertainty in the forecasts.

  4. Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 331 428 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators Wisconsin Underground Natural Gas

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Godec, Michael

    2013-06-30

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

  6. Numerical simulation of the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing of tight/shale gas reservoirs on near-surface groundwater: Background, base cases, shallow reservoirs, short-term gas, and water transport

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Reagan, Matthew T.; Moridis, George J.; Keen, Noel D.; Johnson, Jeffrey N.

    2015-04-18

    Hydrocarbon production from unconventional resources and the use of reservoir stimulation techniques, such as hydraulic fracturing, has grown explosively over the last decade. However, concerns have arisen that reservoir stimulation creates significant environmental threats through the creation of permeable pathways connecting the stimulated reservoir with shallower freshwater aquifers, thus resulting in the contamination of potable groundwater by escaping hydrocarbons or other reservoir fluids. This study investigates, by numerical simulation, gas and water transport between a shallow tight-gas reservoir and a shallower overlying freshwater aquifer following hydraulic fracturing operations, if such a connecting pathway has been created. We focus on two general failure scenarios: (1) communication between the reservoir and aquifer via a connecting fracture or fault and (2) communication via a deteriorated, preexisting nearby well. We conclude that the key factors driving short-term transport of gas include high permeability for the connecting pathway and the overall volume of the connecting feature. Production from the reservoir is likely to mitigate release through reduction of available free gas and lowering of reservoir pressure, and not producing may increase the potential for release. We also find that hydrostatic tight-gas reservoirs are unlikely to act as a continuing source of migrating gas, as gas contained within the newly formed hydraulic fracture is the primary source for potential contamination. Such incidents of gas escape are likely to be limited in duration and scope for hydrostatic reservoirs. Reliable field and laboratory data must be acquired to constrain the factors and determine the likelihood of these outcomes.

  7. Midwest Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in

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

    Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Midwest Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Midwest Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015 37.40 45.00 76.80 72.40 37.80 19.80 9.30 5.40 3.90 4.50 12.10 15.50 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  8. Mountain Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in

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

    Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Mountain Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Mountain Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015 -4.70 13.00 35.00 41.50 36.90 27.10 22.30 18.60 16.40 14.60 18.60 22.30 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W

  9. Pacific Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in

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

    Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Pacific Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015 39.40 137.00 162.70 103.50 62.40 34.80 25.30 14.90 12.90 9.80 8.70 -0.90 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  10. South Central Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change

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

    in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) South Central Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) South Central Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015 24.30 27.20 70.30 75.70 64.30 50.50 39.00 35.90 29.90 21.20 22.90 24.80 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  11. East Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in

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

    Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) East Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) East Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015 18.70 25.80 44.60 46.20 30.10 21.40 13.70 11.10 6.70 2.90 9.90 15.30 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld

  12. Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas

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

    from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 18.8 22.4 37.0 33.4 9.7 -8.5 -17.7 -19.9 -17.0 -13.4 -15.2 -11.2 1992 3.5 -5.5 -31.8 -29.7 -19.1 -4.4 1.5 3.8 2.9 5.0 9.1 6.0 1993 8.3 -16.5 -29.1 -13.2 -5.0 -0.1 5.0 3.1 4.8 0.9 -1.5 -3.3 1994 -21.0 -19.2 13.5 27.9 24.0 18.3 16.9 15.8 5.8 6.1 2.3 5.6 1995 35.1 43.1 48.4 8.5

  13. Underground CO2 Storage, Natural Gas Recovery Targeted by Virginia

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

    Tech/NETL Research | Department of Energy Underground CO2 Storage, Natural Gas Recovery Targeted by Virginia Tech/NETL Research Underground CO2 Storage, Natural Gas Recovery Targeted by Virginia Tech/NETL Research October 20, 2015 - 8:14am Addthis Researchers from Virginia Tech are injecting CO2 into coal seams in three locations in Buchanan County, Va., as part of an NETL-sponsored CO2 storage research project associated with enhanced gas recovery. Researchers from Virginia Tech are

  14. Georgia Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Georgia Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 33 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: Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators Georgia Underground Natural Gas Storage -

  15. Variations in dissolved gas compositions of reservoir fluids from the Coso geothermal field

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Williams, Alan E.; Copp, John F.

