National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for gas treatment plant

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

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Diemer, P.E.; Seyfferth, W.

    1997-12-31

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1995-12-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1997-12-31

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

  5. Greenhouse gas emissions from landfill leachate treatment plants: A comparison of young and aged landfill

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wang, Xiaojun; Jia, Mingsheng; Chen, Xiaohai; Xu, Ying; Lin, Xiangyu; Kao, Chih Ming; Chen, Shaohua

    2014-07-15

    Highlights: • Young and aged leachate works accounted for 89.1% and 10.9% of 33.35 Gg CO{sub 2} yr{sup −1}. • Fresh leachate owned extremely low ORP and high organic matter content. • Strong CH{sub 4} emissions occurred in the fresh leachate ponds, but small in the aged. • N{sub 2}O emissions became dominant in the treatment units of both systems. • 8.45–11.9% of nitrogen was removed as the form of N{sub 2}O under steady-state. - Abstract: With limited assessment, leachate treatment of a specified landfill is considered to be a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In our study, the cumulative GHG emitted from the storage ponds and process configurations that manage fresh or aged landfill leachate were investigated. Our results showed that strong CH{sub 4} emissions were observed from the fresh leachate storage pond, with the fluxes values (2219–26,489 mg C m{sup −2} h{sup −1}) extremely higher than those of N{sub 2}O (0.028–0.41 mg N m{sup −2} h{sup −1}). In contrast, the emission values for both CH{sub 4} and N{sub 2}O were low for the aged leachate tank. N{sub 2}O emissions became dominant once the leachate entered the treatment plants of both systems, accounting for 8–12% of the removal of N-species gases. Per capita, the N{sub 2}O emission based on both leachate treatment systems was estimated to be 7.99 g N{sub 2}O–N capita{sup −1} yr{sup −1}. An increase of 80% in N{sub 2}O emissions was observed when the bioreactor pH decreased by approximately 1 pH unit. The vast majority of carbon was removed in the form of CO{sub 2}, with a small portion as CH{sub 4} (<0.3%) during both treatment processes. The cumulative GHG emissions for fresh leachate storage ponds, fresh leachate treatment system and aged leachate treatment system were 19.10, 10.62 and 3.63 Gg CO{sub 2} eq yr{sup −1}, respectively, for a total that could be transformed to 9.09 kg CO{sub 2} eq capita{sup −1} yr{sup −1}.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2014-01-27

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2015-11-01

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

  8. LABORATORY OPTIMIZATION TESTS OF TECHNETIUM DECONTAMINATION OF HANFORD WASTE TREATMENT PLANT LOW ACTIVITY WASTE OFF-GAS CONDENSATE SIMULANT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Taylor-Pashow, K.; Nash, C.; McCabe, D.

    2014-09-29

    The Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Low Activity Waste (LAW) vitrification facility will generate an aqueous condensate recycle stream (LAW Off-Gas Condensate) from the off-gas system. The baseline plan for disposition of this stream is to send it to the WTP Pretreatment Facility, where it will be blended with LAW, concentrated by evaporation and recycled to the LAW vitrification facility again. Alternate disposition of this stream would eliminate recycling of problematic components, and would enable de-coupled operation of the LAW melter and the Pretreatment Facilities. Eliminating this stream from recycling within WTP would also decrease the LAW vitrification mission duration and quantity of glass waste. This LAW Off-Gas Condensate stream contains components that are volatile at melter temperatures and are problematic for the glass waste form. Because this stream recycles within WTP, these components accumulate in the Condensate stream, exacerbating their impact on the number of LAW glass containers that must be produced. Approximately 32% of the sodium in Supplemental LAW comes from glass formers used to make the extra glass to dilute the halides to acceptable concentrations in the LAW glass, and diverting the stream reduces the halides in the recycled Condensate and is a key outcome of this work. Additionally, under possible scenarios where the LAW vitrification facility commences operation prior to the WTP Pretreatment facility, identifying a disposition path becomes vitally important. This task examines the potential treatment of this stream to remove radionuclides and subsequently disposition the decontaminated stream elsewhere, such as the Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF), for example. The treatment process envisioned is very similar to that used for the Actinide Removal Process (ARP) that has been operating for years at the Savannah River Site (SRS), and focuses on using mature radionuclide removal technologies that are also compatible with longterm tank storage and immobilization methods. For this new application, testing is needed to demonstrate acceptable treatment sorbents and precipitating agents and measure decontamination factors for additional radionuclides in this unique waste stream. The origin of this LAW Off-Gas Condensate stream will be the liquids from the Submerged Bed Scrubber (SBS) and the Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) from the LAW melter off-gas system. The stream is expected to be a dilute salt solution with near neutral pH, and will likely contain some insoluble solids from melter carryover. The soluble components are expected to be mostly sodium and ammonium salts of nitrate, chloride, and fluoride. This stream has not been generated yet and will not be available until the WTP begins operation, but a simulant has been produced based on models, calculations, and comparison with pilot-scale tests. One of the radionuclides that is volatile and expected to be in greatest abundance in this LAW Off-Gas Condensate stream is Technetium-99 ({sup 99}Tc). Technetium will not be removed from the aqueous waste in the Hanford WTP, and will primarily end up immobilized in the LAW glass by repeated recycle of the off-gas condensate into the LAW melter. Other radionuclides that are low but are also expected to be in measurable concentration in the LAW Off-Gas Condensate are {sup 129}I, {sup 90}Sr, {sup 137}Cs, {sup 241}Pu, and {sup 241}Am. These are present due to their partial volatility and some entrainment in the off-gas system. This report discusses results of optimized {sup 99}Tc decontamination testing of the simulant. Testing examined use of inorganic reducing agents for {sup 99}Tc. Testing focused on minimizing the quantity of sorbents/reactants added, and minimizing mixing time to reach the decontamination targets in this simulant formulation. Stannous chloride and ferrous sulfate were tested as reducing agents to determine the minimum needed to convert soluble pertechnetate to the insoluble technetium dioxide. The reducing agents were tried with and without sorbents.

  9. Laboratory Scoping Tests Of Decontamination Of Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Low Activity Waste Off-Gas Condensate Simulant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Taylor-Pashow, Kathryn M.; Nash, Charles A.; Crawford, Charles L.; McCabe, Daniel J.; Wilmarth, William R.

    2014-01-21

    The Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Low Activity Waste (LAW) vitrification facility will generate an aqueous condensate recycle stream (LAW Off-Gas Condensate) from the off-gas system. The baseline plan for disposition of this stream is to send it to the WTP Pretreatment Facility, where it will be blended with LAW, concentrated by evaporation and recycled to the LAW vitrification facility again. Alternate disposition of this stream would eliminate recycling of problematic components, and would enable de-coupled operation of the LAW melter and the Pretreatment Facilities. Eliminating this stream from recycling within WTP would also decrease the LAW vitrification mission duration and quantity of glass waste. This LAW Off-Gas Condensate stream contains components that are volatile at melter temperatures and are problematic for the glass waste form. Because this stream recycles within WTP, these components accumulate in the Condensate stream, exacerbating their impact on the number of LAW glass containers that must be produced. Approximately 32% of the sodium in Supplemental LAW comes from glass formers used to make the extra glass to dilute the halides to acceptable concentrations in the LAW glass, and diverting the stream reduces the halides in the recycled Condensate and is a key outcome of this work. Additionally, under possible scenarios where the LAW vitrification facility commences operation prior to the WTP Pretreatment facility, identifying a disposition path becomes vitally important. This task seeks to examine the potential treatment of this stream to remove radionuclides and subsequently disposition the decontaminated stream elsewhere, such as the Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF), for example. The treatment process envisioned is very similar to that used for the Actinide Removal Process (ARP) that has been operating for years at the Savannah River Site (SRS), and focuses on using mature radionuclide removal technologies that are also compatible with longterm tank storage and immobilization methods. For this new application, testing is needed to demonstrate acceptable treatment sorbents and precipitating agents and measure decontamination factors for additional radionuclides in this unique waste stream. The origin of this LAW Off-Gas Condensate stream will be the liquids from the Submerged Bed Scrubber (SBS) and the Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) from the LAW melter off-gas system. The stream is expected to be a dilute salt solution with near neutral pH, and will likely contain some insoluble solids from melter carryover. The soluble components are expected to be mostly sodium and ammonium salts of nitrate, chloride, and fluoride. This stream has not been generated yet and will not be available until the WTP begins operation, but a simulant has been produced based on models, calculations, and comparison with pilot-scale tests. One of the radionuclides that is volatile and expected to be in high concentration in this LAW Off-Gas Condensate stream is Technetium-99 ({sup 99}Tc). Technetium will not be removed from the aqueous waste in the Hanford WTP, and will primarily end up immobilized in the LAW glass by repeated recycle of the off-gas condensate into the LAW melter. Other radionuclides that are also expected to be in appreciable concentration in the LAW Off-Gas Condensate are {sup 129}I, {sup 90}Sr, {sup 137}Cs, and {sup 241}Am. This report discusses results of preliminary radionuclide decontamination testing of the simulant. Testing examined use of Monosodium Titanate (MST) to remove {sup 90}Sr and actinides, inorganic reducing agents for {sup 99}Tc, and zeolites for {sup 137}Cs. Test results indicate that excellent removal of {sup 99}Tc was achieved using Sn(II)Cl{sub 2} as a reductant, coupled with sorption onto hydroxyapatite, even in the presence of air and at room temperature. This process was very effective at neutral pH, with a Decontamination Factor (DF) >577 in two hours. It was less effective at alkaline pH. Conversely, removal of the cesium was more effective at alka

  10. Laboratory Optimization Tests of Technetium Decontamination of Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Direct Feed Low Activity Waste Melter Off-Gas Condensate Simulant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Taylor-Pashow, K.; McCabe, D.

    2015-12-23

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

  11. Large-Scale Testing of Effects of Anti-Foam Agent on Gas Holdup in Process Vessels in the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant - 8280

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mahoney, Lenna A.; Alzheimer, James M.; Arm, Stuart T.; Guzman-Leong, Consuelo E.; Jagoda, Lynette K.; Stewart, Charles W.; Wells, Beric E.; Yokuda, Satoru T.

    2008-06-03

    The Hanford Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) will vitrify the radioactive wastes stored in underground tanks. These wastes generate and retain hydrogen and other flammable gases that create safety concerns for the vitrification process tanks in the WTP. An anti-foam agent (AFA) will be added to the WTP process streams. Prior testing in a bubble column and a small-scale impeller-mixed vessel indicated that gas holdup in a high-level waste chemical simulant with AFA was up to 10 times that in clay simulant without AFA. This raised a concern that major modifications to the WTP design or qualification of an alternative AFA might be required to satisfy plant safety criteria. However, because the mixing and gas generation mechanisms in the small-scale tests differed from those expected in WTP process vessels, additional tests were performed in a large-scale prototypic mixing system with in situ gas generation. This paper presents the results of this test program. The tests were conducted at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in a -scale model of the lag storage process vessel using pulse jet mixers and air spargers. Holdup and release of gas bubbles generated by hydrogen peroxide decomposition were evaluated in waste simulants containing an AFA over a range of Bingham yield stresses and gas gen geration rates. Results from the -scale test stand showed that, contrary to the small-scale impeller-mixed tests, gas holdup in clay without AFA is comparable to that in the chemical waste simulant with AFA. The test stand, simulants, scaling and data-analysis methods, and results are described in relation to previous tests and anticipated WTP operating conditions.

