National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for natural gas-fired plants

  1. 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)

  2. Selection of natural Gas Fired Advanced Turbine Systems (GFATS) program - Task 3. Topical report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1994-06-01

    Research continued on natural gas-fired turbines.The objective of Task 3 was to perform initial trade studies and select one engine system (Gas-Fired Advanced Turbine System [GFATS]) that the contractor could demonstrate, at full scale, in the 1998 to 2000 time frame. This report describes the results of the selection process. This task, including Allison internal management reviews of the selected system, has been completed. Allison`s approach to ATS is to offer an engine family that is based on the newest T406 high technology engine. This selection was based on a number of parameters including return on investment (ROI), internal rate of return (IRR) market size and potential sales into that market. This base engine family continues a history at Allison of converting flight engine products to industrial use.

  3. Solutions for VOC and HAPS control on natural gas fired internal combustion engines

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Marcus, J.Z.; Sleigh, S.; Cotherman, R.

    1996-12-31

    Natural gas fired stationary internal combustion engines (IC engines) emit volatile organic compounds (VOC) and hazardous air pollutants (HAP) as part of their normal operations. VOC and HAP emissions are coming under increased scrutiny with the advent of such Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 regulations as Title I`s Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), Title III`s Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) and Title V`s Operating Permit Program (Title V). In addition, many states are imposing more stringent emission limits on these sources. These emissions may also contribute to the reportable chemicals from the total facility under SARA Title III. Numerous facilities nationwide are interested in reducing these emissions in order to comply with current requirements, to opt out of requirements or to reduce reportable chemicals. This paper will examine the source of these emissions, and discuss combustion control technologies and system operating flexibility, end-of-pipe control technologies, and system tuning opportunities which have the potential to reduce VOC and HAP emissions from IC engines. Data will be presented on potential emission reduction efficiencies achievable using the various control options. 7 refs., 4 tabs.

  4. Development of an Energy Efficient High temperature Natural Gas Fired Furnace

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dr. Mark G. Stevens; Dr. H. Kenneth Staffin; DOE Project Officer - Keith Bennett

    2005-02-28

    The design concept is designated the ''Porous Wall Radiation Barrier'' heating mantle. In this design, combustion gas flows through a porous wall surrounding the retort, transferring its heat to the porous wall, which then radiates heat energy to the retort. Experiments demonstrate that heat transfer rates of 1.8-2.4 times conventional gas fired mantles are achievable in the temperature range of 1600-2350 degrees fahrenheit.

  5. Diagnostics and Control of Natural Gas-Fired furnaces via Flame Image Analysis using Machine Vision & Artificial Intelligence Techniques

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shahla Keyvan

    2005-12-01

    A new approach for the detection of real-time properties of flames is used in this project to develop improved diagnostics and controls for natural gas fired furnaces. The system utilizes video images along with advanced image analysis and artificial intelligence techniques to provide virtual sensors in a stand-alone expert shell environment. One of the sensors is a flame sensor encompassing a flame detector and a flame analyzer to provide combustion status. The flame detector can identify any burner that has not fired in a multi-burner furnace. Another sensor is a 3-D temperature profiler. One important aspect of combustion control is product quality. The 3-D temperature profiler of this on-line system is intended to provide a tool for a better temperature control in a furnace to improve product quality. In summary, this on-line diagnostic and control system offers great potential for improving furnace thermal efficiency, lowering NOx and carbon monoxide emissions, and improving product quality. The system is applicable in natural gas-fired furnaces in the glass industry and reheating furnaces used in steel and forging industries.

  6. On use of CO{sub 2} chemiluminescence for combustion metrics in natural gas fired reciprocating engines.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gupta, S. B.; Bihari, B.; Biruduganti, M.; Sekar, R.; Zigan, J.

    2011-01-01

    Flame chemiluminescence is widely acknowledged to be an indicator of heat release rate in premixed turbulent flames that are representative of gas turbine combustion. Though heat release rate is an important metric for evaluating combustion strategies in reciprocating engine systems, its correlation with flame chemiluminescence is not well studied. To address this gap an experimental study was carried out in a single-cylinder natural gas fired reciprocating engine that could simulate turbocharged conditions with exhaust gas recirculation. Crank angle resolved spectra (266-795 nm) of flame luminosity were measured for various operational conditions by varying the ignition timing for MBT conditions and by holding the speed at 1800 rpm and Brake Mean effective Pressure (BMEP) at 12 bar. The effect of dilution on CO*{sub 2}chemiluminescence intensities was studied, by varying the global equivalence ratio (0.6-1.0) and by varying the exhaust gas recirculation rate. It was attempted to relate the measured chemiluminescence intensities to thermodynamic metrics of importance to engine research -- in-cylinder bulk gas temperature and heat release rate (HRR) calculated from measured cylinder pressure signals. The peak of the measured CO*{sub 2} chemiluminescence intensities coincided with peak pressures within {+-}2 CAD for all test conditions. For each combustion cycle, the peaks of heat release rate, spectral intensity and temperature occurred in that sequence, well separated temporally. The peak heat release rates preceded the peak chemiluminescent emissions by 3.8-9.5 CAD, whereas the peak temperatures trailed by 5.8-15.6 CAD. Such a temporal separation precludes correlations on a crank-angle resolved basis. However, the peak cycle heat release rates and to a lesser extent the peak cycle temperatures correlated well with the chemiluminescent emission from CO*{sub 2}. Such observations point towards the potential use of flame chemiluminescence to monitor peak bulk gas temperatures as well as peak heat release rates in natural gas fired reciprocating engines.

  7. Accounting for fuel price risk: Using forward natural gas prices instead of gas price forecasts to compare renewable to natural gas-fired generation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bolinger, Mark; Wiser, Ryan; Golove, William

    2003-08-13

    Against the backdrop of increasingly volatile natural gas prices, renewable energy resources, which by their nature are immune to natural gas fuel price risk, provide a real economic benefit. Unlike many contracts for natural gas-fired generation, renewable generation is typically sold under fixed-price contracts. Assuming that electricity consumers value long-term price stability, a utility or other retail electricity supplier that is looking to expand its resource portfolio (or a policymaker interested in evaluating different resource options) should therefore compare the cost of fixed-price renewable generation to the hedged or guaranteed cost of new natural gas-fired generation, rather than to projected costs based on uncertain gas price forecasts. To do otherwise would be to compare apples to oranges: by their nature, renewable resources carry no natural gas fuel price risk, and if the market values that attribute, then the most appropriate comparison is to the hedged cost of natural gas-fired generation. Nonetheless, utilities and others often compare the costs of renewable to gas-fired generation using as their fuel price input long-term gas price forecasts that are inherently uncertain, rather than long-term natural gas forward prices that can actually be locked in. This practice raises the critical question of how these two price streams compare. If they are similar, then one might conclude that forecast-based modeling and planning exercises are in fact approximating an apples-to-apples comparison, and no further consideration is necessary. If, however, natural gas forward prices systematically differ from price forecasts, then the use of such forecasts in planning and modeling exercises will yield results that are biased in favor of either renewable (if forwards < forecasts) or natural gas-fired generation (if forwards > forecasts). In this report we compare the cost of hedging natural gas price risk through traditional gas-based hedging instruments (e.g., futures, swaps, and fixed-price physical supply contracts) to contemporaneous forecasts of spot natural gas prices, with the purpose of identifying any systematic differences between the two. Although our data set is quite limited, we find that over the past three years, forward gas prices for durations of 2-10 years have been considerably higher than most natural gas spot price forecasts, including the reference case forecasts developed by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). This difference is striking, and implies that resource planning and modeling exercises based on these forecasts over the past three years have yielded results that are biased in favor of gas-fired generation (again, presuming that long-term stability is desirable). As discussed later, these findings have important ramifications for resource planners, energy modelers, and policy-makers.

  8. Advanced Turbine Systems Program conceptual design and product development. Task 3.0, Selection of natural gas-fired Advanced Turbine System

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1994-12-01

    This report presents results of Task 3 of the Westinghouse ATS Phase II program. Objective of Task 3 was to analyze and evaluate different cycles for the natural gas-fired Advanced Turbine Systems in order to select one that would achieve all ATS program goals. About 50 cycles (5 main types) were evaluated on basis of plant efficiency, emissions, cost of electricity, reliability-availability-maintainability (RAM), and program schedule requirements. The advanced combined cycle was selected for the ATS plant; it will incorporate an advanced gas turbine engine as well as improvements in the bottoming cycle and generator. Cost and RAM analyses were carried out on 6 selected cycle configurations and compared to the baseline plant. Issues critical to the Advanced Combined Cycle are discussed; achievement of plant efficiency and cost of electricity goals will require higher firing temperatures and minimized cooling of hot end components, necessitating new aloys/materials/coatings. Studies will be required in combustion, aerodynamic design, cooling design, leakage control, etc.

  9. Estimated size and performance of a natural gas fired duplex Stirling for domestic refrigeration applications

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Berchowitz, D.M. ); Shonder, J. )

    1991-01-01

    Calibrated calculations are used to size an integrated Stirling cooler and engine (Duplex configuration). Fuel for the engine is natural gas and the working fluid is helium. The potential exists for long life and low noise. Performance is shown to be very competitive when compared to standard vapor compression systems. 10 refs., 8 figs., 1 tab.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Thies, R.M.; Bahnfleth, W.

    1998-01-01

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

  11. Economic feasibility analysis of distributed electric power generation based upon the natural gas-fired fuel cell. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-03-01

    The final report provides a summary of results of the Cost of Ownership Model and the circumstances under which a distributed fuel cell is economically viable. The analysis is based on a series of micro computer models estimate the capital and operations cost of a fuel cell central utility plant configuration. Using a survey of thermal and electrical demand profiles, the study defines a series of energy user classes. The energy user class demand requirements are entered into the central utility plant model to define the required size the fuel cell capacity and all supporting equipment. The central plant model includes provisions that enables the analyst to select optional plant features that are most appropriate to a fuel cell application, and that are cost effective. The model permits the choice of system features that would be suitable for a large condominium complex or a residential institution such as a hotel, boarding school or prison. Other applications are also practical; however, such applications have a higher relative demand for thermal energy, a characteristic that is well-suited to a fuel cell application with its free source of hot water or steam. The analysis combines the capital and operation from the preceding models into a Cost of Ownership Model to compute the plant capital and operating costs as a function of capacity and principal features and compares these estimates to the estimated operating cost of the same central plant configuration without a fuel cell.

  12. Residential Gas-Fired Adsorption HPWH | Department of Energy

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

    Residential Gas-Fired Adsorption HPWH Gas-fired adsorption heat pump water heater prototype. Image credit: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Gas-fired adsorption heat pump water ...

  13. Apples with apples: accounting for fuel price risk in comparisons of gas-fired and renewable generation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bolinger, Mark; Wiser, Ryan

    2003-12-18

    For better or worse, natural gas has become the fuel of choice for new power plants being built across the United States. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), natural gas combined-cycle and combustion turbine power plants accounted for 96% of the total generating capacity added in the US between 1999 and 2002--138 GW out of a total of 144 GW. Looking ahead, the EIA expects that gas-fired technology will account for 61% of the 355 GW new generating capacity projected to come on-line in the US up to 2025, increasing the nationwide market share of gas-fired generation from 18% in 2002 to 22% in 2025. While the data are specific to the US, natural gas-fired generation is making similar advances in other countries as well. Regardless of the explanation for (or interpretation of) the empirical findings, however, the basic implications remain the same: one should not blindly rely on gas price forecasts when comparing fixed-price renewable with variable-price gas-fired generation contracts. If there is a cost to hedging, gas price forecasts do not capture and account for it. Alternatively, if the forecasts are at risk of being biased or out of tune with the market, then one certainly would not want to use them as the basis for resource comparisons or investment decisions if a more certain source of data (forwards) existed. Accordingly, assuming that long-term price stability is valued, the most appropriate way to compare the levelized cost of these resources in both cases would be to use forward natural gas price data--i.e. prices that can be locked in to create price certainty--as opposed to uncertain natural gas price forecasts. This article suggests that had utilities and analysts in the US done so over the sample period from November 2000 to November 2003, they would have found gas-fired generation to be at least 0.3-0.6 cents/kWh more expensive (on a levelized cost basis) than otherwise thought. With some renewable resources, in particular wind power, now largely competitive with gas-fired generation in the US (including the impact of the federal production tax credit and current high gas prices), a margin of 0.3-0.6 cents/kWh may in some cases be enough to sway resource decisions in favor of renewables.

  14. Stirling engines for gas fired micro-cogen and cooling

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lane, N.W.; Beale, W.T.

    1996-12-31

    This paper describes the design and performance of free-piston Stirling engine-alternators particularly suited for use as natural gas fired micro-cogen and cooling devices. Stirling based cogen systems offer significant potential advantages over internal combustion engines in efficiency, to maintain higher efficiencies at lower power levels than than combustion engines significantly expands the potential for micro-cogen. System cost reduction and electric prices higher than the U.S. national average will have a far greater effect on commercial success than any further increase in Stirling engine efficiency. There exist niche markets where Stirling engine efficiency. There exist niche markets where Stirling based cogen systems are competitive. Machines of this design are being considered for production in the near future as gas-fired units for combined heat and power in sufficiently large quantities to assure competitive prices for the final unit.