    1991-01-01

    Gas concentrations and ratios in 110 analyses of geothermal fluids from 47 wells in the Coso geothermal system illustrate the complexity of this two-phase reservoir in its natural state. Two geographically distinct regions of single-phase (liquid) reservoir are present and possess distinctive gas and liquid compositions. Relationships in soluble and insoluble gases preclude derivation of these waters from a common parent by boiling or condensation alone. These two regions may represent two limbs of fluid migration away from an area of two-phase upwelling. During migration, the upwelling fluids mix with chemically evolved waters of moderately dissimilar composition. CO{sub 2} rich fluids found in the limb in the southeastern portion of the Coso field are chemically distinct from liquids in the northern limb of the field. Steam-rich portions of the reservoir also indicate distinctive gas compositions. Steam sampled from wells in the central and southwestern Coso reservoir is unusually enriched in both H{sub 2}S and H{sub 2}. Such a large enrichment in both a soluble and insoluble gas cannot be produced by boiling of any liquid yet observed in single-phase portions of the field. In accord with an upflow-lateral mixing model for the Coso field, at least three end-member thermal fluids having distinct gas and liquid compositions appear to have interacted (through mixing, boiling and steam migration) to produce the observed natural state of the reservoir.

  16. ,"Alaska Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

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

    LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alaska...

  17. Power-to-Gas for Energy Storage

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

    H2NG Blend Value Proposition Direct Injection H2 Fueling Station Industrial H2 Feed Biogas Methanation Captive RE Ancillary Services Store Energy Seasonal Storage Tx Grid ...

  18. Net Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage (Summary)

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

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

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

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

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

  20. ,"Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"1012015 11:00:54 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5070TX2"...

  1. ,"Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"01292016 2:35:48 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5070KS2"...

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

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

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

  3. ,"New Hampshire Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2013 ,"Release Date:","2292016" ,"Next Release Date:","3312016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1350snh2a.xls" ,"Available from Web ...

  4. North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million...

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

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7...

  5. New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All...

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

    Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3...

  6. South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million...

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

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7...

  7. New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8...

  8. Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8...

  9. Notice of Changes to the Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report

    Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report (EIA)

    At 10:30 a.m. on November 19, 2015, EIA will release the Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report (WNGSR) with new data breakouts for five regions of the Lower 48 states, converting...

  10. Advanced Underground Gas Storage Concepts: Refrigerated-Mined Cavern Storage, Final Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1998-09-30

    Over the past 40 years, cavern storage of LPG's, petrochemicals, such as ethylene and propylene, and other petroleum products has increased dramatically. In 1991, the Gas Processors Association (GPA) lists the total U.S. underground storage capacity for LPG's and related products of approximately 519 million barrels (82.5 million cubic meters) in 1,122 separate caverns. Of this total, 70 are hard rock caverns and the remaining 1,052 are caverns in salt deposits. However, along the eastern seaboard of the U.S. and the Pacific northwest, salt deposits are not available and therefore, storage in hard rocks is required. Limited demand and high cost has prevented the construction of hard rock caverns in this country for a number of years. The storage of natural gas in mined caverns may prove technically feasible if the geology of the targeted market area is suitable; and economically feasible if the cost and convenience of service is competitive with alternative available storage methods for peak supply requirements. Competing methods include LNG facilities and remote underground storage combined with pipeline transportation to the area. It is believed that mined cavern storage can provide the advantages of high delivery rates and multiple fill withdrawal cycles in areas where salt cavern storage is not possible. In this research project, PB-KBB merged advanced mining technologies and gas refrigeration techniques to develop conceptual designs and cost estimates to demonstrate the commercialization potential of the storage of refrigerated natural gas in hard rock caverns. DOE has identified five regions, that have not had favorable geological conditions for underground storage development: New England, Mid-Atlantic (NY/NJ), South Atlantic (DL/MD/VA), South Atlantic (NC/SC/GA), and the Pacific Northwest (WA/OR). PB-KBB reviewed published literature and in-house databases of the geology of these regions to determine suitability of hard rock formations for siting storage caverns, and gas market area storage needs of these regions.

  11. QER Public Meeting in Pittsburgh, PA: Natural Gas: Transmission, Storage

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

    and Distribution | Department of Energy Pittsburgh, PA: Natural Gas: Transmission, Storage and Distribution QER Public Meeting in Pittsburgh, PA: Natural Gas: Transmission, Storage and Distribution Meeting Date and Location July 21, 2014 - 10:00 A.M. EDT Rashid Auditorium Hillman Center Carnegie Mellon University 5000 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Parking is available for attendees in Carnegie Mellon University's East Campus Garage, accessible using the entrance at the intersection of

  12. Gas Flow Tightly Coupled to Elastoplastic Geomechanics for Tight- and Shale-Gas Reservoirs: Material Failure and Enhanced Permeability

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kim, Jihoon; Moridis, George