  12. Large-Scale Testing of Effects of Anti-Foam Agent on Gas Holdup in Process Vessels in the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mahoney, L.A.; Alzheimer, J.M.; Arm, S.T.; Guzman-Leong, C.E.; Jagoda, L.K.; Stewart, C.W.; Wells, B.E.; Yokuda, S.T. [Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA (United States)

    2008-07-01

    The Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) will vitrify the radioactive wastes stored in underground tanks. These wastes generate and retain hydrogen and other flammable gases that create safety concerns for the vitrification process tanks in the WTP. An anti-foam agent (AFA) will be added to the WTP process streams. Previous testing in a bubble column and a small-scale impeller-mixed vessel indicated that gas holdup in a high-level waste chemical simulant with AFA was as much as 10 times higher than in clay simulant without AFA. This raised a concern that major modifications to the WTP design or qualification of an alternative AFA might be required to satisfy plant safety criteria. However, because the mixing and gas generation mechanisms in the small-scale tests differed from those expected in WTP process vessels, additional tests were performed in a large-scale prototypic mixing system with in situ gas generation. This paper presents the results of this test program. The tests were conducted at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in a 1/4-scale model of the lag storage process vessel using pulse jet mixers and air spargers. Holdup and release of gas bubbles generated by hydrogen peroxide decomposition were evaluated in waste simulants containing an AFA over a range of Bingham yield stresses and gas generation rates. Results from the 1/4-scale test stand showed that, contrary to the small-scale impeller-mixed tests, holdup in the chemical waste simulant with AFA was not so greatly increased compared to gas holdup in clay without AFA. The test stand, simulants, scaling and data-analysis methods, and results are described in relation to previous tests and anticipated WTP operating conditions. (authors)

  13. Columbia Boulevard Wastewater Treatment Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2005-08-01

    This is a combined heat and power (CHP) project profile on 320 kW fuel cell and microturbine power plants at Columbia Boulevard Wastewater Treatment Plant in Portland, Oregon.

  14. Cryogenic treatment of gas

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Bravo, Jose Luis (Houston, TX); Harvey, III, Albert Destrehan (Kingwood, TX); Vinegar, Harold J. (Bellaire, TX)

    2012-04-03

    Systems and methods of treating a gas stream are described. A method of treating a gas stream includes cryogenically separating a first gas stream to form a second gas stream and a third stream. The third stream is cryogenically contacted with a carbon dioxide stream to form a fourth and fifth stream. A majority of the second gas stream includes methane and/or molecular hydrogen. A majority of the third stream includes one or more carbon oxides, hydrocarbons having a carbon number of at least 2, one or more sulfur compounds, or mixtures thereof. A majority of the fourth stream includes one or more of the carbon oxides and hydrocarbons having a carbon number of at least 2. A majority of the fifth stream includes hydrocarbons having a carbon number of at least 3 and one or more of the sulfur compounds.

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

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

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

  16. Waste Treatment Plant - 12508

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Harp, Benton; Olds, Erik

    2012-07-01

    The Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) will immobilize millions of gallons of Hanford's tank waste into solid glass using a proven technology called vitrification. The vitrification process will turn the waste into a stable glass form that is safe for long-term storage. Our discussion of the WTP will include a description of the ongoing design and construction of this large, complex, first-of-a-kind project. The concept for the operation of the WTP is to separate high-level and low-activity waste fractions, and immobilize those fractions in glass using vitrification. The WTP includes four major nuclear facilities and various support facilities. Waste from the Tank Farms is first pumped to the Pretreatment Facility at the WTP through an underground pipe-in-pipe system. When construction is complete, the Pretreatment Facility will be 12 stories high, 540 feet long and 215 feet wide, making it the largest of the four major nuclear facilities that compose the WTP. The total size of this facility will be more than 490,000 square feet. More than 8.2 million craft hours are required to construct this facility. Currently, the Pretreatment Facility is 51 percent complete. At the Pretreatment Facility the waste is pumped to the interior waste feed receipt vessels. Each of these four vessels is 55-feet tall and has a 375,000 gallon capacity, which makes them the largest vessels inside the Pretreatment Facility. These vessels contain a series of internal pulse-jet mixers to keep incoming waste properly mixed. The vessels are inside the black-cell areas, completely enclosed behind thick steel-laced, high strength concrete walls. The black cells are designed to be maintenance free with no moving parts. Once hot operations commence the black-cell area will be inaccessible. Surrounded by black cells, is the 'hot cell canyon'. The hot cell contains all the moving and replaceable components to remove solids and extract liquids. In this area, there is ultrafiltration equipment, cesium-ion exchange columns, evaporator boilers and recirculation pumps, and various mechanical process pumps for transferring process fluids. During the first phase of pretreatment, the waste will be concentrated using an evaporation process. Solids will be filtered out, and the remaining soluble, highly radioactive isotopes will be removed using an ion-exchange process. The high-level solids will be sent to the High-Level Waste (HLW) Vitrification Facility, and the low activity liquids will be sent to the Low-Activity Waste (LAW) Vitrification Facility for further processing. The high-level waste will be transferred via underground pipes to the HLW Facility from the Pretreatment Facility. The waste first arrives at the wet cell, which rests inside a black-cell area. The pretreated waste is transferred through shielded pipes into a series of melter preparation and feed vessels before reaching the melters. Liquids from various facility processes also return to the wet cell for interim storage before recycling back to the Pretreatment Facility. (authors)

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  18. Waste Treatment and Immobilation Plant Pretreatment Facility

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    7 Technology Readiness Assessment for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) ... Technology Readiness Assessment for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) ...

  19. ,"Natural Gas Plant Liquids Proved Reserves"

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Waste Treatment & Immobilization Plant - Hanford Site

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

    Waste Treatment & Immobilization Plant Office of River Protection About ORP ORP Projects & Facilities Tank Farms Waste Treatment & Immobilization Plant 242-A Evaporator 222-S Laboratory Newsroom Contracts & Procurements Contact ORP Waste Treatment & Immobilization Plant Email Email Page | Print Print Page |Text Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size Waste Treatment Plant Overview Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Background Information The Hanford Site, located in

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

    Natural Gas Processing Capacity (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Number of Natural Gas Plants Average Plant Capacity (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Change Between 2004 and 2009 State...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  8. Renewable Energy: Plants in Your Gas Tank

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

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

  9. Independent Oversight Activity Report, Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant – February 2014

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Low Activity Waste Facility Off-gas Systems Hazards Analysis Activities [HIAR-WTP-2014-01-27

  10. Independent Oversight Activity Report, Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant- June 2013

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Low Activity Waste Melter Off-gas Process System Hazards Analysis Activity Observation [HIAR-WTP-2013-05-13

  11. Confinement Ventilation and Process Gas Treatment Functional...

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

    . NOT MEASUREMENT SENSITIVE DOE-STD-1168-2013 October 2013 DOE STANDARD CONFINEMENT VENTILATION AND PROCESS GAS TREATMENT FUNCTIONAL AREA QUALIFICATION STANDARD DOE Defense Nuclear ...

  12. Ohio Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

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

  13. Florida Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  14. Illinois Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  15. Natural Gas Treatment and Fuel Gas Conditioning: Membrane Technology

    Office of Science (SC) Website

    Applied to New Gas Finds | U.S. DOE Office of Science (SC) Natural Gas Treatment and Fuel Gas Conditioning: Membrane Technology Applied to New Gas Finds Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) SBIR/STTR Home About Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) Applicant and Awardee Resources Commercialization Assistance Other Resources Awards SBIR/STTR Highlights Reporting Fraud Contact Information Small Business Innovation Research and Small

  16. Gas treating alternatives for LNG plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1998-12-31

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

  17. Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

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

  18. Montana Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

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

  19. Safety aspects of gas centrifuge enrichment plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hansen, A.H.

    1987-01-01

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

  20. Michigan Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

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

  1. Utah Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

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

  2. Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

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

  3. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

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

  4. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

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

  5. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  6. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Wilding, Bruce M; Turner, Terry D

    2014-12-02

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

  8. Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Progress

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

    Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Progress Hanford Advisory Board requested action: Based on progress discussions, the Hanford Advisory Board will develop and advocate...

  9. EIS-0224: Southeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Improvements

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    "This EIS analyzes the Lake County Sanitation District joint venture with the geothermal industry, specifically the Northern California Power Agency, Calpine Corporation (Calpine), and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, to develop a plan for disposal of secondary-treated effluent from the Southeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant near the City of Clearlake, California, in the Southeast Geysers Geothermal Steam Field."

  10. Waste Treatment Plant Project | Department of Energy

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

    Presentation from the 2015 DOE National Cleanup Workshop by Peggy McCullough, Project Manager-WTP, Bechtel National. PDF icon Waste Treatment Plant Project More Documents & Publications Waste Treatment Plant and Tank Farm Program Managing Large Capital Projects EIS-0391: Draft Environmental Impact Statement

  11. Cyanide treatment options in coke plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Minak, H.P.; Lepke, P.

    1997-12-31

    The paper discusses the formation of cyanides in coke oven gas and describes and compares waste processing options. These include desulfurization by aqueous ammonia solution, desulfurization using potash solution, desulfurization in oxide boxes, decomposition of NH{sub 3} and HCN for gas scrubbing. Waste water treatment methods include chemical oxidation, precipitation, ion exchange, reverse osmosis, and biological treatment. It is concluded that biological treatment is the most economical process, safe in operation and requires a minimum of manpower.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  13. Natural Gas Plant Liquids Proved Reserves

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

  15. Waste Treatment and Immobilation Plant Pretreatment Facility

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    7 Technology Readiness Assessment for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Pretreatment Facility L. Holton D. Alexander M. Johnson H. Sutter August 2007 Prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of River Protection Richland, Washington, 99352 07-DESIGN-047 Technology Readiness Assessment for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Pretreatment Facilities L. Holton D. Alexander M. Johnson H. Sutter August 2007 Prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of

  16. Missouri Water Treatment Plant Upgraded | Department of Energy

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

    Missouri Water Treatment Plant Upgraded Missouri Water Treatment Plant Upgraded July 13, 2010 - 11:30am Addthis The high service pumps at the St. Peters Water Treatment Plant are...

  17. Hanford ETR Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - Hanford...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    ETR Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Technical Review - External Flowsheet Review Team (Technical) Report...

  18. Flue gas desulfurization wastewater treatment primer

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Higgins, T.E.; Sandy, A.T.; Givens, S.W.

    2009-03-15

    Purge water from a typical wet flue gas desulfurization system contains myriad chemical constituents and heavy metals whose mixture is determined by the fuel source and combustion products as well as the stack gas treatment process. A well-designed water treatment system can tolerate upstream fuel and sorbent arranged in just the right order to produce wastewater acceptable for discharge. This article presents state-of-the-art technologies for treating the waste water that is generated by wet FGD systems. 11 figs., 3 tabs.

