National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for refinery capacity natural

  1. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries by PAD District as of January 1, 2006 PDF 9 Shell Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries by PAD District as of January 1, 2006 PDF 10...

  2. Refinery Capacity Report

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2015-01-01

    Data series include fuel, electricity, and steam purchased for consumption at the refinery; refinery receipts of crude oil by method of transportation; and current and projected atmospheric crude oil distillation, downstream charge, and production capacities. Respondents are operators of all operating and idle petroleum refineries (including new refineries under construction) and refineries shut down during the previous year, located in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and other U.S. possessions. The Refinery Capacity Report does not contain working and shell storage capacity data. This data is now being collected twice a year as of March 31 and September 30 on the Form EIA-810, "Monthly Refinery Report", and is now released as a separate report Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity.

  3. Refinery Capacity Report

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    1 Idle Operating Total Stream Day Barrels per Idle Operating Total Calendar Day Barrels per Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity Idle Operating Total Operable Refineries Number of State and PAD District a b b 14 10 4 1,617,500 1,205,000 412,500 1,708,500 1,273,500 435,000 ............................................................................................................................................... PAD District I 1 0 1 182,200 0 182,200 190,200 0 190,200

  4. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    5 Idle Operating Total Stream Day Barrels per Idle Operating Total Calendar Day Barrels per Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity Idle Operating Total Operable Refineries Number of State and PAD District a b b 9 9 0 1,268,500 1,236,500 32,000 1,332,000 1,297,000 35,000 ............................................................................................................................................... PAD District I 1 1 0 182,200 182,200 0 190,200 190,200 0

  5. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    District and State Production Capacity Alkylates Aromatics Asphalt and Road Oil Isomers Lubricants Marketable Petroleum Coke Sulfur (short tons/day) Hydrogen (MMcfd) Table 2. Production Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries by PAD District and State as of January 1, 2015 (Barrels per Stream Day, Except Where Noted) a 83,429 10,111 26,500 87,665 21,045 21,120 69 1,159 PAD District I Delaware 11,729 5,191 0 6,000 0 13,620 40 596 New Jersey 29,200 0 65,000 4,000 12,000 7,500 26 280 Pennsylvania

  6. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Distillation Crude Oil Atmospheric Distillation Vacuum Cracking Thermal Catalytic Cracking Fresh Recycled Catalytic Hydro- Cracking Catalytic Reforming Desulfurization Hydrotreating/ Fuels Solvent Deasphalting Downstream Charge Capacity Table 6. Operable Crude Oil and Downstream Charge Capacity of Petroleum Refineries, January 1, 1986 to (Thousand Barrels per Stream Day, Except Where Noted) January 1, 2015 JAN 1, 1986 16,346 6,892 1,880 5,214 463 1,125 3,744 8,791 NA JAN 1, 1987 16,460 6,935

  7. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Alkylates Aromatics Road Oil and Lubricants Petroleum Coke (MMcfd) Hydrogen Sulfur (short tons/day) Production Capacity Asphalt Isomers Marketable Table 7. Operable Production Capacity of Petroleum Refineries, January 1, 1986 to January 1, 2015 (Thousand Barrels per Stream Day, Except Where Noted) a JAN 1, 1986 941 276 804 258 246 356 2,357 NA JAN 1, 1987 974 287 788 326 250 364 2,569 23,806 JAN 1, 1988 993 289 788 465 232 368 2,418 27,639 JAN 1, 1989 1,015 290 823 469 230 333 2,501 28,369 JAN

  8. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Cokers Catalytic Crackers Hydrocrackers Capacity Inputs Capacity Inputs Capacity Inputs Table 8. Capacity and Fresh Feed Input to Selected Downstream Units at U.S. Refineries, 2013 - 2015 (Barrels per Calendar Day) Reformers Capacity Inputs 2013 2,596,369 5,681,643 1,887,024 2,302,764 4,810,611 1,669,540 2,600,518 3,405,017 74,900 543,800 41,500 47,537 387,148 33,255 PADD I 162,249 240,550 450,093 1,196,952 303,000 414,732 1,028,003 263,238 PADD II 648,603 818,718 1,459,176 2,928,673 981,114

  9. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Former Corporation/Refiner Total Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity (bbl/cd) New Corporation/Refiner Date of Sale Table 12. Refinery Sales During 2014 Lindsay Goldberg LLC/Axeon Speciality Products LLC Nustar Asphalt LLC/Nustar Asphalt Refining LLC 2/14 Savannah, GA 28,000 Lindsay Goldberg LLC/Axeon Specialty Products LLC Nustar Asphalt LLC/Nustar Asphalt Refining LLC 2/14 Paulsboro, NJ 70,000 bbl/cd= Barrels per calendar day Sources: Energy Information Administration (EIA) Form

  10. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Commodity PAD Districts I II III IV V United States Table 10a. Fuel Consumed at Refineries by PAD District, 2014 (Thousand Barrels, Except Where Noted) Crude Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 Liquefied Petroleum Gases 0 1,348 421 23 513 2,305 Distillate Fuel Oil 0 33 174 0 102 309 Residual Fuel Oil 3 23 28 13 346 413 Still Gas 15,174 48,972 110,958 8,749 46,065 229,918 Marketable Petroleum Coke 0 0 0 493 143 636 Catalyst Petroleum Coke 8,048 16,837 44,599 2,925 12,482 84,891 Natural Gas (million cubic feet)

  11. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Operable Date of Last Operation Date Shutdown Table 11. New, Shutdown and Reactivated Refineries During 2014 a b NEW PAD District II 19,000 Dakota Prairie Refining LLC Dickinson, ND 19,000 01/15 PAD District III 42,000 Kinder Morgan Crude & Condensate Galena Park, TX 42,000 01/15 SHUTDOWN PAD District I 28,000 0 Axeon Specialty Products LLC Savannah, GA 28,000 0 09/12 12/14 PAD District II 12,000 0 Ventura Refining & Transmission LLC Thomas, OK 12,000 0 10/10 12/14 PAD District III 0

  12. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Method PAD Districts I II III IV V United States Table 9. Refinery Receipts of Crude Oil by Method of Transportation by PAD District, 2014 (Thousand Barrels) a Pipeline 22,596 1,266,015 1,685,817 168,347 298,886 3,441,661 Domestic 2,632 658,717 1,421,768 82,043 240,522 2,405,682 Foreign 19,964 607,298 264,049 86,304 58,364 1,035,979 Tanker 252,479 0 1,046,008 0 529,319 1,827,806 Domestic 81,055 0 45,006 0 181,307 307,368 Foreign 171,424 0 1,001,002 0 348,012 1,520,438 Barge 39,045 6,360 259,903

  13. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    CORPORATION / Refiner / Location Table 5. Refiners' Total Operable Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity as of January 1, 2015 Calendar Day Barrels per CORPORATION / Refiner / Location Calendar Day Barrels per Companies with Capacity Over 100,000 bbl/cd .............................................................................................................................. VALERO ENERGY CORP 1,964,300 Valero Refining Co Texas LP

  14. Outlook for Refinery Outages and Available Refinery Capacity...

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

    level of refinery outages outlined in this report. This report does not consider the impacts of refined product logistics and distribution, which could affect the movement of...

  15. U.S. Refinery Utilization and Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 View History Gross Input to Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Units 17,178 16,963 16,394 15,690 16,673 16,848 1985-2015 Operable Capacity (Calendar Day) 18,058 18,059 18,125 18,125 18,172 18,186 1985-2015 Operating 17,923 17,939 18,015 17,932 17,846 18,044 1985-2015 Idle 135 121 110 194 326 142 1985-2015 Operable Utilization Rate (%) 95.1 93.9 90.5 86.6 91.8 92.6 1985-2015 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  16. U.S. Refinery Utilization and Capacity

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

    2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Gross Input to Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Units 15,177 15,289 15,373 15,724 16,156 16,433 1985-2015 Operable Capacity (Calendar Day) 17,575 17,736 17,328 17,818 17,873 18,026 1985-2015 Operating 16,911 16,991 16,656 17,282 17,626 17,792 1985-2015 Idle 663 745 672 536 247 234 1985-2015 Operable Utilization Rate (%) 86.4 86.2 88.7 88.3 90.4 91.2 1985-2015 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  17. ,"Finished Motor Gasoline Refinery, Bulk Terminal, and Natural...

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

    ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"1252016 6:37:20 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Finished Motor Gasoline Refinery, Bulk Terminal, and Natural Gas Plant Stocks" "Sourcekey","MGFSXUS1"...

  18. U.S. Natural Gas Supplemental Gas - Refinery Gas (Million Cubic...

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

    Refinery Gas (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Supplemental Gas - Refinery Gas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9...

  19. ,"U.S. Downstream Charge Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries"

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

    Charge Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Downstream Charge Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries",32,"Annual",2015,"6/30/1982" ,"Release Date:","6/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","6/30/2016"

  20. ,"U.S. Production Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries"

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

    Production Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Production Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries",11,"Annual",2015,"6/30/1982" ,"Release Date:","6/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","6/30/2016" ,"Excel

  1. ,"U.S. Total Shell Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries"

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

    Shell Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Total Shell Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries",28,"Annual",2015,"6/30/1982" ,"Release Date:","6/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","6/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  2. ,"U.S. Working Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries"

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

    Working Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Working Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries",28,"Annual",2015,"6/30/1982" ,"Release Date:","6/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","6/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  3. Table 5.9 Refinery Capacity and Utilization, 1949-2011

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

    9 Refinery Capacity and Utilization, 1949-2011 Year Operable Refineries 1 Operable Refineries Capacity Gross Input to Distillation Units 3 Utilization 4 On January 1 Annual Average 2 Number Thousand Barrels per Calendar Day Thousand Barrels Percent 1949 336 6,231 NA 2,027,928 89.2 1950 320 6,223 NA 2,182,828 92.5 1951 325 6,702 NA 2,467,445 97.5 1952 327 7,161 NA 2,536,142 93.8 1953 315 7,620 NA 2,651,068 93.1 1954 308 7,984 NA 2,651,992 88.8 1955 296 8,386 NA 2,854,137 92.2 1956 317 8,583 NA

  4. East Coast (PADD 1) Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries

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

    3 14 11 11 10 9 1982-2015 Operating 10 10 8 10 9 9 1982-2015 Idle 3 4 3 1 1 0 1982-2015 Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity Operable (Barrels per Calendar Day) 1,397,300 1,617,500 1,188,200 1,293,200 1,296,500 1,268,500 1982-2015 Operating 1,257,300 1,205,000 1,010,200 1,265,200 1,268,500 1,236,500 1982-2015 Idle 140,000 412,500 178,000 28,000 28,000 32,000 1982-2015 Operable (Barrels per Stream Day) 1,478,300 1,708,500 1,254,700 1,361,700 1,364,000 1,332,000 1982-2015 Operating

  5. U.S. Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries

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

    48 148 144 143 142 140 1982-2015 Operating 137 137 134 139 139 137 1982-2015 Idle 11 11 10 4 3 3 1982-2015 Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity Operable (Barrels per Calendar Day) 17,583,790 17,736,370 17,322,178 17,823,659 17,924,630 17,967,088 1982-2015 Operating 16,850,194 16,937,024 16,744,291 16,775,658 17,730,200 17,767,588 1982-2015 Idle 733,596 799,346 577,887 1,048,001 194,430 199,500 1982-2015 Operable (Barrels per Stream Day) 18,581,089 18,953,189 18,560,350 18,971,643

  6. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    of capacity that may understate the amount that can actually be stored. Working Gas Design Capacity: This measure estimates a natural gas facility's working gas capacity, as...

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  11. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  12. Total Number of Operable Refineries

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

    Data Series: Total Number of Operable Refineries Number of Operating Refineries Number of Idle Refineries Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operable Capacity (B/CD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operating Capacity (B/CD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Idle Capacity (B/CD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operable Capacity (B/SD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operating Capacity (B/SD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Idle Capacity (B/SD) Vacuum Distillation Downstream Charge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  16. Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity - Methodology

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  17. ,"Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity "

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

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

  18. Refinery Capacity Report Historical

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

  19. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Year: 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 prior issues Go Data series include fuel, electricity, and ... 2015 Source --- Energy Information Administration (EIA), ...

  20. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    ... Arcadia Refining & Mktg Lisbon, LA 7,350 6,700 0196 0296 Canal Refg Co. Chuch Point, LA 9,500 2,100 0795 0997 Gold Line Refining LTD Jennings, LA 12,000 0 0797 0198 Petrolite ...

  1. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    ... Nonresponse follow-up procedures are employed to reduce the number of nonrespondents, and procedures employed to impute missing data, introduce a minimal amount of error, given the ...

  2. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    ... Shell Oil Products US 12,500 0 0 0 15,000 0 9,000 ...... 189 413 Martinez 0 Tesoro Refining & Marketing Co 17,000 0 0 3,500 ...

  3. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    ... Kenai ...... Arkansas 90,500 0 92,700 0 48,850 0 0 0 0 Cross Oil Refining & Marketing Inc 7,500 0 7,700 0 3,850 0 0 0 0 ...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  5. Assessment of the Adequacy of Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity in...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Assessment of the Adequacy of Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity in the Northeast United States - November 2013 Assessment of the Adequacy of Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity in the...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  10. Refinery Outages: First Half 2015

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2015-01-01

    This report examines refinery outages planned for the first half of 2015 and the potential implications for available refinery capacity, petroleum product markets and supply of gasoline, diesel fuel, and heating oil. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) believes that dissemination of such analyses can be beneficial to market participants that may otherwise be unable to access such information.

  11. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  12. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

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

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

  13. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Pipeline Capacity and Utilization

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

    Pipeline Utilization & Capacity About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity & Utilization Overview | Utilization Rates | Integration of Storage | Varying Rates of Utilization | Measures of Utilization Overview of Pipeline Utilization Natural gas pipeline companies prefer to operate their systems as close to full capacity as possible to maximize their revenues. However, the average

  14. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

  16. Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  17. Refinery Integration

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

    Mary Biddy Sue Jones NREL PNNL This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information DOE Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) 2015 Project Peer Review Refinery Integration 4.1.1.31 NREL 4.1.1.51 PNNL Goal Statement GOALS: Model bio-intermediates insertion points to better define costs & ID opportunities, technical risks, information gaps, research needs Publish results Review with stakeholders 2 Leveraging existing refining infrastructure

  18. Alabama Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 33,150 33,150 33,150 33,150 33,150 33,150 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2

  19. Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2013-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 67,915 67,915 67,915 67,915 67,915 67,915 2013-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 5 5 5 5 5 5

  20. Washington Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    39,210 41,309 43,673 46,900 46,900 46,900 1988-2014 Aquifers 39,210 41,309 43,673 46,900 46,900 46,900 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 0 0 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 23,514...

  1. Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  2. Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    1,079,462 1,070,462 1,070,462 1,071,630 1,071,630 1,071,630 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 682,569 682,569 682,569 685,726 685,726 685,726 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 44 44 44 44 44 44

  3. Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2

  4. Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    31,301 331,301 331,301 331,812 331,812 331,812 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 200,903 200,903 200,903 201,388 201,388 201,388 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 12 12 12 12 12 12

  5. Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6

  6. Montana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    76,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 5 5 5 5 5 5

  7. New York Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    245,779 245,779 245,779 245,779 245,779 245,779 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 126,871 126,871 126,871 126,871 126,871 126,871 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 26 26 26 26 26 26

  8. Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    575,794 575,794 575,794 575,794 575,794 575,794 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 230,828 230,828 230,828 230,828 230,828 230,828 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 24 24 24 24 24 24

  9. Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    376,435 376,435 374,735 375,135 375,135 375,143 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 190,955 190,955 189,255 189,455 189,455 191,455 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 13 13 13 13 13 13

  10. Oregon Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    29,565 29,565 29,565 29,565 29,565 29,565 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,935 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 7 7 7 7 7 7

  11. Pennsylvania Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    771,422 771,422 771,422 771,422 771,422 771,422 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 429,796 429,796 429,796 429,796 429,796 429,796 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 49 49 49 49 49 49

  12. Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    832,644 832,644 832,644 832,644 832,644 834,965 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 528,445 528,335 528,335 528,335 528,335 528,335 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 36 36 36 36 36 36

  13. Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    124,518 124,518 124,509 124,509 124,509 124,509 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 54,942 54,942 54,942 54,942 54,942 54,942 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 3 3 3 3 3 3

  14. Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2

  15. California Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    603,012 603,012 603,012 601,808 601,808 601,808 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 376,996 376,996 376,996 375,496 375,496 375,496 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 14 14 14 14 14 14

  16. Colorado Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    130,186 130,186 130,186 130,186 130,186 130,186 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 63,774 63,774 63,774 63,774 63,774 63,774 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 10 10 10 10 10 10

  17. Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    ,004,598 1,004,598 1,003,899 1,004,100 1,004,100 1,004,100 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 304,312 304,312 303,613 303,613 303,613 303,613 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 28 28 28 28 28 28

  18. Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    10,749 110,749 110,749 110,749 111,581 111,581 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 32,760 32,760 32,760 32,760 33,592 33,592 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 21 21 21 21 21 21

  19. Iowa Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    288,210 288,210 288,210 288,210 288,210 288,210 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 90,313 90,313 90,313 90,313 90,313 90,313 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 4 4 4 4 4 4

  20. Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    82,984 282,984 282,984 282,984 282,984 282,984 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 122,980 122,980 122,980 122,980 122,980 122,980 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 17 17 17 17 17 17

  1. Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    21,723 221,723 221,723 221,722 221,722 221,722 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 107,600 107,600 107,572 107,571 107,571 107,571 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 23 23 23 23 23 23

  2. Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    742,627 742,627 749,867 749,867 749,867 749,867 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 452,359 452,359 457,530 457,530 457,530 457,530 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 19 19 19 19 19 19

  3. West Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    528,637 528,637 528,637 528,637 528,637 528,637 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 259,324 259,324 259,324 259,321 259,321 259,315 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 30 30 30 30 30 30

  4. Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    157,985 157,985 157,985 157,985 157,985 157,985 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 73,705 73,705 73,705 73,705 73,705 73,705 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 9 9 9 9 9 9

  5. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  6. Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 1988-2014 Aquifers 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2008-2014...

  7. Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    10,889 11,502 13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 1988-2014 Aquifers 10,889 11,502 13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 3,040 3,656 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000...

  8. Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    1,200 0 NA NA 1998-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 1,200 0 0 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 860 0 0 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 860 0 0 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1 1998-2014 Depleted Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  9. Pennsylvania Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    776,964 776,822 776,845 774,309 774,309 774,309 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 776,964 776,822 776,845 774,309 774,309 774,309 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 431,137 431,086 433,110 434,179 433,214 433,214 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 942 938 938 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 431,137 431,086 433,110 433,236 432,276 432,276 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 51 51 51 51 51 51 1989-2014 Aquifers 1 1 1 2012-2014 Depleted Fields

  10. Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    766,768 783,579 812,394 831,190 842,072 834,124 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 182,725 196,140 224,955 246,310 253,220 254,136 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 584,042 587,439 587,439 584,881 588,852 579,988 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 504,524 509,961 532,336 533,336 541,161 528,485 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 123,664 130,621 152,102 164,439 168,143 167,546 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 380,859 379,340 380,234 368,897 373,018 360,938 2008-2014 Total Number of

  11. Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    20,368 221,751 221,751 221,751 221,723 221,723 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 9,567 9,567 9,567 9,567 9,567 6,567 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 210,801 212,184 212,184 212,184 212,156 215,156 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 103,484 107,600 107,600 107,600 107,600 107,600 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 6,629 6,629 6,629 6,629 6,629 4,619 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 96,855 100,971 100,971 100,971 100,971 102,981 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 23 23 23 23 23

  12. Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    51,968 670,880 690,295 699,646 733,939 745,029 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 123,341 142,253 161,668 297,020 213,039 224,129 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 528,626 528,626 528,626 402,626 520,900 520,900 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 369,031 384,864 397,627 412,482 446,713 454,140 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 84,487 100,320 111,849 200,702 154,333 161,260 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 284,544 284,544 285,779 211,780 292,380 292,880 2008-2014 Total Number of

  13. Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    4,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  14. Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    210,128 235,638 240,241 289,416 303,522 331,469 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 62,301 82,411 90,452 139,627 153,733 181,810 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 147,827 153,227 149,789 149,789 149,789 149,659 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 108,978 127,248 131,091 168,602 180,654 201,250 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 43,758 56,928 62,932 100,443 109,495 130,333 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 65,220 70,320 68,159 68,159 71,159 70,917 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields

  15. Montana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    76,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 197,508 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 197,508 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 5 5 5 5 5 5 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 5 5 5 5 5 5

  16. Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    129,480 129,480 124,465 124,465 124,465 124,465 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 11,980 11,980 4,265 4,265 4,265 4,265 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 117,500 117,500 120,200 120,200 120,200 120,200 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 52,198 52,189 54,889 54,898 54,898 54,898 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 948 939 939 948 948 948 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 51,250 51,250 53,950 53,950 53,950 53,950 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 3 3 3 3 3 3 1989-2014 Aquifers 2 2

  17. Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    111,120 111,120 106,764 124,937 157,985 157,985 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 10,000 10,000 6,733 6,705 6,705 6,705 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 101,120 101,120 100,030 118,232 151,280 151,280 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 42,140 42,134 41,284 48,705 73,705 73,705 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 836 830 830 836 836 836 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 41,304 41,304 40,454 47,869 72,869 72,869 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 8 8 8 9 9 9 1989-2014 Aquifers 1 1

  18. Nebraska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    4,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 13,619 14,819 14,819 14,819 14,819 14,819 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 13,619 14,819 14,819 14,819 14,819 14,819 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  19. New Mexico Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    80,000 84,300 84,300 89,100 89,100 89,100 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 80,000 84,300 84,300 89,100 89,100 89,100 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 55,300 59,000 59,000 63,300 59,738 59,738 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 55,300 59,000 59,000 63,300 59,738 59,738 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2 1989-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2

  20. New York Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    245,579 245,579 245,579 245,579 245,779 245,779 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 2,340 2,340 2,340 0 2,340 2,340 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 243,239 243,239 243,239 245,579 243,439 243,439 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 128,976 128,976 128,976 129,026 129,551 129,551 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 1,450 1,450 1,450 0 1,450 1,450 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 127,526 127,526 127,526 129,026 128,101 128,101 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 26 26 26 26 26 26