    2014-12-01

    We investigate coupled flow and geomechanics in gas production from extremely low permeability reservoirs such as tight and shale gas reservoirs, using dynamic porosity and permeability during numerical simulation. In particular, we take the intrinsic permeability as a step function of the status of material failure, and the permeability is updated every time step. We consider gas reservoirs with the vertical and horizontal primary fractures, employing the single and dynamic double porosity (dual continuum) models. We modify the multiple porosity constitutive relations for modeling the double porous continua for flow and geomechanics. The numerical results indicate that production of gas causes redistribution of the effective stress fields, increasing the effective shear stress and resulting in plasticity. Shear failure occurs not only near the fracture tips but also away from the primary fractures, which indicates generation of secondary fractures. These secondary fractures increase the permeability significantly, and change the flow pattern, which in turn causes a change in distribution of geomechanical variables. From various numerical tests, we find that shear failure is enhanced by a large pressure drop at the production well, high Biot's coefficient, low frictional and dilation angles. Smaller spacing between the horizontal wells also contributes to faster secondary fracturing. When the dynamic double porosity model is used, we observe a faster evolution of the enhanced permeability areas than that obtained from the single porosity model, mainly due to a higher permeability of the fractures in the double porosity model. These complicated physics for stress sensitive reservoirs cannot properly be captured by the uncoupled or flow-only simulation, and thus tightly coupled flow and geomechanical models are highly recommended to accurately describe the reservoir behavior during gas production in tight and shale gas reservoirs and to smartly design production scenarios.

  13. Task 4 - natural gas storage - end user interaction

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1997-02-18

    New opportunities have been created for underground gas storage as a result of recent regulatory developments in the energy industry. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order 636 directly changed the economics of gas storage nationwide. Pipelines have been required to {open_quotes}unbundle{close_quotes} their various services so that pipeline users can select only what they need from among the transportation, storage, balancing and the other traditional pipeline services. At the same time, the shift from Modified Fixed Variable (MFV) rate design to Straight Fixed Variable (SFV) rate design has increased the costs of pipeline capacity relative to underground storage and other supply options. Finally, the ability of parties that have contracted for pipeline and storage services to resell their surplus capacities created by Order 636 gives potential gas users more flexibility in assembling combinations of gas delivery services to create reliable gas deliverability. In response to Order 636, the last two years have seen an explosion in proposals for gas storage projects.

  14. U.S. Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas...

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

    Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct...

  15. Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

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

  16. Advanced Liquid Natural Gas Onboard Storage System

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Greg Harper; Charles Powars

    2003-10-31

    Cummins Westport Incorporated (CWI) has designed and developed a liquefied natural gas (LNG) vehicle fuel system that includes a reciprocating pump with the cold end submerged in LNG contained in a vacuum-jacketed tank. This system was tested and analyzed under the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Advanced LNG Onboard Storage System (ALOSS) program. The pumped LNG fuel system developed by CWI and tested under the ALOSS program is a high-pressure system designed for application on Class 8 trucks powered by CWI's ISX G engine, which employs high-pressure direct injection (HPDI) technology. A general ALOSS program objective was to demonstrate the feasibility and advantages of a pumped LNG fuel system relative to on-vehicle fuel systems that require the LNG to be ''conditioned'' to saturation pressures that exceeds the engine fuel pressure requirements. These advantages include the capability to store more fuel mass in given-size vehicle and station tanks, and simpler lower-cost LNG refueling stations that do not require conditioning equipment. Pumped LNG vehicle fuel systems are an alternative to conditioned LNG systems for spark-ignition natural gas and port-injection dual-fuel engines (which typically require about 100 psi), and they are required for HPDI engines (which require over 3,000 psi). The ALOSS program demonstrated the feasibility of a pumped LNG vehicle fuel system and the advantages of this design relative to systems that require conditioning the LNG to a saturation pressure exceeding the engine fuel pressure requirement. LNG tanks mounted on test carts and the CWI engineering truck were repeatedly filled with LNG saturated at 20 to 30 psig. More fuel mass was stored in the vehicle tanks as well as the station tank, and no conditioning equipment was required at the fueling station. The ALOSS program also demonstrated the general viability and specific performance of the CWI pumped LNG fuel system design. The system tested as part of this program is designed to be used on Class 8 trucks with CWI ISX G HPDI engines. Extensive test cart and engineering truck tests of the pump demonstrated good durability and the high-pressure performance needed for HPDI application. The LNG tanks manufactured by Taylor-Wharton passed SAE J2343 Recommended Practice drop tests and accelerated road-load vibration tests. NER and hold-time tests produced highly consistent results. Additional tests confirmed the design adequacy of the liquid level sensor, vaporizer, ullage volume, and other fuel system components. While the testing work performed under this program focused on a high-pressure pumped LNG fuel system design, the results also validate the feasibility of a low-pressure pumped fuel system. A low-pressure pumped fuel system could incorporate various design refinements including a simpler and lighter-weight pump, which would decrease costs somewhat relative to a high-pressure system.