  19. MOLTEN CARBONATE FUEL CELL POWER PLANT LOCATED AT TERMINAL ISLAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    William W. Glauz

    2004-09-01

    The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) has developed one of the most recognized fuel cell demonstration programs in the United States. In addition to their high efficiencies and superior environmental performance, fuel cells and other generating technologies that can be located at or near the load, offers several electric utility benefits. Fuel cells can help further reduce costs by reducing peak electricity demand, thereby deferring or avoiding expenses for additional electric utility infrastructure. By locating generators near the load, higher reliability of service is possible and the losses that occur during delivery of electricity from remote generators are avoided. The potential to use renewable and locally available fuels, such as landfill or sewage treatment waste gases, provides another attractive outlook. In Los Angeles, there are also many oil producing areas where the gas by-product can be utilized. In June 2000, the LADWP contracted with FCE to install and commission the precommercial 250kW MCFC power plant. The plant was delivered, installed, and began power production at the JFB in August 2001. The plant underwent manufacturer's field trials up for 18 months and was replace with a commercial plant in January 2003. In January 2001, the LADWP contracted with FCE to provide two additional 250kW MCFC power plants. These commercial plants began operations during mid-2003. The locations of these plants are at the Terminal Island Sewage Treatment Plant at the Los Angeles Harbor (for eventual operation on digester gas) and at the LADWP Main Street Service Center east of downtown Los Angeles. All three carbonate fuel cell plants received partial funding through the Department of Defense's Climate Change Fuel Cell Buydown Program. This report covers the technical evaluation and benefit-cost evaluation of the Terminal Island 250kW MCFC power plant during its first year of operation from June 2003 to July 2004.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Energy Savers [EERE]

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

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

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

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

  15. Waste Treatment & Immobilization Plant Project - Hanford Site

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

    Reduction-Oxidation Plant (REDOX) River Corridor S Plant T Plant Tank Farms Transuranic Waste Retrieval and Certification Treated Effluent Disposal Facility U Plant Vitrification...

  16. Technical analysis of advanced wastewater-treatment systems for coal-gasification plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1981-03-31

    This analysis of advanced wastewater treatment systems for coal gasification plants highlights the three coal gasification demonstration plants proposed by the US Department of Energy: The Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division Industrial Fuel Gas Demonstration Plant, the Illinois Coal Gasification Group Pipeline Gas Demonstration Plant, and the CONOCO Pipeline Gas Demonstration Plant. Technical risks exist for coal gasification wastewater treatment systems, in general, and for the three DOE demonstration plants (as designed), in particular, because of key data gaps. The quantities and compositions of coal gasification wastewaters are not well known; the treatability of coal gasification wastewaters by various technologies has not been adequately studied; the dynamic interactions of sequential wastewater treatment processes and upstream wastewater sources has not been tested at demonstration scale. This report identifies key data gaps and recommends that demonstration-size and commercial-size plants be used for coal gasification wastewater treatment data base development. While certain advanced treatment technologies can benefit from additional bench-scale studies, bench-scale and pilot plant scale operations are not representative of commercial-size facility operation. It is recommended that coal gasification demonstration plants, and other commercial-size facilities that generate similar wastewaters, be used to test advanced wastewater treatment technologies during operation by using sidestreams or collected wastewater samples in addition to the plant's own primary treatment system. Advanced wastewater treatment processes are needed to degrade refractory organics and to concentrate and remove dissolved solids to allow for wastewater reuse. Further study of reverse osmosis, evaporation, electrodialysis, ozonation, activated carbon, and ultrafiltration should take place at bench-scale.

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

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

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

  18. Waste Treatment Plant Liquid Effluent Treatability Evaluation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    LUECK, K.J.

    2001-06-07

    Bechtel National, Inc. (BNI) provided a forecast of the radioactive, dangerous liquid effluents expected to be generated by the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP). The forecast represents the liquid effluents generated from the processing of 25 distinct batches of tank waste through the WTP. The WTP liquid effluents will be stored, treated, and disposed of in the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility (LERF) and the Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF). Fluor Hanford, Inc. (FH) evaluated the treatability of the WTP liquid effluents in the LERFIETF. The evaluation was conducted by comparing the forecast to the LERFIETF treatability envelope, which provides information on the items that determine if a liquid effluent is acceptable for receipt and treatment at the LERFIETF. The WTP liquid effluent forecast is outside the current LERFlETF treatability envelope. There are several concerns that must be addressed before the WTP liquid effluents can be accepted at the LERFIETF.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Willson, Paul; Smith, Alistair

    2007-07-01

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

  20. Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant- December 2012

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Review of the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Low Activity Waste Melter Process System Hazards Analysis Activity

  1. Voluntary Protection Program Onsite Review, Waste Treatment Plant...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    More Documents & Publications Voluntary Protection Program Onsite Review, Intermech Inc., Waste Treatment Plant Construction Site - November 2013 Voluntary Protection Program...

  2. Waste Treatment and Immobilation Plant HLW Waste Vitrification Facility |

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

    Department of Energy HLW Waste Vitrification Facility PDF icon Summary - WTP HLW Waste Vitrification Facility More Documents & Publications Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Analytical Laboratory (LAB), Balance of Facilities (BOF) and Low-Activity Waste Vitrification Facilities (LAW) Independent Oversight Activity Report, Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - November 2013 Waste Treatment and Immobilation Plant Pretreatment Facility

  3. Waste Treatment and Immobilation Plant Pretreatment Facility | Department

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

    of Energy Pretreatment Facility PDF icon Summary - WTP Pretreatment Facility More Documents & Publications Waste Treatment and Immobilation Plant HLW Waste Vitrification Facility Compilation of TRA Summaries Hanford ETR Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Technical Review - External Flowsheet Review Team (Technical) Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    which saw a 65 percent drop in processing capacity. At the same time, the number of plants in Kansas decreased by four. The decrease was likely the result of falling natural gas...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  5. Emission of reduced malodorous sulfur gases from wastewater treatment plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Devai, I.; DeLaune, R.D.

    1999-03-01

    The emission of malodorous gaseous compounds from wastewater collection and treatment facilities is a growing maintenance and environmental problem. Numerous gaseous compounds with low odor detection thresholds are emitted from these facilities. Sulfur-bearing gases represent compounds with the lowest odor detection threshold. Using solid adsorbent preconcentration and gas chromatographic methods, the quantity and composition of reduced malodorous sulfur gases emitted from various steps of the treatment process were determined in wastewater treatment plants in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Hydrogen sulfide, which is a malodorous, corrosive, and potentially toxic gas, was the most dominant volatile reduced sulfur (S) compound measured. Concentrations were not only more than the odor detection threshold of hydrogen sulfide, but above levels that may affect health during long-term exposure. The concentrations of methanethiol, dimethyl sulfide, carbon disulfide, and carbonyl sulfide were significantly less than hydrogen sulfide. However, even though emissions of reduced sulfur gases other than hydrogen sulfide were low, previous studies suggested that long-term exposure to such levels may cause respiratory problems and other symptoms.

  6. Pennsylvania-Ohio Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

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

  7. Florida-Florida Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  8. Illinois-Illinois Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  9. Assessment and remediation at former manufactured gas plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mehan, D.G.

    1995-12-01

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

  10. Pennsylvania-Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

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

  11. South Dakota Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

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

  12. Tennessee-Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

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

  13. Michigan-Michigan Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

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

  14. Mississippi-Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

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

  15. Wyoming-Colorado Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

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

  16. Wyoming-Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

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

  17. Ohio-Ohio Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

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

  18. Alaska Onshore Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  19. Arkansas-Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  20. Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant Safeguards System Modeling

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2006-06-05

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

  1. Natural Gas Plant Field Production: Natural Gas Liquids

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  2. Natural Gas Plant Stocks of Natural Gas Liquids

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  3. Gulf of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  4. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

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

  5. Summary - Flowsheet for the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Waste Treatment Plant ETR Report Date: March 2006 ETR-1 United States Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management (DOE-EM) External Technical Review of the Flowsheet for the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) Why DOE-EM Did This Review The Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) is being constructed to treat the 53 million gallons of radioactive waste, separate it into high- and low-activity fractions, and produce canisters of high-level (HLW) glass (left) and

  6. Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Support Task Order Modified | Department of

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Energy Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Support Task Order Modified Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Support Task Order Modified March 11, 2013 - 12:00pm Addthis Media Contact Lynette Chafin, 513-246-0461 Lynette.Chafin@emcbc.doe.gov Cincinnati - The Department of Energy (DOE) today awarded a modification to a task order to Aspen Resources Limited, Inc. of Boulder, Colorado for support of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) at the Hanford Site. The modification increased the value

  7. Independent Oversight Assessment, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant

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

    - January 2012 | Department of Energy Assessment, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - January 2012 Independent Oversight Assessment, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - January 2012 January 2012 Assessment of the Nuclear Safety Culture and Management of Nuclear Safety Concerns at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Enforcement and Oversight (Independent Oversight), within the Office of Health, Safety and

  8. Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Project - October 2010 | Department of Energy Project - October 2010 Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Project - October 2010 October 2010 Review of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Project The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) conducted an independent review of the nuclear safety culture at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) project at the Hanford

  9. Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant -

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    August 2012 | Department of Energy August 2012 Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - August 2012 August 2012 Review of the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Construction Quality This report documents the results of an independent oversight review of Construction Quality at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). The review was performed February 6-10, 2012, and April 30 - May 4, 2012, by the U.S. Department of

  10. Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant -

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    March 2012 | Department of Energy March 2012 Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - March 2012 March 2012 Review of the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Project Construction Quality This report documents the results of an independent oversight review of Construction Quality at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). The review was performed November 14-17, 2011, by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of

  11. Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant -

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    October 2012 | Department of Energy October 2012 Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - October 2012 October 2012 Review of the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Construction Quality This report documents the results of an independent review of selected aspects of construction quality at the Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant. The review was conducted August 6-10, 2012, by the DOE Office of

  12. West Point Treatment Plant Biomass Facility | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    West Point Treatment Plant Sector Biomass Facility Type Non-Fossil Waste Location King County, Washington Coordinates 47.5480339, -121.9836029 Show Map Loading map......

  13. Waste Treatment and Immobilation Plant HLW Waste Vitrification...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    6 Technology Readiness Assessment for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) HLW Waste Vitrification Facility L. Holton D. Alexander C. Babel H. Sutter J. Young August ...

  14. CHP and Bioenergy for Landfills and Wastewater Treatment Plants...

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

    CHP and Bioenergy for Landfills and Wastewater Treatment Plants: Market Opportunities This document explores opportunities for alternative CHP fuels. PDF icon CHP and Bioenergy for ...

  15. Saving Energy at 24/7 Wastewater Treatment Plant

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    When the wastewater treatment plant uses more electricity than any other public building, it makes sense to look for improvements that reduce energy costs.

  16. Independent Activity Report, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant- March 2013

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Follow-up of Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Low Activity Waste Melter Process System Hazards Analysis Activity Review [HIAR-WTP-2013-03-18

  17. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

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

  18. Gas engines provide cogeneration service for Fantoni MDF plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chellini, R.

