National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for reservoirs million barrels

  1. Montana Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Montana Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 6 83 2000's 36 43 65 79 104 88 91 90 50 42 2010's 74 59 95 104 155 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Proved Nonproducing

  2. Florida Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Florida Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 6 12 2000's 9 7 7 6 6 2 1 12 0 2 2010's 2 4 3 9 6 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Proved Nonproducing Reserves of Crude

  3. Illinois Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Illinois Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 4 11 2000's 4 15 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Proved Nonproducing Reserves of Crude Oil Illinois Proved

  4. Kansas Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Kansas Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 11 12 2000's 13 21 23 18 11 16 17 9 11 3 2010's 2 4 6 11 34 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Proved Nonproducing Reserves

  5. Kentucky Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Kentucky Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 0 0 2000's 0 0 4 4 5 5 0 0 1 3 2010's 0 0 0 1 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Proved Nonproducing Reserves of Crude

  6. Michigan Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Michigan Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 3 1 2000's 4 6 4 14 10 17 15 2 9 6 2010's 0 0 0 4 3 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Proved Nonproducing Reserves of

  7. Arkansas Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Arkansas Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 2 5 2000's 7 4 5 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 2010's 1 0 11 10 8 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Proved Nonproducing Reserves of Crude

  8. Colorado Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Colorado Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 26 30 2000's 49 44 56 61 62 74 102 122 123 42 2010's 180 208 283 607 765 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Proved

  9. New Mexico Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)

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

    Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) New Mexico Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 97 157 2000's 91 161 146 133 142 171 159 147 136 149 2010's 180 185 232 314 489 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  10. Ohio Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)

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

    Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Ohio Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 0 17 2000's 10 6 8 8 7 7 8 8 7 5 2010's 1 1 2 7 3 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Proved Nonproducing Reserves of Crude Oil

  11. Oklahoma Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)

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

    Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Oklahoma Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 98 80 2000's 111 109 105 92 92 101 90 118 129 138 2010's 143 244 279 292 444 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Proved

  12. Wyoming Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)

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

    Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Wyoming Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 31 52 2000's 63 74 69 61 45 249 258 208 162 144 2010's 152 188 233 219 362 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Proved

  13. Utah Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)

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

    Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Utah Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 36 58 2000's 91 100 91 76 61 52 164 174 140 235 2010's 257 258 368 312 261 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Proved

  14. Nebraska Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Proved Nonproducing Reserves of Crude Oil Nebraska Proved Nonproducing Reserves

  15. Indiana Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Indiana Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Proved Nonproducing Reserves of Crude Oil Indiana Proved Nonproducing Reserves

  16. Virginia Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Proved Nonproducing Reserves of Crude Oil Virginia Proved Nonproducing Reserves

  17. ,"New Mexico Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)"

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

    Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016" ,"Excel

  18. ,"New Mexico--East Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)"

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

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico--East Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  19. ,"New Mexico--West Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)"

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

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico--West Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  20. ,"New York Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)"

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

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New York Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  1. ,"U.S. Federal Offshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)"

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

    Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Federal Offshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  2. ,"U.S. Total Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)"

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

    Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Total Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016" ,"Excel

  3. ,"Calif--Coastal Region Onshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)"

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

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Calif--Coastal Region Onshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  4. ,"California--State Offshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)"

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

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California--State Offshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  5. ,"Federal Offshore--California Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)"

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

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Federal Offshore--California Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  6. ,"Louisiana--South Onshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)"

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

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana--South Onshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  7. ,"Miscellaneous States Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)"

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

    Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Miscellaneous States Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  8. U.S. Total Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)

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

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) U.S. Total Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 3,474 3,755 4,147 4,206 2000's 4,019 5,195 5,271 5,580 5,143 5,691 5,174 5,455 5,400 6,015 2010's 6,980 9,049 11,884 13,200 14,816 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  9. ,"Calif--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)"

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

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Calif--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  10. ,"Calif--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)"

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

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Calif--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  11. Secretary Bodman Announces Sale of 11 Million Barrels of Crude...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Sale of 11 Million Barrels of Crude Oil from the Nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve Secretary Bodman Announces Sale of 11 Million Barrels of Crude Oil from the Nation's Strategic...

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

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

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

  13. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Crude Oil Production (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Crude Oil Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 267 266 265 292 303 342 372 421 2000's 419 459 451 485 467 409 406 414

  14. Miscellaneous States Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Miscellaneous States Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 1 1 2000's 1 1 16 17 4 4 2 5 4 7 2010's 5 7 12 9 6 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Proved

  15. Louisiana--North Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Louisiana--North Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 18 42 2000's 31 28 16 14 11 17 14 11 9 8 2010's 45 30 13 12 17 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring

  16. North Dakota Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million

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

    Barrels) Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) North Dakota Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 17 22 2000's 29 91 62 47 52 56 53 107 148 463 2010's 969 1,421 2,207 3,278 3,456 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016

  17. Pennsylvania Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million

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

    Barrels) Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Pennsylvania Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 0 5 2000's 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Proved Nonproducing

  18. West Virginia Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million

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

    Barrels) Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) West Virginia Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 3 3 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 1 1 2 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Proved Nonproducing

  19. Mississippi Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Mississippi Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 252 2010's 254 245 276 235 241 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved Reserves, as

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  1. Montana Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Montana Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 343 2010's 369 384 388 413 445 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved Reserves, as of Dec. 31

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  3. Nebraska Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Nebraska Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 10 2010's 14 21 20 18 21 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved Reserves, as of Dec.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  7. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Liquids Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  9. Florida Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Florida Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 9 2010's 19 22 24 38 70 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved Reserves, as of Dec. 31 Florida

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  11. Illinois Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Illinois Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 66 2010's 64 54 51 42 34 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved Reserves, as of Dec. 31

  12. Indiana Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Indiana Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 8 2010's 8 7 13 8 8 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved Reserves, as of Dec. 31

  13. Kansas Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Kansas Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 264 2010's 302 350 382 390 451 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved Reserves, as of Dec. 31

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  15. Kentucky Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Kentucky Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 24 2010's 16 22 13 22 21 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved Reserves, as of Dec. 31

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  17. Louisiana Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Louisiana Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 480 2010's 530 525 584 622 649 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved Reserves, as

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  19. Michigan Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Michigan Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 52 2010's 55 59 71 67 55 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved Reserves, as of Dec. 31

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  1. Alabama Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Alabama Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 53 2010's 60 65 69 58 79 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved Reserves, as of Dec.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  3. Alaska Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Alaska Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 3,566 2010's 3,722 3,852 3,352 2,898 2,857 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  5. Arkansas Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Arkansas Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 29 2010's 42 40 55 41 67 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved Reserves, as of Dec. 31

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  7. California Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) California Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 2,835 2010's 2,939 3,009 2,976 2,878 2,874 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  9. Colorado Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Colorado Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 376 2010's 501 555 760 1,171 1,451 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved Reserves, as of Dec.

  10. Utah Natural Gas Liquids Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Utah Natural Gas Liquids Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 59 1980's 127 277 2000's 108 116 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Liquids Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Utah Natural Gas Liquids Proved Reserves

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  12. Wyoming Natural Gas Liquids Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Wyoming Natural Gas Liquids Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 285 1980's 341 384 2000's 1,032 1,121 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Liquids Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Wyoming Natural Gas Liquids Proved

  13. Texas Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

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

    Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 5,496 2010's 6,356 8,108 11,101 12,004 14,058 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved

  14. New Mexico Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) New Mexico Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 780 2010's 922 960 1,069 1,277 1,558 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved Reserves, as of

  15. North Dakota Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) North Dakota Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 1,058 2010's 1,887 2,658 3,773 5,683 6,045 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved Reserves,

  16. Ohio Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Ohio Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 50 2010's 54 55 64 87 163 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved Reserves, as of Dec. 31 Ohio Crude

  17. Oklahoma Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Oklahoma Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 802 2010's 926 1,150 1,280 1,469 1,721 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved Reserves, as of

  18. Pennsylvania Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Pennsylvania Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 17 2010's 34 44 67 58 87 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved Reserves, as of Dec. 31

  19. Wyoming Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Wyoming Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 855 2010's 823 919 932 955 1,137 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved Reserves, as of Dec. 31

  20. Utah Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Utah Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 488 2010's 518 582 700 670 606 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved Reserves, as of Dec. 31 Utah

  1. Lower 48 States Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Lower 48 States Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 3,341 3,274 2000's 3,508 4,806 4,725 4,846 4,436 5,096 4,732 5,055 4,871 5,382 2010's 6,358 8,483 11,082 12,561 14,268 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  2. Ohio Natural Gas Liquids Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  3. Texas--RRC District 10 Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 10 Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  4. Texas--RRC District 1 Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 1 Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  5. Texas--RRC District 6 Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 6 Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  6. Texas--RRC District 5 Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs...

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

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 5 Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  7. Texas--RRC District 9 Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs...

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

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 9 Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  8. Texas--RRC District 8 Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 8 Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  9. New Mexico--East Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million

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

    Barrels) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) New Mexico--East Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 97 156 2000's 91 161 146 133 142 171 159 147 136 149 2010's 180 185 232 304 460 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  10. New Mexico--West Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million

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

    Barrels) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) New Mexico--West Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 10 29 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Proved

  11. U.S. crude oil production expected to top 9 million barrels per day in December

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    crude oil production expected to top 9 million barrels per day in December U.S. crude oil production is expected to continue to increase through next year, despite the outlook for lower crude oil prices. In its new short-term forecast, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said monthly average oil production is on track to surpass 9 million barrels per day in December for the first time since 1986 and then rise to an average 9.4 million barrels a day next year. Even though that's down about

  12. U.S. crude oil production expected to top 8 million barrels per day, highest output since 1988

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    U.S. crude oil production expected to top 8 million barrels per day, highest output since 1988 U.S. crude oil production in 2014 is now expected to top 8 million barrels per day for the first time in over a quarter century. The U.S. Energy Information Administration boosted its forecast for daily crude oil production this year by 120,000 barrels to 7.4 million barrels per day. For 2014, EIA's forecast for daily production was revised upward by 310,000 barrels to nearly 8.2 million barrels per

  13. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Crude Oil Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Crude Oil Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 1,835 2,072 2,127 2,518 2,567 2,949 2,793 2,744 2000's 3,174 4,288 4,444 4,554 4,144 4,042 3,655 3,464

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  18. ,"Montana Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  20. ,"Nebraska Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Nebraska Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  1. ,"Nebraska Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

  2. ,"New Mexico Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  3. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  5. ,"North Dakota Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","North Dakota Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016" ,"Excel

  6. ,"North Dakota Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  8. ,"Ohio Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Ohio Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  9. ,"Ohio Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Ohio Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",1985 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  10. ,"Oklahoma Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Oklahoma Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  11. ,"Oklahoma Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  13. ,"Pennsylvania Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Pennsylvania Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016" ,"Excel

  14. ,"Pennsylvania Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Pennsylvania Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",1985 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  15. ,"Texas Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016" ,"Excel

  16. ,"U.S. Federal Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Federal Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  17. ,"U.S. Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  19. ,"Utah Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Utah Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  20. ,"Utah Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  4. ,"Wyoming Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Wyoming Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  5. ,"Wyoming Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  7. U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Acquisitions (Million Barrels)

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

    Acquisitions (Million Barrels) U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Acquisitions (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 344 2010's 1,470 1,561 1,234 1,925 2,828 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Reserves Acquisitions

  8. U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Adjustments (Million Barrels)

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

    Adjustments (Million Barrels) U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Adjustments (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 46 2010's 188 207 137 -595 440 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved Reserves

  9. U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Extensions (Million Barrels)

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

    Extensions (Million Barrels) U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Extensions (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 1,305 2010's 1,766 3,107 5,191 4,973 5,021 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Reserves Extensions

  10. U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Sales (Million Barrels)

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

    Sales (Million Barrels) U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Sales (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 249 2010's 803 1,024 819 1,536 2,475 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Reserves Sales

  11. ,"Alabama Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alabama Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  12. ,"Alaska Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alaska Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016" ,"Excel

  13. ,"Arkansas Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Arkansas Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  14. ,"Arkansas Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  16. ,"California - Coastal Region Onshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California - Coastal Region Onshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  17. ,"California Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  18. ,"California Federal Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California Federal Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  19. ,"California State Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California State Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  20. ,"Colorado Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Colorado Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  1. ,"Colorado Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  3. ,"Florida Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Florida Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  4. ,"Florida Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  6. ,"Illinois Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Illinois Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  7. ,"Indiana Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Indiana Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  8. ,"Kansas Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Kansas Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  9. ,"Kansas Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  11. ,"Kentucky Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Kentucky Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  12. ,"Kentucky Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  14. ,"Louisiana Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  15. ,"Louisiana--North Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  17. ,"Louisiana--South Onshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  19. ,"Lower 48 States Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  1. ,"Michigan Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Michigan Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  2. ,"Michigan Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  4. ,"Miscellaneous States Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Miscellaneous States Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  5. ,"Miscellaneous States Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  7. ,"Mississippi Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Mississippi Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  8. ,"Montana Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Montana Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  9. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for the first time since 1988

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    monthly crude oil production highest in nearly 26 year Estimated U.S. crude oil production in May averaged almost 8.4 million barrels per day, the highest output for any month since March 1988. In its new monthly forecast, the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects domestic crude oil production will also average 8.4 million barrels per day this year.....which is 1 million barrels per day higher than last year....and then rise to 9.3 million barrels per day in 2015. That would be highest

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  11. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for the first time since 1988

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    monthly crude oil production highest in 26 years with bigger oil flows still to come U.S. crude oil production averaged 8.3 million barrels per day in April....the highest monthly level in 26 years....and output is expected to keep growing. In its new monthly forecast, the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects oil production to average 8.5 million barrels per day this year and increase to 9.2 million barrels per day next year. That would be the highest annual output level since 1972.