  17. An Integrated Study Method For Exploration Of Gas Hydrate Reservoirs...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    based on the analysis of geochemical anomalies to the main components, such as methane and hydrocarbon series, an integrated assessment of prospective gas hydrate...

  18. Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    and stored in a reservoir, then when electricity is needed, air is heated with natural gas and expanded through a turbine. Adiabatic Adiabatic compressed air energy storage...

  19. Natural Gas Storage Research at Savannah River National Laboratory

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Anton, Don; Sulic, Martin; Tamburello, David A.

    2015-05-04

    As an alternative to imported oil, scientists at the Department of Energys Savannah River National Laboratory are looking at abundant, domestically sourced natural gas, as an alternative transportation fuel. SRNL is investigating light, inexpensive, adsorbed natural gas storage systems that may fuel the next generation of automobiles.

  20. Storage

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

    Solar Energy Wind Energy Water Power Supercritical CO2 Geothermal Natural Gas Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & Engineering ...

  1. Alaska Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 0 2000's 1 158 319 467 697 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: Withdrawals of Liquefied Natural Gas from

  2. Texas Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Additions (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 - = 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: Additions of Liquefied Natural Gas into Storage Texas Liquefied Natural Gas Additions to and Withdrawals from Storage Additions of Liquefied Natural Gas into

  3. Texas Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 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: Net Withdrawals of Liquefied Natural Gas from Storage Texas Liquefied Natural Gas Additions to and Withdrawals from Storage Net Withdrawals of Liquefied Natural Gas from

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

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

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

  5. Two-tank working gas storage system for heat engine

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Hindes, Clyde J. (Troy, NY)

    1987-01-01

    A two-tank working gas supply and pump-down system is coupled to a hot gas engine, such as a Stirling engine. The system has a power control valve for admitting the working gas to the engine when increased power is needed, and for releasing the working gas from the engine when engine power is to be decreased. A compressor pumps the working gas that is released from the engine. Two storage vessels or tanks are provided, one for storing the working gas at a modest pressure (i.e., half maximum pressure), and another for storing the working gas at a higher pressure (i.e., about full engine pressure). Solenoid valves are associated with the gas line to each of the storage vessels, and are selectively actuated to couple the vessels one at a time to the compressor during pumpdown to fill the high-pressure vessel with working gas at high pressure and then to fill the low-pressure vessel with the gas at low pressure. When more power is needed, the solenoid valves first supply the low-pressure gas from the low-pressure vessel to the engine and then supply the high-pressure gas from the high-pressure vessel. The solenoid valves each act as a check-valve when unactuated, and as an open valve when actuated.

  6. Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  7. Pennsylvania Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  8. Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  9. Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

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

  10. Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

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

  11. Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

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

  12. Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

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

  13. Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

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

  14. Iowa Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  15. Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

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

  16. Mountain Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals ...

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

    Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 40,219 39,113 24,726 11,714 4,654 2,208 3,583 4,296 2,414 5,486 21,524 28,060...

  17. Agenda: Natural Gas: Transmission, Storage and Distribution ...

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

    Tim Murphy, U.S. House of Representatives (PA-18) 10:30 AM - 11:30 AM- Panel 1: Natural Gas Infrastructure: Historical Overview and Current Status Thomas Murphy, Co-Director,...

  18. Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  19. Arkansas Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  20. Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

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

  1. Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  2. Washington Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  3. Colorado Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

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

  4. Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

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

  5. Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  6. Nebraska Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  7. Alabama Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

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

  8. Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  9. Numerical simulation of the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing of tight/shale gas reservoirs on near-surface groundwater: Background, base cases, shallow reservoirs, short-term gas, and water transport

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

    Reagan, Matthew T.; Moridis, George J.; Keen, Noel D.; Johnson, Jeffrey N.

    2015-04-18

    Hydrocarbon production from unconventional resources and the use of reservoir stimulation techniques, such as hydraulic fracturing, has grown explosively over the last decade. However, concerns have arisen that reservoir stimulation creates significant environmental threats through the creation of permeable pathways connecting the stimulated reservoir with shallower freshwater aquifers, thus resulting in the contamination of potable groundwater by escaping hydrocarbons or other reservoir fluids. This study investigates, by numerical simulation, gas and water transport between a shallow tight-gas reservoir and a shallower overlying freshwater aquifer following hydraulic fracturing operations, if such a connecting pathway has been created. We focus on twomore » general failure scenarios: (1) communication between the reservoir and aquifer via a connecting fracture or fault and (2) communication via a deteriorated, preexisting nearby well. We conclude that the key factors driving short-term transport of gas include high permeability for the connecting pathway and the overall volume of the connecting feature. Production from the reservoir is likely to mitigate release through reduction of available free gas and lowering of reservoir pressure, and not producing may increase the potential for release. We also find that hydrostatic tight-gas reservoirs are unlikely to act as a continuing source of migrating gas, as gas contained within the newly formed hydraulic fracture is the primary source for potential contamination. Such incidents of gas escape are likely to be limited in duration and scope for hydrostatic reservoirs. Reliable field and laboratory data must be acquired to constrain the factors and determine the likelihood of these outcomes.« less