    1996-12-01

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  19. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

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

  20. North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

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

  1. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  2. Natural gas treatment process using PTMSP membrane

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Toy, L.G.; Pinnau, I.

    1996-03-26

    A process is described for separating C{sub 3}+ hydrocarbons, particularly propane and butane, from natural gas. The process uses a poly(trimethylsilylpropyne) membrane. 6 figs.

  3. Natural gas treatment process using PTMSP membrane

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Toy, Lora G. (San Francisco, CA); Pinnau, Ingo (Palo Alto, CA)

    1996-01-01

    A process for separating C.sub.3 + hydrocarbons, particularly propane and butane, from natural gas. The process uses a poly(trimethylsilylpropyne) membrane.

  4. Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Analytical Laboratory (LAB),

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

    Balance of Facilities (BOF) and Low-Activity Waste Vitrification Facilities (LAW) | Department of Energy Immobilization Plant (WTP) Analytical Laboratory (LAB), Balance of Facilities (BOF) and Low-Activity Waste Vitrification Facilities (LAW) PDF icon Summary - WTP Analytical Lab, BOF and LAW Waste Vitrification Facilities More Documents & Publications Waste Treatment and Immobilation Plant HLW Waste Vitrification Facility Waste Treatment and Immobilation Plant Pretreatment Facility

  5. An investigation of gas separation membranes for reduction of thermal treatment emissions

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Stull, D.M.; Logsdon, B.W.; Pellegrino, J.J.

    1994-05-16

    Gas permeable membranes were evaluated for possible use as air pollution control devices on a fluidized bed catalytic incineration unit. The unit is a candidate technology for treatment of certain mixed hazardous and radioactive wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant. Cellulose acetate and polyimide membranes were tested to determine the permeance of typical off-gas components such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and oxygen. Multi-component permeation studies included gas mixtures containing light hydrocarbons. Experiments were also conducted to discover information about potential membrane degradation in the presence of organic compounds.

  6. Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant -

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    May 2013 | Department of Energy May 2013 Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - May 2013 May 2013 Review of the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Construction Quality The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Enforcement and Oversight (Independent Oversight) within the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) conducted an independent review of selected aspects of construction quality at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2006-06-30

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

  8. Water Treatment in Oil and Gas Production | GE Global Research

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

    Water Treatment and Reuse in Unconventional Gas Production Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Click to share (Opens in...

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2009-03-31

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  15. California Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  16. California Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  5. Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Mississippi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  8. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Pennsylvania

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

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

  9. Gas Reactor Plant Analyzer and Simulator for Hydrogen Production

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    2004-01-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Watson, F

    1983-06-27

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  15. Waste Treatment and Immobilation Plant HLW Waste Vitrification Facility

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    6 Technology Readiness Assessment for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) HLW Waste Vitrification Facility L. Holton D. Alexander C. Babel H. Sutter J. Young August 2007 Prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of River Protection Richland, Washington, 99352 07-DESIGN-046 Technology Readiness Assessment for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) HLW Waste Vitrification Facility L. Holton D. Alexander C. Babel H. Sutter J. Young August 2007 Prepared by the U.S.

  16. Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant -

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

    August 2011 | Department of Energy August 2011 Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Construction Quality This report documents the results of an independent oversight review of Construction Quality at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). The review was performed May 9-12, 2011, by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations, which is within the DOE Office of Health, Safety and Security. This review is

  17. Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant -

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

    March 2013 | Department of Energy March 2013 Review of the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Construction Quality The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Enforcement and Oversight (Independent Oversight), within the Office of Health, Safety and Security, conducted an independent review of selected aspects of construction quality at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). The review, which was performed November 26-30, 2012, was the latest in

  18. Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant -

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

    November 2011 | Department of Energy November 2011 Review of the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Project Construction Quality This report documents the results of an independent oversight review of selected aspects of construction quality at the Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). The review was conducted September 12-15, 2011, by the DOE Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations, which is within the DOE

  19. Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant -

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    January 2013 | Department of Energy January 2013 Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - January 2013 January 2013 Review of the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Black-Cell and Hard-To-Reach Pipe Spools Procurement Process and the Office of River Protection Audit of That Process The Office of Enforcement and Oversight (Independent Oversight), within the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS), conducted a concurrent independent review with

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2008-06-13

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

  1. Microwave off-gas treatment apparatus and process

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Schulz, Rebecca L.; Clark, David E.; Wicks, George G.

    2003-01-01

    The invention discloses a microwave off-gas system in which microwave energy is used to treat gaseous waste. A treatment chamber is used to remediate off-gases from an emission source by passing the off-gases through a susceptor matrix, the matrix being exposed to microwave radiation. The microwave radiation and elevated temperatures within the combustion chamber provide for significant reductions in the qualitative and quantitative emissions of the gas waste stream.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Toy, Lora; Kataria, Atish; Gupta, Raghubir

    2011-09-30

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

  3. Waste Treatment Plant and Tank Farm Program | Department of Energy

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

    This photo shows the Pretreatment Facility control room building pad at the Office of River Protection at the Hanford site. The Low-Activity Waste Facility is in the background. Click the link below for an overview of the program PDF icon Waste Treatment Plant Overview More Documents & Publications Managing Large Capital Projects Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment, and Disposition Framework Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposition Framework

  4. Description of the Portsmouth Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Arthur, W.B.

    1980-12-16

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  13. Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Tennessee

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

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

  14. Louisiana Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in

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

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

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

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

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

  16. Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Michigan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  2. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Oklahoma

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

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

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

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

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

  4. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in West

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  16. ,"Natural Gas Plant Liquids Proved Reserves"

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

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

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

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

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

  18. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Colorado

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  19. Illinois Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Illinois

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  1. Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kentucky

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  7. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Ohio

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  9. Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Arkansas

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  17. Removal of hydrogen sulfide from waste treatment plant biogas using the apollo scrubber

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, J.W.; Burrowes, P.A.; Gupta, A.; Walton, P.S.; Meffe, S.

    1996-12-31

    The removal of hydrogen sulfide and other sulphur compounds from anaerobic digester gas streams prior to their use as fuel for boilers, stationary engines, and cogeneration units minimizes corrosion problems and reduces sulfur emission loadings. A research program at the Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry, University of Toronto in the 1980`s demonstrated the use of a modified flotation cell for the absorption of hydrogen sulfide from a gas stream and its catalytic oxidation to sulfur. The essence of the technology was a proprietary gas liquid contactor which provided very high mass transfer rates at the interface. A bench scale contactor developed at the university achieved hydrogen sulfide removal efficiencies of over 99.9% at atmospheric pressure. A demonstration unit for digester gas scrubbing applications was designed, fabricated, and then installed and evaluated at the Metropolitan Toronto Works Department - Main Treatment Plant (MTP).

  18. Waste Treatment Plant External Independent Review, Office of River

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Protection, Richland | Department of Energy Waste Treatment Plant External Independent Review, Office of River Protection, Richland Waste Treatment Plant External Independent Review, Office of River Protection, Richland March 28, 2016 8:00AM EDT to April 1, 2016 5:00PM EDT External Independent Review (EIR). On March 28 - April 1, the Office of Project Management Oversight and Assessments (PM) will lead the site visit for the first phase of the WTP Baseline Change Proposal (BCP)-02 EIR at the

  19. Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Sets Massive Protective Shield door in

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Pretreatment Facility | Department of Energy Waste Treatment Plant Sets Massive Protective Shield door in Pretreatment Facility Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Sets Massive Protective Shield door in Pretreatment Facility January 12, 2011 - 12:00pm Addthis The carbon steel doors come together to form an upside-down L-shape. The 102-ton door was set on top of the 85-ton door that was installed at the end of December. The carbon steel doors come together to form an upside-down L-shape. The

  20. CHP and Bioenergy for Landfills and Wastewater Treatment Plants: Market Opportunities

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Overview of market opportunities for CHP and bioenergy for landfills and wastewater treatment plants

  1. Sour gas injection for use with in situ heat treatment

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Fowler, Thomas David (Houston, TX)

    2009-11-03

    Systems, methods, and heaters for treating a subsurface formation are described herein. At least one method for providing acidic gas to a subsurface formation is described herein. The method may include providing heat from one or more heaters to a portion of a subsurface formation; producing fluids that include one or more acidic gases from the formation using a heat treatment process. At least a portion of one of the acidic gases may be introduced into the formation, or into another formation, through one or more wellbores at a pressure below a lithostatic pressure of the formation in which the acidic gas is introduced.

  2. EECBG Success Story: Missouri Water Treatment Plant Upgraded

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The city of St. Peters, Missouri is installing a water reservoir pump at the water treatment plant and replace seven pump motors with premium efficiency motors on the high service and backwash pumping systems, thanks to an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG). Learn more.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  9. Systems approach used in the Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rooks, W.A. Jr.

    1982-01-01

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  12. Construction of Industrial Electron Beam Plant for Wastewater Treatment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Han, B.; Kim, J.; Kim, Y.; Kim, S.; Lee, M.; Choi, J.; Ahn, S.; Makarov, I.E.; Ponomarev, A.V.

    2004-10-06

    A pilot plant for treating 1,000 m3/day of dyeing wastewater with e-beam has been constructed and operated since 1998 in Daegu, Korea together with the biological treatment facility. The wastewater from various stages of the existing purification process has been treated with electron beam in this plant, and it gave rise to elaborate the optimal technology of the electron beam treatment of wastewater with increased reliability at instant changes in the composition of wastewater. Installation of the e-beam pilot plant resulted in decolorizing and destructive oxidation of organic impurities in wastewater, appreciable to reduction of chemical reagent consumption, in reduction of the treatment time, and in increase in flow rate limit of existing facilities by 30-40%. Industrial plant for treating 10,000 m3/day, based upon the pilot experimental result, is under construction and will be finished by 2005. This project is supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Korean Government.

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  16. ITP Industrial Distributed Energy: CHP and Bioenergy Systems for Landfills and Wastewater Treatment Plants

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

    Systems for Landfills and Wastewater Treatment Plants November 7, 2007 Denver, Colorado Paul Lemar Jr., President pll@rdcnet.com www.rdcnet.com www.distributed-generation.com Reciprocating Engines for ADG and LFG z Reciprocating engines are either Otto (spark ignition) or Diesel (compression ignition) cycle systems z Natural gas engines, as well as those powered by ADG or LFG, are typically spark ignition systems z Some dual fuel engines have been developed using ADG/LFG with a portion of diesel

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1998-01-01

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

  19. Model operating permits for natural gas processing plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Arend, C.

    1995-12-31

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  10. New Measures to Safeguard Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2011-01-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dexin Wang

    2012-03-31

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

  12. Independent Oversight Activity Report, Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant and Tank Farm – January 2014

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Engineering Activities and Tank Farm Operations [HIAR-HANFORD-2014-01-13

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

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

    States along the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf States have been some of the most prolific natural gas producing areas. U.S. natural gas processing capacity showed a net increase of about 12...