  1. Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    580,380 580,380 580,380 577,944 577,944 577,944 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 580,380 580,380 580,380 577,944 577,944 577,944 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 225,154 228,350 230,350 230,350 230,828 230,828 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 225,154 228,350 230,350 230,350 230,828 230,828 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 24 24 24 24 24 24 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 24 24 24 24 24 24

  2. Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    371,338 371,338 372,838 370,838 370,535 375,935 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 170 170 170 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 371,338 371,338 372,838 370,668 370,365 375,765 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 176,868 179,858 183,358 180,858 181,055 188,455 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 31 31 31 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 176,868 179,858 183,358 180,828 181,025 188,425 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 13 13 13 13 13 13 1989-2014 Aquifers 1 1 1 2012-2014 Depleted

  3. Oregon Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    29,565 29,565 29,565 28,750 29,565 29,565 1989-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 29,565 29,565 29,565 28,750 29,565 29,565 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,510 15,935 15,935 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,510 15,935 15,935 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 7 7 7 7 7 7 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 7 7 7 7 7 7

  4. California Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    513,005 542,511 570,511 592,411 599,711 599,711 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 12,000 12,000 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 513,005 542,511 570,511 592,411 587,711 587,711 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 296,096 311,096 335,396 349,296 374,296 374,296 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 10,000 10,000 2009-2014 Depleted Fields 296,096 311,096 335,396 349,296 364,296 364,296 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 13 13 13 14 14 14 1989-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0

  5. Colorado Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    105,768 105,768 105,858 124,253 122,086 130,186 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 105,768 105,768 105,858 124,253 122,086 130,186 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 48,129 49,119 48,709 60,582 60,582 63,774 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 48,129 49,119 48,709 60,582 60,582 63,774 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 9 9 9 10 10 10 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 9 9 9 10 10 10

  6. Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    989,454 990,487 997,364 999,931 1,000,281 1,004,547 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 885,848 772,381 777,294 779,862 974,362 978,624 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 103,606 218,106 220,070 220,070 25,920 25,923 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 303,761 303,500 302,385 302,962 303,312 304,312 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 252,344 216,132 215,017 215,594 291,544 292,544 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 51,418 87,368 87,368 87,368 11,768 11,768 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing

  7. Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    114,274 111,271 111,313 110,749 110,749 110,749 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 81,328 81,268 81,310 80,746 80,746 80,746 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 32,946 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 32,157 32,982 33,024 33,024 33,024 33,024 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 19,367 19,437 19,479 19,215 19,215 19,215 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 12,791 13,545 13,545 13,809 13,809 13,809 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 22 22 22 22 22 22

  8. Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    82,300 284,821 284,731 284,905 283,974 282,984 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 931 931 931 931 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 281,370 283,891 283,800 283,974 283,974 282,984 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 119,339 123,190 123,225 123,343 122,970 122,980 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 375 375 375 375 0 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 118,964 122,814 122,850 122,968 122,970 122,980 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 19 19 19 19 18 17 1989-2014 Salt Caverns 1 1 1 1 0

  9. Arkansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    1,760 21,760 21,359 21,853 21,853 21,853 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 21,760 21,760 21,359 21,853 21,853 21,853 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 13,898 13,898 12,036 12,178 12,178 12,178 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 13,898 13,898 12,036 12,178 12,178 12,178 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2

  10. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

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

    Total Working Gas Capacity Total Number of Existing Fields Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 View History U.S. 9,228,173 9,219,173 9,224,005 9,225,079 9,225,911 9,228,240 1989-2015 Alaska 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2013-2015 Lower 48 States 9,144,581 9,135,581 9,140,412 9,141,486 9,142,319 9,144,648

  11. Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    1,069,405 1,069,898 1,075,472 1,078,979 1,079,424 1,079,462 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 3,821 3,834 3,834 3,834 3,834 3,834 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 1,065,583 1,066,064 1,071,638 1,075,145 1,075,590 1,075,629 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 666,636 667,065 672,632 673,200 674,967 675,003 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 2,150 2,159 2,159 2,159 2,159 2,159 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 664,486 664,906 670,473 671,041 672,808 672,844 2008-2014 Total Number of

  12. Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 1998-2014 Salt Caverns 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 2009-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2 1998-2014 Salt Caverns 1 1 1 1 1 1

  13. Alabama Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6,900 32,900 35,400 35,400 35,400 43,600 1995-2014 Salt Caverns 15,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 30,100 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 11,000 11,000 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 20,900 25,150 27,350 27,350 27,350 33,150 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 11,900 16,150 16,150 16,150 16,150 21,950 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 9,000 9,000 11,200 11,200 11,200 11,200 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2 1995-2014 Salt

  14. ,"U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity"

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

    012015 7:00:34 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity" "Sourcekey","N5290US2","NA1393NUS2","NA1392NUS2","NA1391NUS2","NGAEP...

  15. ,"U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity"

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

    012015 7:00:34 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity" "Sourcekey","N5290US2","NGAEPG0SACW0NUSMMCF","NA1394NUS8"...

  16. Fuel-Flexible Combustion System for Refinery and Chemical Plant...

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

    low-emission operation across a broad range of fuel compositions, including syngas, biogas, natural gas, and refinery fuel gas. PDF icon Displacing Natural Gas Consumption and...

  17. Nitrogen expander cycles for large capacity liquefaction of natural gas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chang, Ho-Myung; Park, Jae Hoon; Gwak, Kyung Hyun; Choe, Kun Hyung

    2014-01-29

    Thermodynamic study is performed on nitrogen expander cycles for large capacity liquefaction of natural gas. In order to substantially increase the capacity, a Brayton refrigeration cycle with nitrogen expander was recently added to the cold end of the reputable propane pre-cooled mixed-refrigerant (C3-MR) process. Similar modifications with a nitrogen expander cycle are extensively investigated on a variety of cycle configurations. The existing and modified cycles are simulated with commercial process software (Aspen HYSYS) based on selected specifications. The results are compared in terms of thermodynamic efficiency, liquefaction capacity, and estimated size of heat exchangers. The combination of C3-MR with partial regeneration and pre-cooling of nitrogen expander cycle is recommended to have a great potential for high efficiency and large capacity.

  18. Former Soviet refineries face modernization, restructuring

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-11-29

    A massive modernization and restructuring program is under way in the refining sector of Russia and other former Soviet republics. Economic reforms and resulting economic dislocation following the collapse of the Soviet Union has left refineries in the region grappling with a steep decline and changes in product demand. At the same time, rising oil prices and an aging, dilapidated infrastructure promise a massive shakeout. Even as many refineries in the former Soviet Union (FSU) face possible closure because they are running at a fraction of capacity, a host of revamps, expansions, and grass roots refineries are planned or under way. The paper discusses plans.

  19. Myriant Succinic Acid BioRefinery

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

    information Myriant Succinic Acid BioRefinery DOE Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) 2015 Project Peer Review Mark Shmorhun, Principal Investigator March 25, 2015 2 Goal Statement * Renewable Succinic Acid Production * A high value bio based chemical derived from renewable feedstocks * Validate proposed technology at a demonstration plant located in Lake Providence, LA. * Nameplate Capacity: 30 million lbs/year 3 Myriant's Succinic Acid BioRefinery (MySAB) Lake Providence , LA 4 The Myriant

  20. Secretary Bodman Tours Refinery and Calls for More Domestic Refining

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

    Capacity | Department of Energy Refinery and Calls for More Domestic Refining Capacity Secretary Bodman Tours Refinery and Calls for More Domestic Refining Capacity May 18, 2006 - 10:43am Addthis Highlights President Bush's Four-Point Plan to Combat High Energy Prices PORT ARTHUR, TX - Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today renewed the call for expanded oil refining capacity in the United States and discussed additional steps the Department of Energy (DOE) is taking to prepare for the

  1. Refinery Yield of Liquefied Refinery Gases

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

    Refinery Yield (Percent) Product: Liquefied Refinery Gases Finished Motor Gasoline Finished Aviation Gasoline Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel Kerosene Distillate Fuel Oil Residual Fuel Oil Naphtha for Petrochemical Feedstock Use Other Oils for Petrochemical Feedstock Use Special Naphthas Lubricants Waxes Petroleum Coke Asphalt and Road Oil Still Gas Miscellaneous Products Processing Gain(-) or Loss(+) Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes

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

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 4,737,921 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,446 4,727,446 4,727,446 4,727,509 1995 4,730,109 4,647,791 4,647,791 4,647,791 4,647,791 4,647,791 4,593,948 4,593,948 4,593,948 4,593,948 4,593,948 4,593,948 1996 4,593,948

  3. AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 2,026,828 2,068,220 2,068,220 2,068,428 2,068,428 2,068,428 2,074,428 2,082,928 2,082,928 2,082,928 2,082,928 2,082,928 1995 2,082,928 2,096,611 2,096,611 2,096,176 2,096,176 2,096,176 2,090,331 2,090,331 2,090,331 2,090,331 2,090,331 2,090,331 1996 2,095,131 2,106,116

  4. AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 1,226,103 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1995 1,232,392 1,233,637 1,233,637 1,233,637 1,233,637 1,243,137 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1996 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446

  5. Midwest Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Midwest Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,723,336 2,725,497 2,725,535 2015 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,716,587 2,715,888 2,717,255 2,718,087 2,718,087 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable;

  6. South Central Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) South Central Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 2,578,946 2,577,866 2,578,498 2,578,547 2,590,575 2,599,184 2,611,335 2,616,178 2,612,570 2,613,746 2,635,148 2,634,993 2015 2,631,717 2,630,903 2,631,616 2,631,673 2,631,673 2,631,444 2,631,444 2,631,444 2,636,984 2,637,895 2,637,895 2,640,224 - = No Data Reported; -- =

  7. Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 8,842,950 8,854,720 8,854,720 8,882,728 8,905,843 8,919,139 8,922,097 8,940,010 8,979,317 8,991,571 8,990,535 8,992,535 2013 8,965,468 8,971,280 8,986,201 8,988,916 9,020,589 9,027,650 9,033,704 9,048,658 9,087,425 9,093,741 9,090,861 9,089,358 2014 9,081,309 9,080,229 9,080,862 9,080,910

  8. Natural Gas Productive Capacity for the Lower-48 States 1985 - 2003

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

    Productive Capacity for the Lower-48 States 1985 - 2003 EIA Home > Natural Gas > Natural Gas Analysis Publications Natural Gas Productive Capacity for the Lower-48 States 1985 - 2003 Printer-Friendly Version gascapdata.xls ratiodata.xls wellcountdata.xls Executive Summary This analysis examines the availability of effective productive capacity to meet the projected wellhead demand for natural gas through 2003. Effective productive capacity is defined as the maximum production available

  9. Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operable Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Barrels per Calendar Day) Data Series: Total Number of Operable Refineries Number of Operating Refineries Number of Idle Refineries Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operable Capacity (B/CD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operating Capacity (B/CD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Idle Capacity (B/CD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operable Capacity (B/SD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operating Capacity (B/SD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Idle Capacity (B/SD) Vacuum

  10. Outlook for Refinery Outages and Available Refinery Capacity...

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

    of gasoline and distillate, and to include a more detailed consideration of the impact of unexpected outages on product supplies. This report reviews the potential...

  11. Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity - U.S. Energy Information

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Administration Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity With Data for November 2015 | Release Date: March 16, 2016 | Next Release Date: February 2017 Previous Issues Year: 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 prior issues Go Natural gas storage capacity nearly unchanged nationally, but regions vary U.S. natural gas working storage capacity (in terms of design capacity and demonstrated maximum working gas volumes) as of November 2015 was essentially flat compared to November 2014, with some

  12. Assessment of the Adequacy of Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity in the

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Northeast United States - November 2013 | Department of Energy Assessment of the Adequacy of Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity in the Northeast United States - November 2013 Assessment of the Adequacy of Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity in the Northeast United States - November 2013 In 2005-06, the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) conducted a study on the adequacy of interstate natural gas pipeline capacity serving the northeastern United States to meet natural gas demand

  13. Mountain Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 904,787 904,787 904,787 904,787 904,787 904,787 909,887 912,887 912,887...

  14. Mountain Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 461,243 461,243 461,243 461,243 461,243 461,243 461,243 464,435 464,435...

  15. Pacific Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176...

  16. Pacific Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage Capacity...

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

    Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 414,831 414,831 414,831 414,831 414,831 414,831 414,831 414,831 414,831...

  17. Hydrogen Generation for Refineries

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    ADVANCED MANUFACTURING OFFICE PEER REVIEW MEETING May 5-6, 2014 DE-FG02-08ER85135 Hydrogen Generation for Refineries DOE Phase II SBIR Dr. Girish Srinivas P.I. gsrinivas@tda.com 303-940-2321 Dr. Steven Gebhard, P.E. Dr. Robert Copeland Mr. Jeff Martin TDA Research Inc. 1 This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information. Project Overview *

  18. Natural gas productive capacity for the lower 48 States, 1980 through 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-07-14

    The purpose of this report is to analyze monthly natural gas wellhead productive capacity in the lower 48 States from 1980 through 1992 and project this capacity from 1993 through 1995. For decades, natural gas supplies and productive capacity have been adequate to meet demand. In the 1970`s the capacity surplus was small because of market structure (split between interstate and intrastate), increasing demand, and insufficient drilling. In the early 1980`s, lower demand, together with increased drilling, led to a large surplus capacity as new productive capacity came on line. After 1986, this large surplus began to decline as demand for gas increased, gas prices fell, and gas well completions dropped sharply. In late December 1989, the decline in this surplus, accompanied by exceptionally high demand and temporary weather-related production losses, led to concerns about the adequacy of monthly productive capacity for natural gas. These concerns should have been moderated by the gas system`s performance during the unusually severe winter weather in March 1993 and January 1994. The declining trend in wellhead productive capacity is expected to be reversed in 1994 if natural gas prices and drilling meet or exceed the base case assumption. This study indicates that in the low, base, and high drilling cases, monthly productive capacity should be able to meet normal production demands through 1995 in the lower 48 States (Figure ES1). Exceptionally high peak-day or peak-week production demand might not be met because of physical limitations such as pipeline capacity. Beyond 1995, as the capacity of currently producing wells declines, a sufficient number of wells and/or imports must be added each year in order to ensure an adequate gas supply.

  19. Storage tracking refinery trends

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Saunders, J.

    1996-05-01

    Regulatory and marketplace shakeups have made the refining and petrochemical industries highly competitive. The fight to survive has forced refinery consolidations, upgrades and companywide restructurings. Bulk liquid storage terminals are following suit. This should generate a flurry of engineering and construction by the latter part of 1997. A growing petrochemical industry translates into rising storage needs. Industry followers forecasted flat petrochemical growth in 1996 due to excessive expansion in 1994 and 1995. But expansion is expected to continue throughout this year on the strength of several products.

  20. Virginia Biodiesel Refinery | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Refinery Jump to: navigation, search Name: Virginia Biodiesel Refinery Place: West Point, Virginia Zip: 23180 Product: Biodiesel producer based in Virginia References: Virginia...

  1. Refinery, petrochemical plant injuries decline

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-07-25

    The National Petroleum Refiners Association (NPRA) reports a 7% reduction in workplace injury and illness incidence rates for refineries in 1993, and a 21% decrease for petrochemical plants. The report summarizes data from 135 of the 162 US member refineries, and 117 of the 172 US member petrochemical plants. This paper summarizes the report findings.

  2. Reformulated Gasoline Foreign Refinery Rules

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reformulated Gasoline Foreign Refinery Rules Contents * Introduction o Table 1. History of Foreign Refiner Regulations * Foreign Refinery Baseline * Monitoring Imported Conventional Gasoline * Endnotes Related EIA Short-Term Forecast Analysis Products * Areas Participating in the Reformulated Gasoline Program * Environmental Regulations and Changes in Petroleum Refining Operations * Oxygenate Supply/Demand Balances in the Short-Term Integrated Forecasting Model * Refiners Switch to Reformulated

  3. Fuel-Flexible Combustion System for Refinery and Chemical Plant Process

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

    Heaters - Fact Sheet 2014 | Department of Energy Flexible Combustion System for Refinery and Chemical Plant Process Heaters - Fact Sheet 2014 Fuel-Flexible Combustion System for Refinery and Chemical Plant Process Heaters - Fact Sheet 2014 The goal of this research effort was to develop and demonstrate a combustion system capable of automatic, safe, reliable, efficient, and low-emission operation across a broad range of fuel compositions, including syngas, biogas, natural gas, and refinery

  4. Grupo Maris Capital ethanol refinery | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Maris Capital ethanol refinery Jump to: navigation, search Name: Grupo Maris (Capital ethanol refinery) Place: Nuporanga, Brazil Product: 32,000 m3 ethanol refinery owner...

  5. Natural gas productive capacity for the lower 48 states 1984 through 1996, February 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1996-02-09

    This is the fourth wellhead productive capacity report. The three previous ones were published in 1991, 1993, and 1994. This report should be of particular interest to those in Congress, Federal and State agencies, industry, and the academic community, who are concerned with the future availability of natural gas. The EIA Dallas Field Office has prepared five earlier reports regarding natural gas productive capacity. These reports, Gas Deliverability and Flow Capacity of Surveillance Fields, reported deliverability and capacity data for selected gas fields in major gas producing areas. The data in the reports were based on gas-well back-pressure tests and estimates of gas-in-place for each field or reservoir. These reports use proven well testing theory, most of which has been employed by industry since 1936 when the Bureau of Mines first published Monograph 7. Demand for natural gas in the United States is met by a combination of natural gas production, underground gas storage, imported gas, and supplemental gaseous fuels. Natural gas production requirements in the lower 48 States have been increasing during the last few years while drilling has remained at low levels. This has raised some concern about the adequacy of future gas supplies, especially in periods of peak heating or cooling demand. The purpose of this report is to address these concerns by presenting a 3-year projection of the total productive capacity of natural gas at the wellhead for the lower 48 States. Alaska is excluded because Alaskan gas does not enter the lower-48 States pipeline system. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) generates this 3-year projection based on historical gas-well drilling and production data from State, Federal, and private sources. In addition to conventional gas-well gas, coalbed gas and oil-well gas are also included.

  6. Status of Natural Gas Pipeline System Capacity Entering the 2000-2001 Heating Season

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2000-01-01

    This special report looks at the capabilities of the national natural gas pipeline network in 2000 and provides an assessment of the current levels of available capacity to transport supplies from production areas to markets throughout the United States during the upcoming heating season. It also examines how completion of currently planned expansion projects and proposed new pipelines would affect the network.

  7. U.S. Refining Capacity Utilization

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    1995-01-01

    This article briefly reviews recent trends in domestic refining capacity utilization and examines in detail the differences in reported crude oil distillation capacities and utilization rates among different classes of refineries.

  8. ,"Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mt2m.xls"

  9. ,"Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ne2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290nm2m.xls"

  11. ,"New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ny2m.xls"

  12. ,"Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290oh2m.xls"

  13. ,"Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ok2m.xls"

  14. ,"Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290or2m.xls"

  15. ,"Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  16. ,"Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290tn2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290tx2m.xls"

  18. ,"Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ut2m.xls"

  19. ,"Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290va2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290wa2m.xls"

  1. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290wy2m.xls"

  3. U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Number

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

    of Elements) Acquifers Capacity (Number of Elements) U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 49 2000's 49 39 38 43 43 44 44 43 43 43 2010's 43 43 44 47 46 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Number of

  4. U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity

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

    (Number of Elements) Depleted Fields Capacity (Number of Elements) U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 335 2000's 336 351 340 318 320 320 322 326 324 331 2010's 331 329 330 332 333 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  5. U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity

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

    (Number of Elements) Salt Caverns Capacity (Number of Elements) U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 29 2000's 28 28 29 30 30 30 31 31 34 35 2010's 37 38 40 40 39 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  6. U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Acquifers Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (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 396,950 396,092 2010's 364,228 363,521 367,108 453,054 452,044 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Working Gas

  7. U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Depleted Fields Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (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 3,583,786 3,659,968 2010's 3,733,993 3,769,113 3,720,980 3,839,852 3,844,927 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016

  8. U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Salt Caverns Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (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 230,456 271,785 2010's 312,003 351,017 488,268 455,729 488,698 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Working Gas

  9. ,"Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290al2m.xls"

  10. ,"Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  11. ,"Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ar2m.xls"

  12. ,"California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ca2m.xls"

  13. ,"Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290co2m.xls"

  14. ,"Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290il2m.xls"

  15. ,"Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290in2m.xls"

  16. ,"Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ia2m.xls"

  17. ,"Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ks2m.xls"

  18. ,"Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ky2m.xls"

  19. ,"Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290la2m.xls"

  20. ,"Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290md2m.xls"

  1. ,"Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mi2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mn2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ms2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mo2m.xls"

  5. ,"U.S. Refinery Net Production"

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

    7:16:49 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: U.S. Refinery Net Production" ...US1","MMNRXNUS1","MPGRXNUS1" "Date","U.S. Refinery Net Production of Crude Oil and ...

  6. Motiva Refinery | Department of Energy

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

    Refinery Motiva Refinery May 18, 2006 - 10:45am Addthis Remarks Prepared for Energy Secretary Bodman Much of my time lately has been devoted to explaining why the price of gasoline has risen so sharply. President Bush understands the pinch this is creating for American consumers and has come forward with a variety of steps to address the problem. Rapid economic growth in emerging economies like China and India-and the growth here in the U.S.-have pushed up demand. Political unrest in some

  7. Refinery Outages: Description and Potential Impact on Petroleum Product Prices

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2007-01-01

    This report responds to a July 13, 2006 request from Chairman Jeff Bingaman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested that the Energy Information Administration conduct a study of the impact that refinery shutdowns have had on the price of oil and gasoline.