  12. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for the first time since 1988

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Rising U.S. oil production cuts into petroleum imports Growing U.S. crude oil production is on track to push the amount of petroleum liquid fuels imports needed to meet domestic fuel consumption to the lowest level in more than four decades. U.S. crude oil production is expected to jump from 7.4 million barrels per day in 2013 to 8.5 million barrels per day this year.....and then rise to 9.3 million barrels a day in 2015, according to the new monthly forecast from the U.S. Energy Information

  13. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for the first time since 1988

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for the first time since 1988 Estimated U.S. crude oil production in November topped 8 million barrels per day for the first time in 25 years, according to the new monthly energy forecast from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Rising oil output from tight oil formations in North Dakota and Texas are playing a key role, with annual U.S. oil production expected to increase to an average of 8.5 million barrels per day next year. More oil

  14. Texas--RRC District 8A Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 8A Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  15. Texas--RRC District 7B Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 7B Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  16. Texas--RRC District 7C Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs...

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

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 7C Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  17. Secretary Bodman Announces Sale of 11 Million Barrels of Crude Oil from the Nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    WASHINGTON, DC - Secretary Samuel W. Bodman announced that the Department of Energy has approved bids for the sale of 11 million barrels of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR)....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for the first time since 1988

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    to account for 91% of the growth in world oil production in 2015 The United States is expected to provide nine out of every 10 barrels of new global oil supplies in 2015. In its new forecast, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said it expects world oil production to rise by 1.3 million barrels per day next year....with U.S. daily oil output alone increasing by 1.2 million barrels. Rising U.S. oil production, along with more fuel-efficient vehicles on America's highways, is expected to

  2. U.S. crude oil production expected to top 9 million barrels per day in December

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    3 2015 Falling crude prices to slow U.S. oil production growth in 2015 U.S. crude oil production is expected to increase again this year, but lower crude prices will slow the growth in output. In its new forecast, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said domestic crude oil production should average 9.3 million barrels per day in 2015. On-shore production in the Lower 48-states is expected to grow in the early part of the year, before declining in the second half. Production for the

  3. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for the first time since 1988

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    U.S. crude oil production expected to hit four-decade high during 2015 U.S. crude oil production over the next two years is expected to grow to its highest level since the early 1970s. Oil output increased by 1 million barrels per day in 2013...and is expected to repeat that growth rate during 2014....according to the new forecast from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. U.S. crude oil production is forecast to average 8.5 million barrels per day this year and then rise to 9.3 million

  4. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for the first time since 1988

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    World oil supply more than adequate to meet demand over next 2 years Rising U.S. crude oil production will help non-OPEC supply growth exceed global demand growth for the next two years. Non-OPEC petroleum and other liquids supply is expected to increase 1.9 million barrels per day this year, while oil consumption will grow just 1.3 million barrels per day, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's new monthly forecast. Next year....non-OPEC supply is expected to rise another 1.5

  5. ,"New Mexico--East Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  7. ,"New Mexico--West Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  9. ,"Texas (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  3. ,"Alabama (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  5. ,"Alaska (with Total Offshore) Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  7. ,"Calif--Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Calif--Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  8. ,"Calif--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Calif--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  9. ,"Calif--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Calif--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  10. ,"California (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  12. ,"California - Los Angeles Basin Onshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California - Los Angeles Basin Onshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  13. ,"California - San Joaquin Basin Onshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California - San Joaquin Basin Onshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  14. ,"Federal Offshore--California Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  16. ,"Federal Offshore--Louisiana and Alabama Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Federal Offshore--Louisiana and Alabama Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

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

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

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

  18. ,"Federal Offshore--Texas Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  20. ,"Louisiana (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  2. ,"Lower 48 Federal Offshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

    Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Lower 48 Federal Offshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  3. ,"Lower 48 Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

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

  4. ,"Mississippi (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)"

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

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

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

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

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

  6. ,"Texas--State Offshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs...

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

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas--State Offshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2...

  7. ,"North Dakota Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs...

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","North Dakota Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release...

  8. ,"West Virginia Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs...

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release...

  9. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for the first time since 1988

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Snow and cold cut into U.S. crude oil production this winter This winter's harsh weather conditions temporarily slowed U.S. crude oil production. In its new forecast....the U.S. Energy Information Administration said oil production in the Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana hit 1 million barrels per day last November. However, winter storms caused a drop in the oil output from the Bakken formation during December. Production in the Bakken region is forecast to return to 1 million

  10. Alaska Crude Oil + Lease Condensate New Reservoir Discoveries...

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

    Crude Oil + Lease Condensate New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 2010's...

  11. Federal Offshore--California Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Federal Offshore--California Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 21 15 2000's 42 62 62 93 55 32 37 20 12 12 2010's 13 13 25 17 18 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release

  12. Louisiana--South Onshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Louisiana--South Onshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 143 146 2000's 123 134 139 150 115 148 162 164 122 129 2010's 126 113 125 155 188 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next

  13. Louisiana--State Offshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Louisiana--State Offshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 37 38 2000's 50 66 30 26 24 28 22 18 13 12 2010's 12 9 19 13 16 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  14. Alabama (with State Offshore) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Alabama (with State Offshore) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 4 2 2000's 2 4 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 1 2 2 15 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016

  15. Alaska (with Total Offshore) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Alaska (with Total Offshore) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 806 932 2000's 511 389 546 734 707 595 442 400 529 633 2010's 622 566 802 639 548 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015

  16. California--State Offshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) California--State Offshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 7 0 2000's 32 30 42 25 30 35 34 27 23 46 2010's 47 62 53 52 46 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  17. Texas--State Offshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs

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

    (Million Barrels) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Texas--State Offshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 1 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring

  18. Calif--Coastal Region Onshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Calif--Coastal Region Onshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 137 134 2000's 130 148 61 61 16 70 85 42 26 51 2010's 199 248 293 280 281 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Liquids, New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 97 1980's 79 91 109 99 96 85 72 55 72 74 1990's 73 55 64 64 131 67 109 90 88 88 2000's 102 142 78 72 54 42 53 58 68 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  20. U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields

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

    (Million Barrels) New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Million Barrels) U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 95 2010's 169 88 129 343 219 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus

  1. U.S. Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves New Reservoir in

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

    Old Fields (Million Barrels) New Reservoir in Old Fields (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves New Reservoir in Old Fields (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 14 2010's 8 29 7 24 12 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Lease

  2. U.S. Federal Offshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs

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

    (Million Barrels) Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) U.S. Federal Offshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 1,364 1,355 2000's 1,531 2,595 2,746 3,041 2,708 2,687 1,921 2,304 2,297 2,150 2010's 1,710 2,662 2,189 2,456 2,306 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  3. New Mexico Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Sales (Million...

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

    Sales (Million Barrels) New Mexico Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Sales (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  5. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Natural Gas Liquids Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) (Million Barrels) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Natural Gas Liquids Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 91 97 98 85 101 140 139 167 2000's 199 192 184 148 155 123 125

  6. EIA revises up forecast for U.S. 2013 crude oil production by 70,000 barrels per day

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    EIA revises up forecast for U.S. 2013 crude oil production by 70,000 barrels per day The forecast for U.S. crude oil production keeps going higher. The U.S. Energy Information Administration revised upward its projection for crude oil output in 2013 by 70,000 barrels per day and for next year by 190,000 barrels per day. U.S. oil production is now on track to average 7.5 million barrels per day this year and rise to 8.4 million barrels per day in 2014, according to EIA's latest monthly forecast.

  7. Published New Reservoir Proved Revision Revision New Field Discoveries

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Crude oil and lease condensate proved reserves, reserves changes, and production, 2014 million barrels Published New Reservoir Proved Revision Revision New Field Discoveries Estimated Proved Reserves Adjustments Increases Decreases Sales Acquisitions Extensions Discoveries in Old Fields Production Reserves State and Subdivision 12/31/13 (+,-) (+) (-) (-) (+) (+) (+) (+) (-) 12/31/14 Alaska 2,898 1 239 196 125 187 35 0 0 182 2,857 Lower 48 States 33,622 439 5,789 5,416 2,350 2,641 4,986 164 219

  8. Published New Reservoir Proved Revision Revision New Field Discoveries

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Crude oil proved reserves, reserves changes, and production, 2014 million barrels Published New Reservoir Proved Revision Revision New Field Discoveries Estimated Proved Reserves Adjustments Increases Decreases Sales Acquisitions Extensions Discoveries in Old Fields Production Reserves State and Subdivision 12/31/13 (+,-) (+) (-) (-) (+) (+) (+) (+) (-) 12/31/14 Alaska 2,898 1 238 196 125 186 35 0 0 182 2,855 Lower 48 States 30,473 515 5,077 4,798 2,032 2,234 4,395 151 207 2,692 33,530 Alabama

  9. Published New Reservoir Proved Revision Revision New Field Discoveries

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Lease condensate proved reserves, reserves changes, and production, 2014 million barrels Published New Reservoir Proved Revision Revision New Field Discoveries Estimated Proved Reserves Adjustments Increases Decreases Sales Acquisitions Extensions Discoveries in Old Fields Production Reserves State and Subdivision 12/31/13 (+,-) (+) (-) (-) (+) (+) (+) (+) (-) 12/31/14 Alaska 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Lower 48 States 3,149 -76 712 618 318 407 591 13 12 326 3,546 Alabama 14 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 13

  10. Reviving Abandoned Reservoirs with High-Pressure Air Injection: Application in a Fractured and Karsted Dolomite Reservoir

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Robert Loucks; Stephen C. Ruppel; Dembla Dhiraj; Julia Gale; Jon Holder; Jeff Kane; Jon Olson; John A. Jackson; Katherine G. Jackson

    2006-09-30

    Despite declining production rates, existing reservoirs in the United States contain vast volumes of remaining oil that is not being effectively recovered. This oil resource constitutes a huge target for the development and application of modern, cost-effective technologies for producing oil. Chief among the barriers to the recovery of this oil are the high costs of designing and implementing conventional advanced recovery technologies in these mature, in many cases pressure-depleted, reservoirs. An additional, increasingly significant barrier is the lack of vital technical expertise necessary for the application of these technologies. This lack of expertise is especially notable among the small operators and independents that operate many of these mature, yet oil-rich, reservoirs. We addressed these barriers to more effective oil recovery by developing, testing, applying, and documenting an innovative technology that can be used by even the smallest operator to significantly increase the flow of oil from mature U.S. reservoirs. The Bureau of Economic Geology and Goldrus Producing Company assembled a multidisciplinary team of geoscientists and engineers to evaluate the applicability of high-pressure air injection (HPAI) in revitalizing a nearly abandoned carbonate reservoir in the Permian Basin of West Texas. The Permian Basin, the largest oil-bearing basin in North America, contains more than 70 billion barrels of remaining oil in place and is an ideal venue to validate this technology. We have demonstrated the potential of HPAI for oil-recovery improvement in preliminary laboratory tests and a reservoir pilot project. To more completely test the technology, this project emphasized detailed characterization of reservoir properties, which were integrated to access the effectiveness and economics of HPAI. The characterization phase of the project utilized geoscientists and petroleum engineers from the Bureau of Economic Geology and the Department of Petroleum Engineering (both at The University of Texas at Austin) to define the controls on fluid flow in the reservoir as a basis for developing a reservoir model. The successful development of HPAI technology has tremendous potential for increasing the flow of oil from deep carbonate reservoirs in the Permian Basin, a target resource that can be conservatively estimated at more than 1.5 billion barrels. Successful implementation in the field chosen for demonstration, for example, could result in the recovery of more than 34 million barrels of oil that will not otherwise be produced. Geological and petrophysical analysis of available data at Barnhart field reveals the following important observations: (1) the Barnhart Ellenburger reservoir is similar to most other Ellenburger reservoirs in terms of depositional facies, diagenesis, and petrophysical attributes; (2) the reservoir is characterized by low to moderate matrix porosity much like most other Ellenburger reservoirs in the Permian Basin; (3) karst processes (cave formation, infill, and collapse) have substantially altered stratigraphic architecture and reservoir properties; (4) porosity and permeability increase with depth and may be associated with the degree of karst-related diagenesis; (5) tectonic fractures overprint the reservoir, improving overall connectivity; (6) oil-saturation profiles show that the oil-water contact (OWC) is as much as 125 ft lower than previous estimations; (7) production history and trends suggest that this reservoir is very similar to other solution-gas-drive reservoirs in the Permian Basin; and (8) reservoir simulation study showed that the Barnhart reservoir is a good candidate for HPAI and that application of horizontal-well technology can improve ultimate resource recovery from the reservoir.