  14. Characterization and possible uses of ashes from wastewater treatment plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Merino, Ignacio; Arevalo, Luis F. . E-mail: fromero@ehu.es

    2005-07-01

    This work, on the ashes from the wastewater treatment plant of Galindo (Vizcaya, Spain), has been outlined with the purpose of finding their physico-chemical properties and suggesting possible applications. Ashes contain important quantities of iron, calcium, silica, alumina and phosphates. X-Ray diffraction data make it possible to estimate the mineralogical compositions of the original ashes and also, after thermal treatment at 1200 and 1300 deg. C, the main reactions occurring in thermal treatment. Particle size analysis makes it possible to classify ashes as a very fine powdered material. The thermal treatment leads to a densification of the material and provokes losses of weight mainly due to the elimination of water, carbon dioxide and sulphur trioxide. Application tests show that ashes are not suitable for landfill and similar applications, because of their plastic properties. Testing for pozzolanic character, after the ashes had been heated at 1200 deg. C, did not lead to a strong material probably due to low contents in silica and alumina or to requiring a higher heating temperature. Thermal treatment leads to densification of the material with a considerable increase of compressive strength of the probes. The use of additives (clays and powdered glass) to improve ceramic properties of ashes will be the aim of a future work.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2010-04-05

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

  16. Sampling and Analysis Plan - Waste Treatment Plant Seismic Boreholes Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Reidel, Steve P.

    2006-05-26

    This sampling and analysis plan (SAP) describes planned data collection activities for four entry boreholes through the sediment overlying the basalt, up to three new deep rotary boreholes through the basalt and sedimentary interbeds, and one corehole through the basalt and sedimentary interbeds at the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) site. The SAP will be used in concert with the quality assurance plan for the project to guide the procedure development and data collection activities needed to support borehole drilling, geophysical measurements, and sampling. This SAP identifies the American Society of Testing Materials standards, Hanford Site procedures, and other guidance to be followed for data collection activities.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1980-01-01

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

  19. Waste Treatment Technology Process Development Plan For Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Low Activity Waste Recycle

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McCabe, Daniel J.; Wilmarth, William R.; Nash, Charles A.

    2013-08-29

    The purpose of this Process Development Plan is to summarize the objectives and plans for the technology development activities for an alternative path for disposition of the recycle stream that will be generated in the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Low Activity Waste (LAW) vitrification facility (LAW Recycle). This plan covers the first phase of the development activities. The baseline plan for disposition of this stream is to recycle it to the WTP Pretreatment Facility, where it will be concentrated by evaporation and returned to the LAW vitrification facility. Because this stream contains components that are volatile at melter temperatures and are also problematic for the glass waste form, they accumulate in the Recycle stream, exacerbating their impact on the number of LAW glass containers. Approximately 32% of the sodium in Supplemental LAW comes from glass formers used to make the extra glass to dilute the halides to acceptable concentrations in the LAW glass, and reducing the halides in the Recycle is a key component of this work. Additionally, under possible scenarios where the LAW vitrification facility commences operation prior to the WTP Pretreatment facility, this stream does not have a proven disposition path, and resolving this gap becomes vitally important. This task seeks to examine the impact of potential future disposition of this stream in the Hanford tank farms, and to develop a process that will remove radionuclides from this stream and allow its diversion to another disposition path, greatly decreasing the LAW vitrification mission duration and quantity of glass waste. The origin of this LAW Recycle stream will be from the Submerged Bed Scrubber (SBS) and the Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) from the LAW melter off-gas system. The stream is expected to be a dilute salt solution with near neutral pH, and will likely contain some insoluble solids from melter carryover or precipitates of scrubbed components (e.g. carbonates). The soluble components are mostly sodium and ammonium salts of nitrate, chloride, and fluoride. This stream has not been generated yet, and will not be available until the WTP begins operation, causing uncertainty in its composition, particularly the radionuclide content. This plan will provide an estimate of the likely composition and the basis for it, assess likely treatment technologies, identify potential disposition paths, establish target treatment limits, and recommend the testing needed to show feasibility. Two primary disposition options are proposed for investigation, one is concentration for storage in the tank farms, and the other is treatment prior to disposition in the Effluent Treatment Facility. One of the radionuclides that is volatile and expected to be in high concentration in this LAW Recycle stream is Technetium-99 ({sup 99}Tc), a long-lived radionuclide with a half-life of 210,000 years. Technetium will not be removed from the aqueous waste in the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP), and will primarily end up immobilized in the LAW glass, which will be disposed in the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF). Because {sup 99}Tc has a very long half-life and is highly mobile, it is the largest dose contributor to the Performance Assessment (PA) of the IDF. Other radionuclides that are also expected to be in appreciable concentration in the LAW Recycle are {sup 129}I, {sup 90}Sr, {sup 137}Cs, and {sup 241}Am. The concentrations of these radionuclides in this stream will be much lower than in the LAW, but they will still be higher than limits for some of the other disposition pathways currently available. Although the baseline process will recycle this stream to the Pretreatment Facility, if the LAW facility begins operation first, this stream will not have a disposition path internal to WTP. One potential solution is to return the stream to the tank farms where it can be evaporated in the 242-A evaporator, or perhaps deploy an auxiliary evaporator to concentrate it prior to return to the tank farms. In either case, testing is needed to evaluat

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

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

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

  1. Greenhouse gas emissions from landfill leachate treatment plants...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    ... Subject: 54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; 12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES, AND NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM NUCLEAR FACILITIES; AGING; CARBON DIOXIDE; GREENHOUSE GASES; LEACHATES; ...

  2. Gas turbine power plant with supersonic shock compression ramps

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

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

    2008-10-14

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

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

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    oil.gas.plant.platform.sta.brbra.map.4.2010.pdf Jump to: navigation, search File File history File usage Federal Leases in Pacific Ocean, near Santa Barbara Channel Size of this...

  4. Control Scheme Modifications Increase Efficiency of Steam Generation System at Exxon Mobil Gas Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2002-01-01

    This case study highlights control scheme modifications made to the steam system at ExxonMobil's Mary Ann Gas Plant in Mobile, Alabama, which improved steam flow efficiency and reduced energy costs.

  5. Texas--RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based...

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

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3...

  7. Texas--RRC District 8A Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 8A Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

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

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

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3...

  9. Texas--RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based...

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

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3...

  11. Texas--RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

  12. Texas--RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

  13. Texas--RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based...

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

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

  14. Texas--RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based...

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

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

  15. Texas--RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    National Overview Btu Content The natural gas received and transported by the major intrastate and interstate mainline transmission systems must be within a specific energy (Btu)...

  17. Ohio-West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2013 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 271 2013-2013 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 14 2013-2013

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

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

    of new production basins, including the San Juan Basin, Powder River Basin, and Green River Basin, natural gas processing capacity in this region has expanded...

  19. Impact of different plants on the gas profile of a landfill cover

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Reichenauer, Thomas G.; Watzinger, Andrea; Riesing, Johann; Gerzabek, Martin H.

    2011-05-15

    Research highlights: > Plants influence gas profile and methane oxidation in landfill covers. > Plants regulate water content and increase the availability of oxygen for methane oxidation. > Plant species with deep roots like alfalfa showed more stimulation of methane oxidation than plants with shallow root systems like grasses. - Abstract: Methane is an important greenhouse gas emitted from landfill sites and old waste dumps. Biological methane oxidation in landfill covers can help to reduce methane emissions. To determine the influence of different plant covers on this oxidation in a compost layer, we conducted a lysimeter study. We compared the effect of four different plant covers (grass, alfalfa + grass, miscanthus and black poplar) and of bare soil on the concentration of methane, carbon dioxide and oxygen in lysimeters filled with compost. Plants were essential for a sustainable reduction in methane concentrations, whereas in bare soil, methane oxidation declined already after 6 weeks. Enhanced microbial activity - expected in lysimeters with plants that were exposed to landfill gas - was supported by the increased temperature of the gas in the substrate and the higher methane oxidation potential. At the end of the first experimental year and from mid-April of the second experimental year, the methane concentration was most strongly reduced in the lysimeters containing alfalfa + grass, followed by poplar, miscanthus and grass. The observed differences probably reflect the different root morphology of the investigated plants, which influences oxygen transport to deeper compost layers and regulates the water content.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    National Overview Processing Plant Utilization Data collected for 2009 show that the States with the highest total processing capacity are among the States with the highest average...

  1. WASTE TREATMENT PLANT (WTP) LIQUID EFFLUENT TREATABILITY EVALUATION

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    LUECK, K.J.

    2004-10-18

    A forecast of the radioactive, dangerous liquid effluents expected to be produced by the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) was provided by Bechtel National, Inc. (BNI 2004). The forecast represents the liquid effluents generated from the processing of Tank Farm waste through the end-of-mission for the WTP. The WTP forecast is provided in the Appendices. The WTP liquid effluents will be stored, treated, and disposed of in the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility (LERF) and the Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF). Both facilities are located in the 200 East Area and are operated by Fluor Hanford, Inc. (FH) for the US. Department of Energy (DOE). The treatability of the WTP liquid effluents in the LERF/ETF was evaluated. The evaluation was conducted by comparing the forecast to the LERF/ETF treatability envelope (Aromi 1997), which provides information on the items which determine if a liquid effluent is acceptable for receipt and treatment at the LERF/ETF. The format of the evaluation corresponds directly to the outline of the treatability envelope document. Except where noted, the maximum annual average concentrations over the range of the 27 year forecast was evaluated against the treatability envelope. This is an acceptable approach because the volume capacity in the LERF Basin will equalize the minimum and maximum peaks. Background information on the LERF/ETF design basis is provided in the treatability envelope document.

  2. Treatment of gas from an in situ conversion process

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Diaz, Zaida (Katy, TX); Del Paggio, Alan Anthony (Spring, TX); Nair, Vijay (Katy, TX); Roes, Augustinus Wilhelmus Maria (Houston, TX)

    2011-12-06

    A method of producing methane is described. The method includes providing formation fluid from a subsurface in situ conversion process. The formation fluid is separated to produce a liquid stream and a first gas stream. The first gas stream includes olefins. At least the olefins in the first gas stream are contacted with a hydrogen source in the presence of one or more catalysts and steam to produce a second gas stream. The second gas stream is contacted with a hydrogen source in the presence of one or more additional catalysts to produce a third gas stream. The third gas stream includes methane.

  3. EIS-0071: Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division Industrial Fuels Gas Demonstration Plant, Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The U.S. Department of Energy developed this EIS to assesses the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of a 3,155-ton-per-day capacity facility, which will demonstrate the technical operability, economic viability, and environmental acceptability of the Memphis Division of Light, Gas and Water coal gasification plant at Memphis, Tennessee.

  4. Selection of an acid-gas removal process for an LNG plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Stone, J.B.; Jones, G.N.; Denton, R.D.

    1996-12-31

    Acid gas contaminants, such as, CO{sub 2}, H{sub 2}S and mercaptans, must be removed to a very low level from a feed natural gas before it is liquefied. CO{sub 2} is typically removed to a level of about 100 ppm to prevent freezing during LNG processing. Sulfur compounds are removed to levels required by the eventual consumer of the gas. Acid-gas removal processes can be broadly classified as: solvent-based, adsorption, cryogenic or physical separation. The advantages and disadvantages of these processes will be discussed along with design and operating considerations. This paper will also discuss the important considerations affecting the choice of the best acid-gas removal process for LNG plants. Some of these considerations are: the remoteness of the LNG plant from the resource; the cost of the feed gas and the economics of minimizing capital expenditures; the ultimate disposition of the acid gas; potential for energy integration; and the composition, including LPG and conditions of the feed gas. The example of the selection of the acid-gas removal process for an LNG plant.