  8. U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Acquifers Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (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 1,263,106 2000's 1,263,711 1,195,141 1,234,007 1,237,132 1,238,158 1,350,689 1,356,323 1,347,516 1,351,832 1,340,633 2010's 1,233,017 1,231,897 1,237,269 1,443,769 1,445,031 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  9. U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Depleted Fields Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (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 6,780,700 2000's 6,788,130 6,768,622 6,747,108 6,733,983 6,776,894 6,667,222 6,711,656 6,801,291 6,805,490 6,917,547 2010's 7,074,773 7,104,948 7,038,245 7,074,916 7,085,773 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure

  10. U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Salt Caverns Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (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 185,451 2000's 189,043 218,483 225,958 234,601 239,990 250,532 261,988 253,410 341,213 397,560 2010's 456,009 512,279 715,821 654,266 702,548 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  11. Huge natural gas reserves central to capacity work, construction plans in Iran

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-07-11

    Questions about oil production capacity in Iran tend to mask the country's huge potential as a producer of natural gas. Iran is second only to Russia in gas reserves, which National Iranian Gas Co. estimates at 20.7 trillion cu m. Among hurdles to Iran's making greater use of its rich endowment of natural gas are where and how to sell gas not used inside the country. The marketing logistics problem is common to other Middle East holders of gas reserves and a reason behind the recent proliferation of proposals for pipeline and liquefied natural gas schemes targeting Europe and India. But Iran's challenges are greater than most in the region. Political uncertainties and Islamic rules complicate long-term financing of transportation projects and raise questions about security of supply. As a result, Iran has remained mostly in the background of discussions about international trade of Middle Eastern gas. The country's huge gas reserves, strategic location, and existing transport infrastructure nevertheless give it the potential to be a major gas trader if the other issues can be resolved. The paper discusses oil capacity plans, gas development, gas injection for enhanced oil recovery, proposals for exports of gas, and gas pipeline plans.

  12. Opportunities for Biorenewables in Petroleum Refineries

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Holmgren, Jennifer; Arena, Blaise; Marinangelli, Richard; McCall, Michael; Marker, Terry; Petri, John; Czernik, Stefan; Elliott, Douglas C.; Shonnard, David

    2006-10-11

    a summary of our collaborative 2005 project “Opportunities for Biorenewables in Petroleum Refineries” at the Rio Oil and Gas Conference this September.

  13. Opportunities for Biorenewables in Petroleum Refineries

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Holmgren, Jennifer; Marinangelli, Richard; Marker, Terry; McCall, Michael; Petri, John; Czernik, Stefan; Elliott, Douglas C.; Shonnard, David

    2007-02-01

    A presentation by UOP based on collaborative work from FY05 using some results from PNNL for upgrading biomass pyrolysis oil to petroleum refinery feedstock

  14. Inorganic Membranes for Refinery Gas Separations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2009-02-01

    This factsheet describes a research project whose goal is to push the performance limits of inorganic membranes for large-scale gas separations in refinery applications.

  15. Integrating NABC bio-oil intermediates into the petroleum refinery...

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

    Integrating NABC bio-oil intermediates into the petroleum refinery Integrating NABC bio-oil intermediates into the petroleum refinery Breakout Session 2: Frontiers and Horizons ...

  16. Refinery & Blenders Net Input of Crude Oil

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

    Input Product: Total Crude Oil & Petroleum Products Crude Oil Natural Gas Plant Liquids and Liquefied Refinery Gases Pentanes Plus Liquefied Petroleum Gases Ethane Normal Butane Isobutane Other Liquids Hydrogen/Oxygenates/Renewables/Other Hydrocarbons Hydrogen Oxygenates (excl. Fuel Ethanol) Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) All Other Oxygenates Renewable Fuels (incl. Fuel Ethanol) Fuel Ethanol Renewable Diesel Fuel Other Renewable Fuels Other Hydrocarbons Unfinished Oils (net) Unfinished

  17. Refinery burner simulation design architecture summary.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pollock, Guylaine M.; McDonald, Michael James; Halbgewachs, Ronald D.

    2011-10-01

    This report describes the architectural design for a high fidelity simulation of a refinery and refinery burner, including demonstrations of impacts to the refinery if errors occur during the refinery process. The refinery burner model and simulation are a part of the capabilities within the Sandia National Laboratories Virtual Control System Environment (VCSE). Three components comprise the simulation: HMIs developed with commercial SCADA software, a PLC controller, and visualization software. All of these components run on different machines. This design, documented after the simulation development, incorporates aspects not traditionally seen in an architectural design, but that were utilized in this particular demonstration development. Key to the success of this model development and presented in this report are the concepts of the multiple aspects of model design and development that must be considered to capture the necessary model representation fidelity of the physical systems.

  18. Innovative filter polishes oil refinery wastewater

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Irwin, J.; Finkler, M.

    1982-07-01

    Describes how, after extensive testing of 4 different treatment techniques, a Hydro Clear rapid sand filter was installed at the Sohio oil refinery in Toledo, Ohio. This filtration system has proven to be more cost-effective than conventional approaches. The system handles the refinery's wastewater flow of 10.3 mgd. With the aid of the polishing filter, readily meets the NPDES permit limitations. The Toledo refinery is a highly integrated petroleum processing complex. It processes 127,000 barrels per day of crude oil, including 40,000 barrels per day of sour crude. Tables give dissolved air flotation performance data; biological system performance data; filter performance data; and refinery waste treatment unit compared with NPDES-BPT limitations. Diagram shows the Sohio refinery wastewater treatment facility. Through a separate backwash treatment system complete control is brought to the suspended solids in the effluent which also tends to control chemical oxygen demand and oil/grease levels.

  19. “Assessment of the Adequacy of Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity in the Northeast United States” Report Now Available

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    In 2013, OE conducted an assessment to determine how changes to the Northeast gas market may have affected the ability of the interstate pipeline system to meet natural gas demand for “essential human needs” in the event of a disruption in pipeline capacity.

  20. From the Woods to the Refinery

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Breakout Session 2D—Building Market Confidence and Understanding II: Carbon Accounting and Woody Biofuels From the Woods to the Refinery Stephen S. Kelley, Principal and Department Head, Department of Forest Biomaterials, North Carolina State University

  1. Iran to build new refinery at Arak

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1990-01-01

    This paper reports Iranian plans to construct a grassroots 150,000-b/d refinery in Arak. The plant, to be completed in early 1993, will be capable of producing unleaded gasoline and other light products.

  2. ,"U.S. Refinery Net Production"

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

    586-8800",,,"10272015 12:31:05 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: U.S. Refinery Net Production" "Sourcekey","MTTRXNUS1","MLPRXNUS1","METRXNUS1","MENRXNUS1","MEYRXNUS1","...

  3. Refinery siting workbook: appendices A and B

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1980-07-01

    The objective of this effort is to develop and provide basic refinery-related information for use by state and local government officials as a basis for establishing responsible refinery siting requirements and policies consistent with the federal clean air and water standards and socio-economic concerns. The report will be organized into two volumes. The main text comprises the basic topics of physical concerns, regulatory requirements, and permitting activities, while the second volume includes the detailed appendix materials such as the applicable laws, and the necessary permits, as available and a glossary of pertinent terms. As a means to this objective, three refinery sizes, 200,000, 100,000 and 30,000 barrels per day crude charge will be discussed in technical terms. Process unit configuration will be presented which will maximize either gasoline or heating oil production with either sweet or sour crude oil feedstocks. The major issues affecting the socio-economic impact of siting the refinery in a given locale will be presented. These data will review the factors affecting the human environment and the issues that must be addressed to assess the impact that a refinery will have on a community. The key federal registrations which impact upon a refinery siting decision shall be reviewed. Summaries of these regulations and a simplified decision diagram for the air and water acts shall be presented to assist both government and refinery officials in understanding the scope of regulatory impact. All pertinent procedures required for refinery permitting shall be reviewed under the generalized headings of air, water, health and safety, land use, and miscellaneous permits. This categorization at the federal, state and local levels of government shall be used as a basis for establishing degrees of emphasis.

  4. U.S. Downstream Charge Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries

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

    Day, Except Where Noted) Area: U.S. PAD District 1 Delaware Florida Georgia Maryland New Jersey New York North Carolina Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia PAD District 2 Illinois Indiana Kansas Kentucky Michigan Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Tennessee Wisconsin PAD District 3 Alabama Arkansas Louisiana Mississippi New Mexico Texas PAD District 4 Colorado Montana Utah Wyoming PAD District 5 Alaska Arizona California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington Guam Puerto Rico Virgin

  5. U.S. Production Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries

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

    Day, Except Where Noted) Area: U.S. PAD District 1 Delaware Florida Georgia Maryland New Jersey New York North Carolina Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia PAD District 2 Illinois Indiana Kansas Kentucky Michigan Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Tennessee Wisconsin PAD District 3 Alabama Arkansas Louisiana Mississippi New Mexico Texas PAD District 4 Colorado Montana Utah Wyoming PAD District 5 Alaska Arizona California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington Guam Puerto Rico Virgin

  6. U.S. Total Shell Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries

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

    Area: U.S. East Coast (PADD 1) Midwest (PADD 2) Gulf Coast (PADD 3) Rocky Mountain (PADD 4) West Coast (PADD 5) Period: Annual (as of January 1) Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Product Area 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Total 710,413 -- -- -- -- -- 1982-2015 Crude Oil 180,846 -- -- -- -- -- 1985-2015 Liquefied Petroleum Gases 33,842 -- -- -- -- -- 1982-2015 Propane/Propylene 8,513 -- --

  7. U.S. Working Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries

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

    Area: U.S. East Coast (PADD 1) Midwest (PADD 2) Gulf Coast (PADD 3) Rocky Mountain (PADD 4) West Coast (PADD 5) Period: Annual (as of January 1) Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Product Area 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Total 617,513 -- -- -- -- -- 1982-2015 Crude Oil 153,181 -- -- -- -- -- 1982-2015 Liquefied Petroleum Gases 30,852 -- -- -- -- -- 1982-2015 Propane/Propylene 8,150 -- --

  8. U.S. Refinery Yield

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 View History Liquefied Refinery Gases 4.9 4.9 3.5 2.8 2.0 2.0 1993-2015 Finished Motor Gasoline 44.5 44.9 45.4 45.7 46.7 47.3 1993-2015 Finished Aviation Gasoline 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1993-2015 Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel 9.7 9.4 9.3 9.8 9.8 10.1 1993-2015 Kerosene 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1993-2015 Distillate Fuel Oil 29.2 29.6 29.9 30.0 30.3 29.6 1993-2015 Residual Fuel Oil 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.2 1993-2015 Naphtha for Petrochemical Feedstock Use 1.0 1.1

  9. U.S. Refinery Yield

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

    2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Liquefied Refinery Gases 4.3 4.0 4.1 3.9 4.0 3.7 1993-2015 Finished Motor Gasoline 45.7 44.9 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.3 1993-2015 Finished Aviation Gasoline 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1993-2015 Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.7 1993-2015 Kerosene 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1993-2015 Distillate Fuel Oil 27.5 28.9 29.1 29.5 29.9 29.8 1993-2015 Residual Fuel Oil 3.8 3.4 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.5 1993-2015 Naphtha for Petrochemical Feedstock Use 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.3

  10. Improved oil refinery operations and cheaper crude oil to help...

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

    Improved oil refinery operations and cheaper crude oil to help reduce gasoline prices U.S. gasoline prices are expected to fall as more oil refineries come back on line and crude ...

  11. Fuel-Flexible Combustion System for Refinery and Chemical Plant Process Heaters

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2010-06-01

    Funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ENVIRON International Corporation, in collaboration with Callidus Technologies by Honeywell and Shell Global Solutions, Inc., will develop and demonstrate a full-scale fuel blending and combustion system. This system will allow a broad range of opportunity fuel compositions, including syngas, biogas, natural gas, and refinery fuel gas, to be safely, cost-effectively, and efficiently utilized while generating minimal emissions of criteria pollutants. The project will develop a commercial technology for application in refinery and chemical plant process heaters where opportunity fuels are used.

  12. Refinery Input by PADD - Petroleum Supply Annual (2004)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2009-01-18

    Table showing refinery input of crude oil and petroleum products by Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts (PADD).

  13. Exergoeconomic analysis of a refinery`s utilities plant: Part II-improvement proposals

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rivero, R.; Hernandez, R.

    1996-12-31

    A crude oil refinery normally consumes a large amount of energy, not only in the form of the combustion of fossil fuels in the process units, but also in the associated Utilities Plant which produces process steam at different pressure levels and electricity. Energy losses of the utilities plant represent some 40 % of the total refinery`s energy losses. It is then extremely important to evaluate the performance of this plant and the costs to be assigned to the production of steam and electricity as a supplier of energy to the process units. This paper presents the improvement proposals generated by the application of an exergoeconomic analysis to the Utilities Plant of an existing 150,000 BPD crude oil refinery. 2 refs., 7 figs.

  14. U.S. Refinery Net Production

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

    12,813 12,516 12,287 12,009 12,148 11,916 2005-2014 Liquefied Refinery Gases 623 659 619 630 623 653 2005-2014 EthaneEthylene 19 20 20 18 7 6 2005-2014 Ethane 14 14 14 13 7 5...

  15. Refinery siting workbook: appendices C to O

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1980-07-01

    Applicable laws and permits available for the selection and building of petroleum refineries are enclosed. A glossary of pertinent terms is also included. References related to the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Toxic Substance Control Act, and Wetlands and Coastal Zone are included. Permit information is also presented. (DC)

  16. Enhanced Attenuation: A Reference Guide On Approaches To Increase The Natural Treatment Capacity Of A System

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Vangelas, K

    2006-01-30

    The objective of this document is to explore the realm of enhancements to natural attenuation processes for cVOCs and review examples that have been proposed, modeled, and implemented. We will identify lessons learned from these case studies to confirm that enhancements are technically feasible and have the potential to achieve a favorable, cost-effective contaminant mass balance. Furthermore, we hope to determine if opportunities for further improvement of the enhancements exist and suggest areas where new and innovative types of enhancements might be possible.

  17. ENHANCED ATTENUATION: A REFERENCE GUIDE ON APPROACHES TO INCREASE THE NATURAL TREATMENT CAPACITY OF A SYSTEM

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Looney, B; Michael Heitkamp, M; Gary Wein , G; Karen Vangelas, K; Karen-M Adams, K; Tom Early; Bob Borden; David Major; W. Jody Waugh; Todd Wiedemeier; Claire H. Sink

    2006-08-10

    The objective of this document is to explore the realm of enhancements to natural attenuation processes for cVOCs and review examples that have been proposed, modeled, and implemented. We will identify lessons learned from these case studies to confirm that enhancements are technically feasible and have the potential to achieve a favorable, cost-effective contaminant mass balance. Furthermore, we hope to determine if opportunities for further improvement of the enhancements exist and suggest areas where new and innovative types of enhancements might be possible.

  18. Opportunities for Biorenewables in Oil Refineries

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Marker, T.L.

    2005-12-19

    Abstract: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential for using biorenewable feedstocks in oil refineries. Economic analyses were conducted, with support from process modeling and proof of principle experiments, to assess a variety of potential processes and configurations. The study considered two primary alternatives: the production of biodiesel and green diesel from vegetable oils and greases and opportunities for utilization of pyrolysis oil. The study identified a number of promising opportunities for biorenewables in existing or new refining operations.

  19. U.S. Refineries Competitive Positions

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Refineries Competitive Positions 2014 EIA Energy Conference July 14, 2014 Joanne Shore American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers Refiners competitive positions Function of optimizing feedstock costs, operating costs, and revenues through mix of products sold 2 Propane/butane Chemicals Gasoline Jet Fuel Diesel/heating oil Lubes Fuel for ships Asphalt FEEDSTOCKS Qualities: - Heavy/Light - Sweet/Sour Location (Distance) - Domestic - International PROCESSING Size Complexity Treating (sulfur)

  20. From the Woods to the Refinery

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

    the Woods to the Refinery CORRIM Life Cycle Analyses of Woody Feedstocks Dr. Steve Kelley Dr. Elaine Oneil President, CORRIM Executive Director, CORRIM Professor North Carolina State Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials A non-profit corporation formed by 17 research institutions to conduct cradle to grave environmental studies of wood products * Seventeen years of LCI/LCA work on durable wood products * Biofuel LCI/LCA research support from: * Eight institutions/cooperators

  1. Economic impact analysis for the petroleum refineries NESHAP. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-08-01

    An economic analysis of the industries affected by the Petroleum Refineries National Emmissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) was completed in support of this standard. The industry for which economic impacts was computed was the petroleum refinery industry. Affected refineries must reduce HAP emissions by the level of control required in the standard. Several types of economic impacts, among them price product changes, output changes, job impacts, and effects on foriegn trade, were computed for the selected regulatory alternative.

  2. Potential Vulnerability of US Petroleum Refineries to Increasing Water

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Temperature and/or Reduced Water Availability | Department of Energy Potential Vulnerability of US Petroleum Refineries to Increasing Water Temperature and/or Reduced Water Availability Potential Vulnerability of US Petroleum Refineries to Increasing Water Temperature and/or Reduced Water Availability This report discusses potential impacts of increased water temperature and reductions in water availability on petroleum refining and presents case studies related to refinery water use. Report

  3. Market Assessment of Refinery Outages Planned for October 2010...

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

    average values for 2002-2009 excluding months in 2005, 2006, and 2008 affected by hurricanes & refinery closures. Similarly, typical historical values are average planned...

  4. Development of an Integrated Biofuel and Chemical Refinery Presentatio...

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

    Development of an Integrated Biofuel and Chemical Refinery John D. Trawick Research ... HT Screening In vivo assays Metabolic Engineering Tools HT Cloning Data LIMS Fermentation ...

  5. Refinery & Blender Net Production of Total Finished Petroleum...

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

    & Blender Net Production Product: Total Finished Petroleum Products Liquefied Refinery Gases EthaneEthylene Ethane Ethylene PropanePropylene Propane Propylene Normal Butane...

  6. Saudi Aramco Mobile Refinery Company (SAMREF) | Open Energy Informatio...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Company (SAMREF) Name: Saudi Aramco Mobile Refinery Company (SAMREF) Address: P.O. Box 30078 Place: Yanbu, Saudi Arabia Sector: Oil and Gas Product: Crude Oil Refining Phone...

  7. Who lives near coke plants and oil refineries An exploration of the environmental inequity hypothesis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Graham, J.D.; Beaulieu, N.D.; Sussman, D.; Sadowitz, M.; Li, Y.C. )

    1999-04-01

    Facility-specific information on pollution was obtained for 36 coke plants and 46 oil refineries in the US and matched with information on populations surrounding these 82 facilities. These data were analyzed to determine whether environmental inequities were present, whether they were more economic or racial in nature, and whether the racial composition of nearby communities has changed significantly since plants began operations. The Census tracts near coke plants have a disproportionate share of poor and nonwhite residents. Multivariate analyses suggest that existing inequities are primarily economic in nature. The findings for oil refineries are not strongly supportive of the environmental inequity hypothesis. Rank ordering of facilities by race, poverty, and pollution produces limited (although not consistent) evidence that the more risky facilities tend to be operating in communities with above-median proportions of nonwhite residents (near coke plants) and Hispanic residents (near oil refineries). Over time, the radical makeup of many communities near facilities has changed significantly, particularly in the case of coke plants sited in the early 1900s. Further risk-oriented studies of multiple manufacturing facilities in various industrial sectors of the economy are recommended.

  8. U.S. Refinery Net Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 View History Total 379,398 376,546 352,148 350,299 353,077 362,368 2005-2015 Liquefied Refinery Gases 26,335 25,920 17,388 13,536 9,912 10,243 2005-2015 Ethane/Ethylene 188 127 158 202 196 226 2005-2015 Ethane 163 110 133 173 165 194 2005-2015 Ethylene 25 17 25 29 31 32 2005-2015 Propane/Propylene 18,010 17,811 15,869 16,121 16,574 17,905 2005-2015 Propane 8,767 8,530 7,955 7,965 8,303 8,831 2005-2015 Propylene 9,243 9,281 7,914 8,156 8,271 9,074

  9. Regulatory impact analysis for the petroleum refineries neshap. Draft report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-07-01

    The report analyzes the regulatory impacts of the Petroleum Refinery National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), which is being promulgated under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CCA). This emission standard would regulate the emissions of certain hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from petroleum refineries. The petroleum refineries industry group includes any facility engaged in the production of motor gasoline, naphthas, kerosene, jet fuels, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants, or other products made from crude oil or unfinished petroleum derivatives. The report analyzes the impact that regulatory action is likely to have on the petroleum refining industry.

  10. World Energy Projection System Plus Model Documentation: Refinery Model

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2011-01-01

    This report documents the objectives, analytical approach and development of the World Energy Projection System Plus (WEPS ) Refinery Model. It also catalogues and describes critical assumptions, computational methodology, parameter estimation techniques, and model source code.

  11. Combined-cycle cogeneration to power oil refinery

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Broeker, R.J.

    1986-11-01

    A cogeneration plant now under construction at an oil refinery in Martinez, California, is an example of how the energy industry has been responding to the fundamental economic and technological challenges it has been facing over the past ten years. The industry is re-examining cogeneration as one way of meeting the requirements of the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act. The new plant is located at Tosco Corporation's Avon Oil Refinery, 45 miles northeast of San Francisco. It was designed by Foster Wheeler to supply process steam for the refinery as well as for a water-treatment installation that will benefit the Contra Costa Water District. Electric power produced will be used primarily by the refinery, with the balance purchased by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

  12. Effective Fouling Minimization Increases the Efficiency and Productivity of Refineries

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This factsheet details a project to improve operating procedures, including physical and chemical methods and the use of high-temperature coatings, to allow refineries to operate equipment below threshold fouling conditions and use the most effective minimization techniques.