  15. Gas-Fired Reciprocating Engines

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The reciprocating, or piston-driven, engine is a widespread and well-known technology. Also called internal combustion engines, reciprocating engines require fuel, air, compression, and a combustion source to function. Depending on the ignition source, they generally fall into two categories: (1) spark-ignited engines, typically fueled by gasoline or natural gas, and (2) compression-ignited engines, typically fueled by diesel oil fuel.

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

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

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

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

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

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

  18. Natural Gas Weekly Update

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  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. Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Market Centers and Hubs: A 2003 Update EIA Home > Natural Gas > Natural Gas Analysis Publications Natural Gas Market Centers and Hubs: A 2003 Update Printer-Friendly Version "This special report looks at the current status of market centers/hubs in today's natural gas marketplace, examining their role and their importance to natural gas shippers, marketers, pipelines, and others involved in the transportation of natural gas over the North American pipeline network. Questions or

  2. 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...

  3. Gas-Fired Distributed Energy Resource Technology Characterizations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Goldstein, L.; Hedman, B.; Knowles, D.; Freedman, S. I.; Woods, R.; Schweizer, T.

    2003-11-01

    The U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) is directing substantial programs in the development and encouragement of new energy technologies. Among them are renewable energy and distributed energy resource technologies. As part of its ongoing effort to document the status and potential of these technologies, DOE EERE directed the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to lead an effort to develop and publish Distributed Energy Technology Characterizations (TCs) that would provide both the department and energy community with a consistent and objective set of cost and performance data in prospective electric-power generation applications in the United States. Toward that goal, DOE/EERE - joined by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) - published the Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations in December 1997.As a follow-up, DOE EERE - joined by the Gas Research Institute - is now publishing this document, Gas-Fired Distributed Energy Resource Technology Characterizations.

  4. "NATURAL GAS PROCESSING PLANT SURVEY"

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

    ... connected to the plant. (Please check all that apply.)" "Name:" "Capacity (list amount and check units):",,,..." MMcfDay",,,,," BblsDay" "Pipeline ...

  5. California Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million...

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

    California Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 ... Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption California Natural Gas Consumption by End Use ...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption ... Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption California Natural Gas Consumption by ...

  7. 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...

  8. 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

  9. Ohio Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 2,211 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

  10. Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  11. Montana Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  12. Utah Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  13. Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 1,507,142 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

  14. 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

  15. Michigan Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  16. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 1,112,510 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

  17. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  18. Laboratory Evaluation of Gas-Fired Tankless and Storage Water Heater

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Approaches to Combination Water and Space Heating (Technical Report) | SciTech Connect Technical Report: Laboratory Evaluation of Gas-Fired Tankless and Storage Water Heater Approaches to Combination Water and Space Heating Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Laboratory Evaluation of Gas-Fired Tankless and Storage Water Heater Approaches to Combination Water and Space Heating Homebuilders are exploring more cost effective combined space and water heating systems (combo systems) with

  19. Laboratory Evaluation of Gas-Fired Tankless and Storage Water Heater

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Approaches to Combination Water and Space Heating (Technical Report) | SciTech Connect Technical Report: Laboratory Evaluation of Gas-Fired Tankless and Storage Water Heater Approaches to Combination Water and Space Heating Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Laboratory Evaluation of Gas-Fired Tankless and Storage Water Heater Approaches to Combination Water and Space Heating Homebuilders are exploring more cost-effective combined space and water heating systems (combo systems) with

  20. Texas Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Texas Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 294,879 284,013 270,227 1990's 268,181 269,411 292,990 297,516 306,376 325,785 329,287 332,077 320,922 314,598 2000's 315,906 314,858 317,446 320,786 322,242 322,999 329,918 326,812 324,671 313,384 2010's 312,277 314,041 314,811 314,036 317,217 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  1. Alabama Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Alabama Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 53 54,306 55,400 56,822 1990's 56,903 57,265 58,068 57,827 60,320 60,902 62,064 65,919 76,467 64,185 2000's 66,193 65,794 65,788 65,297 65,223 65,294 66,337 65,879 65,313 67,674 2010's 68,163 67,696 67,252 67,136 67,806 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  2. Alaska Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Alaska Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 11 11,484 11,649 11,806 1990's 11,921 12,071 12,204 12,359 12,475 12,584 12,732 12,945 13,176 13,409 2000's 13,711 14,002 14,342 14,502 13,999 14,120 14,384 13,408 12,764 13,215 2010's 12,998 13,027 13,133 13,246 13,399 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  3. Florida Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Florida Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 41 42,376 43,178 43,802 1990's 43,674 45,012 45,123 47,344 47,851 46,459 47,578 48,251 46,778 50,052 2000's 50,888 53,118 53,794 55,121 55,324 55,479 55,259 57,320 58,125 59,549 2010's 60,854 61,582 63,477 64,772 67,460 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  4. Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Louisiana Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 67,382 66,472 64,114 1990's 62,770 61,574 61,030 62,055 62,184 62,930 62,101 62,270 63,029 62,911 2000's 62,710 62,241 62,247 63,512 60,580 58,409 57,097 57,127 57,066 58,396 2010's 58,562 58,749 63,381 59,147 58,611 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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...

  6. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore - Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids...

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

    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...

  7. New Mexico - East Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves...

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

    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...

  8. California - Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids...

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

    Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) California - Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 ...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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 ...

  10. California - San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids...

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

    Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) California - San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 ...

  11. California Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic...

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

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production ... Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent California Natural Gas Plant ...

  12. California - Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids...

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

    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 ...

  13. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected ... PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected ...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  19. Natural Gas Weekly Update, Printer-Friendly Version

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  20. California Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million...

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

    Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) California Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved ... Natural Gas Liquids Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 California Natural Gas Liquids Proved ...

  1. Natural Gas Plant Liquids Proved Reserves

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

    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

  2. Gas Fired Test System For Stirling Engines. (Conference) | SciTech Connect

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Gas Fired Test System For Stirling Engines. Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Gas Fired Test System For Stirling Engines. Abstract not provided. Authors: Lloyd, Jimmy ; John Lawler Publication Date: 2007-10-01 OSTI Identifier: 1148030 Report Number(s): SAND2007-6644C 522685 DOE Contract Number: DE-AC04-94AL85000 Resource Type: Conference Resource Relation: Conference: Energy Sustainability 2007 held June 27-30, 2007 in Long Beach, CA.; Related Information: Proposed for presentation at

  3. California Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  4. California Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

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

    Plant Liquids Production Extracted in California (Million Cubic Feet) California Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in California (Million Cubic Feet) Decade ...

  5. Alabama Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

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

    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...

  6. 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...

  7. Gas-Fired Boilers and Furnaces | Department of Energy

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

    Natural gas supplies depend on having a natural gas distribution system in your area, and ... Steam boilers benefit from vent dampers more than hot water boilers, and bigger boilers ...

  8. Gas-Fired Boilers and Furnaces | Department of Energy

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

    A residential natural gas meter. A residential natural gas meter. What does this mean for me? Your gas boiler or furnace may be oversized, particularly if you've upgraded the...

  9. California Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) California Federal Offshore ... Natural Gas Liquids Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Federal Offshore, Pacific (California) ...

  10. 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...

  11. Residential Gas-Fired Adsorption Heat Pump Water Heater | Department...

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

    of residential natural gas water heating has plateaued at a primary energy factor (EF) of under 1.0, since best-in-class condensing water heaters cannot exceed this value. ...

  12. ,"U.S. Natural Gas Plant Field Production"

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

    Gas Plant Field Production" "Sourcekey","MNGFPUS1","MPPFPUS1","MLPFPUS1","METFPUS1","MPRFPUS1","MBNFPUS1","MBIFPUS1" "Date","U.S. Gas Plant Production of Natural Gas Liquids ...

  13. Arizona Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million...

    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...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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 ...

  15. Lower 48 Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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...

  16. Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected...

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

    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...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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...

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

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

    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...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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...

  20. ,"Utah and Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future...

    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...

  1. Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

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

    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...

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

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

    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...

  3. Louisiana--South Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected...

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

    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...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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...

  5. 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...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    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 ...

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

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

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

  11. 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...

  12. ,"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...

  13. Natural Gas Plant Stocks of Natural Gas Liquids

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

    Product: Natural Gas Liquids Pentanes Plus Liquefied Petroleum Gases Ethane Propane Normal Butane Isobutane Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History...

  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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption South Dakota Natural Gas Consumption by End Use Plant Fuel Consumption of Natural Gas

  15. Development and Validation of a Gas-Fired Residential Heat Pump Water Heater - Final Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Michael Garrabrant; Roger Stout; Paul Glanville; Janice Fitzgerald; Chris Keinath

    2013-01-21

    For gas-fired residential water heating, the U.S. and Canada is predominantly supplied by minimum efficiency storage water heaters with Energy Factors (EF) in the range of 0.59 to 0.62. Higher efficiency and higher cost ($700 - $2,000) options serve about 15% of the market, but still have EFs below 1.0, ranging from 0.65 to 0.95. To develop a new class of water heating products that exceeds the traditional limit of thermal efficiency, the project team designed and demonstrated a packaged water heater driven by a gas-fired ammonia-water absorption heat pump. This gas-fired heat pump water heater can achieve EFs of 1.3 or higher, at a consumer cost of $2,000 or less. Led by Stone Mountain Technologies Inc. (SMTI), with support from A.O. Smith, the Gas Technology Institute (GTI), and Georgia Tech, the cross-functional team completed research and development tasks including cycle modeling, breadboard evaluation of two cycles and two heat exchanger classes, heat pump/storage tank integration, compact solution pump development, combustion system specification, and evaluation of packaged prototype GHPWHs. The heat pump system extracts low grade heat from the ambient air and produces high grade heat suitable for heating water in a storage tank for domestic use. Product features that include conventional installation practices, standard footprint and reasonable economic payback, position the technology to gain significant market penetration, resulting in a large reduction of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions from domestic hot water production.

  16. Pennsylvania-Ohio Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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"

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

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (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...

  1. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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...

  2. Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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...

  3. 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...

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

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

    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 ...

  5. 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...

  6. 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...

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

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

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

  8. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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...

  9. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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...

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

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (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...

  11. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production ...

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

    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...

  12. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas...

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

    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...

  13. Comparison of AEO 2009 Natural Gas Price Forecast to NYMEX Futures Prices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bolinger, Mark; Wiser, Ryan

    2009-01-28

    On December 17, 2008, the reference-case projections from Annual Energy Outlook 2009 (AEO 2009) were posted on the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) web site. We at LBNL have, in the past, compared the EIA's reference-case long-term natural gas price forecasts from the AEO series to contemporaneous natural gas prices that can be locked in through the forward market, with the goal of better understanding fuel price risk and the role that renewables can play in mitigating such risk. As such, we were curious to see how the latest AEO reference-case gas price forecast compares to the NYMEX natural gas futures strip. This brief memo presents our findings. Note that this memo pertains only to natural gas fuel price risk (i.e., the risk that natural gas prices might differ over the life of a gas-fired generation asset from what was expected when the decision to build the gas-fired unit was made). We do not take into consideration any of the other distinct attributes of gas-fired and renewable generation, such as dispatchability (or lack thereof), differences in capital costs and O&M expenses, or environmental externalities. A comprehensive comparison of different resource types--which is well beyond the scope of this memo--would need to account for differences in all such attributes, including fuel price risk. Furthermore, our analysis focuses solely on natural-gas-fired generation (as opposed to coal-fired or nuclear generation, for example), for several reasons: (1) price volatility has been more of a concern for natural gas than for other fuels used to generate power; (2) for environmental and other reasons, natural gas has, in recent years, been the fuel of choice among power plant developers; and (3) natural gas-fired generators often set the market clearing price in competitive wholesale power markets throughout the United States. That said, a more-complete analysis of how renewables mitigate fuel price risk would also need to consider coal, uranium, and other fuel prices. Finally, we caution readers about drawing inferences or conclusions based solely on this memo in isolation: to place the information contained herein within its proper context, we strongly encourage readers interested in this issue to read through our previous, more-detailed studies, available at http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/reports/53587.pdf or http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/54751.pdf.

  14. Comparison of AEO 2008 Natural Gas Price Forecast to NYMEX Futures Prices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bolinger, Mark A; Bolinger, Mark; Wiser, Ryan

    2008-01-07

    On December 12, 2007, the reference-case projections from Annual Energy Outlook 2008 (AEO 2008) were posted on the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) web site. We at LBNL have, in the past, compared the EIA's reference-case long-term natural gas price forecasts from the AEO series to contemporaneous natural gas prices that can be locked in through the forward market, with the goal of better understanding fuel price risk and the role that renewables can play in mitigating such risk. As such, we were curious to see how the latest AEO reference-case gas price forecast compares to the NYMEX natural gas futures strip. This brief memo presents our findings. Note that this memo pertains only to natural gas fuel price risk (i.e., the risk that natural gas prices might differ over the life of a gas-fired generation asset from what was expected when the decision to build the gas-fired unit was made). We do not take into consideration any of the other distinct attributes of gas-fired and renewable generation, such as dispatchability (or lack thereof) or environmental externalities. A comprehensive comparison of different resource types--which is well beyond the scope of this memo--would need to account for differences in all such attributes, including fuel price risk. Furthermore, our analysis focuses solely on natural-gas-fired generation (as opposed to coal-fired generation, for example), for several reasons: (1) price volatility has been more of a concern for natural gas than for other fuels used to generate power; (2) for environmental and other reasons, natural gas has, in recent years, been the fuel of choice among power plant developers (though its appeal has diminished somewhat as prices have increased); and (3) natural gas-fired generators often set the market clearing price in competitive wholesale power markets throughout the United States. That said, a more-complete analysis of how renewables mitigate fuel price risk would also need to consider coal and other fuel prices. Finally, we caution readers about drawing inferences or conclusions based solely on this memo in isolation: to place the information contained herein within its proper context, we strongly encourage readers interested in this issue to read through our previous, more-detailed studies, available at http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/reports/53587.pdf or http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/54751.pdf.