  10. 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

  11. Alabama Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion

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

    Cubic Feet) New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic Feet) Alabama Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion 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 0 2 66 1980's 0 8 1990's 3 0 1 0 0 130 0 14 0 0 2000's 0 2 4 4 0 0 7 17 1 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 14 - = 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 Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion

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

    Cubic Feet) New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic Feet) Arkansas Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion 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 26 37 23 1980's 25 1 24 8 14 16 23 29 28 13 1990's 9 6 6 1 1 0 27 15 36 12 2000's 16 11 8 0 18 31 32 27 41 36 2010's 27 23 11 1 2 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  13. New Mexico Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion

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

    Cubic Feet) New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic Feet) New Mexico Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion 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 51 46 43 1980's 21 53 35 16 25 25 6 11 47 60 1990's 6 18 15 37 27 11 8 6 6 27 2000's 14 32 18 16 3 3 140 10 7 3 2010's 3 9 4 89 3 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  14. Oklahoma Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion

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

    Cubic Feet) New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion 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 96 108 95 1980's 99 77 208 329 327 163 398 242 163 146 1990's 437 259 110 108 79 53 66 84 42 37 2000's 42 52 18 13 9 48 12 56 85 178 2010's 1 18 7 392 306 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  15. U.S. Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves New Reservoir in

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

    Old Fields (Million Barrels) New Reservoir in Old Fields (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves New Reservoir 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 2000's 14 2010's 8 29 7 24 12 - = 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: Lease

  16. Virginia Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion

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

    Cubic Feet) New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic Feet) Virginia Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion 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 1 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 3 2000's 9 7 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

  17. West Virginia Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields

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

    (Billion Cubic Feet) New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic Feet) West Virginia Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion 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 17 0 0 1980's 0 0 45 19 36 23 19 13 2 40 1990's 9 3 6 11 85 7 72 40 71 53 2000's 33 26 4 3 1 0 5 1 1 8 2010's 64 137 0 0 650 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  18. California Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion

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

    Cubic Feet) New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic Feet) California Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion 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 38 2 3 1980's 13 0 2 6 11 1990's 32 11 13 15 7 14 17 10 12 3 2000's 5 2 5 0 5 2 4 1 14 0 2010's 0 0 9 2 2 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  19. Colorado Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion

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

    Cubic Feet) New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic Feet) Colorado Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion 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 5 13 15 1980's 8 23 13 12 1 4 1 1 0 23 1990's 4 46 62 15 12 10 5 0 0 9 2000's 0 7 1 0 17 4 26 23 17 0 2010's 27 0 0 12 6 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  20. Louisiana Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion

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

    Cubic Feet) New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion 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 510 206 298 322 171 1990's 241 58 104 91 588 244 440 412 311 373 2000's 377 566 255 244 121 188 185 134 650 1,542 2010's 279 167 13 21 69 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  1. Wyoming Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion

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

    Cubic Feet) New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic Feet) Wyoming Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion 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 10 124 47 1980's 24 16 47 14 12 19 26 16 26 40 1990's 18 25 169 51 249 15 23 17 12 50 2000's 2 49 57 0 36 2 30 0 48 88 2010's 0 1 11 11 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  2. Evaluating metal-organic frameworks for natural gas storage

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mason, JA; Veenstra, M; Long, JR

    2014-01-01

    Metal-organic frameworks have received significant attention as a new class of adsorbents for natural gas storage; however, inconsistencies in reporting high-pressure adsorption data and a lack of comparative studies have made it challenging to evaluate both new and existing materials. Here, we briefly discuss high-pressure adsorption measurements and review efforts to develop metal-organic frameworks with high methane storage capacities. To illustrate the most important properties for evaluating adsorbents for natural gas storage and for designing a next generation of improved materials, six metal-organic frameworks and an activated carbon, with a range of surface areas, pore structures, and surface chemistries representative of the most promising adsorbents for methane storage, are evaluated in detail. High-pressure methane adsorption isotherms are used to compare gravimetric and volumetric capacities, isosteric heats of adsorption, and usable storage capacities. Additionally, the relative importance of increasing volumetric capacity, rather than gravimetric capacity, for extending the driving range of natural gas vehicles is highlighted. Other important systems-level factors, such as thermal management, mechanical properties, and the effects of impurities, are also considered, and potential materials synthesis contributions to improving performance in a complete adsorbed natural gas system are discussed.