  13. NREL Refinery Process Shows Increased Effectiveness of Producing Ethanol

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    from Algae | Department of Energy NREL Refinery Process Shows Increased Effectiveness of Producing Ethanol from Algae NREL Refinery Process Shows Increased Effectiveness of Producing Ethanol from Algae February 11, 2016 - 5:07pm Addthis A new biorefinery process developed by scientists at the Energy Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy's Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) has proven to be significantly more effective at

  14. U.S. Refinery Net Production

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

    2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Total 4,568,301 4,484,600 4,395,128 4,433,893 4,349,316 4,273,291 2005-2015 Liquefied Refinery Gases 240,454 225,992 230,413 227,349 238,485 223,448 2005-2015 Ethane/Ethylene 7,228 7,148 6,597 2,626 2,038 2,134 2005-2015 Ethane 5,200 5,105 4,835 2,439 1,777 1,835 2005-2015 Ethylene 2,028 2,043 1,762 187 261 299 2005-2015 Propane/Propylene 204,223 201,492 202,309 206,038 214,378 203,954 2005-2015 Propane 102,913 98,508 100,933 103,568 111,813 103,253

  15. Finished Motor Gasoline Refinery, Bulk Terminal, and Natural Gas Plant

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Stocks 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History U.S. 40,534 39,717 37,768 27,121 20,275 17,991 1993-2015 PAD District 1 3,913 3,741 3,513 3,190 1,785 1,901 1993-2015 Connecticut 1993-2004 Delaware 1993-2009 Florida 586 734 747 545 397 652 1993-2015 Georgia 374 251 220 269 235 220 1993-2015 Maine 130 152 254 1993-2013 Maryland 1993-2008 Massachusetts 2 4 3 6 5 5 1993-2015 New Hampshire 1993-2005 New Jersey 667 275 795 489 102 384 1993-2015 New York 194 628 483 394 43 11 1993-2015 North

  16. Finished Motor Gasoline Refinery, Bulk Terminal, and Natural Gas Plant

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

    Stocks 7,028 18,017 19,195 17,987 17,396 17,991 1993-2015 PAD District 1 2,576 2,568 2,995 2,384 2,433 1,901 1993-2015 Connecticut 1993-2005 Delaware 1993-2010 Florida 956 787 959 847 827 652 1993-2015 Georgia 299 253 257 263 310 220 1993-2015 Maine 1993-2014 Maryland 1993-2009 Massachusetts 4 4 4 4 4 5 1993-2015 New Hampshire 1993-2006 New Jersey 220 435 785 225 168 384 1993-2015 New York 14 14 17 20 24 11 1993-2015 North Carolina 398 432 380 369 417 167 1993-2015 Pennsylvania 93 75 72 94

  17. Distillate Fuel Oil Refinery, Bulk Terminal, and Natural Gas...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    07,750 111,024 120,511 117,143 111,235 123,812 1993-2015 PAD District 1 35,684 41,109 47,692 48,247 50,887 55,286 1993-2015 Connecticut 1,693 1,981 2,714 3,388 3,960 4,509...

  18. Assessment of coal liquids as refinery feedstocks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zhou, P.

    1992-02-01

    The R D of direct coal liquefaction has reached such a stage that current two-stage processes can produce coal liquids with high yields and improved quality at a reasonable cost. To fully realize the potential value, these coal liquids should be refined into high-value liquid transportation fuels. The purpose of this study is to assess coal liquids as feedstocks to be processed by modern petroleum refining technologies. After the introduction, Section 2.0 summarizes ASTM specifications for major transportation fuels: gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel fuel, which serve as a target for coal-liquid refining. A concise description of modern refining processes follows with an emphasis on the requirements for the raw materials. These provide criteria to judge the quality of coal liquids as a refinery feedstock for the production of marketable liquid fuels. Section 3.0 surveys the properties of coal liquids produced by various liquefaction processes. Compared with typical petroleum oils, the current two-stage coal liquids are: Light in boiling range and free of resids and metals; very low in sulfur but relatively high in oxygen; relatively low in hydrogen and high in cyclics content; and essentially toxicologically inactive when end point is lower than 650[degrees]F, particularly after hydroprocessing. Despite these characteristics, the coal liquids are basically similar to petroleum. The modern refining technology is capable of processing coal liquids into transportation fuels meeting all specifications, and hydroprocessinq is obviously the major tool. The important point is the determination of a reasonable product slate and an appropriate refining scheme.

  19. Assessment of coal liquids as refinery feedstocks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zhou, P.

    1992-02-01

    The R&D of direct coal liquefaction has reached such a stage that current two-stage processes can produce coal liquids with high yields and improved quality at a reasonable cost. To fully realize the potential value, these coal liquids should be refined into high-value liquid transportation fuels. The purpose of this study is to assess coal liquids as feedstocks to be processed by modern petroleum refining technologies. After the introduction, Section 2.0 summarizes ASTM specifications for major transportation fuels: gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel fuel, which serve as a target for coal-liquid refining. A concise description of modern refining processes follows with an emphasis on the requirements for the raw materials. These provide criteria to judge the quality of coal liquids as a refinery feedstock for the production of marketable liquid fuels. Section 3.0 surveys the properties of coal liquids produced by various liquefaction processes. Compared with typical petroleum oils, the current two-stage coal liquids are: Light in boiling range and free of resids and metals; very low in sulfur but relatively high in oxygen; relatively low in hydrogen and high in cyclics content; and essentially toxicologically inactive when end point is lower than 650{degrees}F, particularly after hydroprocessing. Despite these characteristics, the coal liquids are basically similar to petroleum. The modern refining technology is capable of processing coal liquids into transportation fuels meeting all specifications, and hydroprocessinq is obviously the major tool. The important point is the determination of a reasonable product slate and an appropriate refining scheme.

  20. Alternative multimedia regulatory programs for next-generation refineries

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Elcock, D.; Gasper, J.; Arguerro, R.; Emerson, D.

    2000-06-22

    The 25-year-old command-and-control environmental regulatory structure in the US has resulted in significant environmental improvements. Recently, however, its limitations (e.g., rigid application regardless of site-specific conditions, disregard of cross-media and multimedia impacts, limited incentives for new technology development and use) have become increasingly apparent. New regulatory approaches that recognize current and anticipated economic constraints, new knowledge of environmental processes and impacts, and the benefits of new technologies are needed. Such approaches could be especially important for the US petroleum refining industry. This industry operates under thin profit margins, releases chemicals that can produce adverse health and environmental impacts, and must meet the technological challenges of producing more highly refined fuels from poorer quality feedstocks. Under a grant from the Environmental Technology Initiative (ETI), Argonne National Laboratory and its subcontractor, Analytical Services, Inc. developed two alternative environmental regulatory programs for next-generation petroleum refineries. (In this report, next-generation refineries refers to the refineries of today as they operate in the next 20 or more years rather than to fully reengineered future refineries.) The objective of the ETI refinery project was to develop future-oriented regulatory programs for next-generation refineries that will expand the use of innovative technologies, encourage pollution prevention, demonstrate environmental responsibility, and maintain refinery economic performance. Rather than suggesting targeted, short-term modifications to existing media-specific command-and-control regulations, the ETI project suggests the use of new approaches that are broader and more flexible. It recognizes that giving refineries flexibility in meeting environmental protection goals can stimulate new technology development and use. Unlike most US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reinvention efforts, which seek results in 12 to 18 months, this ETI effort assumes a time frame of 20 years or more. It also assumes that existing laws and regulations can be changed. An iterative and interactive process was used by the project team to develop the alternative approaches. Information and stakeholder input were integrated to provide for constant revision and improvement. First, guidelines and principles were established to bound the study and set parameters for developing the approaches. Next, existing and projected environmental laws and regulations affecting petroleum refineries were examined to identify areas needing change. Then, to understand future challenges and opportunities, the projected refinery operating environment was described in terms of feedstock, product, technology, and economics. Finally several goals and indicators for assessing and comparing the alternatives were identified. On the basis of this background information, more than 60 options that could efficiently and effectively protect human health and the environment were identified. These options ranged from fundamental changes in program philosophy to procedural improvements. After the options were evaluated against the goals and indicators, many of them were integrated into two separate thematic paradigms: a risk-based paradigm and a goal-based paradigm. Elements common to both approaches include the following: (1) Establish the baseline--In establishing the baseline, the refinery and the regulator jointly identify residuals for which release limits must be established; (2) Set residual release limits--The refinery and the regulator jointly specify release limits on a facility-wide rather than a source-specific basis. A facility-wide permit documents the release limits; and (3) Assure compliance--Incentives provide the basis for assuring compliance, and flexibility in the compliance method is encouraged. Penalties apply if releases exceed the limits, and reporting requirements are streamlined relative to current practices.

  1. Mazheikiai refinery modernization study. Executive summary. Export trade information

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-01-01

    The study, conducted by Foster Wheeler Corporation, was funded by the U.S. Trade and Development Agency on behalf of Lithuania's Ministry of Energy. The Mazheikiai Oil Refinery is the only one in the Baltic Region and serves the needs of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Kaliningrad. Before Lithuania's independence in 1990, the refinery was assured of crude supplies from Russia. However, since then the need has arisen to secure alternate sources of crude oil and the ability to process them. The purpose of the report is to provide recommendations to the Ministry of Energy for process improvements, environmental control measures, physical rehabilitation and energy conservation plans for the Mazheikiai Oil Refinery. The volume contains the Executive Summary.

  2. EIA-820, Annual Refinery Report Page 1 U. S. ENERGY INFORMATION...

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

    crude oil that first traveled 5,000 miles by tanker and then traveled 105 miles by pipeline to the refinery, report pipeline as the method of transportation. * If the refinery...

  3. Monitoring near refineries or airborne chemicals on the SARA Title 3 section 313 list

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1988-01-01

    In this volume, detailed procedures recommended for the measurement of selected petroleum refinery emissions in ambient air are presented.

  4. Monitoring near refineries or airborne chemicals on the SARA Title 3 Section 313 list

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1988-01-01

    This volume identifies publications and databases that address ambient air concentrations measured near petroleum refineries for the selected target chemicals.

  5. Monitoring near refineries for airborne chemicals on the SARA Title 3 Section 313 list

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1989-01-01

    This study provides an ambient air concentration perspective to the engineering estimates of petroleum refinery emissions required under SARA Title III Section 313. It presents and discusses ambient air concentrations of 25 selected target chemicals measured at and near the perimeter (fenceline) of three refineries. Measurements were made over three consecutive 24-hour sampling periods at each refinery. The extent to which the concentrations of the target chemicals were due to fugitive emissions from the refineries is estimated.

  6. DOE - Office of Legacy Management -- International Rare Metals Refinery Inc

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    - NY 38 Rare Metals Refinery Inc - NY 38 FUSRAP Considered Sites Site: International Rare Metals Refinery, Inc. (NY.38 ) Eliminated from consideration under FUSRAP Designated Name: Not Designated Alternate Name: Canadian Radium and Uranium Corporation NY.38-1 Location: 69 Kisko Avenue , Mt. Kisko , New York NY.38-1 NY.38-3 Evaluation Year: 1987 NY.38-4 Site Operations: Manufactured and distributed radium and polonium products. NY.38-5 Site Disposition: Eliminated - No Authority - Site was a

  7. North Dakota Refining Capacity Study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dennis Hill; Kurt Swenson; Carl Tuura; Jim Simon; Robert Vermette; Gilberto Marcha; Steve Kelly; David Wells; Ed Palmer; Kuo Yu; Tram Nguyen; Juliam Migliavacca

    2011-01-05

    According to a 2008 report issued by the United States Geological Survey, North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation. With the size and remoteness of the discovery, the question became 'can a business case be made for increasing refining capacity in North Dakota?' And, if so what is the impact to existing players in the region. To answer the question, a study committee comprised of leaders in the region's petroleum industry were brought together to define the scope of the study, hire a consulting firm and oversee the study. The study committee met frequently to provide input on the findings and modify the course of the study, as needed. The study concluded that the Petroleum Area Defense District II (PADD II) has an oversupply of gasoline. With that in mind, a niche market, naphtha, was identified. Naphtha is used as a diluent used for pipelining the bitumen (heavy crude) from Canada to crude markets. The study predicted there will continue to be an increase in the demand for naphtha through 2030. The study estimated the optimal configuration for the refinery at 34,000 barrels per day (BPD) producing 15,000 BPD of naphtha and a 52 percent refinery charge for jet and diesel yield. The financial modeling assumed the sponsor of a refinery would invest its own capital to pay for construction costs. With this assumption, the internal rate of return is 9.2 percent which is not sufficient to attract traditional investment given the risk factor of the project. With that in mind, those interested in pursuing this niche market will need to identify incentives to improve the rate of return.

  8. Energy Efficiency Roadmap for Petroleum Refineries in California

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    none,

    2004-04-01

    Through the California State IOF initiative, the California Energy Commission PIER Program developed a petroleum refining roadmap to identify energy issues and priorities unique to the refining industry in California and create a plan for future R&D that could help California refineries implement energy efficient technologies.

  9. U.S. Refinery and Blender Net Production

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

    18,452 18,673 18,564 19,106 19,654 19,893 1983-2015 Liquefied Refinery Gases 659 619 630 623 653 612 1984-2015 EthaneEthylene 20 20 18 7 6 6 1985-2015 Ethane 14 14 13 7 5 5 ...

  10. U.S. Refinery and Blender Net Production

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

    Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 View History Total 641,908 639,034 600,775 608,595 595,141 614,837 1981-2015 Liquefied Refinery Gases 26,335 25,920 17,388 13,536 9,912 ...

  11. U.S. Refinery and Blender Net Production

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

    6,735,067 6,815,590 6,794,407 6,973,710 7,173,730 7,260,943 1981-2015 Liquefied Refinery Gases 240,454 225,992 230,413 227,349 238,485 223,448 1981-2015 EthaneEthylene 7,228 7,148 ...

  12. Energy efficiency improvement and cost saving opportunities forpetroleum refineries

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Worrell, Ernst; Galitsky, Christina

    2005-02-15

    The petroleum refining industry in the United States is the largest in the world, providing inputs to virtually any economic sector,including the transport sector and the chemical industry. The industry operates 146 refineries (as of January 2004) around the country,employing over 65,000 employees. The refining industry produces a mix of products with a total value exceeding $151 billion. Refineries spend typically 50 percent of cash operating costs (i.e., excluding capital costs and depreciation) on energy, making energy a major cost factor and also an important opportunity for cost reduction. Energy use is also a major source of emissions in the refinery industry making energy efficiency improvement an attractive opportunity to reduce emissions and operating costs. Voluntary government programs aim to assist industry to improve competitiveness through increased energy efficiency and reduced environmental impact. ENERGY STAR (R), a voluntary program managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, stresses the need for strong and strategic corporate energy management programs. ENERGY STAR provides energy management tools and strategies for successful corporate energy management programs. This Energy Guide describes research conducted to support ENERGY STAR and its work with the petroleum refining industry.This research provides information on potential energy efficiency opportunities for petroleum refineries. This Energy Guide introduces energy efficiency opportunities available for petroleum refineries. It begins with descriptions of the trends, structure, and production of the refining industry and the energy used in the refining and conversion processes. Specific energy savings for each energy efficiency measure based on case studies of plants and references to technical literature are provided. If available, typical payback periods are also listed. The Energy Guide draws upon the experiences with energy efficiency measures of petroleum refineries worldwide. The findings suggest that given available resources and technology, there are opportunities to reduce energy consumption cost-effectively in the petroleum refining industry while maintaining the quality of the products manufactured. Further research on the economics of the measures, as well as the applicability of these to individual refineries, is needed to assess the feasibility of implementation of selected technologies at individual plants.

  13. Alternative future environmental regulatory approaches for petroleum refineries.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Elcock, D.; Gasper, J.; Moses, D. O.; Emerson, D.; Arguerro, R.; Environmental Assessment; DOE; Analytical Services, Inc.

    2000-01-01

    Recently, many industrial, regulatory, and community leaders have expressed concern that the current environmental regulatory structure disregards multimedia environmental impacts, provides few incentives to develop and use new technologies, and fails to consider site-specific conditions. For the US petroleum refining industry, faced with the need to produce higher-quality fuels from poorer-quality feedstocks, such criticisms are expected to increase. This article offers two alternative environmental regulatory approaches for existing petroleum refineries to use in the future. These alternative approaches are multimedia in scope, provide for new technology development and use, and allow flexibility in the means for meeting environmental goals. They have been reviewed and critiqued by various stakeholders, including industry representatives, regulators, and local and national community and environmental organizations. The integration of stakeholder comments and findings of ongoing national and international regulatory reinvention efforts in the development of these approaches positions them for potential use by other industries in addition to petroleum refineries.

  14. Congested site challenges designers of refinery IPP plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Collins, S.

    1993-09-01

    This article describes a new IPP plant which has successfully met the challenges of an extremely congested site--including overcoming physical space constraints, meeting low air-emissions regulations, and minimizing water consumption--located next to a busy highway and near a major airport. The 650-MW Linden cogeneration plant is located on a 13.5-acre plot within the confines of Bayway Refinery Co's facility near Newark, NJ. Since starting operation one year ago, the plant has been reliably supplying steam for the refinery's process heating and mechanical drive needs and efficiently generating steam and electricity with minimal environmental impact. To achieve these goals, designers chose a combined-cycle configuration/generators, five supplementary-fired heat-recovery steam generators (HRSGs), and three 90-MW steam turbine/generators. Thus far, the facility has operated with an average availability above 90%.

  15. Martinez Refinery Completes Plant-Wide Energy Assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2002-11-01

    This OIT BestPractices Case Study describes how the Equilon Enterprises oil refinery in Martinez, California undertook a plant-wide energy assessment that focused on three key areas: waste minimization, process debottlenecking, and operations optimization. The assessment yielded recommendations, which, if implemented, can save more than 6,000,000 MMBtu per year and an estimated $52,000,000 per year, plus improve process control and reduce waste.

  16. Refinery Net Production of Total Finished Petroleum Products

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

    Product: Total Finished Petroleum Products Liquefied Refinery Gases Ethane/Ethylene Ethane Ethylene Propane/Propylene Propane Propylene Normal Butane/Butylene Normal Butane Butylene Isobutane/Isobutylene Isobutane Isobutylene Finished Motor Gasoline Reformulated Gasoline Reformulated Blended w/ Fuel Ethanol Reformulated Other Conventional Gasoline Conventional Blended w/ Fuel Ethanol Conventional Blended w/ Fuel Ethanol, Ed55 and Lower Conventional Blended w/ Fuel Ethanol, Greater than Ed55

  17. University of Maine Integrated Forest Product Refinery (IFPR) Technology Research

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pendse, Hemant P.

    2010-11-23

    This project supported research on science and technology that forms a basis for integrated forest product refinery for co-production of chemicals, fuels and materials using existing forest products industry infrastructure. Clear systems view of an Integrated Forest Product Refinery (IFPR) allowed development of a compelling business case for a small scale technology demonstration in Old Town ME for co-production of biofuels using cellulosic sugars along with pulp for the new owners of the facility resulting in an active project on Integrated Bio-Refinery (IBR) at the Old Town Fuel & Fiber. Work on production of advanced materials from woody biomass has led to active projects in bioplastics and carbon nanofibers. A lease for 40,000 sq. ft. high-bay space has been obtained to establish a Technology Research Center for IFPR technology validation on industrially relevant scale. UMaine forest bioproducts research initiative that began in April 2006 has led to establishment of a formal research institute beginning in March 2010.

  18. Natural Gas Aquifers Storage Capacity

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

    1,340,633 1,233,017 1,231,897 1,237,269 1,443,769 1,445,031 1999-2014 Alabama 0 0 1999-2014 Arkansas 0 0 1999-2014 California 0 0 12,000 12,000 1999-2014 Colorado 0 0 1999-2014 Illinois 885,848 772,381 777,294 779,862 974,362 978,624 1999-2014 Indiana 81,328 81,268 81,310 80,746 80,746 80,746 1999-2014 Iowa 284,811 288,010 288,210 288,210 288,210 288,210 1999-2014 Kansas 0 0 1999-2014 Kentucky 9,567 9,567 9,567 9,567 9,567 6,567 1999-2014 Louisiana 0 0 1999-2014 Michigan 0 0 1999-2014 Minnesota

  19. Opportunities for Biomass-Based Fuels and Products in a Refinery |

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

    Department of Energy Opportunities for Biomass-Based Fuels and Products in a Refinery Opportunities for Biomass-Based Fuels and Products in a Refinery Breakout Session 2: Frontiers and Horizons Session 2-D: Working Together: Conventional Refineries and Bio-Oil R&D Technologies Corinne Valkenburg, Staff Engineer, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PDF icon biomass13_male_2-d.pdf More Documents & Publications FCC Pilot Plant Results with Vegetable Oil and Pyrolysis Oil Feeds

  20. Potential Impacts of Reductions in Refinery Activity on Northeast Petroleum Product Markets

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2012-01-01

    Potential Impacts of Reductions in Refinery Activity on Northeast Petroleum Product Markets is an update to a previous Energy Information Administration (EIA) report, Reductions in Northeast Refining Activity: Potential Implications for Petroleum Product Markets, released in December 2011. This update analyzes possible market responses and impacts in the event Sunoco's Philadelphia refinery closes this summer, in addition to the recently idled refineries on the East Coast and in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

  1. U.S. Refinery Net Input

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

    2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Total 4,178,588 4,091,601 4,007,375 4,037,265 3,954,862 3,894,471 2005-2015 Crude Oil 5,374,094 5,404,347 5,489,516 5,589,006 5,784,637 5,915,532 2005-2015 Natural Gas Plant Liquids 154,941 171,074 175,607 168,808 172,563 171,936 2005-2015 Pentanes Plus 54,697 61,059 59,432 56,153 52,853 50,850 2005-2015 Liquefied Petroleum Gases 100,244 110,015 116,175 112,655 119,710 121,086 2005-2015 Normal Butane 39,253 42,087 45,747 42,461 45,916 47,870 2005-2015

  2. Aspects of Holly Corporation's Acquisition of Sunoco Inc.'s Tulsa, Oklahoma Refinery

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2009-01-01

    The Energy Information Administration has produced a review of aspects of the Holly's acquisition of Sunoco's 85,000-barrels-per-day Tulsa refinery.

  3. Initial Assessment of U.S. Refineries for Purposes of Potential...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    U.S. Refineries for Purposes of Potential Bio-Based Oil Insertions Freeman, Charles J.; Jones, Susanne B.; Padmaperuma, Asanga B.; Santosa, Daniel M.; Valkenburg, Corinne; Shinn,...

  4. Updated estimation of energy efficiencies of U.S. petroleum refineries.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Palou-Rivera, I.; Wang, M. Q.