  5. DOE, RTI to Design and Build Gas Cleanup System for IGCC Power Plants |

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Department of Energy DOE, RTI to Design and Build Gas Cleanup System for IGCC Power Plants DOE, RTI to Design and Build Gas Cleanup System for IGCC Power Plants July 13, 2009 - 1:00pm Addthis Washington, DC - The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces a collaborative project with Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International to design, build, and test a warm gas cleanup system to remove multiple contaminants from coal-derived syngas. The 50-MWe system will include technologies to remove

  6. South Dakota-North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

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

  7. Texas Onshore-New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2012 2013 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 29,056 869 2012-2013 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 3,262 90 2012-2013

  8. California Offshore-California Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) NA 381 2013-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) NA 8 2013-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 9 2014

  9. Carbon Capture and Water Emissions Treatment System (CCWESTRS) at Fossil-Fueled Electric Generating Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    P. Alan Mays; Bert R. Bock; Gregory A. Brodie; L. Suzanne Fisher; J. Devereux Joslin; Donald L. Kachelman; Jimmy J. Maddox; N. S. Nicholas; Larry E. Shelton; Nick Taylor; Mark H. Wolfe; Dennis H. Yankee; John Goodrich-Mahoney

    2005-08-30

    The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and the Department of Energy-National Energy Technologies Laboratory (DOE-NETL) are evaluating and demonstrating integration of terrestrial carbon sequestration techniques at a coal-fired electric power plant through the use of Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) system gypsum as a soil amendment and mulch, and coal fly ash pond process water for periodic irrigation. From January to March 2002, the Project Team initiated the construction of a 40 ha Carbon Capture and Water Emissions Treatment System (CCWESTRS) near TVA's Paradise Fossil Plant on marginally reclaimed surface coal mine lands in Kentucky. The CCWESTRS is growing commercial grade trees and cover crops and is expected to sequester 1.5-2.0 MT/ha carbon per year over a 20-year period. The concept could be used to meet a portion of the timber industry's needs while simultaneously sequestering carbon in lands which would otherwise remain non-productive. The CCWESTRS includes a constructed wetland to enhance the ability to sequester carbon and to remove any nutrients and metals present in the coal fly ash process water runoff. The CCWESTRS project is a cooperative effort between TVA, EPRI, and DOE-NETL, with a total budget of $1,574,000. The proposed demonstration project began in October 2000 and has continued through December 2005. Additional funding is being sought in order to extend the project. The primary goal of the project is to determine if integrating power plant processes with carbon sequestration techniques will enhance carbon sequestration cost-effectively. This goal is consistent with DOE objectives to provide economically competitive and environmentally safe options to offset projected growth in U.S. baseline emissions of greenhouse gases after 2010, achieve the long-term goal of $10/ton of avoided net costs for carbon sequestration, and provide half of the required reductions in global greenhouse gases by 2025. Other potential benefits of the demonstration include developing a passive technology for water treatment for trace metal and nutrient release reductions, using power plant by-products to improve coal mine land reclamation and carbon sequestration, developing wildlife habitat and green-space around production facilities, generating Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) credits for the use of process water, and producing wood products for use by the lumber and pulp and paper industry. Project activities conducted during the five year project period include: Assessing tree cultivation and other techniques used to sequester carbon; Project site assessment; Greenhouse studies to determine optimum plant species and by-product application; Designing, constructing, operating, monitoring, and evaluating the CCWESTRS system; and Reporting (ongoing). The ability of the system to sequester carbon will be the primary measure of effectiveness, measured by accessing survival and growth response of plants within the CCWESTRS. In addition, costs associated with design, construction, and monitoring will be evaluated and compared to projected benefits of other carbon sequestration technologies. The test plan involves the application of three levels each of two types of power plant by-products--three levels of FGD gypsum mulch, and three levels of ash pond irrigation water. This design produces nine treatment levels which are being tested with two species of hardwood trees (sweet gum and sycamore). The project is examining the effectiveness of applications of 0, 8-cm, and 15-cm thick gypsum mulch layers and 0, 13 cm, and 25 cm of coal fly ash water for irrigation. Each treatment combination is being replicated three times, resulting in a total of 54 treatment plots (3 FGD gypsum levels X 3 irrigation water levels x 2 tree species x 3 replicates). Survival and growth response of plant species in terms of sequestering carbon in plant material and soil will be the primary measure of effectiveness of each treatment. Additionally, the ability of the site soils and unsaturated zone subsurface m

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    CROWE RD; APTHORPE R; LEE SJ; PLYS MG

    2010-04-29

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

  11. Greenhouse Gas emissions from California Geothermal Power Plants

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

    Sullivan, John

    2014-03-14

    The information given in this file represents GHG emissions and corresponding emission rates for California flash and dry steam geothermal power plants. This stage of the life cycle is the fuel use component of the fuel cycle and arises during plant operation. Despite that no fossil fuels are being consumed during operation of these plants, GHG emissions nevertheless arise from GHGs present in the geofluids and dry steam that get released to the atmosphere upon passing through the system. Data for the years of 2008 to 2012 are analyzed.

  12. Greenhouse Gas emissions from California Geothermal Power Plants

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

    Sullivan, John

    The information given in this file represents GHG emissions and corresponding emission rates for California flash and dry steam geothermal power plants. This stage of the life cycle is the fuel use component of the fuel cycle and arises during plant operation. Despite that no fossil fuels are being consumed during operation of these plants, GHG emissions nevertheless arise from GHGs present in the geofluids and dry steam that get released to the atmosphere upon passing through the system. Data for the years of 2008 to 2012 are analyzed.

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

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

    for about 12 percent of total U.S. capacity. As of 2009, there were a total of 4 plants in the State, with the largest one reporting a capacity of 8.5 Bcf per day. Average...

  14. Parris Island Wastewater Treatment Plant SCADA Upgrades Final Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Meador, Richard J.; Hatley, Darrel D.

    2004-03-18

    Marine Corp Recruit Depot (MCRD), Parris Island, SC, home of the Easter Recruiting Region Marine Corp Boot Camp, found itself in a situation common to Department of Defense (DOD) facilities. It had to deal with several different types of installed energy-related control systems that could not talk to each other. This situation was being exacerbated by the installation of a new and/or unique type of control system for every new building being constructed or older facility that was being upgraded. The Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) and lift station controls were badly in need of a thorough inspection and a new Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system upgrade to meet environmental, safety, manpower, and maintenance concerns. A project was recently completed to implement such a wastewater treatment SCADA upgrade, which is compatible with other upgrades to the energy monitoring and control systems for Parris Island buildings and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Decision Support for Operations and Maintenance (DSOM) system installed at the Central Energy Plant (CEP). This project included design, specification, procurement, installation, and testing an upgraded SCADA alarm, process monitoring, and display system; and training WWTF operators in its operation. The ultimate goal of this and the other PNNL projects at Parris Island is to allow monitoring and control of energy and environmental components from a central location.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1996-10-01

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

  16. Power plant including an exhaust gas recirculation system for injecting recirculated exhaust gases in the fuel and compressed air of a gas turbine engine

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Anand, Ashok Kumar; Nagarjuna Reddy, Thirumala Reddy; Shaffer, Jason Brian; York, William David

    2014-05-13

    A power plant is provided and includes a gas turbine engine having a combustor in which compressed gas and fuel are mixed and combusted, first and second supply lines respectively coupled to the combustor and respectively configured to supply the compressed gas and the fuel to the combustor and an exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system to re-circulate exhaust gas produced by the gas turbine engine toward the combustor. The EGR system is coupled to the first and second supply lines and configured to combine first and second portions of the re-circulated exhaust gas with the compressed gas and the fuel at the first and second supply lines, respectively.

  17. Sorption Modeling and verification for Off-Gas Treatment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tavlarides, Lawrence L.; Lin, Ronghong; Nan, Yue; Yiacoumi, Sotira; Tsouris, Costas; Ladshaw, Austin; Sharma, Ketki; Gabitto, Jorge; DePaoli, David

    2015-04-29

    The project has made progress toward developing a comprehensive modeling capability for the capture of target species in off gas evolved during the reprocessing of nuclear fuel. The effort has integrated experimentation, model development, and computer code development for adsorption and absorption processes. For adsorption, a modeling library has been initiated to include (a) equilibrium models for uptake of off-gas components by adsorbents, (b) mass transfer models to describe mass transfer to a particle, diffusion through the pores of the particle and adsorption on the active sites of the particle, and (c) interconnection of these models to fixed bed adsorption modeling which includes advection through the bed. For single-component equilibria, a Generalized Statistical Thermodynamic Adsorption (GSTA) code was developed to represent experimental data from a broad range of isotherm types; this is equivalent to a Langmuir isotherm in the two-parameter case, and was demonstrated for Kr on INL engineered sorbent HZ PAN, water sorption on molecular sieve 3A sorbent material (MS3A), and Kr and Xe capture on metal-organic framework (MOF) materials. The GSTA isotherm was extended to multicomponent systems through application of a modified spreading pressure surface activity model and generalized predictive adsorbed solution theory; the result is the capability to estimate multicomponent adsorption equilibria from single-component isotherms. This advance, which enhances the capability to simulate systems related to off-gas treatment, has been demonstrated for a range of real-gas systems in the literature and is ready for testing with data currently being collected for multicomponent systems of interest, including iodine and water on MS3A. A diffusion kinetic model for sorbent pellets involving pore and surface diffusion as well as external mass transfer has been established, and a methodology was developed for determining unknown diffusivity parameters from transient uptake data. Two parallel approaches have been explored for integrating the kernels described above into a mass-transport model for adsorption in fixed beds. In one, the GSTA isotherm kernel has been incorporated into the MOOSE framework; in the other approach, a focused finite-difference framework and PDE kernels have been developed. Issues, including oscillatory behavior in MOOSE solutions to advection-diffusion problems, and opportunities have been identified for each approach, and a path forward has been identified toward developing a stronger modeling platform. Experimental systems were established for collection of microscopic kinetics and equilibria data for single and multicomponent uptake of gaseous species on solid sorbents. The systems, which can operate at ambient temperature to 250C and dew points from -69 to l7C, are useful for collecting data needed for modeling performance of sorbents of interest. Experiments were conducted to determine applicable models and parameters for isotherms and mass transfer for water and/or iodine adsorption on MS3A. Validation experiments were also conducted for water adsorption on fixed beds ofMS3A. For absorption, work involved modeling with supportive experimentation. A dynamic model was developed to simulate C02 absorption with chemical reaction using high alkaline content water solutions. A computer code was developed to implement the model based upon transient mass and energy balances. Experiments were conducted in a laboratory-scale column to determine model parameters. The influence of geometric parameters and operating variables on C02 absorption was studied over a wide range of conditions. This project has resulted in 7 publications, with 3 manuscripts in preparation. Also, 15 presentations were given at national meetings of ANS and AIChE and at Material Recovery and Waste Forms Campaign Working Group meetings.