  15. Wyoming-Colorado Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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. Pennsylvania-Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  18. South Dakota Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  19. Tennessee-Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. Michigan-Michigan Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  3. Mississippi-Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  4. Ohio-Ohio Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  5. Gulf of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  6. West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 143,468 137,740 139,592 189,278 315,229 867,111 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 6,514 6,384 6,407 8,010 14,195 41,116 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 8,786 8,607 8,627 10,888 19,564 57,582 1967

  7. New 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) 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

  8. North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  9. Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P.: Ammonia Plant Greatly Reduces Natural...

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

    Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P.: Ammonia Plant Greatly Reduces Natural Gas Consumption After Energy Assessment Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P.: Ammonia Plant Greatly Reduces Natural Gas ...

  10. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption

  11. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Processing NGPL

  12. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural

  13. Texas Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7 (Million Cubic Feet)

    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 Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Texas Offshore Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

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

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

  15. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Fuel

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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.

  20. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous

  1. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  2. Alabama (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) 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

  3. Alaska (with Total 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) 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

  4. California (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) 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 =

  5. California--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) 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.

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

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

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, 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

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

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

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, 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

  8. 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:

  9. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Utah-Wyoming

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Montana-Wyoming

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

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

    Field Production: Natural Gas Liquids " ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Natural Gas Plant Field Production: Natural Gas Liquids ",16,"Monthly","2/2016","1/15/1981" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel

  15. EIS-0308: Southpoint Power Plant Project

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    This EIS analyzes the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs’ proposed lease of acreage on the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation in Mohave County, Arizona for development of a natural gas-fired 500 megawatt combined cycle power plant. DOE's Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) is a cooperating agency, and the plant would supply power to the WAPA grid. The proposed Southpoint power plant would require construction of an off-site substation and two 230 kV transmission lines in order to wheel power to WAPA’s distribution grid. An Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed substation and transmission line was prepared with the Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management as lead agency and WAPA as a cooperating agency, and a Finding of No Significant Impact was approved on December 2, 1997.

  16. 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

  17. 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 =

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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 =

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Wyoming-Wyoming

  5. Texas Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Oklahoma

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) 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 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 8,718 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Texas Onshore-Oklahoma

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) 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 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 790,721 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Texas Onshore-Texas

  7. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Florida-Florida

  8. 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

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

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

    Barrels) Liquids, 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

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

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

    Barrels) Liquids, 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

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

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

    Barrels) Liquids, 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

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

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

    Barrels) Liquids, 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

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

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

    Barrels) Liquids, 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.

  14. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring

  15. 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: 4/29/2016 Next

  16. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Pennsylvania-Ohio

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

    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 =

  18. 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

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

    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.

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

    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

  1. Louisiana--North Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based 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.

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

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  4. Lower 48 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

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

    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

  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, Reserves Based

    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. 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:

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  11. 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: 4/29/2016 Next

  12. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) 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 disclosure of individual company data.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) 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 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 6 1980's 6 6 5 5 6 7 6 6 7 7 1990's 7 7 7 7 6 4 4 4 4 4 2000's 6 6 6 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 2010's 5 5 8 10 41 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Mississippi (Million Cubic Feet) 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 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 9,793 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Gulf of

  16. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  17. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Kentucky-West Virginia

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Louisiana Onshore-Texas

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Montana-North Dakota

  20. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Oklahoma

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Oklahoma-Oklahoma

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Oklahoma-Texas

  2. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in West

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  3. ,"U.S. Natural Gas Plant Processing"

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

    Processing" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Natural Gas Plant Processing",3,"Annual",2013,"6/30/1930" ,"Release Date:","9/30/2014" ,"Next Release Date:","10/31/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","ng_prod_pp_dcu_nus_a.xls"

  4. 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

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

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

    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 1980's 123,847 122,272 113,937 113,093 126,712 118,683 128,759 1990's 166,120 172,035 170,734 165,507 158,826 154,721 153,039 157,013 153,966 144,544 2000's 144,971 128,836 133,427 123,383 127,356 133,306 140,414 139,262 142,476 152,948 2010's 151,818 155,358 171,359 178,682 184,723 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not

  6. 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 1960's 433,684 457,117 447,325 1970's 466,016 448,288 470,105 466,143 448,993 435,571 428,635 421,110 393,819 352,650 1980's 350,312 345,262 356,406 375,849 393,873 383,719 384,693 364,477 357,756 343,233 1990's 342,186 353,737 374,126 385,063 381,020 381,712 398,442 391,174 388,011 372,566 2000's 380,535 355,860

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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 =

  10. 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

  11. 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: 4/29/2016 Next

  12. 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

  13. 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 =

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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 =

  17. 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

  18. 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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  20. 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

  1. 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

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

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) 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 4,541 4,727 5,653

  5. 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

  6. 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:

  7. 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; -- =

  8. 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;

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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 =

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  14. DEVELOPMENT OF FINE PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS AND SPECIATION PROFILES FOR OIL AND GAS-FIRED COMBUSTION SYSTEMS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Glenn C. England; Stephanie Wien; Mingchih O. Chang

    2002-08-01

    This report provides results from the first year of this three-year project to develop dilution measurement technology for characterizing PM2.5 (particles with aerodynamic diameter smaller than 2.5 micrometers) and precursor emissions from stationary combustion sources used in oil, gas and power generation operations. Detailed emission rate and chemical speciation test results for a refinery gas-fired process heater and plans for cogeneration gas turbine tests and pilot-scale tests are presented. Tests were performed using a research dilution sampling apparatus and traditional EPA methods to compare PM2.5 mass and chemical speciation. Test plans are presented for a gas turbine facility that will be tested in the fourth quarter of 2002. A preliminary approach for pilot-scale tests is presented that will help define design constraints for a new dilution sampler design that is smaller, lighter, and less costly to use.

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

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

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

  16. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  20. 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.

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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 ...

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

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

    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 ...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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 ...

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

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

    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 ...

  8. 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...

  9. 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...

  10. ,"Lower 48 States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future...

    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...

  11. ,"Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

    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...

  12. ,"Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

    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...

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

    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...

  14. ,"Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

    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...

  15. ,"North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

    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...

  16. ,"Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

    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...

  17. ,"Miscellaneous States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future...

    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...

  18. ,"Mississippi (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids...

    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...

  19. 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...

  20. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption Gulf of Mexico Natural Gas Consumption by End Use Plant Fuel Consumption of Natural Gas

  1. 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...

  2. 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)...

  3. Ohio-West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2013 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 271 2013-2013 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 14 2013-2013

  4. 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...

  5. Advanced turbine systems program conceptual design and product development task 5 -- market study of the gas fired ATS. Topical report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-05-01

    Solar Turbines Incorporated (Solar), in partnership with the Department of Energy, will develop a family of advanced gas turbine-based power systems (ATS) for widespread commercialization within the domestic and international industrial marketplace, and to the rapidly changing electric power generation industry. The objective of the jointly-funded Program is to introduce an ATS with high efficiency, and markedly reduced emissions levels, in high numbers as rapidly as possible following introduction. This Topical Report is submitted in response to the requirements outlined in Task 5 of the Department of Energy METC Contract on Advanced Combustion Systems, Contract No, DE AC21-93MC30246 (Contract), for a Market Study of the Gas Fired Advanced Turbine System. It presents a market study for the ATS proposed by Solar, and will examine both the economic and siting constraints of the ATS compared with competing systems in the various candidate markets. Also contained within this report is an examination and analysis of Solar`s ATS and its ability to compete in future utility and industrial markets, as well as factors affecting the marketability of the ATS.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) (No intransit Receipts) (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas Imports (No intransit Receipts) (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 0 5,774 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Imports (Summary) Mississippi U.S. Natural Gas

  7. South Dakota-North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  8. Texas Onshore-New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  9. 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 ...

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

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

    response rate for this survey exceeded 94 percent as of August 2009. Because of the nature of the information, its value in the competitive industry, and to protect the...

  11. California--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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 ...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

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

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

    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 ...

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

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

    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 ...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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 ...

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

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

    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 ...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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 ...

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

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

    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 ...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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 ...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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 ...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Federal Offshore--Texas Natural Gas Marketed 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 1990's 1,332,883 1,276,099 1,308,154 1,283,493 1,338,413 1,286,539 1,180,967 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Marketed

  4. Understanding the nature of nuclear power plant risk

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Denning, R. S.

    2012-07-01

    This paper describes the evolution of understanding of severe accident consequences from the non-mechanistic assumptions of WASH-740 to WASH-1400, NUREG-1150, SOARCA and today in the interpretation of the consequences of the accident at Fukushima. As opposed to the general perception, the radiological human health consequences to members of the Japanese public from the Fukushima accident will be small despite meltdowns at three reactors and loss of containment integrity. In contrast, the radiation-related societal impacts present a substantial additional economic burden on top of the monumental task of economic recovery from the nonnuclear aspects of the earthquake and tsunami damage. The Fukushima accident provides additional evidence that we have mis-characterized the risk of nuclear power plant accidents to ourselves and to the public. The human health risks are extremely small even to people living next door to a nuclear power plant. The principal risk associated with a nuclear power plant accident involves societal impacts: relocation of people, loss of land use, loss of contaminated products, decontamination costs and the need for replacement power. Although two of the three probabilistic safety goals of the NRC address societal risk, the associated quantitative health objectives in reality only address individual human health risk. This paper describes the types of analysis that would address compliance with the societal goals. (authors)

  5. West Virginia-West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 116,955 189,278 315,229 867,111 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 8,010 14,195 41,116 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 57,582 2014

  6. Pennsylvania-West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  7. California Onshore-California Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 180,648 169,203 164,401 162,413 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 9,923 10,641 9,597 ...

  8. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Field Production

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

    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 ...

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. Louisiana Offshore-Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  12. 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...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves (Million Barrels) Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Alabama (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, 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 193 167 158 166 152 143 139 132 130 130 1990's 122 110 118 103 91 72 67 59 50 50 2000's 46 32 29 27 21 30 15 21 14 16 2010's 18 19 18 14 13 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana (with State Offshore) Shale Proved Reserves (Billion 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 6 858 9,307 2010's 20,070 21,950 13,523 11,483 12,792 - = 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: Shale Natural Gas Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31

  15. Modern plant metabolomics: Advanced natural product gene discoveries, improved technologies, and future prospects

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sumner, Lloyd W.; Lei, Zhentian; Nikolau, Basil J.; Saito, Kazuki

    2014-10-24

    Plant metabolomics has matured and modern plant metabolomics has accelerated gene discoveries and the elucidation of a variety of plant natural product biosynthetic pathways. This study highlights specific examples of the discovery and characterization of novel genes and enzymes associated with the biosynthesis of natural products such as flavonoids, glucosinolates, terpenoids, and alkaloids. Additional examples of the integration of metabolomics with genome-based functional characterizations of plant natural products that are important to modern pharmaceutical technology are also reviewed. This article also provides a substantial review of recent technical advances in mass spectrometry imaging, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging, integrated LC-MS-SPE-NMR for metabolite identifications, and x-ray crystallography of microgram quantities for structural determinations. The review closes with a discussion on the future prospects of metabolomics related to crop species and herbal medicine.