    2010-12-08

    Evaluation of life-cycle (or well-to-wheels, WTW) energy and emission impacts of vehicle/fuel systems requires energy use (or energy efficiencies) of energy processing or conversion activities. In most such studies, petroleum fuels are included. Thus, determination of energy efficiencies of petroleum refineries becomes a necessary step for life-cycle analyses of vehicle/fuel systems. Petroleum refinery energy efficiencies can then be used to determine the total amount of process energy use for refinery operation. Furthermore, since refineries produce multiple products, allocation of energy use and emissions associated with petroleum refineries to various petroleum products is needed for WTW analysis of individual fuels such as gasoline and diesel. In particular, GREET, the life-cycle model developed at Argonne National Laboratory with DOE sponsorship, compares energy use and emissions of various transportation fuels including gasoline and diesel. Energy use in petroleum refineries is key components of well-to-pump (WTP) energy use and emissions of gasoline and diesel. In GREET, petroleum refinery overall energy efficiencies are used to determine petroleum product specific energy efficiencies. Argonne has developed petroleum refining efficiencies from LP simulations of petroleum refineries and EIA survey data of petroleum refineries up to 2006 (see Wang, 2008). This memo documents Argonne's most recent update of petroleum refining efficiencies.

  5. U.S. Refinery Net Input

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 View History Total 346,773 340,480 321,878 318,765 321,561 328,213 2005-2015 Crude Oil 523,409 516,507 485,221 479,416 494,682 519,726 2005-2015 Natural Gas Plant Liquids 13,079 13,240 14,690 15,903 17,686 18,057 2005-2015 Pentanes Plus 4,606 4,453 4,693 4,431 3,897 3,932 2005-2015 Liquefied Petroleum Gases 8,473 8,787 9,997 11,472 13,789 14,125 2005-2015 Normal Butane 2,137 1,869 3,144 5,323 7,093 7,560 2005-2015 Isobutane 6,336 6,918 6,853 6,149 6,696

  6. Clean air amendments put big burden on refinery planners

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Scherr, R.C.; Smalley, G.A. Jr.; Norman, M.E. )

    1991-06-10

    The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 will not only require the production of reformulated gasoline but also have significant impact on other refinery-related construction. This must be considered when developing sound planning strategy. The three titles of the Clean Air Act Amendments that will have the greatest effect on refining are: Title I: Nonattainment; Title III: Air toxics; Title V: Permitting. To understand the ramifications of these amendments, it is necessary to review the interactions of new requirements with the permitting and construction schedule shown.

  7. Page 1 EIA-810, Monthly Refinery Report U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    EIA-810, Monthly Refinery Report U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION Washington, D. C. 20585 OMB No. 1905-0165 Expiration Date: 05/31/2016 (Revised 2013) EIA-810 MONTHLY REFINERY REPORT INSTRUCTIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ QUESTIONS If you have any questions about Form EIA-810 after reading the instructions, please contact the Survey

  8. EIA-800, Weekly Refinery and Fractionator Report Page 1 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    00, Weekly Refinery and Fractionator Report Page 1 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION Washington, D. C. 20585 OMB No. 1905-0165 Expiration Date: 05/31/2016 (Revised 2013) EIA-800 WEEKLY REFINERY AND FRACTIONATOR REPORT INSTRUCTIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ QUESTIONS If you have any questions

  9. EIA-820, Annual Refinery Report Page 1 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    20, Annual Refinery Report Page 1 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION Washington, D. C. 20585 OMB No. 1905-0165 Expiration Date: 05/31/16 (Revised 2013) EIA-820 ANNUAL REFINERY REPORT INSTRUCTIONS .................................................................................................................................................................................... QUESTIONS If you have any questions about Form EIA-820 after reading the instructions, please

  10. High-Octane Fuel from Refinery Exhaust Gas: Upgrading Refinery Off-Gas to High-Octane Alkylate

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2009-12-01

    Broad Funding Opportunity Announcement Project: Exelus is developing a method to convert olefins from oil refinery exhaust gas into alkylate, a clean-burning, high-octane component of gasoline. Traditionally, olefins must be separated from exhaust before they can be converted into another source of useful fuel. Exelus’ process uses catalysts that convert the olefin to alkylate without first separating it from the exhaust. The ability to turn up to 50% of exhaust directly into gasoline blends could result in an additional 46 million gallons of gasoline in the U.S. each year.

  11. Economic impacts of oil spills: Spill unit costs for tankers, pipelines, refineries, and offshore facilities. [Task 1, Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-10-15

    The impacts of oil spills -- ranging from the large, widely publicized Exxon Valdez tanker incident to smaller pipeline and refinery spills -- have been costly to both the oil industry and the public. For example, the estimated costs to Exxon of the Valdez tanker spill are on the order of $4 billion, including $2.8 billion (in 1993 dollars) for direct cleanup costs and $1.125 billion (in 1992 dollars) for settlement of damages claims caused by the spill. Application of contingent valuation costs and civil lawsuits pending in the State of Alaska could raise these costs appreciably. Even the costs of the much smaller 1991 oil spill at Texaco`s refinery near Anacortes, Washington led to costs of $8 to 9 million. As a result, inexpensive waming, response and remediation technologies could lower oil spin costs, helping both the oil industry, the associated marine industries, and the environment. One means for reducing the impact and costs of oil spills is to undertake research and development on key aspects of the oil spill prevention, warming, and response and remediation systems. To target these funds to their best use, it is important to have sound data on the nature and size of spills, their likely occurrence and their unit costs. This information could then allow scarce R&D dollars to be spent on areas and activities having the largest impact. This report is intended to provide the ``unit cost`` portion of this crucial information. The report examines the three key components of the US oil supply system, namely, tankers and barges; pipelines and refineries; and offshore production facilities. The specific purpose of the study was to establish the unit costs of oil spills. By manipulating this key information into a larger matrix that includes the size and frequency of occurrence of oil spills, it will be possible` to estimate the likely future impacts, costs, and sources of oil spills.

  12. Hydrotreating Pyrolytic Lignin to Produce a Refinery Feedstock (Poster)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    French, R. J.

    2013-09-01

    Fast pyrolysis of biomass followed by water separation to produce pyrolytic lignin and hydrotreating of the lignin could be used to produce a stable volatile low-oxygen intermediate liquid. Such a liquid could be converted into a finished motor-fuel in a refinery, taking advantage of the existing infrastructure and economies of scale of refineries. Hydrotreating just the lignin would consume less hydrogen while preserving about half of the energy of the original oil. The aqueous by-products could be reformed to produce the needed hydrogen and would contain much of the unwanted acids and unstable oxygenates. To assess such intermediate liquids, several pyrolytic lignins were prepared by mixing pyrolysis oil with water at 1:1 and 3:1 ratios. The carboxylic acidity in the pyrolytic lignin was reduced to 24 and 10 mg-KOH/g-lignin compared to 81 in the whole oil. These lignins were hydrotreated using Ni-Mo(S)/alumina, Pt/char, or Pd/C(activated) in a semi-batch 1 L stirred autoclave. The oil was stabilized under hydrogen at 150-280 degrees C, then water and light organics were removed by partial depressurization. Hydrodeoxygenation was then performed at 340-400 degrees C. Total pressure was controlled at 70 or 170 bar with hydrogen gas. Organic liquid yields of 39-56% were obtained. For many experiments the organic oxygen content was <7%, acidity was < 7 mg-KOH/g-oil, the volatility was greater than or equal to 94% and, on a carbon basis, the total yield of organic products miscible in hydrocarbons at a 1:10 ratio was over 50%. These properties are probably acceptable to a refinery.The residual liquids left in the reactor at the end of the experiment comprised 60-85% of the organic-phase product while the rest was condensate. 13C-NMR of the residual liquids showed that they were 50-80% aliphatic. 13C-NMR coupled with GC-MS identified phenolic compounds as the main oxygenates in most residual liquids.

  13. Fuel-Flexible Combustion System for Refinery and Chemical Plant Process Heaters

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Benson, Charles; Wilson, Robert

    2014-04-30

    This project culminated in the demonstration of a full-scale industrial burner which allows a broad range of “opportunity” gaseous fuels to be cost-effectively and efficiently utilized while generating minimal emissions of criteria air pollutants. The burner is capable of maintaining a stable flame when the fuel composition changes rapidly. This enhanced stability will contribute significantly to improving the safety and reliability of burner operation in manufacturing sites. Process heating in the refining and chemicals sectors is the primary application for this burner. The refining and chemical sectors account for more than 40% of total industrial natural gas use. Prior to the completion of this project, an enabling technology did not exist that would allow these energy-intensive industries to take full advantage of opportunity fuels and thereby reduce their natural gas consumption. Opportunity gaseous fuels include biogas (from animal and agricultural wastes, wastewater plants, and landfills) as well as syngas (from the gasification of biomass, municipal solid wastes, construction wastes, and refinery residuals). The primary challenge to using gaseous opportunity fuels is that their composition and combustion performance differ significantly from those of conventional fuels such as natural gas and refinery fuel gas. An effective fuel-flexible burner must accept fuels that range widely in quality and change in composition over time, often rapidly. In Phase 1 of this project, the team applied computational fluid dynamics analysis to optimize the prototype burner’s aerodynamic, combustion, heat transfer, and emissions performance. In Phase 2, full-scale testing and refinement of two prototype burners were conducted in test furnaces at Zeeco’s offices in Broken Arrow, OK. These tests demonstrated that the full range of conventional and opportunity fuels could be utilized by the project’s burner while achieving robust flame stability and very low levels of air pollutant emissions. In Phase 3, the team retrofitted three fuel-flexible burners into a fired heater at a Shell plant and demonstrated the project’s technology over a 6-month period. The project burners performed well during this period. They remain in commercial service at the Shell plant. Through this work, an improved understanding of flame stabilization mechanisms was gained. Also, methods for accommodating a wide range of fuel compositions were developed. This knowledge facilitated the commercialization of a new generation of burners that are suitable for the fuels of the future.

  14. Refinery Integration of By-Products from Coal-Derived Jet Fuels

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Caroline Clifford; Andre Boehman; Chunshan Song; Bruce Miller; Gareth Mitchell

    2008-03-31

    The final report summarizes the accomplishments toward project goals during length of the project. The goal of this project was to integrate coal into a refinery in order to produce coal-based jet fuel, with the major goal to examine the products other than jet fuel. These products are in the gasoline, diesel and fuel oil range and result from coal-based jet fuel production from an Air Force funded program. The main goal of Task 1 was the production of coal-based jet fuel and other products that would need to be utilized in other fuels or for non-fuel sources, using known refining technology. The gasoline, diesel fuel, and fuel oil were tested in other aspects of the project. Light cycle oil (LCO) and refined chemical oil (RCO) were blended, hydrotreated to removed sulfur, and hydrogenated, then fractionated in the original production of jet fuel. Two main approaches, taken during the project period, varied where the fractionation took place, in order to preserve the life of catalysts used, which includes (1) fractionation of the hydrotreated blend to remove sulfur and nitrogen, followed by a hydrogenation step of the lighter fraction, and (2) fractionation of the LCO and RCO before any hydrotreatment. Task 2 involved assessment of the impact of refinery integration of JP-900 production on gasoline and diesel fuel. Fuel properties, ignition characteristics and engine combustion of model fuels and fuel samples from pilot-scale production runs were characterized. The model fuels used to represent the coal-based fuel streams were blended into full-boiling range fuels to simulate the mixing of fuel streams within the refinery to create potential 'finished' fuels. The representative compounds of the coal-based gasoline were cyclohexane and methyl cyclohexane, and for the coal-base diesel fuel they were fluorine and phenanthrene. Both the octane number (ON) of the coal-based gasoline and the cetane number (CN) of the coal-based diesel were low, relative to commercial fuels ({approx}60 ON for coal-based gasoline and {approx}20 CN for coal-based diesel fuel). Therefore, the allowable range of blending levels was studied where the blend would achieve acceptable performance. However, in both cases of the coal-based fuels, their ignition characteristics may make them ideal fuels for advanced combustion strategies where lower ON and CN are desirable. Task 3 was designed to develop new approaches for producing ultra clean fuels and value-added chemicals from refinery streams involving coal as a part of the feedstock. It consisted of the following three parts: (1) desulfurization and denitrogenation which involves both new adsorption approach for selective removal of nitrogen and sulfur and new catalysts for more effective hydrotreating and the combination of adsorption denitrogenation with hydrodesulfurization; (2) saturation of two-ring aromatics that included new design of sulfur resistant noble-metal catalysts for hydrogenation of naphthalene and tetralin in middle distillate fuels, and (3) value-added chemicals from naphthalene and biphenyl, which aimed at developing value-added organic chemicals from refinery streams such as 2,6-dimethylnaphthalene and 4,4{prime}-dimethylbiphenyl as precursors to advanced polymer materials. Major advances were achieved in this project in designing the catalysts and sorbent materials, and in developing fundamental understanding. The objective of Task 4 was to evaluate the effect of introducing coal into an existing petroleum refinery on the fuel oil product, specifically trace element emissions. Activities performed to accomplish this objective included analyzing two petroleum-based commercial heavy fuel oils (i.e., No. 6 fuel oils) as baseline fuels and three co-processed fuel oils, characterizing the atomization performance of a No. 6 fuel oil, measuring the combustion performance and emissions of the five fuels, specifically major, minor, and trace elements when fired in a watertube boiler designed for natural gas/fuel oil, and determining the boiler performance when firing the five fuels. Two different co-processed fuel oils were tested: one that had been partially hydrotreated, and the other a product of fractionation before hydrotreating. Task 5 focused on examining refining methods that would utilize coal and produce thermally stable jet fuel, included delayed coking and solvent extraction. Delayed coking was done on blends of decant oil and coal, with the goal to produce a premium carbon product and liquid fuels. Coking was done on bench scale and large laboratory scale cokers. Two coals were examined for co-coking, using Pittsburgh seam coal and Marfork coal product. Reactions in the large, laboratory scaled coker were reproducible in yields of products and in quality of products. While the co-coke produced from both coals was of sponge coke quality, minerals left in the coke made it unacceptable for use as anode or graphite grade filler.

  15. House Passage of H.R. 5254 - The Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act |

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Department of Energy Passage of H.R. 5254 - The Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act House Passage of H.R. 5254 - The Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act June 8, 2006 - 2:17pm Addthis Statement from Secretary Bodman WASHINGTON, DC - The following is a statement from the Secretary Samuel W. Bodman of the Department of Energy on the passage of House Resolution 5254, The Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act: "I commend the House of Representatives for their passage of this important piece

  16. Valero: Houston Refinery Uses Plant-Wide Assessment to Develop an Energy Optimization and Management System

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2005-08-01

    This Industrial Technologies Program case study describes an energy assessment team's recommendations for saving $5 million in energy, water, and other costs at an oil refinery in Houston, Texas.

  17. Initial Assessment of U.S. Refineries for Purposes of Potential...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Potential Bio-Based Oil Insertions Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Initial Assessment of U.S. Refineries for Purposes of Potential Bio-Based Oil Insertions You are ...

  18. Initial Assessment of U.S. Refineries for Purposes of Potential...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Potential Bio-Based Oil Insertions Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Initial Assessment of U.S. Refineries for Purposes of Potential Bio-Based Oil Insertions This study ...

  19. Optimizing Co-Processing of Bio-Oil in Refinery Unit Operations...

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

    Optimizing Co-Processing of Bio-Oil in Refinery Unit Operations Using a Davison Circulating Riser (DCR) 2.4.2.402 March 25, 2015 Bio-Oil Technology Area Alan Zacher Pacific ...

  20. Assuring Mechanical Integrity of Refinery Equipment Through Global ON-Stream Inspection

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    John W. Berthold

    2006-02-22

    The development of global on-stream inspection technology will have a dramatic effect on how refinery operations are managed in the U.S. in the future. Global on-stream inspection will provide assurance of the mechanical integrity of critical plant equipment and will allow refineries to operate more efficiently with less impact on our environment and with an increased margin of safety.

  1. Initial Assessment of U.S. Refineries for Purposes of Potential Bio-Based

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Oil Insertions (Technical Report) | SciTech Connect Initial Assessment of U.S. Refineries for Purposes of Potential Bio-Based Oil Insertions Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Initial Assessment of U.S. Refineries for Purposes of Potential Bio-Based Oil Insertions This study examines how existing U.S. refining infrastructure matches in geography and processing capability with the needs projected from anticipated biofuels production. Key findings include: ď‚· a potential shortfall in

  2. US DOE Refinery Water Study 01-19-16 PublicE_docx

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Potential Vulnerability of US Petroleum Refineries to Increasing Water Temperature and/or Reduced Water Availability Executive Summary of Final Report Prepared for US Department of Energy January 2016 For Jacobs Consultancy Laura E. Weaver Rob Henderson John Blieszner January 2016 Potential Vulnerability of US Petroleum Refineries to Increasing Water Temperature and/or Reduced Water Availability Prepared For US Department of Energy 525 West Monroe Chicago, Illinois 60661 Phone: +312.655.9207

  3. Refinery Upgrading of Hydropyrolysis Oil from Biomass Presentation for BETO 2015 Project Peer Review

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

    Refinery Upgrading of Hydropyrolysis Oil from Biomass March 25,2015 Technology Area Review PI - Terry Marker Gas Technology Institute This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information Goals * Develop a cost-effective route for converting biomass to transportation fuels by first converting biomass to hydropyrolysis oil and then upgrading the hydropyrolysis oil in existing refinery equipment - Study properties and corrosion characteristics of

  4. Petroleum Refinery Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) Model User Reference Guide

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Goldberg, M.

    2013-12-31

    The Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) models, developed through the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), are user-friendly tools utilized to estimate the economic impacts at the local level of constructing and operating fuel and power generation projects for a range of conventional and renewable energy technologies. The JEDI Petroleum Refinery Model User Reference Guide was developed to assist users in employing and understanding the model. This guide provides information on the model's underlying methodology, as well as the parameters and references used to develop the cost data utilized in the model. This guide also provides basic instruction on model add-in features, operation of the model, and a discussion of how the results should be interpreted. Based on project-specific inputs from the user, the model estimates job creation, earning and output (total economic activity) for a given petroleum refinery. This includes the direct, indirect and induced economic impacts to the local economy associated with the refinery's construction and operation phases. Project cost and job data used in the model are derived from the most current cost estimations available. Local direct and indirect economic impacts are estimated using economic multipliers derived from IMPLAN software. By determining the regional economic impacts and job creation for a proposed refinery, the JEDI Petroleum Refinery model can be used to field questions about the added value refineries may bring to the local community.

  5. Emission factors for leaks in refinery components in heavy liquid service

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Taback, H.; Godec, M.

    1996-12-31

    The objective of this program was to provide sufficient screening data so that EPA can develop an official set of emission factors (expressed in lb/hr/component) for refinery components (valves, flanged connectors, non-flanged connectors, pumps, open-ended lines, and other) in heavy liquid (BL) service. To accomplish this, 211,000 existing HL screening values from Southern California refineries were compiled and compared with 2,500 new HL screening measurements taken at two refineries in the state of Washington. Since Southern California is an area in extreme non-attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and therefore has tight emission control regulations, it was felt that its screening data may not be representative of refineries without tight emission controls. Thus, the Southern California screening data were compared to screening measurements at refineries in an area that is in attainment of the NAAQS and without emissions control, which is the case for those refineries in Washington. It was found that statistically there was no significant difference in emission factors between the two areas and, therefore, there appears to be no difference in emissions from heavy liquid components in areas with and without leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs. The new emission factors range from 1/7 to 1/3 times the current EPA emission factors. This program was sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute (API) and an API report will soon be released providing complete details.

  6. Electricity Shortage in California: Issues for Petroleum and Natural Gas Supply

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

    Electricity Shortage in California: Issues for Petroleum and Natural Gas Supply 1. Summary 2. Electricity Reliability Issues in California 3. Petroleum Refineries 4. Constraints Outside the Refinery Gate 5. Petroleum Product Prices and Supply Disruptions 6. Natural Gas 7. End Notes 8. Contacts 1. Summary Industry electric reliability organizations, the California Energy Commission, and the California Independent System Operator, expect California to be subject to rotating electricity outages in

  7. Production of coal-based fuels and value-added products: coal to liquids using petroleum refinery streams

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Clifford, C.E.B.; Schobert, H.H.

    2008-07-01

    We are studying several processes that utilize coal, coal-derived materials, or biomass in existing refining facilities. A major emphasis is the production of a coal-based replacement for JP-8 jet fuel. This fuel is very similar to Jet A and jet A-1 in commercial variation, so this work has significant carry-over into the private sector. We have been focusing on three processes that would be retrofitted into a refinery: (1) coal tar/refinery stream blending and hydro-treatment; (2) coal extraction using refinery streams followed by hydro-treatment; and (3) co-coking of coal blended with refinery streams. 4 figs., 5 tabs.

  8. Chevron: Refinery Identifies $4.4 Million in Annual Savings by Using Process Simulation Models to Perform Energy-Efficiency Assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2004-05-01

    In an energy-efficiency study at its refinery near Salt Lake City, Utah, Chevron focused on light hydrocarbons processing. The company found it could recover hydrocarbons from its fuel gas system and sell them. By using process simulation models of special distillation columns and associated reboilers and condensers, Chevron could predict the performance of potential equipment configuration changes and process modifications. More than 25,000 MMBtu in natural gas could be saved annually if a debutanizer upgrade project and a new saturated gas plant project were completed. Together, these projects would save $4.4 million annually.

  9. FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A PETROLEUM REFINERY FOR THE JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    John D. Jones

    2004-10-01

    A feasibility study for a proposed petroleum refinery for the Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation was performed. The available crude oil production was identified and characterized. There is 6,000 barrels per day of crude oil production available for processing in the proposed refinery. The proposed refinery will utilize a lower temperature, smaller crude fractionation unit. It will have a Naphtha Hydrodesulfurizer and Reformer to produce high octane gasoline. The surplus hydrogen from the reformer will be used in a specialized hydrocracker to convert the heavier crude oil fractions to ultra low sulfur gasoline and diesel fuel products. The proposed refinery will produce gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel, and a minimal amount of lube oil. The refinery will require about $86,700,000 to construct. It will have net annual pre-tax profit of about $17,000,000. The estimated return on investment is 20%. The feasibility is positive subject to confirmation of long term crude supply. The study also identified procedures for evaluating processing options as a means for American Indian Tribes and Native American Corporations to maximize the value of their crude oil production.

  10. Mazheikiai refinery modernization study. Final report. Volume 2. Export trade information

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-01-01

    The study, conducted by Foster Wheeler Corporation, was funded by the U.S. Trade and Development Agency on behalf of Lithuania's Ministry of Energy. The Mazheikiai Oil Refinery is the only one in the Baltic Region and serves the needs of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Kaliningrad. Before Lithuania's independence in 1990, the refinery was assured of crude supplies from Russia. However, since then the need has arisen to secure alternate sources of crude oil and the ability to process them. The purpose of the report is to provide recommendations to the Ministry of Energy for process improvements, environmental control measures, physical rehabilitation and energy conservation plans for the Mazheikiai Oil Refinery. This is Volume 2 of the study.