  18. Pennsylvania-West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 10,273 236,886 101,613 2012-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 195 7,150 9,890 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 14,335

  19. Louisiana Offshore-Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 151,301 99,910 94,790 2012-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 3,378 2,694 2,454 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 5,100 3,585 2012

  20. West Virginia-West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 116,955 189,278 315,229 867,111 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 8,010 14,195 41,116 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 57,582 2014

  1. Texas Onshore-Kansas Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 57,971 63,053 144,573 112,694 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 2,727 5,881 5,145...

  2. California Onshore-California Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 180,648 169,203 164,401 162,413 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 9,923 10,641 9,597 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 12,755 13,192

  3. Alabama Offshore-Alabama Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 53,348 53,771 49,474 2012-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 2,695 2,767 2,519 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 3,978 3,721

  4. Alabama Onshore-Alabama Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 100,491 33,921 35,487 31,116 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 2,614 2,781 2,620 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 3,132 3,323

  5. Voluntary Protection Program Onsite Review, Bechtel National Inc., Waste Treatment Plant Construction Site – November 2013

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Evaluation to determine whether Bechtel National Inc., Waste Treatment Plant Construction Site is performing at a level deserving DOE-VPP Star recognition.

  6. Independent Oversight Activity Report, Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant – July 2013

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Operational Awareness of Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Low Activity Waste Melter Process System Hazards Analysis Activity [HIAR-WTP-2013-07-31

  7. Voluntary Protection Program Onsite Review, Waste Treatment Plant Construction Project- June 2010

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Evaluation to determine whether Waste Treatment Plant Construction Project is continuing to perform at a level deserving DOE-VPP Star recognition.

  8. The Energy-Water Nexus: State and Local Roles in Efficiency & Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This webinar, held on Sept. 11, 2013, covers the energy water nexus for state and local water and wastewater treatment plants.

  9. Voluntary Protection Program Onsite Review, Waste Treatment Plant Hanford Site- June 2010

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Evaluation to determine whether the Waste Treatment Plant Hanford Site is continuing to perform at a level deserving DOE-VPP Star recognition.

  10. Independent Oversight Activity Report, Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant – February 2014

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Observation of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Low Activity Waste Facility Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Systems Hazards Analysis Activities [HIAR-WTP-2014-01-27

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1992-07-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1992-07-01

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

  13. Sampling and Analysis Plan Waste Treatment Plant Seismic Boreholes Project.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brouns, Thomas M.

    2007-07-15

    This sampling and analysis plan (SAP) describes planned data collection activities for four entry boreholes through the sediment overlying the Saddle Mountains Basalt, up to three new deep rotary boreholes through the Saddle Mountains Basalt and sedimentary interbeds, and one corehole through the Saddle Mountains Basalt and sedimentary interbeds at the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) site. The SAP will be used in concert with the quality assurance plan for the project to guide the procedure development and data collection activities needed to support borehole drilling, geophysical measurements, and sampling. This SAP identifies the American Society of Testing Materials standards, Hanford Site procedures, and other guidance to be followed for data collection activities. Revision 3 incorporates all interim change notices (ICN) that were issued to Revision 2 prior to completion of sampling and analysis activities for the WTP Seismic Boreholes Project. This revision also incorporates changes to the exact number of samples submitted for dynamic testing as directed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Revision 3 represents the final version of the SAP.

  14. Full Focus Needed on Finishing Hanford's Waste Treatment Plant - 12196

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dahl, Suzanne; Biyani, Rabindra; Holmes, Erika

    2012-07-01

    The United States Department of Energy's (US DOE's) Hanford Nuclear Site has 177 underground waste storage tanks located 19 to 24 km (12 to 15 miles) from the Columbia River in south-central Washington State. Hanford's tanks now hold about 212,000 cu m (56 million gallons) of highly radioactive and chemically hazardous waste. Sixty-seven tanks have leaked an estimated 3,785 cu m (1 million gallons) of this waste into the surrounding soil. Further releases to soil, groundwater, and the Columbia River are the inevitable result of the tanks continuing to age. The risk from this waste is recognized as a threat to the Northwest by both State and Federal governments. US DOE and Bechtel National, Inc., are building the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) to treat and vitrify (immobilize in glass) the waste from Hanford's tanks. As is usual for any groundbreaking project, problems have arisen that must be resolved as they occur if treatment is to take place as specified in the court-enforceable Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) and the Consent Decree, entered into by US DOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). At times, US DOE's approach to solving these critical issues seems to have caused undue wastes of time, energy, and, ultimately, public funds. Upon reviewing the history of Hanford's tank waste treatment project, Ecology hopes that constructive criticism of past failures and praise of successes will inspire US DOE to consider changing practices, be more transparent with regulatory agencies and the public, and take a 'lean production' approach to successfully completing this project. All three Tri-Party Agreement agencies share the goal of completing WTP on time, ensuring it is operational and in compliance with safety standards. To do this, Ecology believes US DOE should: - Maintain focus on the primary goal of completing the five major facilities of WTP. - Construct a supplemental low-activity waste (LAW) vitrification facility for the two-thirds balance of LAW that will not be treated by the vitrification facility under construction. - Prepare infrastructure for waste feed from the tanks and facilities to handle the WTP waste streams. To support this project track, Ecology expedites dangerous waste permitting by using a design-build approach to integrate WTP into the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act permit for Hanford. (authors)

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2012-08-09

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wayne Moe

    2013-05-01

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

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

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

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Norm Stanley

    2011-02-01

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

  2. Improved wastewater treatment at Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporations`s Steubenville East Coke Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Goshe, A.J.; Nodianos, M.J.

    1995-12-01

    Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation recently improved its wastewater treatment at it`s by-products coke plant. This has led to greatly improved effluent quality. Excess ammonia liquor, along with wastewater from the light oil recovery plant, desulfurization facility, and coal pile runoff, must be treated prior to being discharged into the Ohio River. This is accomplished using a biological wastewater treatment plant to remove 99.99% of the organic contaminants and ammonia. Biologically treated, clarified wastewater is now polished in the newly constructed tertiary treatment plant.

  3. Sodium Recycle Economics for Waste Treatment Plant Operations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2008-08-31

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

  4. Geology of the Waste Treatment Plant Seismic Boreholes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Barnett, D. BRENT; Bjornstad, Bruce N.; Fecht, Karl R.; Lanigan, David C.; Reidel, Steve; Rust, Colleen F.

    2007-02-28

    In 2006, DOE-ORP initiated the Seismic Boreholes Project (SBP) to emplace boreholes at the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) site in order to obtain direct Vs measurements and other physical property measurements in Columbia River basalt and interbedded sediments of the Ellensburg Formation. The goal was to reduce the uncertainty in the response spectra and seismic design basis, and potentially recover design margin for the WTP. The characterization effort within the deep boreholes included 1) downhole measurements of the velocity properties of the suprabasalt, basalt, and sedimentary interbed sequences, 2) downhole measurements of the density of the subsurface basalt and sediments, and 3) confirmation of the geometry of the contact between the various basalt and interbedded sediments through examination of retrieved core from the corehole and data collected through geophysical logging of each borehole. This report describes the results of the geologic studies from three mud-rotary boreholes and one cored borehole at the WTP. All four boreholes penetrated the entire Saddle Mountains Basalt and the upper part of the Wanapum Basalt where thick sedimentary interbeds occur between the lava flows. The basalt flows penetrated in Saddle Mountains Basalt included the Umatilla Member, Esquatzel Member, Pomona Member and the Elephant Mountain Member. The underlying Priest Rapids Member of the Wanapum Basalt was also penetrated. The Ellensburg Formation sediments consist of the Mabton Interbed, the Cold Creek Interbed, the Selah Interbed and the Rattlesnake Ridge Interbed; the Byron Interbed occurs between two flows of the Priest Rapids Member. The Mabton Interbed marks the contact between the Wanapum and Saddle Mountains Basalts. The thicknesses of the basalts and interbedded sediments were within expected limits. However, a small reverse fault was found in the Pomona Member flow top. This fault has three periods of movement and less than 15 feet of repeated section. Most of the movement on the fault appears to have occurred before the youngest lava flow, the 10.5 million year old Elephant Mountain Member was emplaced above the Pomona Member.

  5. Forming gas treatment of lithium ion battery anode graphite powders

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Contescu, Cristian Ion; Gallego, Nidia C; Howe, Jane Y; Meyer, III, Harry M; Payzant, Edward Andrew; Wood, III, David L; Yoon, Sang Young

    2014-09-16

    The invention provides a method of making a battery anode in which a quantity of graphite powder is provided. The temperature of the graphite powder is raised from a starting temperature to a first temperature between 1000 and 2000.degree. C. during a first heating period. The graphite powder is then cooled to a final temperature during a cool down period. The graphite powder is contacted with a forming gas during at least one of the first heating period and the cool down period. The forming gas includes H.sub.2 and an inert gas.

  6. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Field Production

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

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1998-07-30

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

  8. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Field Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  9. Geology of the Waste Treatment Plant Seismic Boreholes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Barnett, D. Brent; Fecht, Karl R.; Reidel, Stephen P.; Bjornstad, Bruce N.; Lanigan, David C.; Rust, Colleen F.

    2007-05-11

    In 2006, the U.S. Department of Energy initiated the Seismic Boreholes Project (SBP) to emplace boreholes at the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) site in order to obtain direct shear wave velocity (Vs) measurements and other physical property measurements in Columbia River basalt and interbedded sediments of the Ellensburg Formation. The goal was to reduce the uncertainty in the response spectra and seismic design basis, and potentially recover design margin for the WTP. The characterization effort within the deep boreholes included 1) downhole measurements of the velocity properties of the suprabasalt, basalt, and sedimentary interbed sequences, 2) downhole measurements of the density of the subsurface basalt and sediments, and 3) geologic studies to confirm the geometry of the contact between the various basalt and interbedded sediments through examination of retrieved core from the core hole and data collected through geophysical logging of each borehole. This report describes the results of the geologic studies from three mud-rotary boreholes and one cored borehole at the WTP. All four boreholes penetrated the entire Saddle Mountains Basalt and the upper part of the Wanapum Basalt where thick sedimentary interbeds occur between the lava flows. The basalt flows penetrated in Saddle Mountains Basalt included the Umatilla Member, Esquatzel Member, Pomona Member, and the Elephant Mountain Member. The underlying Priest Rapids Member of the Wanapum Basalt also was penetrated. The Ellensburg Formation sediments consist of the Mabton Interbed, the Cold Creek Interbed, the Selah Interbed, and the Rattlesnake Ridge Interbed; the Byron Interbed occurs between two flows of the Priest Rapids Member. The Mabton Interbed marks the contact between the Wanapum and Saddle Mountains Basalts. The thicknesses of the basalts and interbedded sediments were within expected limits. However, a small reverse fault was found in the Pomona Member flow top. This fault has three periods of movement and less than 15 ft of repeated section. Most of the movement on the fault appears to have occurred before the youngest lava flow, the 10.5-million-year-old Elephant Mountain Member, was emplaced above the Pomona Member.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gillow, J.B.; Francis, A.

    2011-07-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wenglarz, R.; Drenker, S.