  11. ,"U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million...

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

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release...

  12. Nebraska Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Nebraska Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) No Data Available For This Series - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Lease Condensate Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Nebraska Lease Condensate Proved Reserves, Reserve Changes, and

  13. New Mexico Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Reserves in...

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

    in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) New Mexico Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  14. Texas--RRC District 4 Onshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing...

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

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 4 Onshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1...

  15. Texas (with State Offshore) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing...

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

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Texas (with State Offshore) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1...

  16. Texas--RRC District 2 Onshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 2 Onshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1...

  17. Texas--RRC District 3 Onshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing...

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

    Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 3 Onshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1...

  18. Heavy oil reservoirs recoverable by thermal technology. Annual report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kujawa, P.

    1981-02-01

    The purpose of this study was to compile data on reservoirs that contain heavy oil in the 8 to 25/sup 0/ API gravity range, contain at least ten million barrels of oil currently in place, and are non-carbonate in lithology. The reservoirs within these constraints were then analyzed in light of applicable recovery technology, either steam-drive or in situ combustion, and then ranked hierarchically as candidate reservoirs. The study is presented in three volumes. Volume I presents the project background and approach, the screening analysis, ranking criteria, and listing of candidate reservoirs. The economic and environmental aspects of heavy oil recovery are included in appendices to this volume. This study provides an extensive basis for heavy oil development, but should be extended to include carbonate reservoirs and tar sands. It is imperative to look at heavy oil reservoirs and projects on an individual basis; it was discovered that operators, and industrial and government analysts will lump heavy oil reservoirs as poor producers, however, it was found that upon detailed analysis, a large number, so categorized, were producing very well. A study also should be conducted on abandoned reservoirs. To utilize heavy oil, refiners will have to add various unit operations to their processes, such as hydrotreaters and hydrodesulfurizers and will require, in most cases, a lighter blending stock. A big problem in producing heavy oil is that of regulation; specifically, it was found that the regulatory constraints are so fluid and changing that one cannot settle on a favorable recovery and production plan with enough confidence in the regulatory requirements to commit capital to the project.

  19. New York Natural Gas Liquids Proved Reserves (Million Barrels...

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

    Date: 12312016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Liquids Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 New York Natural Gas Liquids Proved Reserves Natural Gas Liquids Proved Reserves as of...

  20. Increased Oil Production and Reserves Utilizing Secondary/Terriary Recovery Techniques on Small Reservoirs in the Paradox Basin, Utah

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    David E. Eby; Thomas C. Chidsey, Jr.

    1998-04-08

    The primary objective of this project is to enhance domestic petroleum production by demonstration and technology transfer of an advanced oil recovery technology in the Paradox basin, southeastern Utah. If this project can demonstrate technical and economic feasibility, the technique can be applied to about 100 additional small fields in the Paradox basin alone, and result in increased recovery of 150 to 200 million barrels of oil. This project is designed to characterize five shallow-shelf carbonate reservoirs in the Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian) Paradox Formation and choose the best candidate for a pilot demonstration project for either a waterflood or carbon dioxide-(CO -) 2 flood project. The field demonstration, monitoring of field performance, and associated validation activities will take place in the Paradox basin within the Navajo Nation. Two activities continued this quarter as part of the geological and reservoir characterization of productive carbonate buildups in the Paradox basin: (1) diagenetic characterization of project field reservoirs, and (2) technology transfer.

  1. Increased oil production and reserves utilizing secondary/tertiary recovery techniques on small reservoirs in the Paradox basin, Utah. Annual report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chidsey, T.C. Jr.

    1997-02-01

    The Paradox basin of Utah, Colorado, and Arizona contains nearly 100 small oil fields producing from carbonate buildups or mounds within the Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian) Paradox Formation. These fields typically have one to four wells with primary production ranging from 700,000 to 2,000,000 barrels of oil per field at a 15 to 20% recovery rate. At least 200 million barrels of oil is at risk of being unrecovered in these small fields because of inefficient recovery practices and undrained heterogeneous reservoirs. Five fields (Anasazi, mule, Blue Hogan, heron North, and Runway) within the Navajo Nation of southeastern utah are being evaluated for waterflood or carbon-dioxide-miscible flood projects based upon geological characterization and reservoir modeling. The results can be applied to other fields in the Paradox basin and the Rocky Mountain region, the Michigan and Illinois basins, and the Midcontinent. The reservoir engineering component of the work completed to date included analysis of production data and well tests, comprehensive laboratory programs, and preliminary mechanistic reservoir simulation studies. A comprehensive fluid property characterization program was completed. Mechanistic reservoir production performance simulation studies were also completed.

  2. Increased oil production and reserves utilizing secondary/tertiary recovery techniques on small reservoirs in the Paradox basin, Utah. Annual report, February 9, 1996--February 8, 1997

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chidsey, T.C. Jr.

    1997-08-01

    The Paradox basin of Utah, Colorado, and Arizona contains nearly 100 small oil fields producing from carbonate buildups or mounds within the Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian) Paradox Formation. These fields typically have one to four wells with primary production ranging from 700,000 to 2,000,000 barrels of oil per field at a 15 to 20% recovery rate. At least 200 million barrels of oil is at risk of being unrecovered in these small fields because of inefficient recovery practices and undrained heterogeneous reservoirs. Five fields (Anasazi, Mule, Blue Hogan, Heron North, and Runway) within the Navajo Nation of southeastern Utah are being evaluated for waterflood or carbon-dioxide-miscible flood projects based upon geological characterization and reservoir modeling. The results can be applied to other fields in the Paradox basin and the Rocky Mountain region, the Michigan and Illinois basins, and the Midcontinent. The Anasazi field was selected for the initial geostatistical modeling and reservoir simulation. A compositional simulation approach is being used to model primary depletion, waterflood, and CO{sub 2}-flood processes. During this second year of the project, team members performed the following reservoir-engineering analysis of Anasazi field: (1) relative permeability measurements of the supra-mound and mound-core intervals, (2) completion of geologic model development of the Anasazi reservoir units for use in reservoir simulation studies including completion of a series of one-dimensional, carbon dioxide-displacement simulations to analyze the carbon dioxide-displacement mechanism that could operate in the Paradox basin system of reservoirs, and (3) completion of the first phase of the full-field, three-dimensional Anasazi reservoir simulation model, and the start of the history matching and reservoir performance prediction phase of the simulation study.

  3. Vice President Biden Announces Plan to Put One Million Advanced...

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

    road by 2015 - which would reduce dependence on foreign oil and lead to a reduction in oil consumption of about 750 million barrels through 2030. To reach that goal, President...

  4. Miscellaneous States Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Miscellaneous States Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 22 2010's 35 42 44 46 28 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  6. Montana Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  13. Colorado Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Colorado Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 7 1980's 11 9 12 10 13 18 21 24 19 18 1990's 17 16 33 24 38 30 33 20 25 26 2000's 28 47 67 70 103 98 96 107 104 97 2010's 115 132 142 275 251 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  16. Florida Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  20. Kentucky Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  2. Louisiana - North Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Louisiana - North Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 81 2010's 131 136 138 159 166 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  4. Lower 48 States Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Lower 48 States Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 18,749 2010's 21,459 25,098 30,051 33,622 37,076 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease

  5. Michigan Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Michigan Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 10 1980's 10 9 6 6 7 5 11 21 17 18 1990's 15 18 16 13 11 7 5 5 8 6 2000's 3 2 5 4 4 3 6 5 4 19 2010's 15 15 15 3 2 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  11. Texas State Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million

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

    Barrels) Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas State Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 4 2010's 4 3 3 2 2 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved

  12. New Mexico - East Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million

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

    Barrels) Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) New Mexico - East Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 748 2010's 891 921 1,029 1,215 1,466 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease

  13. New Mexico - West Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million

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

    Barrels) Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) New Mexico - West Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 32 2010's 31 39 40 62 92 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved

  14. New Mexico Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million

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

    Barrels) Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) New Mexico Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 65 1980's 63 64 56 56 49 50 63 63 97 70 1990's 75 68 72 71 65 62 61 55 53 58 2000's 92 79 59 51 59 59 57 56 78 80 2010's 99 94 104 106 82 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

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

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

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

  16. North Dakota Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million

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

    Barrels) Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) North Dakota Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 14 1980's 19 16 18 15 16 15 16 14 12 11 1990's 10 9 10 9 9 9 8 7 7 7 2000's 7 7 6 5 4 4 4 4 4 12 2010's 73 9 12 6 2 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

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

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

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

  18. Ohio Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million

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

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

  19. Oklahoma Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million

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

    Barrels) Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Oklahoma Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 72 1980's 67 66 78 89 86 95 89 79 79 68 1990's 65 61 63 68 60 69 69 75 85 82 2000's 96 89 94 104 124 142 160 152 164 180 2010's 216 271 346 450 480 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

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

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

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

  1. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million

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

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

  2. Wyoming Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million

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

    Barrels) Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Wyoming Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 211 234 272 2010's 256 259 226 232 184 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Lease Condensate Proved

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

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

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

  4. Utah Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million

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

    Barrels) Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Utah Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 52 62 90 2010's 69 78 87 57 51 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Lease Condensate Proved Reserves as of

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

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

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

  6. West Virginia Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million

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

    Barrels) + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) West Virginia Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 20 2010's 21 51 57 94 185 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Proved Reserves, as

  7. Depositional sequence analysis and sedimentologic modeling for improved prediction of Pennsylvanian reservoirs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Watney, W.L.

    1994-12-01

    Reservoirs in the Lansing-Kansas City limestone result from complex interactions among paleotopography (deposition, concurrent structural deformation), sea level, and diagenesis. Analysis of reservoirs and surface and near-surface analogs has led to developing a {open_quotes}strandline grainstone model{close_quotes} in which relative sea-level stabilized during regressions, resulting in accumulation of multiple grainstone buildups along depositional strike. Resulting stratigraphy in these carbonate units are generally predictable correlating to inferred topographic elevation along the shelf. This model is a valuable predictive tool for (1) locating favorable reservoirs for exploration, and (2) anticipating internal properties of the reservoir for field development. Reservoirs in the Lansing-Kansas City limestones are developed in both oolitic and bioclastic grainstones, however, re-analysis of oomoldic reservoirs provides the greatest opportunity for developing bypassed oil. A new technique, the {open_quotes}Super{close_quotes} Pickett crossplot (formation resistivity vs. porosity) and its use in an integrated petrophysical characterization, has been developed to evaluate extractable oil remaining in these reservoirs. The manual method in combination with 3-D visualization and modeling can help to target production limiting heterogeneities in these complex reservoirs and moreover compute critical parameters for the field such as bulk volume water. Application of this technique indicates that from 6-9 million barrels of Lansing-Kansas City oil remain behind pipe in the Victory-Northeast Lemon Fields. Petroleum geologists are challenged to quantify inferred processes to aid in developing rationale geologically consistent models of sedimentation so that acceptable levels of prediction can be obtained.

  8. INCREASED OIL PRODUCTION AND RESERVES UTILIZING SECONDARY/TERTIARY RECOVERY TECHNIQUES ON SMALL RESERVOIRS IN THE PARADOX BASIN, UTAH

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Thomas C. Chidsey, Jr.