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

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

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 16,327 13,253 15,555 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into

  4. Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 119 667 567 1970's 570 841 422 2,881 2,110 1,727 - = 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: Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage

  5. South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 48 80 70 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas

  6. Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground Storage

  7. Connecticut Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Connecticut Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 441 1,241 2,017 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: Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators

  8. Delaware Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Delaware Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 980 1,255 878 1970's 602 1,463 - = 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: Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators Delaware

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

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

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Georgia Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 123 366 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground

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

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

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Idaho Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 112 395 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground

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

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

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 166 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground

  12. Microsoft Word - NETL-TRS-4-2014_CO2 Storage and Enhanced Gas...

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

    in Depleted Shale Gas Formations Using a Dual- PorosityDual-Permeability, Multiphase Reservoir Simulator 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Industrial Carbon Management Initiative (ICMI)...

  13. Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

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

  14. Oregon Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

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

  15. Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

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

  16. Alabama Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  17. Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  18. Washington Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  19. Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  20. Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  1. Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  2. Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  3. Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  4. Montana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  5. New York Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  6. Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  7. Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  8. Oregon Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  9. Pennsylvania Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  10. West Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  11. Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  12. Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  13. Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  14. Iowa Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  15. California Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  16. Colorado Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  17. Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  18. Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  19. Iowa Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  20. Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  1. Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  2. Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  3. West Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  4. Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  5. Application of new and novel fracture stimulation technologies to enhance the deliverability of gas storage wells

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-04-01

    Based on the information presented in this report, our conclusions regarding the potential for new and novel fracture stimulation technologies to enhance the deliverability of gas storage wells are as follows: New and improved gas storage well revitalization methods have the potential to save industry on the order of $20-25 million per year by mitigating deliverability decline and reducing the need for costly infill wells Fracturing technologies have the potential to fill this role, however operators have historically been reluctant to utilize this approach due to concerns with reservoir seal integrity. With advanced treatment design tools and methods, however, this risk can be minimized. Of the three major fracturing classifications, namely hydraulic, pulse and explosive, two are believed to hold potential to gas storage applications (hydraulic and pulse). Five particular fracturing technologies, namely tip-screenout fracturing, fracturing with liquid carbon dioxide, and fracturing with gaseous nitrogen, which are each hydraulic methods, and propellant and nitrogen pulse fracturing, which are both pulse methods, are believed to hold potential for gas storage applications and will possibly be tested as part of this project. Field evidence suggests that, while traditional well remediation methods such as blowing/washing, mechanical cleaning, etc. do improve well deliverability, wells are still left damaged afterwards, suggesting that considerable room for further deliverability enhancement exists. Limited recent trials of hydraulic fracturing imply that this approach does in fact provide superior deliverability results, but further RD&D work is needed to fully evaluate and demonstrate the benefits and safe application of this as well as other fracture stimulation technologies.

  6. Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  7. Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  8. Montana Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

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

  9. California Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  10. Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  11. Covered Product Category: Residential Gas Storage Water Heaters

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    FEMP provides acquisition guidance across a variety of product categories, including gas storage water heaters, which are an ENERGY STAR®-qualified product category. Federal laws and requirements mandate that agencies meet these efficiency requirements in all procurement and acquisition actions that are not specifically exempted by law.

  12. Gas-storage calculations yield accurate cavern, inventory data

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mason, R.G. )

    1990-07-02

    This paper discusses how determining gas-storage cavern size and inventory variance is now possible with calculations based on shut-in cavern surveys. The method is the least expensive of three major methods and is quite accurate when recorded over a period of time.

  13. Natural gas recovery, storage, and utilization SBIR program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shoemaker, H.D.

    1993-12-31

    A Fossil Energy natural-gas topic has been a part of the DOE Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program since 1988. To date, 50 Phase SBIR natural-gas applications have been funded. Of these 50, 24 were successful in obtaining Phase II SBIR funding. The current Phase II natural-gas research projects awarded under the SBIR program and managed by METC are presented by award year. The presented information on these 2-year projects includes project title, awardee, and a project summary. The 1992 Phase II projects are: landfill gas recovery for vehicular natural gas and food grade carbon dioxide; brine disposal process for coalbed gas production; spontaneous natural as oxidative dimerization across mixed conducting ceramic membranes; low-cost offshore drilling system for natural gas hydrates; motorless directional drill for oil and gas wells; and development of a multiple fracture creation process for stimulation of horizontally drilled wells.The 1993 Phase II projects include: process for sweetening sour gas by direct thermolysis of hydrogen sulfide; remote leak survey capability for natural gas transport storage and distribution systems; reinterpretation of existing wellbore log data using neural-based patter recognition processes; and advanced liquid membrane system for natural gas purification.