  16. Modern plant metabolomics: Advanced natural product gene discoveries, improved technologies, and future prospects

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

    Sumner, Lloyd W.; Lei, Zhentian; Nikolau, Basil J.; Saito, Kazuki

    2014-10-24

    Plant metabolomics has matured and modern plant metabolomics has accelerated gene discoveries and the elucidation of a variety of plant natural product biosynthetic pathways. This study highlights specific examples of the discovery and characterization of novel genes and enzymes associated with the biosynthesis of natural products such as flavonoids, glucosinolates, terpenoids, and alkaloids. Additional examples of the integration of metabolomics with genome-based functional characterizations of plant natural products that are important to modern pharmaceutical technology are also reviewed. This article also provides a substantial review of recent technical advances in mass spectrometry imaging, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging, integrated LC-MS-SPE-NMR formore » metabolite identifications, and x-ray crystallography of microgram quantities for structural determinations. The review closes with a discussion on the future prospects of metabolomics related to crop species and herbal medicine.« less

  17. West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in West

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Elements) Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) West Virginia Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 31,283 33,192 33,880 1990's 32,785 32,755 33,289 33,611 33,756 36,144 33,837 33,970 35,362 35,483 2000's 41,949 35,607 35,016 35,160 34,932 36,635 34,748 34,161 34,275 34,044 2010's 34,063 34,041 34,078 34,283 34,339 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Wyoming Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 15,342 15,093 14,012 1990's 13,767 14,931 15,064 15,315 15,348 15,580 17,036 15,907 16,171 16,317 2000's 16,366 16,027 16,170 17,164 17,490 17,904 18,016 18,062 19,286 19,843 2010's 19,977 20,146 20,387 20,617 20,894 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  19. Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Tennessee

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 112 102 103 2 0 1999 6 0 0 0 143 107 76 104 105 57 0 0 2000 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 114 86 21 2001 0 0 0 103 113 32 63 47 62 100 32 4 2002 50 3 6 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 42 76 75 95 2 46 0 0 2004 2 0 0 33 32 46 63 55 6 25 0 0 2005

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Billion Cubic Feet) Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana - North Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 2,869 1980's 3,160 3,358 2,988 3,008 2,546 2,650 2,567 2,350 2,442 2,705 1990's 2,640 2,435 2,363 2,376 2,599 2,863 3,189 3,156 2,943 3,127 2000's 3,344 3,927 4,283 5,137 5,841 6,768 6,795 6,437 7,966 17,273 2010's 26,136

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Marketed 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 1990's 138,101 157,011 159,513 94,044 191,092 179,569 191,837 163,406 2000's 140,639 151,592 135,137 130,772 126,980 106,437 96,269 71,743 85,603 75,885 2010's 69,574 70,957 73,244 77,750 61,662 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  2. Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Arkansas

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Arkansas Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 60 60,355 61,630 61,848 1990's 61,530 61,731 62,221 62,952 63,821 65,490 67,293 68,413 69,974 71,389 2000's 72,933 71,875 71,530 71,016 70,655 69,990 69,475 69,495 69,144 69,043 2010's 67,987 67,815 68,765 68,791 69,011 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  3. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Colorado

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Colorado Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 108 109,770 110,769 112,004 1990's 112,661 113,945 114,898 115,924 115,994 118,502 121,221 123,580 125,178 129,041 2000's 131,613 134,393 136,489 138,621 138,543 137,513 139,746 141,420 144,719 145,624 2010's 145,460 145,837 145,960 150,145 150,235 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  4. Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kentucky

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Kentucky Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 63,024 63,971 65,041 1990's 67,086 68,461 69,466 71,998 73,562 74,521 76,079 77,693 80,147 80,283 2000's 81,588 81,795 82,757 84,110 84,493 85,243 85,236 85,210 84,985 83,862 2010's 84,707 84,977 85,129 85,999 85,318 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  5. Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Michigan

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Michigan Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 178,469 185,961 191,474 1990's 195,766 198,890 201,561 204,453 207,629 211,817 214,843 222,726 224,506 227,159 2000's 230,558 225,109 247,818 246,123 246,991 253,415 254,923 253,139 252,382 252,017 2010's 249,309 249,456 249,994 250,994 253,127 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  6. Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Mississippi

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Mississippi Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 43,362 44,170 44,253 1990's 43,184 43,693 44,313 45,310 43,803 45,444 46,029 47,311 45,345 47,620 2000's 50,913 51,109 50,468 50,928 54,027 54,936 55,741 56,155 55,291 50,713 2010's 50,537 50,636 50,689 50,153 50,238 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Montana Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 21,382 22,246 22,219 1990's 23,331 23,185 23,610 24,373 25,349 26,329 26,374 27,457 28,065 28,424 2000's 29,215 29,429 30,250 30,814 31,357 31,304 31,817 32,472 33,008 33,731 2010's 34,002 34,305 34,504 34,909 35,205 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Elements) Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) North Dakota Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 11,905 12,104 12,454 1990's 12,742 12,082 12,353 12,650 12,944 13,399 13,789 14,099 14,422 15,050 2000's 15,531 15,740 16,093 16,202 16,443 16,518 16,848 17,013 17,284 17,632 2010's 17,823 18,421 19,089 19,855 20,687 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Oklahoma Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 87,824 86,666 86,172 1990's 85,790 86,744 87,120 88,181 87,494 88,358 89,852 90,284 89,711 80,986 2000's 80,558 79,045 80,029 79,733 79,512 78,726 78,745 93,991 94,247 94,314 2010's 92,430 93,903 94,537 95,385 96,004 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  10. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Pennsylvania

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Elements) Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 166,901 172,615 178,545 1990's 186,772 191,103 193,863 198,299 206,812 209,245 214,340 215,057 216,519 223,732 2000's 228,037 225,911 226,957 227,708 231,051 233,132 231,540 234,597 233,462 233,334 2010's 233,751 233,588 235,049 237,922 239,681 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not

  11. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Field Production

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

    Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 View History Natural Gas Liquids 100,283 106,269 103,071 104,629 102,401 96,538 1981-2016 Pentanes Plus 13,829 13,963 12,798 12,666 12,323 11,708 1981-2016 Liquefied Petroleum Gases 86,454 92,306 90,273 91,963 90,078 84,830 1981-2016 Ethane 32,977 35,905 36,534 37,506 35,939 33,304 1981-2016 Propane 34,187 36,192 34,569 35,143 34,929 33,311 1981-2016 Normal Butane 10,103 10,387 10,054 9,735 9,656 9,463 1981-2016 Isobutane 9,187 9,822 9,116 9,579 9,554

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Thousand Cubic Feet) Price (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas Pipeline and Distribution Use Price (Dollars per Thousand 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 0.21 0.20 0.20 1970's 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.27 0.29 0.54 0.58 0.83 0.98 1.11 1980's 1.78 2.12 2.56 3.07 2.88 2.97 2.73 2.68 2.53 2.17 1990's 2.06 2.29 2.44 1.97 1.88 1.66 2.63 2.68 2.27 2.48 2000's 3.12 3.94 NA -- -- -- - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA

  13. Nuclear | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    High construction costs for nuclear plants, especially relative to natural-gas-fired plants, make other options for new nuclear capacity uneconomical even in the alternative...

  14. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  19. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas

  20. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas

  1. ,"U.S. Total Imports Natural Gas Plant Processing"

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

    Natural Gas Plant Processing" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Total Imports Natural Gas Plant Processing",1,"Monthly","2/2016","1/15/1973" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  2. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Sales (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Sales (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Sales (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 906 448 458 403 442 440 931 670 282 - = 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 Sales

  3. RETRAN-02 comparison of natural circulation flow rates at Babcock and Wilcox 177-FA plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Simms, N.T.

    1985-07-01

    A very important aspect of nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) model development is the process of comparing the computer model results against actual plant responses. Good comparisons will qualify the computer model for specific engineering analyses. Flow rates and decay heat power levels were obtained from planned and unplanned natural circulation events that occurred at Arkansas Nuclear One, Crystal River, Davis-Besse, and Oconee nuclear power plants. A oneloop RETRAN model of the Oconee NSSS is used to attain a spectrum of steady-state equilibrium conditions at different power levels of 25, 50, 75, and 100 MW. The benchmark comparisons are respectable. The comparisons also illustrate the ability of the Babcock and Wilcox raised-loop plant to induce a greater natural circulation flow rate.

  4. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release

  5. 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: 4/29/2016

  6. 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

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

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

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

  8. 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 =

  9. 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 =

  10. Natural Circulation in Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants Phenomena, models, and methodology for system reliability assessments

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jose Reyes

    2005-02-14

    In recent years it has been recognized that the application of passive safety systems (i.e., those whose operation takes advantage of natural forces such as convection and gravity), can contribute to simplification and potentially to improved economics of new nuclear power plant designs. In 1991 the IAEA Conference on ''The Safety of Nuclear Power: Strategy for the Future'' noted that for new plants the use of passive safety features is a desirable method of achieving simplification and increasing the reliability of the performance of essential safety functions, and should be used wherever appropriate''.

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

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

    Future Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Federal Offshore--Louisiana and Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 358 336 309 289 297 1990's 261 292 246 255 267 191 199 352 341 403 2000's 487 460 483 347 410 407 390 365 313 301 2010's 340 354 369 292 367 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available;

  12. New York 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) 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 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 508 538 561 1970's 485 460 0 442 340 267 273 278 109 961 1980's 115 80 494 617 840 1,041 957 975 788 604 1990's 840 1,073 965 563 781 1,074 939 778 636 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  13. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring

  14. 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

  15. 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

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

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

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

  17. ,"Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  19. ,"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"

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

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

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

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

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

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

  2. ,"California--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

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

  3. ,"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"

  4. ,"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"

  5. ,"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"

  6. ,"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"

  7. ,"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

  8. ,"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

  9. 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

  10. Natural phenomena hazards evaluation of equipment and piping of Gaseous Diffusion Plant Uranium Enrichment Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Singhal, M.K.; Kincaid, J.H.; Hammond, C.R.; Stockdale, B.I.; Walls, J.C.; Brock, W.R.; Denton, D.R.

    1995-12-31

    In support of the Gaseous Diffusion Plant Safety Analysis Report Upgrade program (GDP SARUP), a natural phenomena hazards evaluation was performed for the main process equipment and piping in the uranium enrichment buildings at Paducah and Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plants. In order to reduce the cost of rigorous analyses, the evaluation methodology utilized a graded approach based on an experience data base collected by SQUG/EPRI that contains information on the performance of industrial equipment and piping during past earthquakes. This method consisted of a screening walkthrough of the facility in combination with the use of engineering judgment and simple calculations. By using these screenings combined with evaluations that contain decreasing conservatism, reductions in the time and cost of the analyses were significant. A team of experienced seismic engineers who were trained in the use of the DOE SQUG/EPRI Walkdown Screening Material was essential to the success of this natural phenomena hazards evaluation.

  11. Validation of a plant dynamics code for 4S - Test analysis of natural circulation behavior

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sebe, F.; Horie, H.; Matsumiya, H.; Fanning, T. H.

    2012-07-01

    A plant transient dynamics code for a sodium-cooled fast reactor was developed by Toshiba. The code is used to evaluate the safety performance of Super-Safe, Small, and Simple reactor (4S) for Anticipated Operational Occurrences (AOOs), Design Basis Accident (DBA) and Beyond DBA (BDBA). The code is currently undergoing verification and validation (V and V). As one of the validation, test analysis of the Shutdown Heat Removal Test (SHRT)-17 performed in the Experimental Breeder Reactor (EBR)-II was conducted. The SHRT-17 is protected loss of flow test. The purpose of this validation is to confirm capability of the code to simulate natural circulation behavior of the plant. As a result, good agreements are shown between the analytical results and the measured data which were available from instrumented subassembly. The detailed validation result of the natural circulation behavior is described in this paper. (authors)

  12. Don`t overlook natural gas cooling equipment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Katzel, J.

    1997-03-01

    If one thought the confusion surrounding chiller specification and operation ended with the availability of CFC-free refrigerant alternatives, think again. Plant engineers involved in the selection and installation of cooling equipment are facing yet another complicated task, this time thanks to deregulation of the electric utility industry. Still in its early stages, deregulation is a process that could take up to a decade. However, deregulation is also bringing about changing pricing structures. Electric power costs may not always be low for everyone. For plants paying $0.02/kwh for electricity, an electric-powered chiller is a must. But those paying $0.35 or $0.40/kwh, even for a few hours, cannot afford NOT to consider something besides an electric-motor-driven chiller. Among the most viable, yet often overlooked, options available is natural gas cooling. Gas cooling equipment gives industrial users the flexibility to choose either gas or electricity to drive their cooling systems. Natural gas cooling is defined here as the use of absorption cooling systems and engine-driven chillers, as alternatives to electric-driven equipment, to deliver chilled water in a conventional manner. Desiccant systems can also be gas fired and are used primarily for providing dry air for process control. Because of their specialized applications, desiccant cooling is not covered in this article.

  13. Naturally occurring arsenic in the groundwater at the Kansas City Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Korte, N.E.

    1990-12-01

    This report describes an investigation concerning the presence of arsenic in concentrations exceeding 0.4 mg/L in the groundwater under the Department of Energy's Kansas City Plant (KCP). The study consisted of four distinct phases: a thorough review of the technical literature, a historical survey of arsenic use at the facility, a laboratory study of existing techniques for determining arsenic speciation, and a field program including water, soil, and sediment sampling. The historical survey and literature review demonstrated that plant activities had not released significant quantities of arsenic to the environment but that similar occurrences of arsenic in alluvial groundwater are widespread in the midwestern United States. Laboratory studies showed that a chromatographic separation technique was necessary to accurately determine arsenic speciation for the KCP groundwater samples. Field studies revealed that naturally occurring reducing conditions prevalent in the subsurface are responsible for dissolving arsenic previously sorbed by iron oxides. Indeed, the data demonstrated that the bulk arsenic concentration of site subsoils and sediments is {approximately}7 mg/kg, whereas the arsenic content of iron oxide subsamples is as high as 84 mg/kg. Literature showed that similar concentrations of arsenic in sediments occur naturally and are capable of producing the levels of arsenic found in groundwater monitoring wells at the KCP. The study concludes, therefore, that the arsenic present in the KCP groundwater is the result of natural phenomena. 44 refs., 8 figs., 14 tabs.

  14. Implications of Lower Natural Gas Prices for Electric Generators in the Southeast, The

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2009-01-01

    This supplement to the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) May 2009 Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO) focuses on changes in the utilization of coal- and natural-gas-fired generation capacity in the electric utility sector as the differential between delivered fuel prices narrows.