    1984-11-01

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

  12. Hanford ETR Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Technical Review - External Flowsheet Review Team (Technical) Report

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    CCN: 132846 Office of River Protection Mr. R. J. Schepens MAR 1 7 2006 Manager P.O. Box 450, MSIN H6-60 Richland, Washington 99352 Dear Mr. Schepens: CONTRACT NO. DE-AC27-01RV14136 - REPORT OF EXTERNAL FLOWSHEET REVIEW TEAM FOR THE HANFORD TANK WASTE TREATMENT AND IMMOBILIZATION PLANT - FINAL REPORT TITLED: "COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE HANFORD WASTE TREATMENT PLANT FLOWSHEET AND THROUGHPUT" On behalf of Tom Hash, Chairman of the Board of Bechtel National, Inc. the report of the

  13. Hot waste-to-energy flue gas treatment using an integrated fluidised bed reactor

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bianchini, A.; Pellegrini, M.; Saccani, C.

    2009-04-15

    This paper describes an innovative process to increase superheated steam temperatures in waste-to-energy (WTE) plants. This solution is mainly characterised by a fluidised bed reactor in which hot flue gas is treated both chemically and mechanically. This approach, together with gas recirculation, increases the energy conversion efficiency, and raises the superheated steam temperature without decreasing the useful life of the superheater. This paper presents new experimental data obtained from the test facility installed at the Hera S.p.A. WTE plant in Forli, Italy; discusses changes that can be implemented to increase the duration of experimental testing; offers suggestions for the design of an industrial solution.

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

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Vimalchand, Pannalal; Liu, Guohai; Peng, Wan Wang

    2012-11-06

    Disclosed are apparatus and method to treat large amounts of flue gas from a pulverized coal combustion power plant. The flue gas is contacted with solid sorbents to selectively absorb CO.sub.2, which is then released as a nearly pure CO.sub.2 gas stream upon regeneration at higher temperature. The method is capable of handling the necessary sorbent circulation rates of tens of millions of lbs/hr to separate CO.sub.2 from a power plant's flue gas stream. Because pressurizing large amounts of flue gas is cost prohibitive, the method of this invention minimizes the overall pressure drop in the absorption section to less than 25 inches of water column. The internal circulation of sorbent within the absorber assembly in the proposed method not only minimizes temperature increases in the absorber to less than 25.degree. F., but also increases the CO.sub.2 concentration in the sorbent to near saturation levels. Saturating the sorbent with CO.sub.2 in the absorber section minimizes the heat energy needed for sorbent regeneration. The commercial embodiments of the proposed method can be optimized for sorbents with slower or faster absorption kinetics, low or high heat release rates, low or high saturation capacities and slower or faster regeneration kinetics.

  15. Integration and optimization of the gas removal system for hybrid-cycle OTEC power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rabas, T.J.; Panchal, C.B.; Stevens, H.C. )

    1990-02-01

    A preliminary design of the noncondensible gas removal system for a 10 mWe, land-based hybrid-cycle OTEC power plant has been developed and is presented herein. This gas removal system is very different from that used for conventional power plants because of the substantially larger and continuous noncondensible gas flow rates and lower condenser pressure levels which predicate the need for higher-efficiency components. Previous OTEC studies discussed the need for multiple high-efficiency compressors with intercoolers; however, no previous design effort was devoted to the details of the intercoolers, integration and optimization of the intercoolers with the compressors, and the practical design constraints and feasibility issues of these components. The resulting gas removal system design uses centrifugal (radial) compressors with matrix-type crossflow aluminum heat exchangers as intercoolers. Once-through boiling of ammonia is used as the heat sink for the cooling and condensing of the steam-gas mixture. A computerized calculation method was developed for the performance analysis and subsystem optimization. For a specific number of compressor units and the stream arrangement, the method is used to calculate the dimensions, speeds, power requirements, and costs of all the components.

  16. Development of advanced technology of coke oven gas drainage treatment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Higashi, Tadayuki; Yamaguchi, Akikazu; Ikai, Kyozou; Kamiyama, Hisarou; Muto, Hiroshi

    1996-12-31

    In April 1994, commercial-scale application of ozone oxidation to ammonia liquor (which is primarily the water condensing from coke oven gas) to reduce its chemical oxygen demand (COD) was started at the Nagoya Works of Nippon Steel Corporation. This paper deals with the results of technical studies on the optimization of process operating conditions and the enlargement of equipment size and the operating purification system.

  17. BUNCOMBE COUNTY WASTEWATER PRE-TREATMENT AND LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PROJECT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jon Creighton

    2012-03-13

    The objective of this project was to construct a landfill gas-to-energy (LFGTE) facility that generates a renewable energy source utilizing landfill gas to power a 1.4MW generator, while at the same time reducing the amount of leachate hauled offsite for treatment. The project included an enhanced gas collection and control system, gas conditioning equipment, and a 1.4 MW generator set. The production of cleaner renewable energy will help offset the carbon footprint of other energy sources that are currently utilized.

  18. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Acquisitions (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Acquisitions (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Acquisitions (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 1,051 550 512 433 554 596 1,048 771 332 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Liquids Reserves Acquisitions

  19. Critique of Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant off-gas sampling requirements

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Goles, R.W.

    1996-03-01

    Off-gas sampling and monitoring activities needed to support operations safety, process control, waste form qualification, and environmental protection requirements of the Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant (HWVP) have been evaluated. The locations of necessary sampling sites have been identified on the basis of plant requirements, and the applicability of Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) reference sampling equipment to these HWVP requirements has been assessed for all sampling sites. Equipment deficiencies, if present, have been described and the bases for modifications and/or alternative approaches have been developed.

  20. Calif--Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Calif--Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 2 1980's 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1990's 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2000's 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2010's 1 1 1 1 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  1. Calif--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Calif--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 1 1980's 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1990's 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  2. Calif--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Calif--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 6 1980's 4 4 9 9 9 10 10 10 9 8 1990's 8 7 8 8 7 8 8 7 6 7 2000's 7 7 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 2010's 9 9 9 10 9 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  3. ,"Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  4. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  5. ,"North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  6. ,"Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  7. ,"Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  8. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  9. ,"Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  10. Arizona Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Arizona Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 33 20 34 1970's 50 50 44 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980's 0 222 7 7 7 6 5 6 5 35 1990's 71 45 41 49 61 57 58 51 46 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring

  11. Oregon Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 32 30 37 30 30 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 120 131 130 115 59 1990's 93 60 68 118 95 66 40 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring

  12. Rhode Island Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Feet) Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980's 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural

  13. South Dakota Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Feet) and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) South Dakota Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980's 0 0 63 61 76 93 70 125 123 112 1990's 158 393 451 452 437 404 424 911 848 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release

  14. Tennessee Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 355 753 986 1970's 1,265 1,524 1,150 1,263 1,087 387 537 509 516 616 1980's 0 0 78 113 153 138 98 93 60 45 1990's 74 44 39 49 44 47 37 45 31 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016

  15. Virginia Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Virginia Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 128 211 1970's 252 213 157 170 307 168 157 157 191 266 1980's 240 361 181 124 272 443 438 669 536 425 1990's 489 327 653 1,120 1,102 1,296 1,183 1,330 1,243 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  16. Texas--RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 16 1980's 18 20 24 35 33 33 30 22 23 15 1990's 20 23 24 23 23 23 44 46 32 161 2000's 49 35 34 24 31 31 32 43 44 87 2010's 163 158 197 233 343 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  17. Texas--RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 356 1980's 350 349 376 397 425 416 411 402 351 331 1990's 318 346 327 316 305 343 323 372 342 191 2000's 191 311 326 315 373 367 396 458 473 494 2010's 566 578 522 481 598 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  18. Texas--RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 45 1980's 48 68 52 73 81 76 69 70 67 56 1990's 63 61 66 72 74 82 85 75 75 64 2000's 59 53 60 56 64 72 74 94 88 77 2010's 113 203 374 698 1,037 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  19. Texas--RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 177 1980's 164 179 212 228 217 211 184 166 150 140 1990's 132 160 172 196 200 204 210 170 169 152 2000's 140 144 170 135 149 148 159 143 131 127 2010's 129 158 184 196 199 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA =

  20. Texas--RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 172 1980's 177 183 204 212 208 183 197 197 186 188 1990's 208 204 207 213 220 217 241 261 267 300 2000's 316 281 279 202 253 238 246 250 231 231 2010's 258 402 562 1,069 987 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA =

  1. Texas--RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 24 1980's 32 42 44 61 61 62 73 76 72 65 1990's 61 53 55 50 50 47 48 31 31 24 2000's 24 43 39 40 44 40 42 50 126 192 2010's 225 237 214 183 193 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure

  2. Texas--RRC District 6 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 6 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 228 1980's 268 259 232 280 253 247 224 213 210 212 1990's 195 195 205 202 218 223 242 221 235 182 2000's 182 215 213 195 233 264 279 324 318 330 2010's 369 360 269 376 387 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  3. Texas--RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 62 1980's 82 99 99 129 103 101 106 90 95 71 1990's 74 81 67 73 61 69 64 57 48 34 2000's 34 28 24 31 42 89 131 200 269 326 2010's 359 416 295 332 312 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  4. Texas--RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 168 1980's 120 172 184 204 219 242 232 231 226 225 1990's 234 218 266 250 241 255 285 309 266 291 2000's 291 271 326 319 365 391 404 464 402 412 2010's 465 549 524 438 473 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  5. Texas--RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 452 1980's 452 498 554 650 662 646 697 623 530 542 1990's 545 466 426 430 398 432 417 447 479 479 2000's 479 504 488 484 487 559 547 525 524 536 2010's 618 689 802 830 1,240 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  6. Texas--RRC District 8A Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 8A Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 350 1980's 289 335 296 262 282 282 331 307 325 332 1990's 353 333 257 297 267 284 262 290 226 222 2000's 222 250 180 163 197 248 231 260 194 201 2010's 230 239 242 239 245 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  7. Texas--RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 75 1980's 81 81 111 115 113 106 112 107 102 90 1990's 100 96 89 88 94 90 116 96 91 156 2000's 156 182 229 228 228 276 372 347 348 419 2010's 488 552 542 578 662 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  8. Texas--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 0 1980's 0 0 5 4 3 5 5 5 2 3 1990's 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 2000's 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  9. New Mexico--East Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) New Mexico--East Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 192 1980's 192 197 193 216 206 192 200 176 193 179 1990's 200 187 204 215 222 236 287 253 243 230 2000's 302 259 266 251 245 237 264 274 261 289 2010's 342 350 310 329 443 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  10. New Mexico--West Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) New Mexico--West Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 273 1980's 286 299 282 279 256 203 314 532 733 684 1990's 715 653 790 710 724 645 711 561 633 666 2000's 502 535 513 573 560 544 540 514 465 426 2010's 422 426 352 350 346 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  11. ,"Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  12. ,"Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  13. ,"Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  14. ,"Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  15. ,"Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  16. ,"Louisiana--North Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana--North Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  17. ,"Louisiana--South Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana--South Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  18. ,"Lower 48 States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Lower 48 States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  19. ,"Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  20. ,"Miscellaneous States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Miscellaneous States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release