  14. Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  15. Pennsylvania Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  16. Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  17. Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  18. Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  19. Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  20. Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  1. Montana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  2. Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  3. Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  4. Nebraska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  5. New Mexico Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  6. New York Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  7. Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  8. Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  9. Oregon Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  10. California Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  11. Colorado Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  12. Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  13. Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  14. Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  15. Arkansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  16. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

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

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

  17. Gas Content of Gladys McCall Reservoir Brine A Topical Report

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Gas Content of Gladys McCall Reservoir Brine A Topical Report C-G- Hayden P.L- Randolph Institute of Gas Technology 3424 South State Street Chicago, Illinois 606 16 Submitted t o Eaton Operating Company 1980 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 2000 Houston, Texas 77056 Under Sub-contract No. EOC 85-4 ( E O U I G T ) Under Prime Contract No. DE-AC07-851D12578 ([IOElEOC 1 IGT Project No. 65071 May 1987 Prepared by DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United

  18. Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  19. Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  20. Alabama Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  1. Forming liquid sprays in compressed-gas energy storage systems for effective heat exchange

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    McBride, Troy O; Bell, Alexander; Bollinger, Benjamin R; Shang, Andrew; Chmiel, David; Richter, Horst; Magari, Patrick; Cameron, Benjamin

    2013-07-02

    In various embodiments, efficiency of energy storage and recovery systems compressing and expanding gas is improved via heat exchange between the gas and a heat-transfer fluid.

  2. Forming liquid sprays in compressed-gas energy storage systems for effective heat exchange

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    McBride, Troy O.; Bell, Alexander; Bollinger, Benjamin R.

    2012-08-07

    In various embodiments, efficiency of energy storage and recovery systems compressing and expanding gas is improved via heat exchange between the gas and a heat-transfer fluid.

  3. Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 293 769 314 1970's 770 937 1,496 413 403 3,912 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring

  4. New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 805 975 1,281 1970's 1,447 1,626 1,765 1,867 3,953 6,378 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  5. North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 97 2,626 2,019 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections

  6. Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 97 243 137 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of

  7. Connecticut Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Connecticut Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 683 740 746 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of

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

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

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Delaware Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 1,274 1,500 179 1970's 391 189 255 2,012 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections

  9. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 120 567 -69 -477 -330 -112 -133 -48 -61 -27 3 387 1991 361 223 96 -160 -257 -312 -291 4 -93 32 77 53 1992 426 123 311 198 -391 -307 -299 -184 -126 4 7 193 1993 395 417 417 41 -331 -358 -426 -134 -248 -87 75 310 1994 497 184 180 145 -342 -374 -371 -207 -150 2 3 68 1995 491 456 246 44 -331 -262

  10. Types of Possible Survey Errors in Estimates Published in the Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report

    Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report (EIA)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration | Types of Possible Survey Errors in Estimates Published in the Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report 1 February 2016 Types of Possible Survey Errors in Estimates Published in the Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) collects and publishes natural gas storage information on a monthly and weekly basis. The Form EIA-191, Monthly Underground Natural Gas Storage Report, is a census survey that collects field-level

  11. Tritium Transport at the Rulison Site, a Nuclear-stimulated Low-permeability Natural Gas Reservoir

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    C. Cooper; M. Ye; J. Chapman

    2008-04-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor agencies conducted a program in the 1960s and 1970s that evaluated technology for the nuclear stimulation of low-permeability natural gas reservoirs. The second project in the program, Project Rulison, was located in west-central Colorado. A 40-kiltoton nuclear device was detonated 2,568 m below the land surface in the Williams Fork Formation on September 10, 1969. The natural gas reservoirs in the Williams Fork Formation occur in low permeability, fractured sandstone lenses interbedded with shale. Radionuclides derived from residual fuel products, nuclear reactions, and activation products were generated as a result of the detonation. Most of the radionuclides are contained in a cooled, solidified melt glass phase created from vaporized and melted rock that re-condensed after the test. Of the mobile gas-phase radionuclides released, tritium ({sup 3}H or T) migration is of most concern. The other gas-phase radionuclides ({sup 85}Kr, {sup 14}C) were largely removed during production testing in 1969 and 1970 and are no longer present in appreciable amounts. Substantial tritium remained because it is part of the water molecule, which is present in both the gas and liquid (aqueous) phases. The objectives of this work are to calculate the nature and extent of tritium contamination in the subsurface from the Rulison test from the time of the test to present day (2007), and to evaluate tritium migration under natural-gas production conditions to a hypothetical gas production well in the most vulnerable location outside the DOE drilling restriction. The natural-gas production scenario involves a hypothetical production well located 258 m horizontally away from the detonation point, outside the edge of the current drilling exclusion area. The production interval in the hypothetical well is at the same elevation as the nuclear chimney created by the detonation, in order to evaluate the location most vulnerable to tritium migration.