  11. Mazheikiai refinery modernization study. Final report. Volume 3. Export trade information

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-01-01

    The study, conducted by Foster Wheeler Corporation, was funded by the U.S. Trade and Development Agency on behalf of Lithuania's Ministry of Energy. The Mazheikiai Oil Refinery is the only one in the Baltic Region and serves the needs of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Kaliningrad. Before Lithuania's independence in 1990, the refinery was assured of crude supplies from Russia. However, since then the need has arisen to secure alternate sources of crude oil and the ability to process them. The purpose of the report is to provide recommendations to the Ministry of Energy for process improvements, environmental control measures, physical rehabilitation and energy conservation plans for the Mazheikiai Oil Refinery. This is Volume 3 of the study.

  12. Mazheikiai refinery modernization study. Final report. Volume 1. Export trade information

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-01-01

    The study, conducted by Foster Wheeler Corporation, was funded by the U.S. Trade and Development Agency on behalf of Lithuania's Ministry of Energy. The Mazheikiai Oil Refinery is the only one in the Baltic Region and serves the needs of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Kaliningrad. Before Lithuania's independence in 1990, the refinery was assured of crude supplies from Russia. However, since then the need has arisen to secure alternate sources of crude oil and the ability to process them. The purpose of the report is to provide recommendations to the Ministry of Energy for process improvements, environmental control measures, physical rehabilitation and energy conservation plans for the Mazheikiai Oil Refinery. This is Volume 1 of the study.

  13. ,"Sulfur Content, Weighted Average Refinery Crude Oil Input Qualities"

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

    Sulfur Content, Weighted Average Refinery Crude Oil Input Qualities" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Sulfur Content, Weighted Average Refinery Crude Oil Input Qualities",16,"Monthly","12/2015","1/15/1985" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release

  14. FAQs about Storage Capacity

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

    about Storage Capacity How do I determine if my tanks are in operation or idle or ... Do I have to report storage capacity every month? No, only report storage capacity with ...

  15. Allocation of energy use in petroleum refineries to petroleum products : implications for life-cycle energy use and emission inventory of petroleum transportation fuels.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wang, M.; Lee, H.; Molburg, J.

    2004-01-01

    Studies to evaluate the energy and emission impacts of vehicle/fuel systems have to address allocation of the energy use and emissions associated with petroleum refineries to various petroleum products because refineries produce multiple products. The allocation is needed in evaluating energy and emission effects of individual transportation fuels. Allocation methods used so far for petroleum-based fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel, and liquefied petroleum gas [LPG]) are based primarily on mass, energy content, or market value shares of individual fuels from a given refinery. The aggregate approach at the refinery level is unable to account for the energy use and emission differences associated with producing individual fuels at the next sub-level: individual refining processes within a refinery. The approach ignores the fact that different refinery products go through different processes within a refinery. Allocation at the subprocess level (i.e., the refining process level) instead of at the aggregate process level (i.e., the refinery level) is advocated by the International Standard Organization. In this study, we seek a means of allocating total refinery energy use among various refinery products at the level of individual refinery processes. We present a petroleum refinery-process-based approach to allocating energy use in a petroleum refinery to petroleum refinery products according to mass, energy content, and market value share of final and intermediate petroleum products as they flow through refining processes within a refinery. The results from this study reveal that product-specific energy use based on the refinery process-level allocation differs considerably from that based on the refinery-level allocation. We calculated well-to-pump total energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for gasoline, diesel, LPG, and naphtha with the refinery process-based allocation approach. For gasoline, the efficiency estimated from the refinery-level allocation underestimates gasoline energy use, relative to the process-level based gasoline efficiency. For diesel fuel, the well-to-pump energy use for the process-level allocations with the mass- and energy-content-based weighting factors is smaller than that predicted with the refinery-level allocations. However, the process-level allocation with the market-value-based weighting factors has results very close to those obtained by using the refinery-level allocations. For LPG, the refinery-level allocation significantly overestimates LPG energy use. For naphtha, the refinery-level allocation overestimates naphtha energy use. The GHG emission patterns for each of the fuels are similar to those of energy use.We presented a refining-process-level-based method that can be used to allocate energy use of individual refining processes to refinery products. The process-level-based method captures process-dependent characteristics of fuel production within a petroleum refinery. The method starts with the mass and energy flow chart of a refinery, tracks energy use by individual refining processes, and distributes energy use of a given refining process to products from the process. In allocating energy use to refinery products, the allocation method could rely on product mass, product energy contents, or product market values as weighting factors. While the mass- and energy-content-based allocation methods provide an engineering perspective of energy allocation within a refinery, the market-value-ased allocation method provides an economic perspective. The results from this study show that energy allocations at the aggregate refinery level and at the refining process level could make a difference in evaluating the energy use and emissions associated with individual petroleum products. Furthermore, for the refining-process-level allocation method, use of mass -- energy content- or market value share-based weighting factors could lead to different results for diesel fuels, LPG, and naphtha. We suggest that, when possible, energy use allocations should be made at the lowest subprocess level

  16. ,"Finished Motor Gasoline Refinery, Bulk Terminal, and Natural Gas Plant Stocks"

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

    Monthly","12/2015","1/15/1993" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","pet_stoc_st_a_epm0f_str_mbbl_m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_stoc_st_a_epm0f_str_mbbl_m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.gov" ,,"(202)

  17. U.S. Refinery, Bulk Terminal, and Natural Gas Plant Stocks of Selected

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

    Petroleum Products Area: U.S. PAD District 1 Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Maine Maryland Massachusetts New Hampshire New Jersey New York North Carolina Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Vermont Virginia West Virginia PAD District 2 Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Michigan Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma South Dakota Tennessee Wisconsin PAD District 3 Alabama Arkansas Louisiana Mississippi New Mexico Texas PAD District 4

  18. Spray dryer capacity stretched 50%

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Paraskevas, J.

    1983-01-01

    This article describes plant equipment modifications which has resulted in a 50% increase in spray drying capacity. The installation of a new atomizer and screening system in NL Chemicals' Newberry Springs plant which produces natural clays for use as rheological additives in industrial coatings, cosmetics and other products, resulted in a 50% increase in spray drying capacity. Energy consumption per pound of product was reduced by 7%, and product quality improved. This was achieved in less than three months at an investment of less than 10% of what an additional spray dryer would have cost.

  19. Displacing Natural Gas Consumption and Lowering Emissions

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

    Combustion System for Refinery and Chemical Plant Process Heaters ADVANCED MANUFACTURING OFFICE Displacing Natural Gas Consumption and Lowering Emissions By enabling process heaters to utilize opportunity gaseous fuels with a fuel-flexible combustion system, this technol- ogy lowers carbon and nitrogen oxide (NO x ) emissions and reduces energy costs for industry. Introduction The refning and chemical sectors account for more than 40% of total industrial natural gas use. Prior to the completion

  20. Natural Gas Depleted Fields Storage Capacity

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

    6,917,547 7,074,773 7,104,948 7,038,245 7,074,916 7,085,773 1999-2014 Alaska 83,592 83,592 2013-2014 Alabama 11,000 11,000 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 1999-2014 Arkansas 21,760 21,760 21,359 21,853 21,853 21,853 1999-2014 California 513,005 542,511 570,511 592,411 587,711 587,711 1999-2014 Colorado 105,768 105,768 105,858 124,253 122,086 130,186 1999-2014 Illinois 103,606 218,106 220,070 220,070 25,920 25,923 1999-2014 Indiana 32,946 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 1999-2014 Iowa 0 0

  1. Natural Gas Salt Caverns Storage Capacity

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

    397,560 456,009 512,279 715,821 654,266 702,548 1999-2014 Alabama 15,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 30,100 1999-2014 Arkansas 0 0 1999-2014 California 0 0 1999-2014 Colorado 0 0 1999-2014 Illinois 0 0 1999-2014 Indiana 0 0 1999-2014 Kansas 931 931 931 931 0 1999-2014 Kentucky 0 0 1999-2014 Louisiana 123,341 142,253 161,668 297,020 213,039 224,129 1999-2014 Maryland 0 0 1999-2014 Michigan 3,821 3,834 3,834 3,834 3,834 3,834 1999-2014 Mississippi 62,301 82,411 90,452 139,627 153,733 181,810

  2. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    714,417 714,417 714,417 714,417 714,417 714,217 714,097 2004 712,687 712,292 712,292 709,946 709,946 709,946 709,946 709,826 721,019 748,874 748,874 748,338 2005 748,338...

  3. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    not necessarily coincide. As such, the noncoincident peak for any region is at least as big as any monthly volume in the historical record. Data from Form EIA-191M, "Monthly...

  4. Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,720 37,720 2003 37,720 37,720 37,720 37,720...

  5. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

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

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

  6. West Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    531,456 531,480 524,324 524,324 524,337 528,637 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 531,456 531,480 524,324 524,324 524,337 528,637 1999-2014 Total Working Gas...

  7. Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    NA NA NA NA NA NA 2002-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  8. Iowa Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    284,747 284,811 288,010 288,210 288,210 288,210 1988-2013 Aquifers 284,747 284,811 288,010 288,210 288,210 288,210 1999-2013 Depleted Fields 0 0 1999-2013 Total Working Gas...

  9. REFINERY INTEGRATION OF BY-PRODUCTS FROM COAL-DERIVED JET FUELS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Leslie R. Rudnick; Andre Boehman; Chunshan Song; Bruce Miller; Gareth Mitchell

    2005-05-18

    This report summarizes the accomplishments toward project goals during the first six months of the second year of the project to assess the properties and performance of coal based products. These products are in the gasoline, diesel and fuel oil range and result from coal based jet fuel production from an Air Force funded program. Specific areas of progress include generation of coal based material that has been fractionated into the desired refinery cuts, acquisition and installation of a research gasoline engine, and modification of diesel engines for use in evaluating diesel produced in the project. The desulfurization of sulfur containing components of coal and petroleum is being studied so that effective conversion of blended coal and petroleum streams can be efficiently converted to useful refinery products. Equipment is now in place to begin fuel oil evaluations to assess the quality of coal based fuel oil. Coal samples have procured and are being assessed for cleaning prior to use in coking studies.

  10. Refinery Integration of By-Products from Coal-Derived Jet Fuels

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Leslie R. Rudnick; Andre Boehman; Chunshan Song; Bruce Miller; John Andresen

    2004-09-17

    This report summarizes the accomplishments toward project goals during the first twelve months of the project to assess the properties and performance of coal based products. These products are in the gasoline, diesel and fuel oil range and result from coal based jet fuel production from an Air Force funded program. Specific areas of progress include generation of coal based material that has been fractionated into the desired refinery cuts, acquisition and installation of a research gasoline engine, and modification of diesel engines for use in evaluating diesel produced in the project. The desulfurization of sulfur containing components of coal and petroleum is being studied so that effective conversion of blended coal and petroleum streams can be efficiently converted to useful refinery products. Equipment is now in place to begin fuel oil evaluations to assess the quality of coal based fuel oil. Coal samples have procured and are being assessed for cleaning prior to use in coking studies.

  11. Refinery Integration of By-Products from Coal-Derived Jet Fuels

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Leslie R. Rudnick; Andre Boehman; Chunshan Song; Bruce Miller; Gareth Mitchell

    2005-11-17

    This report summarizes the accomplishments toward project goals during the first six months of the second year of the project to assess the properties and performance of coal based products. These products are in the gasoline, diesel and fuel oil range and result from coal based jet fuel production from an Air Force funded program. Specific areas of progress include generation of coal based material that has been fractionated into the desired refinery cuts, acquisition and installation of a research gasoline engine, and modification of diesel engines for use in evaluating diesel produced in the project. The desulfurization of sulfur containing components of coal and petroleum is being studied so that effective conversion of blended coal and petroleum streams can be efficiently converted to useful refinery products. Evaluations to assess the quality of coal based fuel oil are reported. Coal samples have procured and are being assessed for cleaning prior to use in coking studies.

  12. LPG recovery from refinery flare by waste heat powered absorption refrigeration

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Erickson, D.C.; Kelly, F.

    1998-07-01

    A waste heat powered ammonia Absorption Refrigeration Unit (ARU) has commenced operation at the Colorado Refining Company in Commerce City, Colorado. The ARU provides 85 tons of refrigeration at 30 F to refrigerate the net gas/treat gas stream, thereby recovering 65,000 barrels per year of LPG which formerly was flared or burned as fuel. The ARU is powered by the 290 F waste heat content of the reform reactor effluent. An additional 180 tons of refrigeration is available at the ARU to debottleneck the FCC plant wet gas compressors by cooling their inlet vapor. The ARU is directly integrated into the refinery processes, and uses enhanced, highly compact heat and mass exchange components. The refinery's investment will pay back in less than two years from increased recovery of salable product, and CO{sub 2} emissions are decreased by 10,000 tons per year in the Denver area.

  13. Ammonia Absorption Refrigeration Unit Provides Environmentally-Friendly Profits for an Oil Refinery

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

    Motor Challenge Success Story MOTOR SYSTEM UPGRADES SMOOTH THE WAY TO SAVINGS OF $700,000 AT CHEVRON REFINERY BENEFITS * Reduced energy consumption by 1 million kWh per month * Resulted in cost savings of more than $700,000 annually * Eliminated demand charge on DHT's operation * Improved equipment reliability * Improved process control "We have had no mechanical failures since the drives went into service and vibration has dropped by a factor of 10," declares an obviously proud Mares.

  14. Refinery Integration of By-Products from Coal-Derived Jet Fuels

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Caroline E. Burgess Clifford; Andre Boehman; Chunshan Song; Bruce Miller; Gareth Mitchell

    2006-05-17

    This report summarizes the accomplishments toward project goals during the first six months of the third year of the project to assess the properties and performance of coal based products. These products are in the gasoline, diesel and fuel oil range and result from coal based jet fuel production from an Air Force funded program. Specific areas of progress include generation of coal based material that has been fractionated into the desired refinery cuts, acquisition and installation of a research gasoline engine, and modification of diesel engines for use in evaluating diesel produced in the project. Characterization of the gasoline fuel indicates a dominance of single ring alkylcycloalkanes that have a low octane rating; however, blends containing these compounds do not have a negative effect upon gasoline when blended in refinery gasoline streams. Characterization of the diesel fuel indicates a dominance of 3-ring aromatics that have a low cetane value; however, these compounds do not have a negative effect upon diesel when blended in refinery diesel streams. The desulfurization of sulfur containing components of coal and petroleum is being studied so that effective conversion of blended coal and petroleum streams can be efficiently converted to useful refinery products. Equipment is now in place to begin fuel oil evaluations to assess the quality of coal based fuel oil. Combustion and characterization of fuel oil indicates that the fuel is somewhere in between a No. 4 and a No. 6 fuel oil. Emission testing indicates the fuel burns similarly to these two fuels, but trace metals for the coal-based material are different than petroleum-based fuel oils. Co-coking studies using cleaned coal are highly reproducible in the pilot-scale delayed coker. Evaluation of the coke by Alcoa, Inc. indicated that while the coke produced is of very good quality, the metals content of the carbon is still high in iron and silica. Coke is being evaluated for other possible uses. Methods to reduce metal content are being evaluated.

  15. Evaluating electric-resistance-welded tubing for refinery and chemical plant applications

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Polk, C.J.; Hotaling, A.C. )

    1993-02-01

    A laboratory technique was developed to assess the potential for preferential attack along the longitudinal seam of electric-resistance-welded (ERW) carbon steel tubing exposed to refinery and chemical plant process streams. Used in conjunction with an evaluation of mill fabrication practices, the test procedure can identify high-quality ERW products that can be used in many applications in place of seamless components at significant cost savings.

  16. Conversion Technologies II: Bio-Oils, Sugar Intermediates, Precursors, Distributed Models, and Refinery Co-Processing

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

    Conversion Technologies II: Bio-Oils, Sugar Intermediates, Precursors, Distributed Models, and Refinery Co-Processing July 30, 2014 Bryna Berendzen Technology Manager BETO Conversion Program 2 | Bioenergy Technologies Office Conversion Program FY13/14 Workshops * In the past year BETO has held 3 public workshops to engage stakeholders in discussions on the R&D needs within the various conversion technologies * Biochemical: o PRINCE - Process Integration and Carbon Efficiencies - June 11-12,

  17. ORISE: Capacity Building

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

    Capacity Building Because public health agencies must maintain the resources to respond to public health challenges, critical situations and emergencies, the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) helps government agencies and organizations develop a solid infrastructure through capacity building. Capacity building refers to activities that improve an organization's ability to achieve its mission or a person's ability do his or her job more effectively. For organizations, capacity

  18. Influence of a combustion-driven oscillation on global mixing in the flame from a refinery flare

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Langman, A.S.; Nathan, G.J.

    2011-01-15

    An assessment of the influence of strong combustion-driven oscillations on mixing rates and visible radiation in the flame from a full-scale refinery flare is reported. Importantly, the oscillations were generated naturally, with no external forcing, and at a high Reynolds number of 4 x 10{sup 6}. These conditions differentiate this study from those of previous investigations, which all involved some external forcing and were at a Re too low to ensure fully turbulent flow within the flame. A frame-by-frame analysis of video footage, providing good resolution of the instantaneous edge of each flame, was used to assess flame dimensions, and so to determine a global residence time. Since the flames are in the fast-chemistry regime, the visual imagers can be used to determine a global mixing rate. The analysis reveals a consistent picture that the combustion-driven oscillations do not result in a significant change to the global mixing rate, but do increase the visible radiation. This is in contrast to previous investigations, using externally forced jets, where forcing at the preferred mode has been found to increase mixing rates and reduce radiation. (author)

  19. The Use of Oil Refinery Wastes as a Dust Suppression Surfactant for Use in Mining

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dixon-Hardy, D.W.; Beyhan, S.; Ediz, I.G.; Erarslan, K.

    2008-10-15

    In this research, the suitability of a selection of petroleum refinery wastes as a dust suppressant were examined. Dust is a significant problem in surface and underground mining mainly because of its adverse effects on human health and machinery. Hence, dust control and suppression is a vital part of mine planning for mining engineers. Water is the oldest and the cheapest suppressant in dealing with the mine dusts. However, surfactant use has recently been used for a wider range of applications in the mining industry. In order to carry out laboratory experiments, a dust chamber was designed and manufactured. The chamber has an inlet for coal dust entrance and a nozzle for spraying water and the oil refinery wastes. Water and the surfactants were mixed at various ratios and then sprayed onto the coal dusts within the cell. Dust concentration was measured systematically to determine the effects of surfactant containing solution on the coal dust and the data obtained by the measurements were analyzed. The results showed that the oil refinery wastes could be used as a dust suppressant, which may create an economical utilization for the wastes concerned.

  20. EIA - Electricity Generating Capacity

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

    Electricity Generating Capacity Release Date: January 3, 2013 | Next Release: August 2013 Year Existing Units by Energy Source Unit Additions Unit Retirements 2011 XLS XLS XLS 2010...

  1. 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...

  2. Crude Oil Domestic Production

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

    Data Series: Crude Oil Domestic Production Refinery Crude Oil Inputs Refinery Gross Inputs Refinery Operable Capacity (Calendar Day) Refinery Percent Operable Utilization Net ...

  3. Liquid heat capacity lasers

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Comaskey, Brian J. (Walnut Creek, CA); Scheibner, Karl F. (Tracy, CA); Ault, Earl R. (Livermore, CA)

    2007-05-01

    The heat capacity laser concept is extended to systems in which the heat capacity lasing media is a liquid. The laser active liquid is circulated from a reservoir (where the bulk of the media and hence waste heat resides) through a channel so configured for both optical pumping of the media for gain and for light amplification from the resulting gain.

  4. Variable capacity gasification burner

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Saxon, D.I.

    1985-03-05

    A variable capacity burner that may be used in gasification processes, the burner being adjustable when operating in its intended operating environment to operate at two different flow capacities, with the adjustable parts being dynamically sealed within a statically sealed structural arrangement to prevent dangerous blow-outs of the reactants to the atmosphere.

  5. Knudsen heat capacity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Babac, Gulru; Reese, Jason M.

    2014-05-15

    We present a “Knudsen heat capacity” as a more appropriate and useful fluid property in micro/nanoscale gas systems than the constant pressure heat capacity. At these scales, different fluid processes come to the fore that are not normally observed at the macroscale. For thermodynamic analyses that include these Knudsen processes, using the Knudsen heat capacity can be more effective and physical. We calculate this heat capacity theoretically for non-ideal monatomic and diatomic gases, in particular, helium, nitrogen, and hydrogen. The quantum modification for para and ortho hydrogen is also considered. We numerically model the Knudsen heat capacity using molecular dynamics simulations for the considered gases, and compare these results with the theoretical ones.

  6. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Generalized Natural Gas Pipeline

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

    Capacity Design Schematic Generalized Design Schematic About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines- Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates Generalized Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity Design Schematic Generalized Natural Gas Pipeline Capcity Design Schematic

  7. WINDExchange: Potential Wind Capacity

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

    Potential Wind Capacity Potential wind capacity maps are provided for a 2014 industry standard wind turbine installed on a 110-m tower, which represents plausible current technology options, and a wind turbine on a 140-m tower, which represents near-future technology options. Enlarge image This map shows the wind potential at a 110-m height for the United States. Download a printable map. Click on a state to view the wind map for that state. * Grid Granularity = 400 sq km* 35% Gross Capacity

  8. Achieving very low mercury levels in refinery wastewater by membrane filtration.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Urgun Demirtas, M.; Benda, P.; Gillenwater, P. S.; Negri, M. C.; Xiong, H.; Snyder, S. W.