    2002-11-01

    The Paradox Basin of Utah, Colorado, and Arizona contains nearly 100 small oil fields producing from shallow-shelf carbonate buildups or mounds within the Desert Creek zone of the Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian) Paradox Formation. These fields typically have one to four wells with primary production ranging from 700,000 to 2,000,000 barrels (111,300-318,000 m{sup 3}) of oil per field at a 15 to 20 percent recovery rate. Five fields in southeastern Utah were evaluated for waterflood or carbon-dioxide (CO{sub 2})-miscible flood projects based upon geological characterization and reservoir modeling. Geological characterization on a local scale focused on reservoir heterogeneity, quality, and lateral continuity as well as possible compartmentalization within each of the five project fields. The Desert Creek zone includes three generalized facies belts: (1) open-marine, (2) shallow-shelf and shelf-margin, and (3) intra-shelf, salinity-restricted facies. These deposits have modern analogs near the coasts of the Bahamas, Florida, and Australia, respectively, and outcrop analogs along the San Juan River of southeastern Utah. The analogs display reservoir heterogeneity, flow barriers and baffles, and lithofacies geometry observed in the fields; thus, these properties were incorporated in the reservoir simulation models. Productive carbonate buildups consist of three types: (1) phylloid algal, (2) coralline algal, and (3) bryozoan. Phylloid-algal buildups have a mound-core interval and a supra-mound interval. Hydrocarbons are stratigraphically trapped in porous and permeable lithotypes within the mound-core intervals of the lower part of the buildups and the more heterogeneous supramound intervals. To adequately represent the observed spatial heterogeneities in reservoir properties, the phylloid-algal bafflestones of the mound-core interval and the dolomites of the overlying supra-mound interval were subdivided into ten architecturally distinct lithotypes, each of which exhibits a characteristic set of reservoir properties obtained from outcrop analogs, cores, and geophysical logs. The Anasazi and Runway fields were selected for geostatistical modeling and reservoir compositional simulations. Models and simulations incorporated variations in carbonate lithotypes, porosity, and permeability to accurately predict reservoir responses. History matches tied previous production and reservoir pressure histories so that future reservoir performances could be confidently predicted. The simulation studies showed that despite most of the production being from the mound-core intervals, there were no corresponding decreases in the oil in place in these intervals. This behavior indicates gravity drainage of oil from the supra-mound intervals into the lower mound-core intervals from which the producing wells' major share of production arises. The key to increasing ultimate recovery from these fields (and similar fields in the basin) is to design either waterflood or CO{sub 2}-miscible flood projects capable of forcing oil from high-storage-capacity but low-recovery supra-mound units into the high-recovery mound-core units. Simulation of Anasazi field shows that a CO{sub 2} flood is technically superior to a waterflood and economically feasible. For Anasazi field, an optimized CO{sub 2} flood is predicted to recover a total 4.21 million barrels (0.67 million m3) of oil representing in excess of 89 percent of the original oil in place. For Runway field, the best CO{sub 2} flood is predicted to recover a total of 2.4 million barrels (0.38 million m3) of oil representing 71 percent of the original oil in place. If the CO{sub 2} flood performed as predicted, it is a financially robust process for increasing the reserves in the many small fields in the Paradox Basin. The results can be applied to other fields in the Rocky Mountain region, the Michigan and Illinois Basins, and the Midcontinent.

  9. Reservoir Claddings

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2009-05-14

    This information sheet explains how to properly decouple reservoir claddings from water sensitive materials of the wall assembly.

  10. Increased oil production and reserves utilizing secondary/tertiary recovery techniques on small reservoirs in the Paradox Basin, Utah. Annual report, February 9, 1997--February 8, 1998

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chidsey, T.C. Jr.

    1998-03-01

    The Paradox basin of Utah, Colorado, and Arizona contains nearly 100 small oil fields producing from carbonate buildups or mounds within the Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian) Paradox Formation. These fields typically have one to four wells with primary production ranging from 700,000 to 2,000,000 barrels (111,300-318,000 m{sup 3}) of oil per field at a 15 to 20 percent recovery rate. At least 200 million barrels (31,800,000 m{sup 3}) of oil are at risk of being unrecovered in these small fields because of inefficient recovery practices and undrained heterogeneous reservoirs. Five fields (Anasazi, Mule, Blue Hogan, Heron North, and Runway) within the Navajo Nation of southeastern Utah are being evaluated for waterflood or carbon-dioxide (CO{sub 2})-miscible flood projects based upon geological characterization and reservoir modeling. The results can be applied to other fields in the Paradox basin and the Rocky Mountain region, the Michigan and Illinois basins, and the Midcontinent. Geological characterization on a local scale focused on reservoir heterogeneity, quality, and lateral continuity as well as possible compartmentalization within each of the five project fields. This study utilized representative core and modern geophysical logs to characterize and grade each of the five fields for suitability of enhanced recovery projects. The typical vertical sequence or cycle of lithofacies from each field, as determined from conventional core, was tied to its corresponding log response. The diagenetic fabrics and porosity types found in the various hydrocarbon-bearing rocks of each field can be an indicator of reservoir flow capacity, storage capacity, and potential for water- and/or CO{sub 2}-flooding. Diagenetic histories of the various Desert Creek reservoirs were determined from 50 representative samples selected from the conventional cores of each field. Thin sections were also made of each sample for petrographic description.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Liquids Reserves, Estimated Production (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids Reserves, Estimated Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 727 1980's 731 741 721 725 776 753 738 747 754 731 1990's 732 754 773 788 791 791 850 864 833 896 2000's 921 884 802 827 788 811 831 840 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  4. U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves New Field Discoveries (Million

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

    Barrels) New Field Discoveries (Million Barrels) U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves New Field Discoveries (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 141 2010's 124 481 55 191 164 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate New Field Discove

  5. U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Revision Decreases (Million

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

    Barrels) Decreases (Million Barrels) U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Revision Decreases (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 1,262 2010's 1,957 3,682 3,997 4,241 5,612 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Revision Decreases, Wet

  6. U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Revision Increases (Million

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

    Barrels) Increases (Million Barrels) U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Revision Increases (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 3,270 2010's 3,900 5,096 4,909 4,786 6,028 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease Condensate Revision Increases

  7. U.S. Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Sales (Million

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

    Barrels) Sales (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Sales (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 37 2010's 78 216 85 209 318 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Lease Condensate Reserves Sales

  8. U.S. Federal Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million

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

    Barrels) + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) U.S. Federal Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 4,357 2010's 4,710 5,171 5,282 5,276 5,022 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Crude Oil plus Lease

  9. Increased Oil Production and Reserves Utilizing Secondary/Tertiary Recovery Techniques on Small Reservoirs in the Paradox Basin, Utah

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chidsey Jr., Thomas C.

    2003-02-06

    The primary objective of this project was to enhance domestic petroleum production by field demonstration and technology transfer of an advanced-oil-recovery technology in the Paradox Basin, southeastern Utah. If this project can demonstrate technical and economic feasibility, the technique can be applied to approximately 100 additional small fields in the Paradox Basin alone, and result in increased recovery of 150 to 200 million barrels (23,850,000-31,800,000 m3) of oil. This project was designed to characterize five shallow-shelf carbonate reservoirs in the Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian) Paradox Formation and choose the best candidate for a pilot demonstration project for either a waterflood or carbon-dioxide-(CO2-) miscible flood project. The field demonstration, monitoring of field performance, and associated validation activities will take place within the Navajo Nation, San Juan County, Utah.

  10. Increased Oil Production and Reserves Utilizing Secondary/Tertiary Recovery Techniques on Small Reservoirs in the Paradox Basin, Utah

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jr., Chidsey, Thomas C.; Allison, M. Lee

    1999-11-02

    The primary objective of this project is to enhance domestic petroleum production by field demonstration and technology transfer of an advanced- oil-recovery technology in the Paradox basin, southeastern Utah. If this project can demonstrate technical and economic feasibility, the technique can be applied to approximately 100 additional small fields in the Paradox basin alone, and result in increased recovery of 150 to 200 million barrels (23,850,000-31,800,000 m3) of oil. This project is designed to characterize five shallow-shelf carbonate reservoirs in the Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian) Paradox Formation and choose the best candidate for a pilot demonstration project for either a waterflood or carbon-dioxide-(CO2-) miscible flood project. The field demonstration, monitoring of field performance, and associated validation activities will take place within the Navajo Nation, San Juan County, Utah.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  13. Kansas Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Kansas Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 2 1980's 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 1990's 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 3 3 2000's 3 2 2 3 4 6 5 4 6 5 2010's 7 7 7 18 37 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  16. Arkansas Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  18. BARRELING THROUGH THE VACUUM OF SPACE at

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

    1663 October 2015 1663 October 2015 19 BARRELING THROUGH THE VACUUM OF SPACE at over 17,000 miles per hour, Earth's reflection glinting off its solar panels, the satellite is fiercely efficient and mission driven. It has hard edges and cold surfaces. It is brand new and state-of-the-art. It is an engineering masterpiece. And it's roughly the size of an electric pencil sharpener. Satellites are generally thought of as hulking beasts of instrumentation. They are billion-dollar machines capable of

  19. Increased oil production and reserves utilizing secondary/teritiary recovery techniques on small reservoirs in the Paradox Basin, Utah. Quarterly report, July 1 - September 30, 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Allison, M.L.

    1996-10-01

    The primary objective of this project is to enhance domestic petroleum production by demonstration and technology transfer of an advanced oil recovery technology in the Paradox basin, southeastern Utah. If this project can demonstrate technical and economic feasibility, the technique can be applied to approximately 100 additional small fields in the Paradox basin alone, and result in increased recovery of 150 to 200 million barrels of oil. This project is designed to characterize five shallow-shelf carbonate reservoirs in the Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian) Paradox Formation and choose the best candidate for a pilot demonstration project for either a waterflood or carbon dioxide flood project. The field demonstration, monitoring of field performance, and associated validation activities will take place in the Paradox basin within the Navajo Nation. The results of this project will be transferred to industry and other researchers through a petroleum extension service, creation of digital databases for distribution, technical workshops and seminars, field trips, technical presentations at national and regional professional meeting, and publication in newsletters and various technical or trade journals. Four activities continued this quarter as part of the geological and reservoir characterization: (1) interpretation of outcrop analogues; (2) reservoir mapping, (3) reservoir engineering analysis of the five project fields; and (4) technology transfer.

  20. Beam test of the SDC barrel EM calorimeter test module

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Balka, L.; Guarino, V.; Hill, N.

    1994-05-01

    The SDC barrel electromagnetic calorimeter test module was exposed to beams of high energy pions and electrons in the MP9 test beam at Fermilab in the fall of 1991. Data were collected on resolution, light yield, signal timing and hermiticity. These data demonstrated that the design met the specifications for the barrel electromagnetic calorimeter of the Solenoidal Detector collaboration (SDC).

  1. SMALL, GEOLOGICALLY COMPLEX RESERVOIRS CAN BENEFIT FROM RESERVOIR SIMULATION

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Richard E. Bennett

    2002-06-24

    The Cascade Sand zone of the Mission-Visco Lease in the Cascade Oil field of Los Angeles County, California, has been under water flood since 1970. Increasing water injection to increase oil production rates was being considered as an opportunity to improve oil recovery. However, a secondary gas cap had formed in the up-dip portion of the reservoir with very low gas cap pressures, creating concern that oil could be displaced into the gas cap resulting in the loss of recoverable oil. Therefore, injecting gas into the gas cap to keep the gas cap pressurized and restrict the influx of oil during water injection was also being considered. Further, it was recognized that the reservoir geology in the gas cap area is very complex with numerous folding and faulting and thus there are potential pressure barriers in several locations throughout the reservoir. With these conditions in mind, there were concerns regarding well to well continuity in the gas cap, which could interfere with the intended repressurization impact. Concerns about the pattern of gas flow from well to well, the possibilities of cycling gas without the desired increased pressure, and the possible loss of oil displaced into the gas cap resulted in the decision to conduct a gas tracer survey in an attempt to better define inter-well communication. Following the gas tracer survey, a reservoir model would be developed to integrate the findings of the gas tracer survey, known geologic and reservoir data, and historic production data. The reservoir model would be used to better define the reservoir characteristics and provide information that could help optimize the waterflood-gas injection project under consideration for efficient water and gas injection management to increase oil production. However, due to inadequate gas sampling procedures in the field and insufficiently developed laboratory analytical techniques, the laboratory was unable to detect the tracer in the gas samples taken. At that point, focus on, and an expansion of the scope of the reservoir simulation and modeling effort was initiated, using DOE's BOAST98 (a visual, dynamic, interactive update of BOAST3), 3D, black oil reservoir simulation package as the basis for developing the reservoir model. Reservoir characterization, modeling, and reservoir simulation resulted in a significant change in the depletion strategy. Information from the reservoir characterization and modeling effort indicate that in-fill drilling and relying on natural water influx from the aquifer could increase remaining reserves by 125,000 barrels of oil per well, and that up to 10 infill wells could be drilled in the field. Through this scenario, field production could be increased two to three times over the current 65 bopd. Based on the results of the study, permits have been applied for to drill a directional infill well to encounter the productive zone at a high angle in order to maximize the amount of pay and reservoirs encountered.