  15. Texas 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) 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 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 645,058 711,720 741,902 1970's 769,500 784,773 802,112 828,139 817,194 763,107 729,946 732,428 757,853 717,462 1980's 536,766 505,322 347,846 307,717 326,662 307,759 302,266 355,765 318,922 291,977 1990's 394,605 297,233 293,845 296,423 298,253 333,548 330,547 301,800 330,228 - = No Data

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

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

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

  17. West Virginia Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Future Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Federal Offshore--Louisiana and Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 358 336 309 289 297 1990's 261 292 246 255 267 191 199 352 341 403 2000's 487 460 483 347 410 407 390 365 313 301 2010's 340 354 369 292 367 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  14. Texas--RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) 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 individual

  15. Texas--RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) 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 Available; W =

  16. Texas--RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) 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 of individual

  17. Texas--RRC District 6 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) 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 = Withheld to

  18. Texas--RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) 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 avoid

  19. Texas--RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) 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 Available; W =

  20. Texas--RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) 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 = Withheld to

  1. Texas--RRC District 8A Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) 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 Available; W =

  2. Texas--RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) 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 avoid

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Adjustments (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Adjustments (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 64 1980's 153 231 299 849 -123 426 367 231 11 -277 1990's -83 233 225 102 43 192 474 -15 -361 99 2000's -83 -429 62 -338 273 -89 173 -139 76 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  4. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Based Production (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 580 1980's 572 580 564 568 597 585 569 585 592 566 1990's 574 601 626 635 634 646 688 690 655 697 2000's 710 675 677 611 645 614 629 650 667 714 2010's 745 784 865 931 1,124 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Extensions (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Extensions (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 364 1980's 418 542 375 321 348 337 263 213 268 259 1990's 299 189 190 245 314 432 451 535 383 313 2000's 645 717 612 629 734 863 924 1,030 956 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) New Field Discoveries (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves New Field Discoveries (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 94 1980's 90 131 112 70 55 44 34 39 41 83 1990's 39 25 20 24 54 52 65 114 66 51 2000's 92 138 48 35 26 32 16 30 65 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Decreases (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Revision Decreases (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 726 1980's 639 643 832 781 724 744 807 656 715 1,020 1990's 606 695 545 640 676 691 669 910 1,094 1,321 2000's 724 1,089 951 1,043 1,135 947 1,010 765 1,435 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  8. Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alabama

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) 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 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 7,442 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Gulf of Mexico-Alabama

  9. Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Louisiana

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) 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 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 51,010 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Gulf of Mexico-Louisia

  10. Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) 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 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 7,404 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Gulf of Mexico-Texas

  11. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) 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 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 755 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent New Mexico-Texas

  12. North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in North Dakota

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) North Dakota (Million Cubic Feet) North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in North Dakota (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 48,504 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent North Dakota-North

  13. ,"U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Bcf)"

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

    Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Bcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Bcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  17. Stratified charge and homogeneous charge flowfields in natural gas fueled rotary engines. Interim report on task 2. 1. 7 combustion/stratification studies'

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Abraham, J.

    1988-12-09

    Natural gas stratification and combustion in a rotary engine are studied with a three-dimensional model. The validated model could be employed as a useful tool in selection of optimum spark plug locations, number of spark plugs, spark timings, pocket geometry, and optimization studies of natural gas fired rotary engines.

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

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

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 383,077 389,525 367,572 348,731 408,115 398,180 429,269 1990's 428,657 456,954 460,571 448,822 423,878 427,853 450,033 426,873 401,314 399,509 2000's 404,059 371,141 382,503 363,903 366,341 355,193 358,985 365,323 355,590 362,009 2010's 368,830 384,248 408,316 414,796 425,238 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 5,204 1980's 5,198 5,488 5,620 6,288 6,121 6,491 6,729 6,745 6,849 6,380 1990's 6,284 6,220 6,225 6,030 6,023 6,202 6,516 6,632 6,188 6,503 2000's 6,873 6,595 6,648 6,244 6,707 6,903 7,133 7,648 7,842 8,557 2010's 9,809 10,825 10,777 11,943 15,029 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 6,615 1980's 6,728 7,068 7,221 7,901 7,643 7,944 8,165 8,147 8,238 7,769 1990's 7,586 7,464 7,451 7,222 7,170 7,399 7,823 7,973 7,524 7,906 2000's 8,345 7,993 7,994 7,459 7,928 8,165 8,472 9,143 9,275 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Increases (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Revision Increases (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 677 1980's 743 729 811 847 866 906 1,030 847 1,168 1,143 1990's 827 825 806 764 873 968 844 1,199 1,302 2,048 2000's 1,183 957 982 882 1,232 968 845 1,187 1,192 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  3. Model of a Generic Natural Uranium Conversion Plant ? Suggested Measures to Strengthen International Safeguards

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Raffo-Caiado, Ana Claudia; Begovich, John M; Ferrada, Juan J

    2009-11-01

    This is the final report that closed a joint collaboration effort between DOE and the National Nuclear Energy Commission of Brazil (CNEN). In 2005, DOE and CNEN started a collaborative effort to evaluate measures that can strengthen the effectiveness of international safeguards at a natural uranium conversion plant (NUCP). The work was performed by DOE s Oak Ridge National Laboratory and CNEN. A generic model of a NUCP was developed and typical processing steps were defined. Advanced instrumentation and techniques for verification purposes were identified and investigated. The scope of the work was triggered by the International Atomic Energy Agency s 2003 revised policy concerning the starting point of safeguards at uranium conversion facilities. Prior to this policy only the final products of the uranium conversion plant were considered to be of composition and purity suitable for use in the nuclear fuel cycle and therefore, subject to the IAEA safeguards control. DOE and CNEN have explored options for implementing the IAEA policy, although Brazil understands that the new policy established by the IAEA is beyond the framework of the Quadripartite Agreement of which it is one of the parties, together with Argentina, the Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials (ABACC) and the IAEA. Two technical papers on this subject were published at the 2005 and 2008 INMM Annual Meetings.

  4. Fossil-fuel power plants and power generation: Economic analysis. (Latest citations from the NTIS data base). Published Search

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1992-06-01

    The bibliography contains citations concerning economic analyses and evaluations of utility and industrial fossil-fuel power generation. Coal-fired, oil-fired, and natural gas-fired electric power generating systems are discussed. Specific technologies, experiences, and locations are also considered. (Contains 250 citations and includes a subject term index and title list.)

  5. Fossil-fuel power plants and power generation: Economic analysis. (Latest citations from the NTIS bibliographic database). Published Search

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-10-01

    The bibliography contains citations concerning economic analyses and evaluations of utility and industrial fossil-fuel power generation. Coal-fired, oil-fired, and natural gas-fired electric power generating systems are discussed. Specific technologies, experiences, and locations are also considered. (Contains 50-250 citations and includes a subject term index and title list.) (Copyright NERAC, Inc. 1995)

  6. Fossil-fuel power plants and power generation: Economic analysis. (Latest citations from the NTIS Bibliographic database). Published Search

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-12-01

    The bibliography contains citations concerning economic analyses and evaluations of utility and industrial fossil-fuel power generation. Coal-fired, oil-fired, and natural gas-fired electric power generating systems are discussed. Specific technologies, experiences, and locations are also considered. (Contains 250 citations and includes a subject term index and title list.)

  7. Fossil-fuel power plants and power generation: Economic analysis. (Latest citations from the NTIS bibliographic database). Published Search

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-12-01

    The bibliography contains citations concerning economic analyses and evaluations of utility and industrial fossil-fuel power generation. Coal-fired, oil-fired, and natural gas-fired electric power generating systems are discussed. Specific technologies, experiences, and locations are also considered. (Contains 250 citations and includes a subject term index and title list.)

  8. Fossil-fuel power plants and power generation: Economic analysis. (Latest citations from the NTIS Bibliographic database). Published Search

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1993-09-01

    The bibliography contains citations concerning economic analyses and evaluations of utility and industrial fossil-fuel power generation. Coal-fired, oil-fired, and natural gas-fired electric power generating systems are discussed. Specific technologies, experiences, and locations are also considered. (Contains 250 citations and includes a subject term index and title list.)

  9. Fossil-fuel power plants and power generation: Economic analysis. (Latest citations from the NTIS bibliographic database). Published Search

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1997-02-01

    The bibliography contains citations concerning economic analyses and evaluations of utility and industrial fossil-fuel power generation. Coal-fired, oil-fired, and natural gas-fired electric power generating systems are discussed. Specific technologies, experiences, and locations are also considered. (Contains 50-250 citations and includes a subject term index and title list.) (Copyright NERAC, Inc. 1995)

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

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

    Refinery, Bulk Terminal, and Natural Gas Plant Stocks of Selected Petroleum Products" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Refinery, Bulk Terminal, and Natural Gas Plant Stocks of Selected Petroleum Products",13,"Monthly","2/2016","1/15/1993" ,"Release

  11. Accounting for fuel price risk when comparing renewable togas-fired generation: the role of forward natural gas prices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bolinger, Mark; Wiser, Ryan; Golove, William

    2004-07-17

    Unlike natural gas-fired generation, renewable generation (e.g., from wind, solar, and geothermal power) is largely immune to fuel price risk. If ratepayers are rational and value long-term price stability, then--contrary to common practice--any comparison of the levelized cost of renewable to gas-fired generation should be based on a hedged gas price input, rather than an uncertain gas price forecast. This paper compares natural gas prices that can be locked in through futures, swaps, and physical supply contracts to contemporaneous long-term forecasts of spot gas prices. We find that from 2000-2003, forward gas prices for terms of 2-10 years have been considerably higher than most contemporaneous long-term gas price forecasts. This difference is striking, and implies that comparisons between renewable and gas-fired generation based on these forecasts over this period have arguably yielded results that are biased in favor of gas-fired generation.

  12. Spectroscopic evidence of uranium immobilization in acidic wetlands by natural organic matter and plant roots

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

    Li, Dien; Kaplan, Daniel I.; Chang, Hyun-Shik; Seaman, John C.; Jaffé, Peter R.; Koster van Groos, Paul; Scheckel, Kirk G.; Segre, Carlo U.; Chen, Ning; Jiang, De-Tong; et al

    2015-03-03

    Biogeochemistry of uranium in wetlands plays important roles in U immobilization in storage ponds of U mining and processing facilities but has not been well understood. The objective of this work was to study molecular mechanisms responsible for high U retention by Savannah River Site (SRS) wetland sediments under varying redox and acidic (pH = 2.6–5.8) conditions using U L₃-edge X-ray absorption spectroscopy. Uranium in the SRS wetland sediments existed primarily as U(VI) bonded as a bidentate to carboxylic sites (U–C bond distance at ~2.88 Å), rather than phenolic or other sites of natural organic matter (NOM). In microcosms simulatingmore » the SRS wetland processes, U immobilization on roots was two orders of magnitude higher than on the adjacent brown or more distant white sands in which U was U(VI). Uranium on the roots were both U(IV) and U(VI), which were bonded as a bidentate to carbon, but the U(VI) may also form a U phosphate mineral. After 140 days of air exposure, all U(IV) was re-oxidized to U(VI) but remained as a bidentate bonding to carbon. This study demonstrated NOM and plant roots can highly immobilize U(VI) in the SRS acidic sediments, which has significant implication for the long-term stewardship of U-contaminated wetlands.« less

  13. Spectroscopic evidence of uranium immobilization in acidic wetlands by natural organic matter and plant roots

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Li, Dien; Kaplan, Daniel I.; Chang, Hyun-Shik; Seaman, John C.; Jaffé, Peter R.; Koster van Groos, Paul; Scheckel, Kirk G.; Segre, Carlo U.; Chen, Ning; Jiang, De-Tong; Newville, Matthew; Lanzirotti, Antonio

    2015-03-03

    Biogeochemistry of uranium in wetlands plays important roles in U immobilization in storage ponds of U mining and processing facilities but has not been well understood. The objective of this work was to study molecular mechanisms responsible for high U retention by Savannah River Site (SRS) wetland sediments under varying redox and acidic (pH = 2.6–5.8) conditions using U L?-edge X-ray absorption spectroscopy. Uranium in the SRS wetland sediments existed primarily as U(VI) bonded as a bidentate to carboxylic sites (U–C bond distance at ~2.88 Å), rather than phenolic or other sites of natural organic matter (NOM). In microcosms simulating the SRS wetland processes, U immobilization on roots was two orders of magnitude higher than on the adjacent brown or more distant white sands in which U was U(VI). Uranium on the roots were both U(IV) and U(VI), which were bonded as a bidentate to carbon, but the U(VI) may also form a U phosphate mineral. After 140 days of air exposure, all U(IV) was re-oxidized to U(VI) but remained as a bidentate bonding to carbon. This study demonstrated NOM and plant roots can highly immobilize U(VI) in the SRS acidic sediments, which has significant implication for the long-term stewardship of U-contaminated wetlands.