    2012-05-15

    Microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), nanofiltration (NF) and reverse osmosis (RO) membranes were evaluated for their ability to achieve the world's most stringent Hg discharge criterion (<1.3 ng/L) in an oil refinery's wastewater. The membrane processes were operated at three different pressures to demonstrate the potential for each membrane technology to achieve the targeted effluent mercury concentrations. The presence of mercury in the particulate form in the refinery wastewater makes the use of MF and UF membrane technologies more attractive in achieving very low mercury levels in the treated wastewater. Both NF and RO were also able to meet the target mercury concentration at lower operating pressures (20.7 bar). However, higher operating pressures ({ge}34.5 bar) had a significant effect on NF and RO flux and fouling rates, as well as on permeate quality. SEM images of the membranes showed that pore blockage and narrowing were the dominant fouling mechanisms for the MF membrane while surface coverage was the dominant fouling mechanism for the other membranes. The correlation between mercury concentration and particle size distribution was also investigated to understand mercury removal mechanisms by membrane filtration. The mean particle diameter decreased with filtration from 1.1 {+-} 0.0 {micro}m to 0.74 {+-} 0.2 {micro}m after UF.

  9. Refinery Integration

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

    ... and to illustrate the economics and sustainability of ... agencies, and the general public" (Analysis and ... Milestone: Complete draft journal manuscript of ...

  10. Texas Supplemental Supplies of Natural Gas

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

    Propane-Air 1981-2005 Refinery Gas 1981-2005 Other 1999-2005

  11. Dual capacity reciprocating compressor

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Wolfe, R.W.

    1984-10-30

    A multi-cylinder compressor particularly useful in connection with northern climate heat pumps and in which different capacities are available in accordance with reversing motor rotation is provided with an eccentric cam on a crank pin under a fraction of the connecting rods, and arranged for rotation upon the crank pin between opposite positions 180[degree] apart so that with cam rotation on the crank pin such that the crank throw is at its normal maximum value all pistons pump at full capacity, and with rotation of the crank shaft in the opposite direction the cam moves to a circumferential position on the crank pin such that the overall crank throw is zero. Pistons whose connecting rods ride on a crank pin without a cam pump their normal rate with either crank rotational direction. Thus a small clearance volume is provided for any piston that moves when in either capacity mode of operation. 6 figs.

  12. Dual capacity reciprocating compressor

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Wolfe, Robert W. (Wilkinsburg, PA)

    1984-01-01

    A multi-cylinder compressor 10 particularly useful in connection with northern climate heat pumps and in which different capacities are available in accordance with reversing motor 16 rotation is provided with an eccentric cam 38 on a crank pin 34 under a fraction of the connecting rods, and arranged for rotation upon the crank pin between opposite positions 180.degree. apart so that with cam rotation on the crank pin such that the crank throw is at its normal maximum value all pistons pump at full capacity, and with rotation of the crank shaft in the opposite direction the cam moves to a circumferential position on the crank pin such that the overall crank throw is zero. Pistons 24 whose connecting rods 30 ride on a crank pin 36 without a cam pump their normal rate with either crank rotational direction. Thus a small clearance volume is provided for any piston that moves when in either capacity mode of operation.

  13. Geothermal Plant Capacity Factors

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Greg Mines; Jay Nathwani; Christopher Richard; Hillary Hanson; Rachel Wood

    2015-01-01

    The capacity factors recently provided by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicated this plant performance metric had declined for geothermal power plants since 2008. Though capacity factor is a term commonly used by geothermal stakeholders to express the ability of a plant to produce power, it is a term frequently misunderstood and in some instances incorrectly used. In this paper we discuss how this capacity factor is defined and utilized by the EIA, including discussion on the information that the EIA requests from operations in their 923 and 860 forms that are submitted both monthly and annually by geothermal operators. A discussion is also provided regarding the entities utilizing the information in the EIA reports, and how those entities can misinterpret the data being supplied by the operators. The intent of the paper is to inform the facility operators as the importance of the accuracy of the data that they provide, and the implications of not providing the correct information.

  14. Refinery Integration of By-Products from Coal-Derived Jet Fuels

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Caroline E. Burgess Clifford; Andre' Boehman; Chunshan Song; Bruce Miller; Gareth Mitchell

    2006-09-17

    This report summarizes the accomplishments toward project goals during the second six months of the third year of the project to assess the properties and performance of coal based products. These products are in the gasoline, diesel and fuel oil range and result from coal based jet fuel production from an Air Force funded program. Specific areas of progress include generation of coal based material that has been fractionated into the desired refinery cuts and examination of carbon material, the use of a research gasoline engine to test coal-based gasoline, and modification of diesel engines for use in evaluating diesel produced in the project. At the pilot scale, the hydrotreating process was modified to separate the heavy components from the LCO and RCO fractions before hydrotreating in order to improve the performance of the catalysts in further processing. Characterization of the gasoline fuel indicates a dominance of single ring alkylcycloalkanes that have a low octane rating; however, blends containing these compounds do not have a negative effect upon gasoline when blended in refinery gasoline streams. Characterization of the diesel fuel indicates a dominance of 3-ring aromatics that have a low cetane value; however, these compounds do not have a negative effect upon diesel when blended in refinery diesel streams. Both gasoline and diesel continue to be tested for combustion performance. The desulfurization of sulfur containing components of coal and petroleum is being studied so that effective conversion of blended coal and petroleum streams can be efficiently converted to useful refinery products. Activated carbons have proven useful to remove the heavy sulfur components, and unsupported Ni/Mo and Ni/Co catalysts have been very effective for hydrodesulfurization. Equipment is now in place to begin fuel oil evaluations to assess the quality of coal based fuel oil. Combustion and characterization of the latest fuel oil (the high temperature fraction of RCO from the latest modification) indicates that the fraction is heavier than a No. 6 fuel oil. Combustion efficiency on our research boiler is {approx}63% for the heavy RCO fraction, lower than the combustion performance for previous co-coking fuel oils and No. 6 fuel oil. An additional coal has been procured and is being processed for the next series of delayed co-coking runs. Work continues on characterization of liquids and solids from co-coking of hydrotreated decant oils; liquid yields include more saturated and hydro- aromatics, while the coke quality varies depending on the conditions used. Pitch material is being generated from the heavy fraction of co-coking. Investigation of coal extraction as a method to produce RCO continues; the reactor modifications to filter the products hot and to do multi-stage extraction improve extraction yields from {approx}50 % to {approx}70%. Carbon characterization of co-cokes for use as various carbon artifacts continues.

  15. Reformulated Gasoline Foreign Refinery Rules (Released in the STEO January 1998)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    1998-01-01

    On August 27, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated revised the rules that allow foreign refiners to establish and use individual baselines, but it would not be mandatory (the optional use of an individual refinery baseline is not available to domestic refiners.) If a foreign refiner did not establish and use an individual baseline, the gasoline they export to the United States would be regulated through the importer, and subject to the importer's baseline (most likely the statutory baseline). Specific regulatory provisions are implemented to ensure that the option to use an individual baseline would not lead to adverse environmental impacts. This involves monitoring the average quality of imported gasoline, and if a specified benchmark is exceeded, remedial action would be taken by adjusting the requirements applicable to imported gasoline.

  16. Refinery Integration of By-Products from Coal-Derived Jet Fuels

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Caroline E. Burgess Clifford; Andre Boehman; Chunshan Song; Bruce Miller; Gareth Mitchell

    2007-03-17

    This report summarizes the accomplishments toward project goals during the no cost extension period of the third year of the project to assess the properties and performance of coal based products. These products are in the gasoline, diesel and fuel oil range and result from coal based jet fuel production from an Air Force funded program. Specific areas of progress include generation of coal based material that has been fractionated into the desired refinery cuts for a third round of testing, the use of a research gasoline engine to test coal-based gasoline, and modification of diesel engines for use in evaluating diesel produced in the project. At the pilot scale, the hydrotreating process was modified to separate the heavy components from the LCO and RCO fractions before hydrotreating in order to improve the performance of the catalysts in further processing. Hydrotreating and hydrogenation of the product has been completed, and due to removal of material before processing, yield of the jet fuel fraction has decreased relative to an increase in the gasoline fraction. Characterization of the gasoline fuel indicates a dominance of single ring alkylcycloalkanes that have a low octane rating; however, blends containing these compounds do not have a negative effect upon gasoline when blended in refinery gasoline streams. Characterization of the diesel fuel indicates a dominance of 3-ring aromatics that have a low cetane value; however, these compounds do not have a negative effect upon diesel when blended in refinery diesel streams. Both gasoline and diesel continue to be tested for combustion performance. The desulfurization of sulfur containing components of coal and petroleum is being studied so that effective conversion of blended coal and petroleum streams can be efficiently converted to useful refinery products. Activated carbons have proven useful to remove the heavy sulfur components, and unsupported Ni/Mo and Ni/Co catalysts have been very effective for hydrodesulfurization. Equipment is now in place to begin fuel oil evaluations to assess the quality of coal based fuel oil. Combustion and characterization of the latest fuel oil (the high temperature fraction of RCO from the latest modification) indicates that the fraction is heavier than a No. 6 fuel oil. Combustion efficiency on our research boiler is {approx}63% for the heavy RCO fraction, lower than the combustion performance for previous co-coking fuel oils and No. 6 fuel oil. Emission testing indicates that the coal derived material has more trace metals related to coal than petroleum, as seen in previous runs. An additional coal has been procured and is being processed for the next series of delayed co-coking runs. The co-coking of the runs with the new coal have begun, with the coke yield similar to previous runs, but the gas yield is lower and the liquid yield is higher. Characterization of the products continues. Work continues on characterization of liquids and solids from co-coking of hydrotreated decant oils; liquid yields include more saturated and hydro- aromatics, while the coke quality varies depending on the conditions used. Pitch material is being generated from the heavy fraction of co-coking.

  17. CSTI high capacity power

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Winter, J.M.

    1994-09-01

    The SP-100 program was established in 1983 by DOD, DOE, and NASA as a joint program to develop the technology necessary for space nuclear power systems for military and civil application. During FY86 and 87, the NASA SP-100 Advanced Technology Program was devised to maintain the momentum of promising technology advancement efforts started during Phase I of SP-100 and to strengthen, in key areas, the chances for successful development and growth capability of space nuclear reactor power systems for future space applications. In FY88, the Advanced Technology Program was incorporated into NASA`s new Civil Space Technology Initiative (CSTI). The CSTI Program was established to provide the foundation for technology development in automation and robotics, information, propulsion, and power. The CSTI High Capacity Power Program builds on the technology efforts of the SP-100 program, incorporates the previous NASA SP-100 Advanced Technology project, and provides a bridge to NASA Project Pathfinder. The elements of CSTI High Capacity Power development include Conversion Systems, Thermal Management, Power Management, System Diagnostics, and Environmental Interactions. Technology advancement in all areas, including materials, is required to assure the high reliability and 7 to 10 year lifetime demanded for future space nuclear power systems. The overall program will develop and demonstrate the technology base required to provide a wide range of modular power systems as well as allowing mission independence from solar and orbital attitude requirements. Several recent advancements in CSTI High Capacity power development will be discussed.

  18. Carbon Capture and Sequestration from a Hydrogen Production Facility in an Oil Refinery

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Engels, Cheryl; Williams, Bryan, Valluri, Kiranmal; Watwe, Ramchandra; Kumar, Ravi; Mehlman, Stewart

    2010-06-21

    The project proposed a commercial demonstration of advanced technologies that would capture and sequester CO2 emissions from an existing hydrogen production facility in an oil refinery into underground formations in combination with Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). The project is led by Praxair, Inc., with other project participants: BP Products North America Inc., Denbury Onshore, LLC (Denbury), and Gulf Coast Carbon Center (GCCC) at the Bureau of Economic Geology of The University of Texas at Austin. The project is located at the BP Refinery at Texas City, Texas. Praxair owns and operates a large hydrogen production facility within the refinery. As part of the project, Praxair would construct a CO2 capture and compression facility. The project aimed at demonstrating a novel vacuum pressure swing adsorption (VPSA) based technology to remove CO2 from the Steam Methane Reformers (SMR) process gas. The captured CO2 would be purified using refrigerated partial condensation separation (i.e., cold box). Denbury would purchase the CO2 from the project and inject the CO2 as part of its independent commercial EOR projects. The Gulf Coast Carbon Center at the Bureau of Economic Geology, a unit of University of Texas at Austin, would manage the research monitoring, verification and accounting (MVA) project for the sequestered CO2, in conjunction with Denbury. The sequestration and associated MVA activities would be carried out in the Hastings field at Brazoria County, TX. The project would exceed DOE?s target of capturing one million tons of CO2 per year (MTPY) by 2015. Phase 1 of the project (Project Definition) is being completed. The key objective of Phase 1 is to define the project in sufficient detail to enable an economic decision with regard to proceeding with Phase 2. This topical report summarizes the administrative, programmatic and technical accomplishments completed in Phase 1 of the project. It describes the work relative to project technical and design activities (associated with CO2 capture technologies and geologic sequestration MVA), and Environmental Information Volume. Specific accomplishments of this Phase include: 1. Finalization of the Project Management Plan 2. Development of engineering designs in sufficient detail for defining project performance and costs 3. Preparation of Environmental Information Volume 4. Completion of Hazard Identification Studies 5. Completion of control cost estimates and preparation of business plan During the Phase 1 detailed cost estimate, project costs increased substantially from the previous estimate. Furthermore, the detailed risk assessment identified integration risks associated with potentially impacting the steam methane reformer operation. While the Phase 1 work identified ways to mitigate these integration risks satisfactorily from an operational perspective, the associated costs and potential schedule impacts contributed to the decision not to proceed to Phase 2. We have concluded that the project costs and integration risks at Texas City are not commensurate with the potential benefits of the project at this time.

  19. Summary of the proceedings of the workshop on the refinery of the future

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-06-01

    This report on the Workshop on the Refinery of the Future has been prepared for participants to provide them with a succinct summary of the presentations, deliberations, and discussions. In preparing the summary, we have striven to capture the key findings (conclusions) and highlight the issues and concerns raised during the plenary and breakout sessions. The presentation of the summary of the proceedings follows the final workshop agenda, which is given in Section I; each section is tabbed to facilitate access to specific workshop topics. The material presented relies heavily on the outline summaries prepared and presented by the Plenary Session Chairman and the Facilitators for each breakout group. These summaries are included essentially as presented. In addition, individuals were assigned to take notes during each session; these notes were used to reconstruct critical issues that were discussed in more detail. The key comments made by the participants, which tended to represent the range of views expressed relative to the issues, are presented immediately following the facilitator`s summary outline in order to convey the flavor of the discussions. The comments are not attributed to individuals, since in many instances they represent a composite of several similar views expressed during the discussion. The facilitators were asked to review the writeups describing the outcomes of their sessions for accuracy and content; their suggested changes were incorporated. Every effort has thus been made to reconstruct the views expressed as accurately as possible; however, errors and/or misinterpretations undoubtedly have occurred.

  20. Cracking of simulated oil refinery off-gas over a coal char, petroleum coke, and quartz

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yuan Zhang; Jin-hu Wu; Dong-ke Zhang

    2008-03-15

    The cracking of oil refinery off-gas, simulated with a gas mixture containing methane (51%), ethylene (21.4%), ethane (21.1%), and propane (6.5%), over a coal char, petroleum coke, and quartz, respectively, has been studied in a fixed bed reactor. The experiments were performed at temperatures between 850 and 1000{sup o}C and at atmospheric pressure. The results show that the conversions of all species considered increased with increasing temperature. Ethane and propane completely decomposed over all three bed materials in the temperature range investigated. However, the higher initial conversion rates of methane and ethylene cracking at all temperatures were observed only over the coal char and not on the petroleum coke and quartz, indicating a significant catalytic effect of the coal char on methane and ethylene cracking. Methane and ethylene conversions decreased with reaction time due to deactivation of the coal char by carbon deposition on the char surface and, in the later stage of a cracking experiment, became negative, suggesting that methane and ethylene had been formed during the cracking of ethane and propane. 16 refs., 13 figs., 2 tabs.

  1. High capacity oil burner

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pedrosa, O.A. Jr.; Couto, N.C.; Fanqueiro, R.C.C.

    1983-11-01

    The present invention relates to a high capacity oil burner comprising a cylindrical atomizer completely surrounded by a protective cylindrical housing having a diameter from 2 to 3 times greater than the diameter of said atomizer; liquid fuels being injected under pressure into said atomizer and accumulating within said atomizer in a chamber for the accumulation of liquid fuels, and compressed air being injected into a chamber for the accumulation of air; cylindrical holes communicating said chamber for the accumulation of liquid fuels with the outside and cylindrical holes communicating said chamber for the accumulation of air with said cylindrical holes communicating the chamber for the accumulation of liquids with the outside so that the injection of compressed air into said liquid fuel discharge holes atomizes said fuel which is expelled to the outside through the end portions of said discharge holes which are circumferentially positioned to be burnt by a pilot flame; said protecting cylindrical housing having at its ends perforated circular rings into which water is injected under pressure to form a protecting fan-like water curtain at the rear end of the housing and a fan-like water curtain at the flame to reduce the formation of soot; the burning efficiency of said burner being superior to 30 barrels of liquid fuel per day/kg of the apparatus.

  2. Estimate of Maximum Underground Working Gas Storage Capacity in the United States: 2007 Update

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2007-01-01

    This report provides an update to an estimate for U.S. aggregate natural gas storage capacity that was released in 2006.

  3. CHP Installed Capacity Optimizer Software

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    2004-11-30

    The CHP Installed Capacity Optimizer is a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet application that determines the most economic amount of capacity of distributed generation and thermal utilization equipment (e.g., absorption chillers) to install for any user-defined set of load and cost data. Installing the optimum amount of capacity is critical to the life-cycle economic viability of a distributed generation/cooling heat and power (CHP) application. Using advanced optimization algorithms, the software accesses the loads, utility tariffs, equipment costs,more » etc., and provides to the user the most economic amount of system capacity to install.« less

  4. Property:USGSMeanCapacity | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    USGSMeanCapacity Jump to: navigation, search Property Name USGSMeanCapacity Property Type String Description Mean capacity potential at location based on the USGS 2008 Geothermal...

  5. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Largest Natural Gas Pipeline Systems

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Interstate Pipelines Table About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates Thirty Largest U.S. Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Systems, 2008 (Ranked by system capacity) Pipeline Name Market Regions Served Primary Supply Regions States in Which Pipeline Operates Transported in 2007 (million dekatherm)1 System Capacity (MMcf/d) 2 System Mileage Columbia Gas Transmission Co. Northeast Southwest, Appalachia DE, PA, MD, KY, NC, NJ, NY,

  6. EIS-0171: Pacificorp Capacity Sale

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) EIS assesses the proposed action of providing surplus power from its facilites to PacifiCorp in response to its request for a continued supply of firm capacity. BPA has surplus electrical capacity (peakload energy) that BPA projects will not be required to meet its existing obligations.

  7. Estimate of Maximum Underground Working Gas Storage Capacity in the United States

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2006-01-01

    This report examines the aggregate maximum capacity for U.S. natural gas storage. Although the concept of maximum capacity seems quite straightforward, there are numerous issues that preclude the determination of a definitive maximum volume. The report presents three alternative estimates for maximum capacity, indicating appropriate caveats for each.

  8. Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operable Capacity

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

    Charge Capacity (BSD) Catalytic Hydrotreating NaphthaReformer Feed Charge Cap (BSD) Catalytic Hydrotreating Gasoline Charge Capacity (BSD) Catalytic Hydrotreating...

  9. COMMUNITY CAPACITY BUILDING THROUGH TECHNOLOGY

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

    COMMUNITY CAPACITY BUILDING THROUGH TECHNOLOGY Empowering Communities in the Age of E-Government Prepared by Melinda Downing, Environmental Justice Program Manager, U.S. Department of Energy MAR 06 MARCH 2006 Since 1999, the Department of Energy has worked with the National Urban Internet and others to create community capacity through technology.  Empowering Communities in the Age of E-Government Table of Contents Message from the Environmental Justice Program Manager . . . . . . . . 3

  10. EIA - Analysis of Natural Gas Storage

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

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

  11. Natural Gas Market Centers: A 2008 Update

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

    ... This minimal growth reflects the stabilization of natural gas pipeline capacity originating in western Canada, which serves the west coast of the United States, primarily ...