  2. Increased oil production and reserves utilizing secondary/tertiary recovery techniques on small reservoirs in the Paradox Basin, Utah, Class II

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chidsey, Thomas C.

    2000-07-28

    The primary objective of this project is to enhance domestic petroleum production by field demonstration and technology transfer of an advanced-oil-recovery technology in the Paradox basin, southeastern Utah. If this project can demonstrate technical and economic feasibility, the technique can be applied to approximately 100 additional small fields in the Paradox basin alone, and result in increased recovery of 150 to 200 million barrels (23,850,000-31,800,000 m{sup 3}) of oil. This project is designed to characterize five shallow-shelf carbonate reservoirs in the Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian) Paradox Formation and choose the best candidate for a pilot demonstration project for either a waterflood or carbon-dioxide-miscible flood project. The field demonstration, monitoring of field performance, and associated validation activities will take place within the Navajo Nation, San Juan County, Utah.

  3. Producing Light Oil from a Frozen Reservoir: Reservoir and Fluid Characterization of Umiat Field, National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hanks, Catherine

    2012-12-31

    Umiat oil field is a light oil in a shallow, frozen reservoir in the Brooks Range foothills of northern Alaska with estimated oil-in-place of over 1 billion barrels. Umiat field was discovered in the 1940’s but was never considered viable because it is shallow, in the permafrost, and far from any transportation infrastructure. The advent of modern drilling and production techniques has made Umiat and similar fields in northern Alaska attractive exploration and production targets. Since 2008 UAF has been working with Renaissance Alaska Inc. and, more recently, Linc Energy, to develop a more robust reservoir model that can be combined with rock and fluid property data to simulate potential production techniques. This work will be used to by Linc Energy as they prepare to drill up to 5 horizontal wells during the 2012-2013 drilling season. This new work identified three potential reservoir horizons within the Cretaceous Nanushuk Formation: the Upper and Lower Grandstand sands, and the overlying Ninuluk sand, with the Lower Grandstand considered the primary target. Seals are provided by thick interlayered shales. Reserve estimates for the Lower Grandstand alone range from 739 million barrels to 2437 million barrels, with an average of 1527 million bbls. Reservoir simulations predict that cold gas injection from a wagon-wheel pattern of multilateral injectors and producers located on 5 drill sites on the crest of the structure will yield 12-15% recovery, with actual recovery depending upon the injection pressure used, the actual Kv/Kh encountered, and other geologic factors. Key to understanding the flow behavior of the Umiat reservoir is determining the permeability structure of the sands. Sandstones of the Cretaceous Nanushuk Formation consist of mixed shoreface and deltaic sandstones and mudstones. A core-based study of the sedimentary facies of these sands combined with outcrop observations identified six distinct facies associations with distinctive permeability trends. The Lower Grandstand sand consists of two coarsening-upward shoreface sands sequences while the Upper Grandstand consists of a single coarsening-upward shoreface sand. Each of the shoreface sands shows a distinctive permeability profile with high horizontal permeability at the top getting progressively poorer towards the base of the sand. In contrast, deltaic sandstones in the overlying Ninuluk are more permeable at the base of the sands, with decreasing permeability towards the sand top. These trends impart a strong permeability anisotropy to the reservoir and are being incorporated into the reservoir model. These observations also suggest that horizontal wells should target the upper part of the major sands. Natural fractures may superimpose another permeability pattern on the Umiat reservoir that need to be accounted for in both the simulation and in drilling. Examination of legacy core from Umiat field indicate that fractures are present in the subsurface, but don't provide information on their orientation and density. Nearby surface exposures of folds in similar stratigraphy indicate there are at least three possible fracture sets: an early, N/S striking set that may predate folding and two sets possibly related to folding: an EW striking set of extension fractures that are parallel to the fold axes and a set of conjugate shear fractures oriented NE and NW. Analysis of fracture spacing suggests that these natural fractures are fairly widely spaced (25-59 cm depending upon the fracture set), but could provide improved reservoir permeability in horizontal legs drilled perpendicular to the open fracture set. The phase behavior of the Umiat fluid needed to be well understood in order for the reservoir simulation to be accurate. However, only a small amount of Umiat oil was available; this oil was collected in the 1940’s and was severely weathered. The composition of this ‘dead’ Umiat fluid was characterized by gas chromatography. This analysis was then compared to theoretical Umiat composition derived using the Pedersen method with original Umiat fluid properties published in the original reports. This comparison allowed estimation of the ‘lost’ light hydrocarbon fractions. An Umiat 'dead' oil sample then could be physically created by adding the lost light ends to the weatherized Umiat dead oil sample. This recreated sample was recombined with solution gas to create a 'pseudo-live' Umiat oil sample which was then used for experimental PVT and phase behavior studies to determine fluid properties over the range of reservoir pressures and temperatures. The phase behavior of the ‘pseudo-live’ oil was also simulated using the Peng- Robinson equations of state (EOS). The EOS model was tuned with measured experimental data to accurately simulate the differential liberation tests in order to obtain the necessary data for reservoir simulation studies, including bubble point pressure and oil viscosity. The bubble point pressure of the reconstructed Umiat oil is 345 psi, suggesting that maintenance of reservoir pressures above that pressure will be important for the any proposed production technique. A major part of predicting how the Umiat reservoir will perform is determining the relative permeability of oil in the presence of ice. Early in the project, UAF work on samples of the Umiat reservoir indicated that there is a significant reduction in the relatively permeability of oil in the presence of ice. However, it was not clear as to why this reduction occurred or where the ice resided. To explore this further, additional experimental and theoretical work was conducted. Core flood experiments were performed on two clean Berea sandstone cores under permafrost conditions to determine the relative permeability to oil (kro) over a temperature range of 23ºC to - 10ºC and for a range of connate water salinities. Both cores showed maximum reduction in relative permeability to oil when saturated with deionized water and less reduction when saturated with saline water. This reduction in relative permeability can be explained by formation of ice crystals in the center of pores. Theoretically, the radius of ice formed in the center of the pore can be determined using the Kozeny–Carman Equation by assuming the pores and pore throats as a cube with ‘N’ identical parallel pipes embedded in it. Using the values of kro obtained from the experimental work as input to the Kozeny–Carman Equation at -10ºC, the radius of ice crystals dropped from 0.145 μm to 0.069 μm when flooding-water salinity is increased to 6467 ppm. This explains the reduction of relative permeability with decreasing salinity but does not take into consideration other effects such as variations in pore throat structure. In addition, fluids like deionized water, saline water, and antifreeze (a mixture of 60% ethylene or propylene glycol with 40% water) were tested to find the best flooding agent for frozen reservoirs. At 0ºC, 9% greater recovery was observed with antifreeze was used as a flooding agent as compared to using saline water. Antifreeze showed 48% recovery even at -10ºC, at which temperature the rest of the fluids failed to increase production. Preliminary evaluation of drilling fluids indicate that the brine-based muds caused significantly less swelling in the Umiat reservoir sands when compared to fresh-water based muds. However since freezing filtrate is another cause of formation damage, a simple water-based-mud may not a viable option. It is recommended that new fluids be tested, including different salts, brines, polymers and oil-based fluids. These fluids should be tested at low temperatures in order to determine the potential for formation damage, the fluid properties under these conditions and to ensure that the freezing point is below that of the reservoir. In order to reduce the surface footprint while accessing the maximum amount of the Lower Grandstand interval, simulations used development from 5 surface locations with a wagon-wheel pattern of multilateral injectors and producers. There is no active aquifer support due to small peizometric head in the area and no existing gas cap, so an alternative method of pressure support is needed. Cold gas injection was used in the simulations as it is considered the most viable means of providing pressure maintenance while maintaining wellbore stability and reducing impact on the permafrost. Saline water injection may be a viable alternative, though this may have a detrimental effect on permafrost. In the short term, the results of this work are being incorporated into Linc Energy’s drilling and development plan. This project has also provided valuable information on the rock and fluid properties of low temperature reservoirs as well as the efficacy of potential production techniques for Umiat or similar shallow frozen reservoirs in the circum-Arctic.

  4. Small arms mini-fire control system: fiber-optic barrel deflection sensor

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    (Conference) | SciTech Connect Conference: Small arms mini-fire control system: fiber-optic barrel deflection sensor Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Small arms mini-fire control system: fiber-optic barrel deflection sensor Traditionally the methods to increase firearms accuracy, particularly at distance, have concentrated on barrel isolation (free floating) and substantial barrel wall thickening to gain rigidity. This barrel stiffening technique did not completely eliminate barrel

  5. Increased oil production and reserves utilizing secondary/tertiary recovery techniques on small reservoirs in the Paradox basin, Utah. Final technical progress report, October 1--December 31, 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Allison, M.L.

    1996-01-15

    The primary objective of this project is to enhance domestic petroleum production by demonstration and technology transfer of an advanced oil recovery technology in the Paradox basin, southeastern Utah. If this project can demonstrate technical and economic feasibility, the technique can be applied to approximately 100 additional small fields in the Paradox basin alone, and result in increased recovery of 150 to 200 million barrels of oil. This project is designed to characterize five shallow-shelf carbonate reservoirs in the Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian) Paradox Formation and choose the best candidate for a pilot demonstration project for either a waterflood or carbon dioxide-(CO{sub 2}) flood project. The field demonstration, monitoring of field performance, and associated validation activities will take place in the Paradox basin within the Navajo Nation. The results of this project will be transferred to industry and other researchers through a petroleum extension service, creation of digital databases for distribution, technical workshops and seminars, field trips, technical presentations at national and regional professional meeting, and publication in newsletters and various technical or trade journals. Five activities continued this quarter as part of the geological and reservoir characterization of carbonate mound buildups in the Paradox basin: (1) regional facies evaluation, (2) evaluation of outcrop analogues, (3) field-scale geologic analysis, (4) reservoir analysis, and (5) technology transfer.

  6. Increased oil production and reserves utilizing secondary/tertiary recovery techniques on small reservoirs in the Paradox basin, Utah. Technical progress report, July 1--September 30, 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Allison, M.L.

    1995-12-01

    The primary objective of this project is to enhance domestic petroleum production by demonstration and technology transfer of an advanced oil recovery technology in the Paradox basin, southeastern Utah. If this project can demonstrate technical and economic feasibility, the technique can be applied to approximately 100 additional small fields in the Paradox basin alone, and result in increased recovery of 150 to 200 million barrels of oil. This project is designed to characterize five shallow-shelf carbonate reservoirs in the Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian) Paradox Formation and choose the best candidate for a pilot demonstration project for either a waterflood or carbon dioxide-(CO{sub 2}-) flood project. The field demonstration, monitoring of field performance, and associated validation activities will take place in the Paradox basin within the Navajo Nation. The results of this project will be transferred to industry and other researchers through a petroleum extension service, creation of digital databases for distribution, technical workshops and seminars, field trips, technical presentations at national and regional professional meetings, and publication in newsletters and various technical or trade journals. Four activities continued this quarter as part of the geological and reservoir characterization of carbonate mound buildups in the Paradox basin: (1) field studies, (2) development well completion operations, (3) reservoir analysis and modeling, and (4) technology transfer. This paper reviews the status.

  7. Increased oil production and reserves utilizing secondary/tertiary recovery techniques on small reservoirs in the Paradox basin, Utah. Quarterly report, October 1--December 31, 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Allison, M.L.