  14. Spectroscopic evidence of uranium immobilization in acidic wetlands by natural organic matter and plant roots

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Li, Dien; Kaplan, Daniel I.; Chang, Hyun-Shik; Seaman, John C.; Jaffé, Peter R.; Koster van Groos, Paul; Scheckel, Kirk G.; Segre, Carlo U.; Chen, Ning; Jiang, De-Tong; Newville, Matthew; Lanzirotti, Antonio

    2015-03-03

    Biogeochemistry of uranium in wetlands plays important roles in U immobilization in storage ponds of U mining and processing facilities but has not been well understood. The objective of this work was to study molecular mechanisms responsible for high U retention by Savannah River Site (SRS) wetland sediments under varying redox and acidic (pH = 2.6–5.8) conditions using U L₃-edge X-ray absorption spectroscopy. Uranium in the SRS wetland sediments existed primarily as U(VI) bonded as a bidentate to carboxylic sites (U–C bond distance at ~2.88 Å), rather than phenolic or other sites of natural organic matter (NOM). In microcosms simulating the SRS wetland processes, U immobilization on roots was two orders of magnitude higher than on the adjacent brown or more distant white sands in which U was U(VI). Uranium on the roots were both U(IV) and U(VI), which were bonded as a bidentate to carbon, but the U(VI) may also form a U phosphate mineral. After 140 days of air exposure, all U(IV) was re-oxidized to U(VI) but remained as a bidentate bonding to carbon. This study demonstrated NOM and plant roots can highly immobilize U(VI) in the SRS acidic sediments, which has significant implication for the long-term stewardship of U-contaminated wetlands.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  9. ,"Texas--RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas--RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

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

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

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

  11. ,"Alaska (with Total Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  13. ,"Federal Offshore--California 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","Federal Offshore--California Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  14. ,"Federal Offshore--Louisiana and Alabama 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","Federal Offshore--Louisiana and Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  15. ,"Federal Offshore--Texas 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","Federal Offshore--Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

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

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

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

  17. Terra nitrogen Company, L.P.: Ammonia Plant Greatly Reduces Natural...

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

    actively managed its energy use, the Save Energy Now assessment provided new ... plant, they are more likely to extend energy-saving activities to their other facilities. ...

  18. Radiological Impact Associated to Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (TENORM) from Coal-Fired Power Plants Emissions - 13436

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dinis, Maria de Lurdes; Fiuza, Antonio; Soeiro de Carvalho, Jose; Gois, Joaquim; Meira Castro, Ana Cristina

    2013-07-01

    Certain materials used and produced in a wide range of non-nuclear industries contain enhanced activity concentrations of natural radionuclides. In particular, electricity production from coal is one of the major sources of increased human exposure to naturally occurring radioactive materials. A methodology was developed to assess the radiological impact due to natural radiation background. The developed research was applied to a specific case study, the Sines coal-fired power plant, located in the southwest coastline of Portugal. Gamma radiation measurements were carried out with two different instruments: a sodium iodide scintillation detector counter (SPP2 NF, Saphymo) and a gamma ray spectrometer with energy discrimination (Falcon 5000, Canberra). Two circular survey areas were defined within 20 km of the power plant. Forty relevant measurements points were established within the sampling area: 15 urban and 25 suburban locations. Additionally, ten more measurements points were defined, mostly at the 20-km area. The registered gamma radiation varies from 20 to 98.33 counts per seconds (c.p.s.) corresponding to an external gamma exposure rate variable between 87.70 and 431.19 nGy/h. The highest values were measured at locations near the power plant and those located in an area within the 6 and 20 km from the stacks. In situ gamma radiation measurements with energy discrimination identified natural emitting nuclides as well as their decay products (Pb-212, Pb-2142, Ra-226, Th-232, Ac-228, Th-234, Pa-234, U- 235, etc.). According to the results, an influence from the stacks emissions has been identified both qualitatively and quantitatively. The developed methodology accomplished the lack of data in what concerns to radiation rate in the vicinity of Sines coal-fired power plant and consequently the resulting exposure to the nearby population. (authors)

  19. Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P.: Ammonia Plant Greatly Reduces Natural Gas Consumption After Energy Assessment

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This case study describes how Terra Nitrogen Company saved 497,000 MMBtu and $3.5 million yearly after upgrading the steam system in its ammonia plant in Verdigris, Oklahoma.

  20. Managing Natural and Reintroduced Rare Plant Populations within a Large Government Reservation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Carlsen, T M; Paterson, L E; Alfaro, T M

    2009-07-15

    California is home to many large government reservations that have been in existence for decades. Many of these reservations were formed to support various Department of Defense and Department of Energy national defense activities. Often, only a very small percentage of the reservation is actively used for programmatic activities, resulting in large areas of intact habitat. In some cases, this has benefited rare plant populations, as surrounding lands have been developed for residential or industrial use. However, land management activities such as the suppression or active use of fire and other disturbance (such as fire trail grading) can also work to either the detriment or benefit of rare plant populations at these sites. A management regime that is beneficial to the rare plant populations of interest and is at best consistent with existing site programmatic activities, and at a minimum does not impact such activities, has the best potential for a positive outcome. As a result, some species may be 'difficult' while others may be 'easy' to manage in this context, depending on how closely the species biological requirements match the programmatic activities on the reservation. To illustrate, we compare and contrast two rare annual plant species found at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's Site 300. Although several populations of Amsinckia grandiflora have been restored on the site, and all populations are intensively managed, this species continues to decline. In contrast, Blepharizonia plumosa appears to take advantage of the annual controlled burns conducted on the site, and is thriving.

  1. Techno-economic analysis of using corn stover to supply heat and power to a corn ethanol plant - Part 2: Cost of heat and power generation systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mani, Sudhagar; Sokhansanj, Shahabaddine; Togore, Sam; Turhollow Jr, Anthony F

    2010-03-01

    This paper presents a techno-economic analysis of corn stover fired process heating (PH) and the combined heat and power (CHP) generation systems for a typical corn ethanol plant (ethanol production capacity of 170 dam3). Discounted cash flow method was used to estimate both the capital and operating costs of each system and compared with the existing natural gas fired heating system. Environmental impact assessment of using corn stover, coal and natural gas in the heat and/or power generation systems was also evaluated. Coal fired process heating (PH) system had the lowest annual operating cost due to the low fuel cost, but had the highest environmental and human toxicity impacts. The proposed combined heat and power (CHP) generation system required about 137 Gg of corn stover to generate 9.5 MW of electricity and 52.3 MW of process heat with an overall CHP efficiency of 83.3%. Stover fired CHP system would generate an annual savings of 3.6 M$ with an payback period of 6 y. Economics of the coal fired CHP system was very attractive compared to the stover fired CHP system due to lower fuel cost. But the greenhouse gas emissions per Mg of fuel for the coal fired CHP system was 32 times higher than that of stover fired CHP system. Corn stover fired heat and power generation system for a corn ethanol plant can improve the net energy balance and add environmental benefits to the corn to ethanol biorefinery.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Liese, E.; Zitney, S.

    2012-01-01

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves (Million Barrels) Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Calif--Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, 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 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 3 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas (with State Offshore) Shale Proved Reserves (Billion 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 17,256 22,667 28,167 2010's 38,048 49,588 44,778 49,055 54,158 - = 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: Shale Natural Gas Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31

  5. Texas--RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves (Million Barrels) Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, 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 19 1980's 16 20 23 26 22 24 20 32 25 16 1990's 17 14 14 14 12 11 8 12 10 12 2000's 13 14 11 13 15 19 16 17 17 15 2010's 47 229 506 594 706 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  6. Texas--RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves (Million Barrels) Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, 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 54 1980's 52 51 53 57 53 49 53 75 58 73 1990's 49 48 39 57 54 68 79 116 77 74 2000's 69 82 71 72 72 78 75 128 65 74 2010's 75 76 81 63 67 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  7. Texas--RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves (Million Barrels) Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, 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 76 1980's 75 77 85 80 87 86 84 80 74 72 1990's 71 69 65 65 70 70 82 86 96 122 2000's 90 97 91 85 73 71 87 77 79 74 2010's 96 202 181 228 223 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  8. Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Gulf LNG, Mississippi LNG Imports (Price) (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Gulf LNG, Mississippi LNG Imports (Price) (Dollars per Thousand 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 -- -- -- 2010's -- 12.93 -- -- -- - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: U.S. Price of Liquefied Natural Gas

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Utah Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 31,329 32,637 32,966 1990's 34,697 35,627 36,145 37,816 39,183 40,101 40,107 40,689 42,054 43,861 2000's 47,201 47,477 50,202 51,063 51,503 55,174 55,821 57,741 59,502 60,781 2010's 61,976 62,885 63,383 64,114 65,134 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas - RRC District 1 Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 941 1980's 855 1,050 924 1,135 884 1,014 957 844 1,206 1,288 1990's 1,077 1,061 967 731 737 746 969 1,018 1,152 1,232 2000's 1,106 1,066 1,094 1,095 1,229 1,205 1,109 1,101 1,047 1,523 2010's 2,599 6,127 9,141

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas - RRC District 10 Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 7,289 1980's 6,927 6,720 6,731 6,485 6,060 6,044 5,857 5,512 5,300 5,213 1990's 4,919 5,061 4,859 4,478 4,669 4,910 4,845 4,613 4,744 4,688 2000's 4,433 4,263 4,299 4,510 5,383 5,430 5,950 6,932 7,601 7,594

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas - RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 3,034 1980's 2,566 2,726 2,565 2,637 2,626 2,465 2,277 2,373 2,131 1,849 1990's 1,825 1,479 1,484 1,425 1,468 1,371 1,430 1,732 1,720 1,974 2000's 2,045 1,863 1,867 1,849 1,934 2,175 2,166 2,386

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas - RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 6,565 1980's 5,762 5,546 5,048 5,004 5,020 4,477 4,010 3,859 3,626 3,426 1990's 3,080 3,110 2,929 3,251 3,653 4,156 4,652 4,418 4,205 4,132 2000's 4,042 3,943 3,826 3,548 3,400 3,406 3,278 3,102

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas - RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 8,559 1980's 8,366 8,256 8,692 8,612 8,796 8,509 8,560 7,768 7,284 7,380 1990's 7,774 7,339 7,041 7,351 7,870 8,021 8,123 8,483 8,824 9,351 2000's 10,118 10,345 9,861 9,055 9,067 9,104 8,474 8,327

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas - RRC District 5 Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 1,189 1980's 1,192 1,309 1,369 1,529 1,955 2,140 2,238 2,224 2,090 1,925 1990's 1,951 1,930 1,818 1,931 2,074 1,923 2,141 1,749 1,995 2,350 2000's 3,217 4,289 4,653 5,460 6,583 9,611 12,648 17,274 20,460 22,623

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas - RRC District 6 Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 3,578 1980's 4,576 4,522 4,630 5,222 5,025 5,148 5,146 4,962 5,234 5,896 1990's 6,013 5,494 5,593 5,777 5,678 6,036 6,252 6,194 6,271 6,107 2000's 6,365 6,429 6,561 6,959 7,966 9,343 9,481 11,715 12,619 13,257

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas - RRC District 7B Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 842 1980's 862 947 947 1,210 937 850 833 828 840 560 1990's 627 536 550 580 513 539 610 559 510 465 2000's 356 290 294 383 364 932 1,663 2,412 2,750 2,424 2010's 2,625 3,887 3,363 3,267 2,695 - = No Data

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas - RRC District 7C Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 3,080 1980's 2,543 2,750 2,928 2,855 3,169 3,255 3,039 3,032 3,101 3,497 1990's 3,829 3,592 3,621 3,578 3,660 3,468 4,063 3,843 3,496 3,593 2000's 4,132 3,757 4,167 4,791 5,190 5,702 5,727 6,028 5,529 5,430

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas - RRC District 8 Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 10,718 1980's 9,785 9,250 8,992 9,078 8,294 8,250 8,330 7,871 7,810 7,531 1990's 7,391 6,793 6,534 6,131 6,018 6,052 6,050 6,030 5,547 6,122 2000's 6,136 6,007 6,056 5,835 6,002 6,800 6,855 7,303 7,586 7,440

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas - RRC District 8A Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 1,556 1980's 1,465 1,545 1,457 1,345 1,315 1,353 1,309 1,301 1,291 1,550 1990's 1,547 1,542 1,598 1,463 1,587 1,333 1,294 1,247 1,115 1,557 2000's 1,215 1,190 1,167 1,137 1,281 1,471 1,384 1,531 1,257 1,289

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Texas--State Offshore Natural Gas Marketed 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 1990's 78,263 79,234 84,573 63,181 63,340 64,528 60,298 48,918 2000's 41,195 53,649 57,063 53,569 44,946 36,932 24,785 29,229 46,786 37,811 2010's 28,574 23,791 16,506 14,036 11,222 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) New Mexico Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 36,444 36,940 36,960 1990's 38,026 38,622 40,312 40,166 39,846 38,099 37,796 38,918 42,067 43,834 2000's 44,164 44,306 45,469 45,491 45,961 47,745 47,233 48,047 49,235 48,846 2010's 48,757 49,406 48,914 50,163 55,689 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Ohio Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 213,601 219,257 225,347 1990's 233,075 236,519 237,861 240,684 245,190 250,223 259,663 254,991 258,076 266,102 2000's 269,561 269,327 271,160 271,203 272,445 277,767 270,552 272,555 272,899 270,596 2010's 268,346 268,647 267,793 269,081 269,758 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  4. LNG plants in the US and abroad. [Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Blazek, C.F.; Biederman, R.T.