  12. Air ejector augmented compressed air energy storage system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Ahrens, F.W.; Kartsounes, G.T.

    Energy is stored in slack demand periods by charging a plurality of underground reservoirs with air to the same peak storage pressure, during peak demand periods throttling the air from one storage reservoir into a gas turbine system at a constant inlet pressure until the air presure in the reservoir falls to said constant inlet pressure, thereupon permitting air in a second reservoir to flow into said gas turbine system while drawing air from the first reservoir through a variable geometry air ejector and adjusting said variable geometry air ejector, said air flow being essentially at the constant inlet pressure of the gas turbine system.

  13. Air ejector augmented compressed air energy storage system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Ahrens, Frederick W.; Kartsounes, George T.

    1980-01-01

    Energy is stored in slack demand periods by charging a plurality of underground reservoirs with air to the same peak storage pressure, during peak demand periods throttling the air from one storage reservoir into a gas turbine system at a constant inlet pressure until the air pressure in the reservoir falls to said constant inlet pressure, thereupon permitting air in a second reservoir to flow into said gas turbine system while drawing air from the first reservoir through a variable geometry air ejector and adjusting said variable geometry air ejector, said air flow being essentially at the constant inlet pressure of the gas turbine system.

  14. Converting LPG caverns to natural-gas storage permits fast response to market

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Crossley, N.G.

    1996-02-19

    Deregulation of Canada`s natural-gas industry in the late 1980s led to a very competitive North American natural-gas storage market. TransGas Ltd., Regina, Sask., began looking for method for developing cost-effective storage while at the same time responding to new market-development opportunities and incentives. Conversion of existing LPG-storage salt caverns to natural-gas storage is one method of providing new storage. To supply SaskEnergy Inc., the province`s local distribution company, and Saskatchewan customers, TransGas previously had developed solution-mined salt storage caverns from start to finish. Two Regina North case histories illustrate TransGas` experiences with conversion of LPG salt caverns to gas storage. This paper provides the testing procedures for the various caverns, cross-sectional diagrams of each cavern, and outlines for cavern conversion. It also lists storage capacities of these caverns.

  15. AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working

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

    Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 905,018 584,386 467,210 599,207 831,273 1,086,355 1,342,894 1,578,648 1,775,994 1,885,465 1,819,517 1,589,500 1995 1,206,116 814,626 663,885 674,424 850,290 1,085,760 1,300,439 1,487,188 1,690,456 1,811,013 1,608,177 1,232,901 1996 812,303 520,053 341,177 397,770 612,572 890,243

  16. AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working

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

    Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 280,414 208,968 200,997 216,283 261,894 293,909 326,049 349,274 387,670 405,477 381,931 342,394 1995 288,908 270,955 251,410 246,654 284,291 328,371 362,156 372,718 398,444 418,605 419,849 366,944 1996 280,620 236,878 221,371 232,189 268,812 299,619 312,736 313,747 330,116

  17. Midwest Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Midwest Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Midwest Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2010-Jan 01/01 900 01/08 820 01/15 750 01/22 710 01/29 661 2010-Feb 02/05 604 02/12 552 02/19 502 02/26 464 2010-Mar 03/05 433 03/12 422 03/19 419 03/26 410 2010-Apr 04/02 410 04/09 429 04/16 444 04/23 462 04/30 480 2010-May

  18. Mountain Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Mountain Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Mountain Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2010-Jan 01/01 195 01/08 185 01/15 176 01/22 171 01/29 164 2010-Feb 02/05 157 02/12 148 02/19 141 02/26 133 2010-Mar 03/05 129 03/12 127 03/19 126 03/26 126 2010-Apr 04/02 126 04/09 126 04/16 129 04/23 134 04/30 138

  19. Nonsalt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Nonsalt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2006-Dec 12/29 841 2007-Jan 01/05 823 01/12 806 01/19 755 01/26 716 2007-Feb 02/02 666 02/09 613 02/16 564 02/23 538 2007-Mar 03/02 527 03/09 506 03/16 519 03/23 528 03/30 550 2007-Apr 04/06 560

  20. Nonsalt South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Billion Cubic Feet) Nonsalt South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Nonsalt South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2010-Jan 01/01 826 01/08 763 01/15 702 01/22 687 01/29 671 2010-Feb 02/05 624 02/12 573 02/19 521 02/26 496 2010-Mar 03/05 472 03/12 477 03/19 487 03/26 492 2010-Apr 04/02