    1997-02-01

    The primary objective of this project is to enhance domestic petroleum production by demonstration and technology transfer of an advanced oil recovery technology in the Paradox basin, southeastern Utah. If this project can demonstrate technical and economic feasibility, the technique can be applied to approximately 100 additional small fields in the Paradox basin alone, and result in increased recovery of 150 to 200 million barrels of oil. This project is designed to characterize five shallow-shelf carbonate reservoirs in the Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian) Paradox Formation and choose the best candidate for a pilot demonstration project for either a waterflood or carbon dioxide-(CO{sub 2}) flood project. The field demonstration, monitoring of field performance, and associated validation activities will take place in the Paradox basin within the Navajo Nation. The results of this project will be transferred to industry and other researchers through a petroleum extension service, creation of digital databases for distribution, technical workshops and seminars, field trips, technical presentations at national and regional professional meetings, and publication in newsletters and various technical or trade journals. Three activities continued this quarter as part of the geological and reservoir characterization of productive carbonate buidups in the Paradox basin: (1) interpretation of new seismic data in the Mule field area, (2) reservoir engineering analysis of the Anasazi field, and (3) technology transfer.

  8. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for...

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

    to rise in non-industrialized countries, led by strong growth in China Nonindustrialized ... to see a decline in their petroleum consumption, led by demand drops in Japan and Europe. ...

  9. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for...

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

    That's the lowest level for inventories at the close of the heating season since 2003. Very cold weather this winter led to large natural gas stock withdrawals to meet demand for ...

  10. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for...

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

    but U.S. oil and natural gas production in the Gulf of Mexico could still be disrupted. ... That's about 40 percent lower than production expected to be shut-in during a normal ...

  11. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for...

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

    of U.S. households heat with natural gas, while almost 40 percent of households depend on electricity as their primary heating source. Heating oil and propane each heat about 5% of...

  12. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for...

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

    summer gasoline price higher due to rising crude oil costs The price U.S. drivers pay for gasoline this summer is expected to average 3.61 per gallon....that's 3 cents more than...

  13. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for...

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

    The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects strong natural gas storage additions over the summer and fall...with storage levels just over 3.4 trillion cubic feet by the end ...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 906 448 458 403 442 440 931 670 282 - No Data Reported; -- Not Applicable; NA Not Available; W ...

  15. U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels...

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

    Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 22,315 2010's 25,181 28,950 33,403 36,520 39,933 - No Data Reported; -- Not Applicable; NA Not Available; W ...

  16. Reservoir Characterization of Bridgeport and Cypress Sandstones in Lawrence Field Illinois to Improve Petroleum Recovery by Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer Flood

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Seyler, Beverly; Grube, John; Huff, Bryan; Webb, Nathan; Damico, James; Blakley, Curt; Madhavan, Vineeth; Johanek, Philip; Frailey, Scott

    2012-12-21

    Within the Illinois Basin, most of the oilfields are mature and have been extensively waterflooded with water cuts that range up to 99% in many of the larger fields. In order to maximize production of significant remaining mobile oil from these fields, new recovery techniques need to be researched and applied. The purpose of this project was to conduct reservoir characterization studies supporting Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer Floods in two distinct sandstone reservoirs in Lawrence Field, Lawrence County, Illinois. A project using alkaline-surfactantpolymer (ASP) has been established in the century old Lawrence Field in southeastern Illinois where original oil in place (OOIP) is estimated at over a billion barrels and 400 million barrels have been recovered leaving more than 600 million barrels as an EOR target. Radial core flood analysis using core from the field demonstrated recoveries greater than 20% of OOIP. While the lab results are likely optimistic to actual field performance, the ASP tests indicate that substantial reserves could be recovered even if the field results are 5 to 10% of OOIP. Reservoir characterization is a key factor in the success of any EOR application. Reservoirs within the Illinois Basin are frequently characterized as being highly compartmentalized resulting in multiple flow unit configurations. The research conducted on Lawrence Field focused on characteristics that define reservoir compartmentalization in order to delineate preferred target areas so that the chemical flood can be designed and implemented for the greatest recovery potential. Along with traditional facies mapping, core analyses and petrographic analyses, conceptual geological models were constructed and used to develop 3D geocellular models, a valuable tool for visualizing reservoir architecture and also a prerequisite for reservoir simulation modeling. Cores were described and potential permeability barriers were correlated using geophysical logs. Petrographic analyses were used to better understand porosity and permeability trends in the region and to characterize barriers and define flow units. Diagenetic alterations that impact porosity and permeability include development of quartz overgrowths, sutured quartz grains, dissolution of feldspar grains, formation of clay mineral coatings on grains, and calcite cementation. Many of these alterations are controlled by facies. Mapping efforts identified distinct flow units in the northern part of the field showing that the Pennsylvanian Bridgeport consists of a series of thick incised channel fill sequences. The sandstones are about 75-150 feet thick and typically consist of medium grained and poorly sorted fluvial to distributary channel fill deposits at the base. The sandstones become indistinctly bedded distributary channel deposits in the main part of the reservoir before fining upwards and becoming more tidally influenced near their top. These channel deposits have core permeabilities ranging from 20 md to well over 1000 md. The tidally influenced deposits are more compartmentalized compared to the thicker and more continuous basal fluvial deposits. Fine grained sandstones that are laterally equivalent to the thicker channel type deposits have permeabilities rarely reaching above 250 md. Most of the unrecovered oil in Lawrence Field is contained in Pennsylvanian Age Bridgeport sandstones and Mississippian Age Cypress sandstones. These reservoirs are highly complex and compartmentalized. Detailed reservoir characterization including the development of 3-D geologic and geocellular models of target areas in the field were completed to identify areas with the best potential to recover remaining reserves including unswept and by-passed oil. This project consisted of tasks designed to compile, interpret, and analyze the data required to conduct reservoir characterization for the Bridgeport and Cypress sandstones in pilot areas in anticipation of expanded implementation of ASP flooding in Lawrence Field. Geologic and geocellular modeling needed for reservoir characterization and reservoir simulation were completed as prerequisites for design of efficient ASP flood patterns. Characterizing the complex reservoir geology that identifies the geologic conditions that will optimize oil recoveries for expansion of the ASP pilots in the Bridgeport and Cypress sandstones to other areas of Lawrence Field is the primary objective of this project. It will permit evaluation of efficiency of oil recovery from Bridgeport and Cypress sandstone reservoirs using ASP technology. Additionally evaluation of similar Pennsylvanian and Chesterian reservoirs shows that it is likely that ASP flood technology can be successfully applied to similar reservoirs in the Illinois Basin as well as to other U.S. reservoirs. Chemical flooding was introduced in stages with the first flood initiated in 2010 and a second offset pilot project initiated during 2011. Rex Energy Corporation is reporting a positive response on its ASP Middagh pilot project in the Pennsylvanian Bridgeport B reservoir, Lawrence Field. Oil response in the 15 acre flood has continued to show an increase in oil cut from 1% to 12%. Total pattern production increased from 16 BOPD and stabilized at a range of 65-75 BOPD in the last three months of 2011. Peak production rose to 100 + BOPD. Oil cut in the pilot increased for 1.0% to ~ 12.0% with an individual well showing oil cuts greater than 20%. A second, 58 acre pilot (Perkins-Smith) adjacent to and likely in communication with the Middagh pilot has been initiated. Preliminary brine injection has been implemented and ASP injection was initiated in mid-2012. Response is expected by mid-2013 with peak recovery expected by late 2013. Rex Energy is projecting full scale expansion with the next step of development being a 351 acre project scheduled to begin in mid-2013. Preliminary development has been initiated in this Delta Unit area located in the south half of section 32, T4N, R12W.

  17. Biomass 2011: Replace the Whole Barrel, Supply the Whole Market |

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

    Department of Energy 1: Replace the Whole Barrel, Supply the Whole Market Biomass 2011: Replace the Whole Barrel, Supply the Whole Market The New Horizons of Bioenergy Biomass 2011 July 26-27, 2011 Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center 201 Waterfront Street National Harbor, MD 20745 Thank you to everyone who attended and participated to help make Biomass 2011 a remarkable success. More than 600 speakers, moderators, sponsors, exhibitors, and attendees were able to listen to

  18. " Million Housing Units, Final...

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

    4 Water Heating in U.S. Homes, by Number of Household Members, 2009" " Million Housing ... (millions)" ,,,,,,"5 or More Members" "Water Heating",,"1 Member","2 Members","3 ...

  19. Research needs for strandplain/barrier island reservoirs in the United States

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cole, E.L.; Fowler, M.L.; Salamy, S.P.; Sarathi, P.S.; Young, M.A.

    1994-12-01

    This report identifies reservoir characterization and reservoir management research needs and IOR process and related research needs for the fourth geologic class, strandplain/barrier island reservoirs. The 330 Class 4 reservoirs in the DOE Tertiary OH Recovery Information System (TORIS) database contain about 30.8 billion barrels of oil or about 9% of the total original oil-in-place (OOIP) in all United States reservoirs. The current projection of Class 4 ultimate recovery with current operations is only 38% of the OOIP, leaving 19 billion barrels as the target for future IOR projects. Using the TORIS database and its predictive and economic models, the recovery potential which could result from future application of IOR technologies to Class 4 reservoirs was estimated to be between 1.0 and 4.3 billion barrels, depending on oil price and the level of technology advancement. The analysis indicated that this potential could be realized through (1) infill drilling alone and in combination with polymer flooding and profile modification, (2) chemical flooding (surfactant), and (3) thermal processes. Most of this future potential is in Texas, Oklahoma, California, and the Rocky Mountain region. Approximately two-thirds of the potentially recoverable resource is at risk of abandonment by the year 2000, which emphasizes the urgent need for the development and demonstration of cost-effective recovery technologies.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

    Barrels) Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 5,204 1980's 5,198 5,488 5,620 6,288 6,121 6,491 6,729 6,745 6,849 6,380 1990's 6,284 6,220 6,225 6,030 6,023 6,202 6,516 6,632 6,188 6,503 2000's 6,873 6,595 6,648 6,244 6,707 6,903 7,133 7,648 7,842 8,557 2010's 9,809 10,825 10,777 11,943 15,029 - = No Data Reported; --

  2. " Million Housing Units, Final...

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

    Water Heating in U.S. Homes, by Census Region, 2009" " Million Housing Units, Final" ,,"Census Region" ,"Total U.S.1 (millions)" ,,"Northeast","Midwest","South","West" "Water ...

  3. DOE to Sell 35,000 Barrels of Oil from the Northeast Home Heating...

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

    Sell 35,000 Barrels of Oil from the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve DOE to Sell 35,000 Barrels of Oil from the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve May 24, 2007 - 4:16pm Addthis ...

  4. Status of Norris Reservoir

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1990-09-01

    This is one in a series of reports prepared by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for those interested in the conditions of TVA reservoirs. This overview of Norris Reservoir summarizes reservoir and watershed characteristics, reservoir uses, conditions that impair reservoir uses, water quality and aquatic biological conditions, and activities of reservoir management agencies. This information was extracted from the most up-to-date publications and data available, and from interviews with water resource professionals in various federal, state, and local agencies, and in public and private water supply and wastewater treatment facilities. 14 refs., 3 figs.

  5. New York Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million...

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

    of individual company data. Release Date: 11192015 Next Release Date: 12312016 Referring Pages: Proved Nonproducing Reserves of Crude Oil New York Proved Nonproducing Reserves...

  6. U.S. Natural Gas Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels)

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

    Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 569,968 599,518 584,160 571,256 587,502 594,306 569,913 1990's 573,054 602,734 626,320 634,481 635,983 649,149 689,314 690,999 668,011 686,862 2000's 721,895 682,873 681,646 622,291 657,032 619,884 637,635 658,291 673,677 720,612 2010's 749,095 792,481 873,563 937,591 1,124,416 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not

  7. Status of Wheeler Reservoir

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1990-09-01

    This is one in a series of status reports prepared by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for those interested in the conditions of TVA reservoirs. This overview of Wheeler Reservoir summarizes reservoir purposes and operation, reservoir and watershed characteristics, reservoir uses and use impairments, and water quality and aquatic biological conditions. The information presented here is from the most recent reports, publications, and original data available. If no recent data were available, historical data were summarized. If data were completely lacking, environmental professionals with special knowledge of the resource were interviewed. 12 refs., 2 figs.

  8. Status of Cherokee Reservoir

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1990-08-01

    This is the first in a series of reports prepared by Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for those interested in the conditions of TVA reservoirs. This overviews of Cherokee Reservoir summarizes reservoir and watershed characteristics, reservoir uses and use impairments, water quality and aquatic biological conditions, and activities of reservoir management agencies. This information was extracted from the most current reports, publications, and data available, and interviews with water resource professionals in various Federal, state, and local agencies and in public and private water supply and wastewater treatment facilities. 11 refs., 4 figs., 1 tab.