  12. Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2003 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2004 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2005 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2006 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2007 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200

  13. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 220,597 220,597 2003 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 2004 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,804 220,804 220,804 2005 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 2006 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804

  14. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 576,841 576,841 2003 576,841 576,841 576,841 576,841 576,841 587,116 563,590 587,116 587,116 587,116 587,116 587,116 2004 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 591,673 591,673 591,673 2005 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 2006 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673

  15. Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2003 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2004 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2005 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2006 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000

  16. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,071,747 1,071,747 2003 1,043,529 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,034,429 1,034,429 2004 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,018,517 1,018,517 1,018,517 1,045,517 1,045,517 1,013,437 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 2005 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264

  17. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2003 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2004 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2005 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2006 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2007 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000

  18. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 141,912 141,912 141,912 141,912 144,787 144,787 2003 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 2004 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 143,887 143,887 143,887 2005 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 2006 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887

  19. Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,992 31,992 2003 31,992 31,992 31,992 31,992 31,992 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 2004 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,080 32,080 32,080 2005 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 2006 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,146 32,146 32,146

  20. Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 374,125 374,125 2003 374,125 374,125 374,125 374,125 374,125 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2004 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2005 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2006 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201

  1. Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2003 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2004 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2005 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2006 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480

  2. Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 2,992 2,992 2003 2,992 2,992 2,992 2,992 2,992 5,100 5,100 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 2004 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 8,024 8,024 8,024 2005 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 2006 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 9,035 9,035 9,035 2007 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,692

  3. Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 2003 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 2004 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 114,187 114,187 114,187 2005 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 2006 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187

  4. Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2003 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2004 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2005 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2006 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469

  5. New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2003 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 2004 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 2005 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 2006 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,124 83,124 83,124

  6. Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 575,959 575,959 2003 575,959 575,959 575,959 575,959 575,959 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 2004 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 572,404 572,404 572,404 2005 572,404 572,404 572,329 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 2006 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404

  7. Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 378,137 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 2003 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 2004 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 384,838 384,838 384,838 2005 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 2006 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838

  8. Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 17,755 21,080 21,080 21,080 21,080 21,080 21,080 21,080 22,042 22,042 22,042 22,042 2003 22,042 22,042 22,042 22,042 22,042 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 2004 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,796 23,796 23,796 2005 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 2006 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,034 24,034 24,034

  9. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 7,000 7,000 1990's 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 6,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2000's 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2010's

  10. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 108,171 108,207 1990's 108,601 114,621 114,627 114,627 124,138 124,114 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 2000's 134,012 134,000 144,787 143,887 146,287 150,947 150,809 166,909 187,251 210,128 2010's 235,638 240,241 289,416 303,522 331,469

  11. Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 29,025 29,791 1990's 29,791 29,791 30,564 30,564 30,564 30,564 31,125 31,273 31,273 31,273 2000's 31,878 32,000 32,098 32,080 32,004 32,146 32,505 32,940 32,876 10,889 2010's 11,502

  12. Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 373,963 373,960 1990's 373,960 373,960 375,010 375,010 375,010 375,010 375,010 342,785 371,510 371,510 2000's 371,510 372,000 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 376,301 2010's

  13. Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 88,438 88,438 1990's 143,311 93,311 93,311 93,311 93,311 39,468 39,468 39,468 39,468 39,468 2000's 39,468 39,000 39,468 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 34,850 34,850 34,850 2010's

  14. New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 94,600 94,600 1990's 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2000's 96,600 97,000 89,800 83,800 83,800 83,124 82,652 78,424 80,000 80,000 2010's 84,300 84,3

  15. Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 612,547 612,547 1990's 591,494 591,494 591,494 594,644 595,008 620,544 557,452 573,434 575,234 575,384 2000's 573,784 574,000 573,709 572,404 572,404 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 580,380 2010's 580,380 580,380 577,944 577,944 577,94

  16. Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 377,189 364,887 1990's 362,616 362,616 359,616 359,616 363,593 364,593 395,087 396,087 394,827 394,827 2000's 378,137 382,000 389,767 384,838 383,638 378,738 380,038 373,738 371,324 371,338 2010's 371,338 372,838 370,838 370,535 375,935

  17. Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 9,791 1990's 9,791 9,791 11,445 11,445 11,622 11,622 11,622 11,622 11,622 11,622 2000's 16,035 21,000 23,675 23,796 24,480 24,034 26,703 29,415 29,415 29,565 2010's 29,565 29,565 28,750

  18. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 805,394 805,393 1990's 640,938 640,938 669,354 664,693 658,578 654,570 680,006 684,842 684,842 684,842 2000's 684,518 717,070 714,216 748,074 749,018 748,792 750,054 759,365 759,153 776,964 2010's 776,822 776,845 774,309 774,309 774,309

  19. Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 82,662 82,662 1990's 98,999 98,999 105,790 105,790 105,583 108,837 99,599 99,599 99,599 99,599 2000's 100,226 100,000 101,054 101,055 101,055 98,068 98,068 98,068 95,068 105,768 2010's 105,768 105,858 124,253 122,0

  20. Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 953,947 952,279 1990's 949,914 949,914 949,721 952,388 958,968 905,260 898,239 965,565 898,565 898,565 2000's 898,565 899,000 945,307 972,388 982,474 981,995 984,768 980,691 977,989 989,454 2010's 990,487 997,364 999,931 1,000,281 1,004,547

  1. Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 114,603 112,045 1990's 97,332 102,246 106,176 106,676 108,621 113,121 113,209 113,209 113,209 113,209 2000's 113,210 113,000 111,095 113,597 113,397 114,080 114,294 114,294 114,937 114,274 2010's 111,271 111,313 110,749 110,749 110,749

  2. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 311,000 311,000 1990's 229,700 279,700 279,700 279,700 270,200 270,200 270,200 408,200 273,200 273,200 2000's 273,200 273,000 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 275,200 278,238 284,747 284,811 2010's 288,0

  3. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 334,925 334,925 1990's 301,199 301,199 290,571 289,797 290,148 283,603 285,201 304,065 301,101 301,101 2000's 300,401 300,000 299,473 288,197 289,450 289,747 288,383 288,926 282,221 282,300 2010's 284,821 284,731 284,905 283,97

  4. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 206,572 206,603 1990's 312,061 307,235 210,242 210,242 209,753 215,351 216,351 219,907 219,907 219,907 2000's 219,913 220,000 220,596 220,804 220,844 218,927 218,394 220,359 220,359 220,368 2010's 221,751 221,751 221,751 221,723 221,723

  5. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 559,019 559,019 1990's 550,823 559,823 539,200 542,900 551,580 549,436 554,872 559,012 563,867 564,062 2000's 569,187 580,000 587,115 591,673 593,740 593,740 599,165 588,711 615,858 651,968 2010's 670,880 690,295 699,646 733,939 745,029

  6. Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 61,978 61,978 1990's 61,978 61,978 62,400 62,400 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2000's 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 2010's

  7. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 982,362 982,362 1990's 994,542 995,181 994,281 1,043,781 1,046,582 1,053,814 1,052,236 992,933 1,021,674 1,071,699 2000's 1,070,716 1,071,000 1,034,429 1,028,344 1,010,034 1,021,622 1,031,290 1,060,558 1,062,339 1,069,405 2010's 1,069,898 1,075,472 1,078,979 1,079,424 1,079,462

  8. Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 2,600 3,280 3,280 3,280 3,280 2000's 3,280 5,000 8,520 11,015 11,015 11,015 19,300 19,300 26,900 26,900 2010's 32,900 35,400 35,400 35,4

  9. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's

  10. Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 36,147 31,447 1990's 31,277 31,277 31,277 31,277 31,277 38,347 31,871 31,871 24,190 24,190 2000's 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 21,760 2010's 21,760 21,359

  11. California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 459,673 466,818 1990's 291,678 467,678 472,108 472,108 472,108 472,908 469,695 396,430 388,370 388,370 2000's 388,480 476,000 478,995 446,095 478,226 477,726 484,711 487,711 498,705 513,005 2010's 542,511 570,511 592,411 599,711 599,711

  12. Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 1,200 1,200 2000's 1,200 1,000 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2010's 0

  13. Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 590,248 589,780 1990's 586,502 589,018 595,229 598,782 627,589 653,420 672,533 683,891 684,226 684,226 2000's 699,323 686,000 699,471 662,593 674,196 680,096 690,061 690,678 740,477 766,768 2010's 783,579 812,394 831,190 842,072 834,124

  14. Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2008 679,449 679,449 679,449 679,449 679,449 679,449 679,449 679,449 679,449 698,449 709,678 709,678 2009 709,678 709,678 709,678 709,678 709,678 709,678 709,678 709,678...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 48,709 48,709 48,709 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,582 60,582 2013...

  16. Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 2,600 3,280 3,280 3,280 3,280 2000's 3,280 5,000 8,520 11,015 11,015 11,015 19,300 19,300 26,900 26,900 2010's 32,900 35,400 35,400 35,4

  17. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's

  18. Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 36,147 31,447 1990's 31,277 31,277 31,277 31,277 31,277 38,347 31,871 31,871 24,190 24,190 2000's 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 21,760 2010's 21,760 21,359

  19. U.S. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    7,933,967 7,934,228 7,929,728 7,974,893 7,974,893 7,974,893 7,975,643 7,978,632 7,979,132 7,987,416 7,985,156 7,988,856 1994 7,990,852 8,028,112 8,028,112 8,028,321 8,028,321...

  20. West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 523,132 523,132 1990's 525,138 525,138 525,206 519,286 520,457 466,089 484,596 734,157 733,157...

  1. East Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    2,200,169 2,200,169 2015 2,197,282 2,197,282 2,197,282 2,197,282 2,197,282 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 - No Data Reported; -- Not...

  2. Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 2003 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 2004 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 11,015 11,015 11,015 2005 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 2006 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 2007 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015

  3. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 25,907 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2014 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2015 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592

  4. Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2003 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2004 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2005 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2006 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000

  5. California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 388,480 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 474,920 474,920 2003 474,920 474,920 474,920 474,920 474,920 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 2004 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 486,095 446,095 446,095 454,095 454,095 454,095 2005 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 2006 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095

  6. Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 2003 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 2004 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 2005 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 2006 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055

  7. Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 2003 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 901,274 901,274 901,274 945,307 945,307 945,307 945,307 2004 959,244 959,244 959,244 959,244 959,112 959,112 959,112 959,112 959,112 972,388 972,388 972,388 2005 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 2006 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388

  8. Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 111,556 111,556 2003 112,088 129,968 112,095 112,095 112,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 2004 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 113,597 113,397 113,397 2005 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 2006 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397

  9. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2003 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2004 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2005 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2006 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200

  10. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 2003 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 2004 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 288,197 288,197 288,197 2005 288,197 288,197 288,197 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 2006 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259

  11. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 220,597 220,597 2003 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 2004 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,804 220,804 220,804 2005 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 2006 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804

  12. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 576,841 576,841 2003 576,841 576,841 576,841 576,841 576,841 587,116 563,590 587,116 587,116 587,116 587,116 587,116 2004 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 591,673 591,673 591,673 2005 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 2006 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673

  13. Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2003 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2004 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2005 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2006 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000

  14. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,071,747 1,071,747 2003 1,043,529 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,034,429 1,034,429 2004 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,018,517 1,018,517 1,018,517 1,045,517 1,045,517 1,013,437 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 2005 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264

  15. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2003 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2004 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2005 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2006 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2007 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000

  16. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 141,912 141,912 141,912 141,912 144,787 144,787 2003 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 2004 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 143,887 143,887 143,887 2005 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 2006 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887

  17. Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,992 31,992 2003 31,992 31,992 31,992 31,992 31,992 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 2004 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,080 32,080 32,080 2005 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 2006 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,146 32,146 32,146

  18. Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 374,125 374,125 2003 374,125 374,125 374,125 374,125 374,125 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2004 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2005 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2006 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201

  19. Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2003 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2004 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2005 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2006 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469

  20. California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 388,480 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 474,920 474,920 2003 474,920 474,920 474,920 474,920 474,920 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 2004 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 486,095 446,095 446,095 454,095 454,095 454,095 2005 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 2006 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095

  1. Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 2003 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 2004 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 2005 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 2006 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055

  2. Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 2003 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 901,274 901,274 901,274 945,307 945,307 945,307 945,307 2004 959,244 959,244 959,244 959,244 959,112 959,112 959,112 959,112 959,112 972,388 972,388 972,388 2005 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 2006 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388

  3. Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 111,556 111,556 2003 112,088 129,968 112,095 112,095 112,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 2004 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 113,597 113,397 113,397 2005 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 2006 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397

  4. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2003 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2004 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2005 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2006 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200

  5. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 2003 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 2004 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 288,197 288,197 288,197 2005 288,197 288,197 288,197 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 2006 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259

  6. Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 61,978 61,978 1990's 61,978 61,978 62,400 62,400 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2000's 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 2010's

  7. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 982,362 982,362 1990's 994,542 995,181 994,281 1,043,781 1,046,582 1,053,814 1,052,236 992,933 1,021,674 1,071,699 2000's 1,070,716 1,071,000 1,034,429 1,028,344 1,010,034 1,021,622 1,031,290 1,060,558 1,062,339 1,069,405 2010's 1,069,898 1,075,472 1,078,979 1,079,424 1,079,462

  8. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 7,000 7,000 1990's 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 6,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2000's 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2010's

  9. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 108,171 108,207 1990's 108,601 114,621 114,627 114,627 124,138 124,114 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 2000's 134,012 134,000 144,787 143,887 146,287 150,947 150,809 166,909 187,251 210,128 2010's 235,638 240,241 289,416 303,522 331,469

  10. Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 29,025 29,791 1990's 29,791 29,791 30,564 30,564 30,564 30,564 31,125 31,273 31,273 31,273 2000's 31,878 32,000 32,098 32,080 32,004 32,146 32,505 32,940 32,876 10,889 2010's 11,502

  11. Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 373,963 373,960 1990's 373,960 373,960 375,010 375,010 375,010 375,010 375,010 342,785 371,510 371,510 2000's 371,510 372,000 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 376,301 2010's

  12. Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 88,438 88,438 1990's 143,311 93,311 93,311 93,311 93,311 39,468 39,468 39,468 39,468 39,468 2000's 39,468 39,000 39,468 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 34,850 34,850 34,850 2010's

  13. New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 94,600 94,600 1990's 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2000's 96,600 97,000 89,800 83,800 83,800 83,124 82,652 78,424 80,000 80,000 2010's 84,300 84,3

  14. New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 156,259 156,259 1990's 147,618 150,538 167,834 173,463 173,463 173,463 173,979 175,479 175,479 175,129 2000's 175,495 166,000 190,156 200,545 204,765 204,855 213,225 229,013 228,613 245,579 2010's 245,579 245,579 245,5

  15. Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 612,547 612,547 1990's 591,494 591,494 591,494 594,644 595,008 620,544 557,452 573,434 575,234 575,384 2000's 573,784 574,000 573,709 572,404 572,404 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 580,380 2010's 580,380 580,380 577,944 577,944 577,94

  16. Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 377,189 364,887 1990's 362,616 362,616 359,616 359,616 363,593 364,593 395,087 396,087 394,827 394,827 2000's 378,137 382,000 389,767 384,838 383,638 378,738 380,038 373,738 371,324 371,338 2010's 371,338 372,838 370,838 370,535 375,935

  17. Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 9,791 1990's 9,791 9,791 11,445 11,445 11,622 11,622 11,622 11,622 11,622 11,622 2000's 16,035 21,000 23,675 23,796 24,480 24,034 26,703 29,415 29,415 29,565 2010's 29,565 29,565 28,750

  18. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 805,394 805,393 1990's 640,938 640,938 669,354 664,693 658,578 654,570 680,006 684,842 684,842 684,842 2000's 684,518 717,070 714,216 748,074 749,018 748,792 750,054 759,365 759,153 776,964 2010's 776,822 776,845 774,309 774,309 774,309

  19. West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 733,126 733,126 733,126 733,126 733,126 733,126 496,796 496,796 496,796 496,796 497,996 497,996 2003 497,996 497,996...

  20. Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 1,200 1,200 2000's 1,200 1,000 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2010's 0

  1. Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 590,248 589,780 1990's 586,502 589,018 595,229 598,782 627,589 653,420 672,533 683,891 684,226 684,226 2000's 699,323 686,000 699,471 662,593 674,196 680,096 690,061 690,678 740,477 766,768 2010's 783,579 812,394 831,190 842,072 834,124

  2. Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 114,980 114,980 1990's 114,980 114,980 114,980 114,980 122,498 122,498 121,980 121,980 121,980 121,980 2000's 129,480 129,000 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2010's 129,480 124,465 124,465 124,465 124,465

  3. Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 4,668 4,668 2000's 4,967 5,000 5,100 6,720 8,100 9,035 9,692 9,560 6,200 9,500 2010's

  4. Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 36,400 36,400 1990's 32,100 34,100 34,100 34,100 33,900 33,900 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 2000's 37,300 37,000 39,627 40,247 41,263 42,191 43,316 39,341 39,287 39,210 2010's 41,309 43,673

  5. Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 114,980 114,980 1990's 114,980 114,980 114,980 114,980 122,498 122,498 121,980 121,980 121,980 121,980 2000's 129,480 129,000 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2010's 129,480 124,465 124,465 124,465 124,465

  6. Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 4,668 4,668 2000's 4,967 5,000 5,100 6,720 8,100 9,035 9,692 9,560 6,200 9,500 2010's

  7. Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 36,400 36,400 1990's 32,100 34,100 34,100 34,100 33,900 33,900 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 2000's 37,300 37,000 39,627 40,247 41,263 42,191 43,316 39,341 39,287 39,210 2010's 41,309 43,673

  8. Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 103,831 103,830 1990's 106,130 106,130 105,668 105,668 105,668 105,668 105,868 105,868 105,868 105,868 2000's 105,868 106,000 115,068 114,187 114,160 114,160 114,096 114,067 111,167 111,120 2010's 111,120 106,764 124,937

  9. Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 2003 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 2004 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 11,015 11,015 11,015 2005 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 2006 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 2007 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015

  10. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 25,907 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2014 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2015 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592

  11. Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2003 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2004 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2005 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2006 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000

  12. Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2003 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2004 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2005 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2006 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2007 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200

  13. Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 699,324 698,258 699,324 699,324 699,324 699,324 699,324 699,324 700,324 700,324 723,922 723,922 2003 723,922 723,922 723,922 723,922 723,922 699,472 699,472 699,472 699,472 699,472 699,472 699,472 2004 700,769 700,769 700,769 700,769 675,769 675,769 675,769 675,769 675,769 665,730 665,730 665,730 2005 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 2006 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730

  14. New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2003 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 2004 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 2005 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 2006 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,124 83,124 83,124

  15. New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 189,267 189,267 2003 189,267 189,267 189,267 189,267 189,267 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 2004 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 203,265 203,265 203,265 2005 203,265 203,265 203,265 203,265 203,265 203,265 203,265 204,265 204,265 204,265 204,265 204,265 2006 204,265 204,265 204,265 204,265

  16. Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 575,959 575,959 2003 575,959 575,959 575,959 575,959 575,959 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 2004 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 572,404 572,404 572,404 2005 572,404 572,404 572,329 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 2006 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404

  17. Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 378,137 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 2003 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 2004 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 384,838 384,838 384,838 2005 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 2006 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838

  18. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 713,818 713,818 713,818 713,818 713,818 713,818 950,148 950,148 950,148 950,148 950,148 950,148 2003 950,148 950,148 950,148 950,148 950,148 714,417 714,417 714,417 714,417 714,417 714,217 714,097 2004 712,687 712,292 712,292 709,946 709,946 709,946 709,946 709,826 721,019 748,874 748,874 748,338 2005 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 2006 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338

  19. Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 2003 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 2004 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 114,187 114,187 114,187 2005 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 2006 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187

  20. California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 459,673 466,818 1990's 291,678 467,678 472,108 472,108 472,108 472,908 469,695 396,430 388,370 388,370 2000's 388,480 476,000 478,995 446,095 478,226 477,726 484,711 487,711 498,705 513,005 2010's 542,511 570,511 592,411 599,711 599,711

  1. Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 82,662 82,662 1990's 98,999 98,999 105,790 105,790 105,583 108,837 99,599 99,599 99,599 99,599 2000's 100,226 100,000 101,054 101,055 101,055 98,068 98,068 98,068 95,068 105,768 2010's 105,768 105,858 124,253 122,0

  2. Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 953,947 952,279 1990's 949,914 949,914 949,721 952,388 958,968 905,260 898,239 965,565 898,565 898,565 2000's 898,565 899,000 945,307 972,388 982,474 981,995 984,768 980,691 977,989 989,454 2010's 990,487 997,364 999,931 1,000,281 1,004,547

  3. Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 114,603 112,045 1990's 97,332 102,246 106,176 106,676 108,621 113,121 113,209 113,209 113,209 113,209 2000's 113,210 113,000 111,095 113,597 113,397 114,080 114,294 114,294 114,937 114,274 2010's 111,271 111,313 110,749 110,749 110,749

  4. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 311,000 311,000 1990's 229,700 279,700 279,700 279,700 270,200 270,200 270,200 408,200 273,200 273,200 2000's 273,200 273,000 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 275,200 278,238 284,747 284,811 2010's 288,0

  5. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 334,925 334,925 1990's 301,199 301,199 290,571 289,797 290,148 283,603 285,201 304,065 301,101 301,101 2000's 300,401 300,000 299,473 288,197 289,450 289,747 288,383 288,926 282,221 282,300 2010's 284,821 284,731 284,905 283,97

  6. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 206,572 206,603 1990's 312,061 307,235 210,242 210,242 209,753 215,351 216,351 219,907 219,907 219,907 2000's 219,913 220,000 220,596 220,804 220,844 218,927 218,394 220,359 220,359 220,368 2010's 221,751 221,751 221,751 221,723 221,723

  7. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 559,019 559,019 1990's 550,823 559,823 539,200 542,900 551,580 549,436 554,872 559,012 563,867 564,062 2000's 569,187 580,000 587,115 591,673 593,740 593,740 599,165 588,711 615,858 651,968 2010's 670,880 690,295 699,646 733,939 745,029

  8. U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    Lower 48 States Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region East Region South Central Region Midwest Region Mountain Region Pacific Region Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download

  9. U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Total Storage

  10. Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2003 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2004 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2005 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2006 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480

  11. Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 2,992 2,992 2003 2,992 2,992 2,992 2,992 2,992 5,100 5,100 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 2004 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 8,024 8,024 8,024 2005 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 2006 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 9,035 9,035 9,035 2007 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,692

  12. Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,720 37,720 2003 37,720 37,720 37,720 37,720 37,720 38,969 38,969 38,969 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 2004 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 40,247 40,247 40,247 2005 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 2006 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 42,191 42,191 42,191

  13. West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 733,126 733,126 733,126 733,126 733,126 733,126 496,796 496,796 496,796 496,796 497,996 497,996 2003 497,996 497,996 497,996 497,996 497,996 509,836 509,836 509,836 509,836 509,758 494,458 494,458 2004 492,025 492,025 492,025 492,025 492,025 492,025 492,025 492,025 492,025 510,827 510,827 510,827 2005 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 2006 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827

  14. ,"U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity"

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

    Date:","1292016" ,"Next Release Date:","2292016" ,"Excel File Name:","ngstorcapdcunusm.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http:www.eia.govdnavng...

  15. West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 523,132 523,132 1990's 525,138 525,138 525,206 519,286 520,457 466,089 484,596 734,157 733,157 733,157 2000's 733,125 733,000 494,457 510,827 512,143 512,377 513,416 536,702 528,442 531,456 2010's 531,480 524,324 524,324 524,3

  16. Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 103,831 103,830 1990's 106,130 106,130 105,668 105,668 105,668 105,668 105,868 105,868 105,868 105,868 2000's 105,868 106,000 115,068 114,187 114,160 114,160 114,096 114,067 111,167 111,120 2010's 111,120 106,764 124,937

  17. New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 189,267 189,267 2003 189,267 189,267...

  18. New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 156,259 156,259 1990's 147,618 150,538 167,834 173,463 173,463 173,463 173,979 175,479 175,479...

  19. Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...

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

    21,080 21,080 21,080 21,080 22,042 22,042 22,042 22,042 2003 22,042 22,042 22,042 22,042 22,042 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 2004 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676...

  20. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Rhode Island" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Entergy Rhode Island State Energy LP","Natural gas","Entergy RISE",538 2,"Manchester Street","Natural gas","Dominion Energy New England, LLC",447 3,"Tiverton Power Plant","Natural gas","Tiverton Power LLC",250 4,"Ocean State Power","Natural