    1992-01-01

    The Institute of Gas Technology recently conducted a comprehensive survey of LNG production and storage facilities in North America. This survey was performed as part of IGT's LNG Observer newsletter which covers both domestic and international LNG news, reports on LNG related economics and statistics, and routinely conducts interviews with key industry leaders. In addition to providing consulting services to the LNG industry, IGT has cosponsored the International Conference on Liquefied Natural Gas for the part 20 years. The objective of this paper is to present a summary of our recent survey results as well as provide an overview of world LNG trade. This information is important in assessing the potential near term availability of LNG for transportation applications. The IGT LNG Survey appraised the capacity and current market activity of LNG peak shaving, satellite storage, and import receiving facilities in the United States and Canada. Information was requested from facilities on three main topics: liquefaction, storage, and regasification. Additional questions were posed regarding the year of operation, designer/contractor for liquefaction cycle and storage, source of LNG (for storage-only facilities), plans for expansion, and level of interest in providing LNG as a vehicle fuel. The IGT LNG Survey has to date received information on 56 LNG peak shaving facilities, 28 satellite storage facilities, and 4 LNG import receiving terminals.

  5. Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) at Rocky Flats Plant: An overview of practical management issues for evaluation of natural phenomena hazards

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Badwan, F.M.; Herring, K.S.

    1993-08-01

    Many of the buildings at the Rocky Flats Plant were designed and built before modern standards were developed, including standards for protection against extreme natural phenomenon such as tornadoes, earthquakes, and floods. The purpose of the SEP is to establish an integrated approach to assessing the design adequacy of specific high and moderate hazard Rocky Flats facilities from a safety perspective and to establish a basis for defining any needed facility improvements. The SEP is to be carried out in three Phases. In Phase 1, topics to be evaluated and an evaluation plan for each topic were developed. Any differences between Current Design Requirements (CDR) or acceptance criteria and the design of existing facilities, will be identified during Phase 2 and assessed using an integrated systematic approach during Phase 3. The integrated assessment performed during Phase 3 provides a process for evaluating the differences between existing facility design and CDRs so that decisions on corrective actions can be made on the basis of relative risk reduction and cost effectiveness. These efforts will ensure that a balanced and integrated level of safety is achieved for long-term operation of these buildings. Through appropriate selection of topics and identification of the structures, systems, and components to be evaluated, the SEP will address outstanding design issues related to the prevention and mitigation of design basis accidents, including those arising from natural phenomena. The objective of the SEP is not to bring these buildings into strict compliance with current requirements, but rather to ensure that an adequate level of safety is achieved in an economical fashion.

  6. EIS-0343: EPA Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    COB Energy Facility, Proposes to Construct a 1,160-megawatt (MW) Natural Gas-Fired and Combined- Cycle Electric Generating Plant, Right- of-Way Permit across Federal Land under the Jurisdiction of BLM, Klamath Basin, Klamath County, OR

  7. Fact Sheet: Wind Firming EnergyFarm (October 2012)

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

    Research Institute (EPRI). The EnergyFarm will displace a planned 73 million natural-gas-fired power plant intended to smooth (or firm) the output of intermittent wind and...

  8. Inland Energy Inc | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    to the planning permission of the 500MW natural gas-fired combined cycle, plus 50MW solar thermal, Victorville 2 power plant. References: Inland Energy Inc1 This article is a...

  9. Expanding the potential for saline formations : modeling carbon dioxide storage, water extraction and treatment for power plant cooling.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    2011-04-01

    The National Water, Energy and Carbon Sequestration simulation model (WECSsim) is being developed to address the question, 'Where in the current and future U.S. fossil fuel based electricity generation fleet are there opportunities to couple CO{sub 2} storage and extracted water use, and what are the economic and water demand-related impacts of these systems compared to traditional power systems?' The WECSsim collaborative team initially applied this framework to a test case region in the San Juan Basin, New Mexico. Recently, the model has been expanded to incorporate the lower 48 states of the U.S. Significant effort has been spent characterizing locations throughout the U.S. where CO{sub 2} might be stored in saline formations including substantial data collection and analysis efforts to supplement the incomplete brine data offered in the NatCarb database. WECSsim calculates costs associated with CO{sub 2} capture and storage (CCS) for the power plant to saline formation combinations including parasitic energy costs of CO{sub 2} capture, CO{sub 2} pipelines, water treatment options, and the net benefit of water treatment for power plant cooling. Currently, the model can identify the least-cost deep saline formation CO{sub 2} storage option for any current or proposed coal or natural gas-fired power plant in the lower 48 states. Initial results suggest that additional, cumulative water withdrawals resulting from national scale CCS may range from 676 million gallons per day (MGD) to 30,155 MGD depending on the makeup power and cooling technologies being utilized. These demands represent 0.20% to 8.7% of the U.S. total fresh water withdrawals in the year 2000, respectively. These regional and ultimately nation-wide, bottom-up scenarios coupling power plants and saline formations throughout the U.S. can be used to support state or national energy development plans and strategies.

  10. Natural-analog studies for partial validation of conceptual models of radionuclide retardation at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ward, D.B.; Brookins, D.G. . Dept. of Geology); Siegel, M.D.; Lambert, S.J. )

    1990-01-01

    Transport by groundwater within the Culebra Dolomite, an aquifer above the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), is the most probable mechanism for long-term release of radionuclides to the accessible environment. Radionuclides could be retarded by sorption if the groundwater is exposed to sufficient amounts of fracture-lining clays. In this natural-analog study, distributions of U and trace metals have been examined to constrain the strength of clay/solute interactions within the Culebra. Uranium solid/liquid distribution ratios, calculated from U concentrations of groundwaters and consanguineous fracture-filling clays, range from {approximately}80 to 800 m{ell}/g and imply retardation factors of 60 to 500 using a fracture-flow model. Retardation factors inferred from uranium-series disequilibria and {sup 14}C ages in Culebra groundwaters alone are much lower ({approximately}10), implying that clays may contain a significant unreactive component of U. Such a possibility is corroborated by Rb/Sr ages; these imply long-term stability of the clays,with resetting occurring more than 250 Ma ago. Factor analysis and mass-balance calculations suggest, however, that Mg-rich clays are dissolving in Pleistocene-age groundwaters and/or are converting to Na-rich smectites, and that B and Li are taken up from the water by the clays. Apparently, the solution chemistry reflects gradual equilibration of clays with groundwater, but thus far the bulk of the clays remain structurally intact. Measurements of the distribution of U in the Culebra will be more meaningful if the inert and exchangeable components of the U content of the clays can be quantified. 26 refs., 3 figs., 2 tabs.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1998-07-01

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

  12. Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection permit application for air contaminant source: SRC-I demonstration plant, Newman, Kentucky. [Demonstration plant at Newman, KY

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    none,

    1980-11-21

    This document and its several appendices constitute an application for a Kentucky Permit to Construct an Air Contaminant Source as well as a Prevention of Significant Air Quality Deterioration (PSD) Permit Application. The information needed to satisfy the application requirements for both permits has been integrated into a complete and logical description of the proposed source, its emissions, control systems, and its expected air quality impacts. The Department of Energy believes that it has made every reasonable effort to be responsive to both the letter and the spirit of the PSD regulations (40 CFR 52.21) and Kentucky Regulation No. 401 KAR 50:035. In this regard, it is important to note that because of the preliminary status of some aspects of the process engineering and engineering design for the Demonstration Plant, it is not yet possible precisely to define some venting operations or their associated control systems. Therefore, it is not possible precisely to quantify some atmospheric emissions or their likely impact on air quality. In these instances, DOE and ICRC have used assumptions that produce impact estimates that are believed to be worst case and are not expected to be exceeded no matter what the outcome of future engineering decisions. As these decisions are made, emission quantities and rates, control system characteristics and efficiencies, and vent stack parameters are more precisely defined; this Permit Application will be supplemented or modified as appropriate. But, all needed modifications are expected to represent either decreases or at worst no changes in the air quality impact of the SRC-I Demonstration Plant.

  13. Feasibility Study on the Use of On-line Multivariate Statistical Process Control for Safeguards Applications in Natural Uranium Conversion Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ladd-Lively, Jennifer L

    2014-01-01

    The objective of this work was to determine the feasibility of using on-line multivariate statistical process control (MSPC) for safeguards applications in natural uranium conversion plants. Multivariate statistical process control is commonly used throughout industry for the detection of faults. For safeguards applications in uranium conversion plants, faults could include the diversion of intermediate products such as uranium dioxide, uranium tetrafluoride, and uranium hexafluoride. This study was limited to a 100 metric ton of uranium (MTU) per year natural uranium conversion plant (NUCP) using the wet solvent extraction method for the purification of uranium ore concentrate. A key component in the multivariate statistical methodology is the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) approach for the analysis of data, development of the base case model, and evaluation of future operations. The PCA approach was implemented through the use of singular value decomposition of the data matrix where the data matrix represents normal operation of the plant. Component mole balances were used to model each of the process units in the NUCP. However, this approach could be applied to any data set. The monitoring framework developed in this research could be used to determine whether or not a diversion of material has occurred at an NUCP as part of an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards system. This approach can be used to identify the key monitoring locations, as well as locations where monitoring is unimportant. Detection limits at the key monitoring locations can also be established using this technique. Several faulty scenarios were developed to test the monitoring framework after the base case or normal operating conditions of the PCA model were established. In all of the scenarios, the monitoring framework was able to detect the fault. Overall this study was successful at meeting the stated objective.

  14. Low-Btu coal-gasification-process design report for Combustion Engineering/Gulf States Utilities coal-gasification demonstration plant. [Natural gas or No. 2 fuel oil to natural gas or No. 2 fuel oil or low Btu gas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Andrus, H E; Rebula, E; Thibeault, P R; Koucky, R W

    1982-06-01

    This report describes a coal gasification demonstration plant that was designed to retrofit an existing steam boiler. The design uses Combustion Engineering's air blown, atmospheric pressure, entrained flow coal gasification process to produce low-Btu gas and steam for Gulf States Utilities Nelson No. 3 boiler which is rated at a nominal 150 MW of electrical power. Following the retrofit, the boiler, originally designed to fire natural gas or No. 2 oil, will be able to achieve full load power output on natural gas, No. 2 oil, or low-Btu gas. The gasifier and the boiler are integrated, in that the steam generated in the gasifier is combined with steam from the boiler to produce full load. The original contract called for a complete process and mechanical design of the gasification plant. However, the contract was curtailed after the process design was completed, but before the mechanical design was started. Based on the well defined process, but limited mechanical design, a preliminary cost estimate for the installation was completed.

  15. Improving cogeneration plant performance through effective maintenance strategies

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sheikh, S.M.

    1998-12-31

    Gas-fired cogeneration plants supplying power and thermal energy make up an increasing percentage of new fossil generation capacity additions, both in the US and overseas. These plants are popular, not only because they cost less to build, but also because they are highly efficient and their operation and maintenance costs are lower than plants using the traditional coal-based Rankine cycle. One of the methods being used to contain the initial cost of building cogeneration plants is to minimize redundancy both in the quantity of spare equipment specified for the various systems in the plants and in the design capacity of individual components. The overall effect of such a strategy may lead to reduced reliability and availability of the cogeneration plant in the long term. Operating cogeneration plants present a variety of technologies, equipment, and operating practices. While newer cogeneration plants routinely operate at a reliability of 90% or higher, older plants may not be able to achieve such performance due to excessive equipment breakdowns or inadequate maintenance strategies. By not having the appropriate maintenance programs in place, even newer cogeneration plants are vulnerable to deteriorating reliability and availability in the long term. This paper describes mechanisms for directing maintenance resources toward reducing current maintenance costs while maintaining high availability without sacrificing long-term reliability. The maintenance strategies discussed are those that can provide the maximum benefits for improving cogeneration plant reliability, availability, capacity, cost control, and safety.

  16. System Study of Rich Catalytic/Lean burn (RCL) Catalytic Combustion for Natural Gas and Coal-Derived Syngas Combustion Turbines

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shahrokh Etemad; Lance Smith; Kevin Burns

    2004-12-01

    Rich Catalytic/Lean burn (RCL{reg_sign}) technology has been successfully developed to provide improvement in Dry Low Emission gas turbine technology for coal derived syngas and natural gas delivering near zero NOx emissions, improved efficiency, extending component lifetime and the ability to have fuel flexibility. The present report shows substantial net cost saving using RCL{reg_sign} technology as compared to other technologies both for new and retrofit applications, thus eliminating the need for Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) in combined or simple cycle for Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) and natural gas fired combustion turbines.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Liese, Eric; Zitney, Stephen E.

    2013-01-01

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

  18. Chlorine enhancement of SO{sub 2} removal efficiency in a spray dryer absorber/fabric filter pilot plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jefcoat, I.A.; Stewart, C.L.; Pearson, T.E.

    1995-12-31

    The presence of chloride ions in a flue gas has been shown to increase the removal efficiency of SO{sub 2} in a spray dryer absorber/fabric filter (SDA/FF). The quantification of this effect has not been reported previously. A 90 cfm gas-fired pilot plant was used at the University to simulate burning coals containing various weight percent chloride. Results from the study were in agreement with those found in the literature. A predictive model was developed for the incremental removal efficiency, which was found to be dependent on the time to SO{sub 2} ratio and weight percent chloride in the coal.