  9. Increased Oil Production and Reserves Utilizing Secondary/Tertiary Recovery Techniques on Small Reservoirs in the Paradox Basin, Utah.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chidsey, T.C. Jr.; Lorenz, D.M.; Culham, W.E.

    1997-10-15

    The primary objective of this project is to enhance domestic petroleum production by demonstration and technology transfer of an advanced oil recovery technology in the Paradox basin, southeastern Utah. If this project can demonstrate technical and economic feasibility, the technique can be applied to approximately 100 additional small fields in the Paradox basin alone, and result in increased recovery of 150 to 200 million barrels of oil. This project is designed to characterize five shallow-shelf carbonate reservoirs in the Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian) Paradox Formation and choose the best candidate for a pilot demonstration project for either a waterflood or carbon dioxide- (CO{sub 2}-) flood project. The field demonstration, monitoring of field performance, and associated validation activities will take place in the Paradox basin within the Navajo Nation. The results of this project will be transferred to industry and other researchers through a petroleum extension service, creation of digital databases for distribution, technical workshops and seminars, field trips, technical presentations at national and regional professional meetings, and publication in newsletters and various technical or trade journals.

  10. Application of Cutting-Edge 3D Seismic Attribute Technology to the Assessment of Geological Reservoirs for CO2 Sequestration

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Christopher Liner; Jianjun Zeng; Po Geng Heather King Jintan Li; Jennifer Califf; John Seales

    2010-03-31

    The goals of this project were to develop innovative 3D seismic attribute technologies and workflows to assess the structural integrity and heterogeneity of subsurface reservoirs with potential for CO{sub 2} sequestration. Our specific objectives were to apply advanced seismic attributes to aide in quantifying reservoir properies and lateral continuity of CO{sub 2} sequestration targets. Our study area is the Dickman field in Ness County, Kansas, a type locality for the geology that will be encountered for CO{sub 2} sequestration projects from northern Oklahoma across the U.S. midcontent to Indiana and beyond. Since its discovery in 1962, the Dickman Field has produced about 1.7 million barrels of oil from porous Mississippian carbonates with a small structural closure at about 4400 ft drilling depth. Project data includes 3.3 square miles of 3D seismic data, 142 wells, with log, some core, and oil/water production data available. Only two wells penetrate the deep saline aquifer. Geological and seismic data were integrated to create a geological property model and a flow simulation grid. We systematically tested over a dozen seismic attributes, finding that curvature, SPICE, and ANT were particularly useful for mapping discontinuities in the data that likely indicated fracture trends. Our simulation results in the deep saline aquifer indicate two effective ways of reducing free CO{sub 2}: (a) injecting CO{sub 2} with brine water, and (b) horizontal well injection. A tuned combination of these methods can reduce the amount of free CO{sub 2} in the aquifer from over 50% to less than 10%.

  11. Master plate production for the tile calorimeter extended barrel modules.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Guarino, V.J.; Hill, N.; Petereit, E.; Price, L.E.; Proudfoot, J.; Wood, K.

    1999-03-10

    Approximately 41,000 master plates (Fig. 1) are required for the Extended Barrel Hadronic Calorimeter for the ATLAS experiment at the LHC. Early in the R&D program associated with the detector, it was recognized that the fabrication of these steel laminations was a significant issue, both in terms of the cost to produce these high precision formed plates, as well as the length of time required to produce all plates for the calorimeter. Two approaches were given serious consideration: laser cutting and die stamping. The Argonne group was a strong supporter of the latter approach and in late 1995 initiated an R&D program to demonstrate the feasibility and cost effectiveness of die stamping these plates by constructing a die and stamping approximately 2000 plates for use in construction of three full size prototype modules. This was extremely successful and die stamping was selected by the group for production of these plates. When the prototype die was constructed it was matched to the calorimeter envelope at that time. This subsequently changed. However with some minor adjustments in the design envelope and a small compromise in terms of instrumented volume, it became possible to use this same die for the production of all master plates for the Tile Calorimeter. Following an extensive series of discussions and an evaluation of the performance of the stamping presses available to our collaborators in Europe, it was decided to ship the US die to CERN for use in stamping master plates for the barrel section of the calorimeter. This was done under the supervision of CERN and JINR, Dubna, and carried out at the TATRA truck plant at Koprivinice, Czech Republic. It was a great success. Approximately 41,000 plates were stamped and fully met specification. Moreover, the production time was significantly reduced by avoiding the need of constructing and then qualifying a second die for use in Europe. This also precluded small geometrical differences between the barrel and extended barrel plates (and therefore submodules) being an issue, with the result that standard submodules are fully exchangeable between the two types of module.

  12. US production of natural gas from tight reservoirs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-10-18

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

  13. ,"Louisiana--State Offshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing...

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

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana--State Offshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2...

  14. " Million Housing Units, Final...

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

    2 Water Heating in U.S. Homes, by OwnerRenter Status, 2009" " Million Housing Units, ...","Own","Rent","Own","Rent","Own","Rent" "Water Heating" "Total Homes",113.6,76.5,37.1,63....

  15. " Million Housing Units, Final...

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

    0 Water Heating in U.S. Homes in South Region, Divisions, and States, 2009" " Million ... MD, WV",,,,"AL, KY, MS",,,"AR, LA, OK" "Water Heating",,,,"VA","GA","FL",,"NC, ...

  16. " Million Housing Units, Final...

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

    11 Water Heating in U.S. Homes in West Region, Divisions, and States, 2009" " Million ... WY",,,,"Total Pacific",,"AK, HI, OR, WA" "Water Heating",,,,,"CO",,,"AZ","NM, NV",,"CA" ...

  17. " Million Housing Units, Final...

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

    8 Water Heating in U.S. Homes in Northeast Region, Divisions, and States, 2009" " Million ... Northeast",,,"CT, ME, NH, RI, VT" "Water Heating",,,,"MA",,,"NY","PA","NJ" "Total ...

  18. " Million Housing Units, Final...

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

    6 Water Heating in U.S. Homes, by Climate Region, 2009" " Million Housing Units, Final" ... Cold","Mixed- Humid","Mixed-Dry" "Water Heating",,"Cold",,"Hot-Dry","Hot-Humid","M...

  19. " Million Housing Units, Final...

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

    5 Water Heating in U.S. Homes, by Household Income, 2009" " Million Housing Units, Final" ... to 119,999","120,000 or More" "Water Heating" "Total Homes",113.6,23.7,27.5,21....

  20. " Million Housing Units, Final...

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

    3 Water Heating in U.S. Homes, by Year of Construction, 2009" " Million Housing Units, ... to 1989","1990 to 1999","2000 to 2009" "Water Heating" "Total Homes",113.6,14.4,5.2,13.5...

  1. " Million Housing Units, Final...

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

    9 Water Heating in U.S. Homes in Midwest Region, Divisions, and States, 2009" " Million ... Midwest",,,..."IA, MN, ND, SD" "Water Heating",,,,"IL","MI","WI","IN, ...

  2. " Million Housing Units, Final...

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

    Water Heating in U.S. Homes, by Housing Unit Type, 2009" " Million Housing Units, Final" ... Units","5 or More Units","Mobile Homes" "Water Heating" "Total Homes",113.6,71.8,6.7,9,19...

  3. " Million Housing Units, Final...

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

    ,"Total U.S.1 (millions)",,,..."Below Poverty Line2" ,,"Less than 20,000","20,000 to ... the number of households below the poverty line, the annual household income and ...

  4. " Million Housing Units, Final"

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

    ,"Total U.S.1 (millions)",,,..."Below Poverty Line2" ,,"Less than 20,000","20,000 to ... the number of households below the poverty line, the annual household income and ...

  5. Replacing the Whole BarrelTo Reduce U.S. Dependence on Oil | Department of

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Energy Replacing the Whole BarrelTo Reduce U.S. Dependence on Oil Replacing the Whole BarrelTo Reduce U.S. Dependence on Oil Converting domestic biomass into affordable fuels, products, and power supports our national strategy to diversify energy resources and reduce dependence on imported oil. PDF icon replacing_barrel_overview.pdf More Documents & Publications Thermochemical Conversion: Using Heat and Catalysis to Make Biofuels and Bioproducts Bioenergy Technologies Office Conversion

  6. The How's and Why's of Replacing the Whole Barrel | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    The How's and Why's of Replacing the Whole Barrel The How's and Why's of Replacing the Whole Barrel October 19, 2011 - 4:09pm Addthis A 42-U.S. gallon barrel of crude oil yields about 45 gallons of petroleum products. Source: Energy Information Administration, “Oil: Crude Oil and Petroleum Products Explained” and Annual Energy Outlook 2009 (Updated February 2010). A 42-U.S. gallon barrel of crude oil yields about 45 gallons of petroleum products. Source: Energy Information

  7. Blackfoot Reservoir Geothermal Area | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Resource Estimate Mean Reservoir Temp: Estimated Reservoir Volume: Mean Capacity: USGS Mean Reservoir Temp: USGS Estimated Reservoir Volume: USGS Mean Capacity: Click "Edit With...

  8. Blackfoot Reservoir Geothermal Area | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    GEA Development Phase: Resource Estimate Mean Reservoir Temp: Estimated Reservoir Volume: Mean Capacity: USGS Mean Reservoir Temp: USGS Estimated Reservoir Volume: USGS Mean...

  9. Modeling of gun barrel surface erosion: Historic perspective

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Buckingham, A.C.

    1996-08-01

    Results and interpretations of numerical simulations of some dominant processes influencing gun barrel propellant combustion and flow-induced erosion are presented. Results include modeled influences of erosion reduction techniques such as solid additives, vapor phase chemical modifications, and alteration of surface solid composition through use of thin coatings. Precedents and historical perspective are provided with predictions from traditional interior ballistics compared to computer simulations. Accelerating reactive combustion flow, multiphase and multicomponent transport, flow-to-surface thermal/momentum/phase change/gas-surface chemical exchanges, surface and micro-depth subsurface heating/stress/composition evolution and their roles in inducing surface cracking, spall, ablation, melting, and vaporization are considered. Recognition is given to cyclic effects of previous firing history on material preconditioning. Current perspective and outlook for future are based on results of a US Army-LLNL erosion research program covering 7 y in late 1970s. This is supplemented by more recent research on hypervelocity electromagnetic projectile launchers.

  10. Tapered laser rods as a means of minimizing the path length of trapped barrel mode rays

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Beach, Raymond J.; Honea, Eric C.; Payne, Stephen A.; Mercer, Ian; Perry, Michael D.

    2005-08-30

    By tapering the diameter of a flanged barrel laser rod over its length, the maximum trapped path length of a barrel mode can be dramatically reduced, thereby reducing the ability of the trapped spontaneous emission to negatively impact laser performance through amplified spontaneous emission (ASE). Laser rods with polished barrels and flanged end caps have found increasing application in diode array end-pumped laser systems. The polished barrel of the rod serves to confine diode array pump light within the rod. In systems utilizing an end-pumping geometry and such polished barrel laser rods, the pump light that is introduced into one or both ends of the laser rod, is ducted down the length of the rod via the total internal reflections (TIRs) that occur when the light strikes the rod's barrel. A disadvantage of using polished barrel laser rods is that such rods are very susceptible to barrel mode paths that can trap spontaneous emission over long path lengths. This trapped spontaneous emission can then be amplified through stimulated emission resulting in a situation where the stored energy available to the desired lasing mode is effectively depleted, which then negatively impacts the laser's performance, a result that is effectively reduced by introducing a taper onto the laser rod.