  19. Economic analysis of operating alternatives for the South Vandenberg Power Plant at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Daellenbach, K.K.; Dagle, J.E.; Reilly, R.W.; Shankle, S.A.

    1993-02-01

    Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), located approximately 50 miles northwest of Santa Barbara, California, commissioned the Pacific Northwest Laboratory to conduct an economic analysis of operating alternatives of the South Vandenberg Power Plant (SVPP). Recent concern over SVPP operating and environmental costs prompted VAFB personnel to consider other means to support the Missile Operation Support Requirement (MOSR). The natural gas-fired SVPP was originally designed to support the Space Transportation System launch activities. With cancellation of this mission, the SVPP has been used to provide primary and backup electric power to support MOSR activities for the Space Launch Complexes. This document provides economic analysis in support of VAFB decisions about future operation of the SVPP. This analysis complied with the life-cycle cost (LCC) analytical approach detailed in 10 CFR 436, which is used in support of all Federal energy decisions. Many of the SVPP operational and environmental cost estimates were provided by VAFB staff, with additional information from vendors and engineering contractors. The LCC analysis consisted of three primary operating strategies, each with a level of service equal to or better than the current status-quo operation. These scenarios are: Status-quo operation where the SVPP provides both primary and backup MOSR power; Purchased utility power providing primary MOSR support with backup power provided by an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) system. The SVPP would be used to provide power for long-duration power outages; Purchased utility power provides primary MOSR support with backup power provided by a UPS system. A new set of dedicated generators would provide backup power for long-duration power outages.

  20. EIS-0201: Coyote Springs Cogeneration Project, Morrow County, Oregon

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This environmental impact statement analyzes the protential impacts of the Coyote Springs Cogeneration Project, a proposed natural gas-fired cogeneration power plant near Boardman, Oregon. The proposed power plant would be built on a 22-acre site in the Port of Morrow Industrial Park. The plant would have two combustion turbines that would generate 440 average megawatts of energy when completed.

  1. Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6,146 6,200 6,304 5,721 5,000 1989-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 343 340 281 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 0 506 516 501 488 382 200

  2. California Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    198,213 204,327 180,648 169,203 164,401 162,794 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 11,042 10,400 9,831 9,923 10,641 9,605 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous ...

  3. Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    362,009 368,830 384,248 408,316 414,796 425,238 1983-2014 Alabama 6,470 6,441 6,939 6,616 6,804 6,462 1983-2014 Alaska 39,447 37,316 35,339 37,397 36,638 36,707 1983-2014 Arkansas 489 529 423 622 797 871 1983-2014 California 2,611 2,370 2,253 2,417 2,834 2,361 1983-2014 Colorado 21,288 25,090 28,265 29,383 25,806 30,873 1983-2014 Florida 0 0 0 0 0 272 1983-2014 Gulf of Mexico 0 2014-2014 Illinois 41 4,559 4,917 4,896 4,917 288 1983-2014 Kansas 2,126 2,102 2,246 2,268 2,189 1,983 1983-2014

  4. Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2,352 9,599 5,611 6,872 7,781 8,058 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 125 160 212 336 378 457 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 168 213 268 424 486 582

  5. Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    60,167 66,579 60,941 92,883 85,549 79,985 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 2,469 3,317 3,398 4,740 4,651 4,668 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 3,270 4,576 4,684 6,571 6,443 6,471

  6. "NATURAL GAS PROCESSING PLANT SURVEY"

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

    Failure to comply may result in criminal fines, civil penalties and other sanctions as provided by law. For the sanctions and the provisions concerning the confidentiality of ...

  7. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore - Louisiana and Alabama Natural...

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

    Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore - Louisiana and Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)...

  8. Restoring Equilibrium to Natural Gas Markets: Can Renewable Energy Help?

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wiser, Ryan; Bolinger, Mark

    2005-01-01

    Heightened natural gas prices have emerged as a key energy-policy challenge for at least the early part of the 21st century. With the recent run-up in gas prices and the expected continuation of volatile and high prices in the near future, a growing number of voices are calling for increased diversification of energy supplies. Proponents of renewable energy technologies identify these clean energy sources as an important part of the solution. Increased deployment of renewable energy (RE) can hedge natural gas price risk in more than one way, but a recent report by Berkeley Lab evaluates one such benefit in detail: by displacing gas-fired electricity generation, RE reduces natural gas demand and thus puts downward pressure on gas prices. Many recent modeling studies of increased RE deployment have demonstrated that this ''secondary'' effect of lowering natural gas prices could be significant; as a result, this effect is increasingly cited as justification for policies promoting RE. The Berkeley Lab report summarizes recent modeling studies that have evaluated the impact of RE deployment on gas prices, reviews the reasonableness of the results of these studies in light of economic theory and other research, and develops a simple tool that can be used to evaluate the impact of RE on gas prices without relying on a complex national energy model.

  9. Easing the natural gas crisis: Reducing natural gas prices through increased deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wiser, Ryan; Bolinger, Mark; St. Clair, Matt

    2004-12-21

    Heightened natural gas prices have emerged as a key energy-policy challenge for at least the early part of the 21st century. With the recent run-up in gas prices and the expected continuation of volatile and high prices in the near future, a growing number of voices are calling for increased diversification of energy supplies. Proponents of renewable energy and energy efficiency identify these clean energy sources as an important part of the solution. Increased deployment of renewable energy (RE) and energy efficiency (EE) can hedge natural gas price risk in more than one way, but this paper touches on just one potential benefit: displacement of gas-fired electricity generation, which reduces natural gas demand and thus puts downward pressure on gas prices. Many recent modeling studies of increased RE and EE deployment have demonstrated that this ''secondary'' effect of lowering natural gas prices could be significant; as a result, this effect is increasingly cited as justification for policies promoting RE and EE. This paper summarizes recent studies that have evaluated the gas-price-reduction effect of RE and EE deployment, analyzes the results of these studies in light of economic theory and other research, reviews the reasonableness of the effect as portrayed in modeling studies, and develops a simple tool that can be used to evaluate the impact of RE and EE on gas prices without relying on a complex national energy model. Key findings are summarized.

  10. Dampers for Natural Draft Heaters: Technical Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lutz, James D.; Biermayer, Peter; King, Derek

    2008-10-27

    Energy required for water heating accounts for approximately 40percent of national residential natural gas consumption in California. With water heating contributing such a substantial portion of natural gas consumption, it is important to pay attention to water heater efficiencies. This paper reports on an investigation of a patented, buoyancy-operated flue damper. It is an add-on design to a standard atmospherically vented natural-draft gas-fired storage water heater. The flue damper was expected to reduce off-cycle standby losses, which would lead to improvements in the efficiency of the water heater. The test results showed that the Energy Factor of the baseline water heater was 0.576. The recovery efficiency was 0.768. The standby heat loss coefficient was 10.619 (BTU/hr-oF). After the damper was installed, the test results show an Energy Factor for the baseline water heater of 0.605. The recovery efficiency was 0.786. The standby heat loss coefficient was 9.135 (BTU/hr-oF). The recovery efficiency increased 2.3percent and the standby heat loss coefficient decreased 14percent. When the burner was on, the baseline water heater caused 28.0 CFM of air to flow from the room. During standby, the flow was 12.4 CFM. The addition of the damper reduced the flow when the burner was on to 23.5 CFM. During standby, flow with the damper was reduced to 11.1 CFM. The flue damper reduced off-cycle standby losses, and improved the efficiency of the water heater. The flue damper also improved the recovery efficiency of the water heater by restricting on-cycle air flows through the flue.With or without the flue damper, off-cycle air flow upthe stack is nearly half the air flow rate as when the burner is firing.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Raymond Hobbs

    2007-05-31

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

  12. Independent Oversight Review, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant...

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

    Plant - November 2013 Independent Oversight Review, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant - November 2013 November 5, 2013 Review of Preparedness for Severe Natural Phenomena Events...

  13. Evaluation of a superheater enhanced geothermal steam power plant in the Geysers area. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Janes, J.

    1984-06-01

    This study was conducted to determine the attainable generation increase and to evaluate the economic merits of superheating the steam that could be used in future geothermal steam power plants in the Geyser-Calistoga Known Geothermal Resource Area (KGRA). It was determined that using a direct gas-fired superheater offers no economic advantages over the existing geothermal power plants. If the geothermal steam is heated to 900/sup 0/F by using the exhaust energy from a gas turbine of currently available performance, the net reference plant output would increase from 65 MW to 159 MW (net). Such hybrid plants are cost effective under certain conditions identified in this document. The power output from the residual Geyser area steam resource, now equivalent to 1437 MW, would be more than doubled by employing in the future gas turbine enhancement. The fossil fuel consumed in these plants would be used more efficiently than in any other fossil-fueled power plant in California. Due to an increase in evaporative losses in the cooling towers, the viability of the superheating concept is contingent on development of some of the water resources in the Geysers-Calistoga area to provide the necessary makeup water.

  14. Betting on the Future: The authors compare natural gas forecaststo futures buys

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bolinger, Mark; Wiser, Ryan

    2006-01-20

    On December 12, 2005, the reference case projections from Annual Energy Outlook 2006 (AEO 2006) were posted on the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) web site. We at LBNL have in the past compared the EIA's reference case long-term natural gas price forecasts from the AEO series to contemporaneous natural gas prices that can be locked in through the forward market. The goal is better understanding fuel price risk and the role that renewables play in mitigating such risk. As such, we were curious to see how the latest AEO gas price forecast compares to the NYMEX natural gas futures strip. Below is a discussion of our findings. As a refresher, our past work in this area has found that over the past five years, forward natural gas contracts (with prices that can be locked in--.g., gas futures, swaps, and physical supply) have traded at a premium relative to contemporaneous long-term reference case gas price forecasts from the EIA. As such, we have concluded that, over the past five years at least, levelized cost comparisons of fixed-price renewable generation with variable price gas-fired generation have yielded results that are ''biased'' in favor of gas-fired generation, presuming that long-term price stability is valued. In this article we update our past analysis to include the latest long-term gas price forecast from the EIA, as contained in AEO 2006. For the sake of brevity, we do not rehash information (on methodology, potential explanations for the premiums, etc.) contained in our earlier reports on this topic. As was the case in the past five AEO releases (AEO 2001-AEO 2005), we once again find that the AEO 2006 reference case gas price forecast falls well below where NYMEX natural gas futures contracts were trading at the time the EIA finalized its gas price forecast. In fact, the NYMEX-AEO 2006 reference case comparison yields by far the largest premium--$2.3/MMBtu levelized over five years--that we have seen over the last six years. In other words, on average, one would have had to pay $2.3/MMBtu more than the AEO 2006 reference case natural gas price forecast in order to lock in natural gas prices over the coming five years. Fixed-price generation (like certain forms of renewable generation) obviously need not bear this added cost, and moreover can provide price stability for terms well in excess of five years

  15. Gas-Fired Boilers and Furnaces | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Garfield County, Colorado Garfield County, Colorado Garfield Clean Energy Location: Garfield County, Colorado Seed Funding: $545,000 - a portion of Boulder County's $25 million funding Target Building Types: Residential and commercial Website: www.garfieldcleanenergy.org Learn more: Explore the Energy Navigator Facebook: Garfield Clean Energy Read Garfield New Energy Communities Initiative: Results Based on DOLA Contract Exhibit A Read program newsletter Review case studies See program publicity

  16. Development of a gas-fired absorption heat pump

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ohuchi, Y.

    1985-01-01

    A new absorbent-refrigerant pair suitable for heat pump heating and air-cooled cooling has been developed. Water has been selected as the refrigerant, mainly from the viewpoint of high cycle efficiency and safety, while a 1:1 mixture of lithium bromide (LiBr) and zinc chloride (ZnCl/sub 2/) by weight has been chosen as the absorbent in view of its higher solubility and affinity for water. Based on thermodynamic analysis with experimental data on properties, the new absorbent solution will give a heating COP of 1.57 and a cooling COP of 1.00 as gross values of double-effect absorption cycles, including a boiler efficiency of 80%. As a result of an experimental investigation on corrosiveness and corrosion inhibitors, promising equipment materials and inhibitors have been discovered. Prototypical units of 3.5kw (1-ton) and 35kw (10-ton) have been installed and are undergoing demonstration testing in the laboratory.

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

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    manufacturers that are offering pre-engineered forced air space heating combo systems. ... combo system (i.e. 81%- 91%) when the air handler was sized adequately and adjusted ...

  18. EIS-0343: COB Energy Facility

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This EIS analyzes DOE's decision to support the COB Energy Facility, a subsidiary of Peoples Energy Resources Corporation (PERC), to construct a 1,160-megawatt (MW) natural gas-fired, combined-cycle electric generating plant in Klamath County, Oregon, near the city of Bonanza.

  19. Independent Oversight Review, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant – November 2013

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Review of Preparedness for Severe Natural Phenomena Events at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.

  20. Hydrogen Production: Natural Gas Reforming

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Natural gas reforming is an advanced and mature production process that builds upon the existing natural gas pipeline delivery infrastructure. Today, 95% of the hydrogen produced in the United States is made by natural gas reforming in large central plants. This is an important technology pathway for near-term hydrogen production.