  11. Reservoir Temperature Estimator

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    2014-12-08

    The Reservoir Temperature Estimator (RTEst) is a program that can be used to estimate deep geothermal reservoir temperature and chemical parameters such as CO2 fugacity based on the water chemistry of shallower, cooler reservoir fluids. This code uses the plugin features provided in The Geochemist’s Workbench (Bethke and Yeakel, 2011) and interfaces with the model-independent parameter estimation code Pest (Doherty, 2005) to provide for optimization of the estimated parameters based on the minimization of themore » weighted sum of squares of a set of saturation indexes from a user-provided mineral assemblage.« less

  12. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for the first time since 1988

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    residential summer power bills to be higher than last year The average household power bill this summer is expected to be 4.9 percent higher than last year. In its new monthly forecast, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said residential electricity expenses will be higher during the June through August period because of rising electricity prices and higher power use. Household power expenses will vary by region....with increases in electricity bills ranging from 2.1% for the Mountain

  13. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for the first time since 1988

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    gasoline prices in december expected to be lowest in nearly 4 years Falling crude oil prices are expected to push U.S. retail gasoline prices in December to their lowest level in nearly 4 years. Since late June, the national average pump price of regular gasoline has fallen from $3.70 per gallon to $3.46 per gallon....and it's expected to drop through the rest of this year to a monthly average of $3.18 per gallon in December......according to the new forecast from the U.S. Energy Information

  14. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for the first time since 1988

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    U.S. drivers expected to pay slightly lower average gasoline price this summer U.S. drivers pulling up to the pump this summer are expected to pay an average of $3.57 for a gallon of gasoline. That's down about a penny from last year and the lowest average summer gasoline price in four years, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's new summer fuel outlook. The average monthly price for gasoline is expected to peak at $3.66 per gallon in May and then steadily decline to $3.46 in

  15. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for the first time since 1988

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    U.S. gasoline prices expected to fall over next few months U.S. drivers should see lower gasoline prices over the next few months. In its new forecast, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said the monthly national average price should fall to $3.61 per gallon in September from the $3.69 per gallon average in June. For the summer driving season as a whole, which runs from April through September, gasoline is expected to average $3.66 a gallon....about 8 cents higher than last year. Pump

  16. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for the first time since 1988

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    EIA forecasts record 2.6 trillion cubic feet build in U.S. natural gas inventories With the winter heating season over, U.S. natural gas producers now turn to ramping up output to replenish natural gas inventories that fell to an 11-year low at the end of March. In its new short-term energy forecast, the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects a record 2.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to be injected into underground storage between now and November 1, when demand for gas for heating

  17. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for the first time since 1988

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Record natural gas production for the U.S. in 2014 U.S. natural gas production is expected to increase 5.3% this year. In its new forecast, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said it expects U.S. natural gas production to reach a record 69.8 billion cubic feet per day this year....that's about 3.2 billion cubic feet per day higher than in 2013. Higher U.S. gas production...particularly in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale region and the Eagle Ford Shale region in Texas...is supporting the

  18. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for the first time since 1988

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Natural gas in storage expected to end heating season at lowest level since 2008 season U.S. natural gas inventories are on track to be at their lowest level in six years by the end of the current heating season, as the nation's natural gas stocks are drawn down to deal with some of the coldest temperatures in several decades. The U.S. Energy Information Administration's new monthly forecast expects natural gas stocks to decline to about 1.3 trillion cubic feet by the end of March, the lowest

  19. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for the first time since 1988

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    U.S. natural gas inventories increasing at a record pace The United States is increasing its natural gas inventories at a record pace after they were drawn down sharply during the winter. More than 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas has been injected into underground storage since mid-April...the shortest time for that much natural gas to be added to inventories in 11 years, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In its new monthly energy forecast, EIA said it expects

  20. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for the first time since 1988

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    U.S. natural gas inventories strong heading into winter heating season U.S. natural gas inventories have recovered from their big drawdown last winter and are expected to be at strong levels at the start of this year's heating season. In its new winter forecast, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said natural gas stocks should total just over 3.5 trillion cubic feet by November 1 st . Record U.S. natural gas production this year has contributed to the record build in natural gas

  1. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for the first time since 1988

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Residential electricity consumption this summer expected to be higher than last year Electricity use among U.S. households is expected to be about 1 percent higher this summer compared to last year. In its new short-term energy forecast, the U.S. Energy Information Administration says a nearly 6% increase in cooling degree days expected this summer will be slightly offset by more efficient air conditioning, lighting, and other appliances that use less electricity. The 1 percent rise in summer

  2. U.S. monthly oil production tops 8 million barrels per day for the first time since 1988

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Midwest households expected to see a 33% drop in propane heating bills this winter Midwest households that paid record-high prices for propane last winter to stay warm are expected to see a big drop in their heating bills this winter, according to the forecast for winter heating expenditures from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The new forecast, which incorporates the latest weather outlook from forecasters at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, says the average

  3. Increased oil production and reserves utilizing secondary/tertiary recovery techniques on small reservoirs in the Paradox basin, Utah. Technical progress report, April 1, 1995--June 30, 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Allison, M.L.

    1995-07-14

    The primary objective of this project is to enhance domestic petroleum production by demonstration and technology transfer of an advanced oil recovery technology in the Paradox basin, southeastern Utah. If this project can demonstrate technical and economic feasibility, the technique can be applied to approximately 100 additional small fields in the Paradox basin alone, and result in increased recovery of 150 to 200 million barrels of oil. This project is designed to characterize five shallow-shelf carbonate reservoirs in the Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian) Paradox Formation and choose the best candidate for a pilot demonstration project for either a waterflood or carbon dioxide-flood project. The field demonstration, monitoring of field performance, and associated validation activities will take place in the Paradox basin within the Navajo Nation. The results of this project will be transferred to industry and other researchers through a petroleum extension service, creation of digital databases for distribution, technical workshops and seminars, field trips, technical presentations at national and regional professional meetings, and publication in newsletters and various technical or trade journals.

  4. Increased oil production and reserves utilizing secondary/tertiary recovery techniques on small reservoirs in the Paradox Basin, Utah. Technical progress report, January 1--March 31, 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Allison, M.L.

    1996-04-30

    The primary objective of this project is to enhance domestic petroleum production by demonstration and technology transfer of an advanced oil recovery technology in the Paradox basin, southeastern Utah. If this project can demonstrate technical and economic feasibility, the technique can be applied to approximately 100 additional small fields in the Paradox basin alone, and result in increased recovery of 150 to 200 million barrels of oil. This project is designed to characterize five shallow-shelf carbonate reservoirs in the Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian) Paradox Formation and choose the best candidate for a pilot demonstration project for either a waterflood or carbon dioxide-(CO{sub 2}-)flood project. The field demonstration, monitoring of field performance, and associated validation activities will take place in the Paradox basin within the Navajo Nation. The results of this project will be transferred to industry and other researchers through a petroleum extension service, creation of digital databases for distribution, technical workshops and seminars, field trips, technical presentations at national and regional professional meetings, and publication in newsletters and various technical or trade journals.

  5. Increased oil production and reserves utilizing secondary/tertiary recovery techniques on small reservoirs in the Paradox basin, Utah. Technical progress report, January 1, 1995--March 31, 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Allison, M.L.

    1995-05-30

    The primary objective of this project is to enhance domestic petroleum production by demonstration and technology transfer of an advanced oil recovery technology in the Paradox basin, southeastern Utah. If this project can demonstrate technical and economic feasibility, the technique can be applied to approximately 100 additional small fields in the Paradox basin alone, and result in increased recovery of 150 to 200 million barrels of oil. This project is designed to characterize five shallow-shelf carbonate reservoirs in the Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation and choose the best candidate for a pilot demonstration project for either a waterflood or carbon dioxide-flood project. The field demonstration, monitoring of field performance, and associated validation activities will take place in the Paradox basin within the Navajo Nation. The results of this project will be transferred to industry and other researchers through a petroleum extension service, creation of digital databases for distribution, technical workshops and seminars, field trips, technical presentations at national and regional professional meetings, and publication in newsletters and various technical or trade journals.

  6. Seismicity and Reservoir Fracture Characterization

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Below are the project presentations and respective peer review results for Seismicity and Reservoir Fracture Characterization.

  7. Geological and production characteristics of strandplain/barrier island reservoirs in the United States

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cole, E.L.; Fowler, M.; Jackson, S.; Madden, M.P.; Reeves, T.K.; Salamy, S.P.; Young, M.A.

    1994-12-01

    The Department of Energy`s (DOE`s) primary mission in the oil research program is to maximize the economically and environmentally sound recovery of oil from domestic reservoirs and to preserve access to this resource. The Oil Recovery Field Demonstration Program supports DOE`s mission through cost-shared demonstrations of improved Oil Recovery (IOR) processes and reservoir characterization methods. In the past 3 years, the DOE has issued Program Opportunity Notices (PONs) seeking cost-shared proposals for the three highest priority, geologically defined reservoir classes. The classes have been prioritized based on resource size and risk of abandonment. This document defines the geologic, reservoir, and production characteristics of the fourth reservoir class, strandplain/barrier islands. Knowledge of the geological factors and processes that control formation and preservation of reservoir deposits, external and internal reservoir heterogeneities, reservoir characterization methodology, and IOR process application can be used to increase production of the remaining oil-in-place (IOR) in Class 4 reservoirs. Knowledge of heterogeneities that inhibit or block fluid flow is particularly critical. Using the TORIS database of 330 of the largest strandplain/barrier island reservoirs and its predictive and economic models, the recovery potential which could result from future application of IOR technologies to Class 4 reservoirs was estimated to be between 1.0 and 4.3 billion barrels, depending on oil price and the level of technology advancement. The analysis indicated that this potential could be realized through (1) infill drilling alone and in combination with polymer flooding and profile modification, (2) chemical flooding (sufactant), and (3) thermal processes. Most of this future potential is in Texas, Oklahoma, and the Rocky Mountain region. Approximately two-thirds of the potentially recoverable resource is at risk of abandonment by the year 2000.

  8. U.S. Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million

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

    Barrels) (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 1,411 1980's 1,530 1,580 1,601 1,613 1,522 1,453 1,436 1,402 1,389 1,389 1990's 1,302 1,244 1,226 1,192 1,147 1,197 1,307 1,341 1,336 1,403 2000's 1,472 1,398 1,346 1,215 1,221 1,262 1,339 1,495 1,433 1,633 2010's 1,914 2,406 2,874 3,149 3,548 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W

  9. Small arms mini-fire control system: fiber-optic barrel deflection...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Conference: Small arms mini-fire control system: fiber-optic barrel deflection sensor Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Small arms mini-fire control system: fiber-optic ...

  10. Replacing a Barrel of Oil with Plants and Microbes (Conference) | SciTech

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Connect Conference: Replacing a Barrel of Oil with Plants and Microbes Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Replacing a Barrel of Oil with Plants and Microbes From Berkeley Lab's Science at the Theater event on May 13th, 2013. Authors: Simmons, Blake Publication Date: 2015-06-09 OSTI Identifier: 1191172 Resource Type: Conference Resource Relation: Conference: Berkeley's Science at the Theater Research Org: LBNL (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United

  11. DOE - Office of Legacy Management -- Queen City Barrel Co - OH 41

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    Queen City Barrel Co - OH 41 FUSRAP Considered Sites Site: QUEEN CITY BARREL CO. (OH.41) Eliminated from further consideration under FUSRAP Designated Name: Not Designated Alternate Name: None Location: Cincinnati , Ohio OH.41-1 Evaluation Year: 1987 OH.41-1 Site Operations: Cleaned and reconditioned 30- and 55-gallon drums. OH.41-2 OH.41-3 Site Disposition: Eliminated - Based upon limited scope of operations, potential for residual radioactive contamination from MED or AEC operations considered

  12. Reinjection into geothermal reservoirs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bodvarsson, G.S.; Stefansson, V.

    1987-08-01

    Reinjection of geothermal wastewater is practiced as a means of disposal and for reservoir pressure support. Various aspects of reinjection are discussed, both in terms of theoretical studies as well as specific field examples. The discussion focuses on the major effects of reinjection, including pressure maintenance and chemical and thermal effects. (ACR)

  13. Silurian "Clinton" Sandstone Reservoir Characterization for Evaluation of CO2-EOR Potential in the East Canton Oil Field, Ohio

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ronald Riley; John Wicks; Christopher Perry

    2009-12-30

    The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of using CO2-enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in the East Canton oil field (ECOF). Discovered in 1947, the ECOF in northeastern Ohio has produced approximately 95 million barrels (MMbbl) of oil from the Silurian 'Clinton' sandstone. The original oil-in-place (OOIP) for this field was approximately 1.5 billion bbl and this study estimates by modeling known reservoir parameters, that between 76 and 279 MMbbl of additional oil could be produced through secondary recovery in this field, depending on the fluid and formation response to CO2 injection. A CO2 cyclic test ('Huff-n-Puff') was conducted on a well in Stark County to test the injectivity in a 'Clinton'-producing oil well in the ECOF and estimate the dispersion or potential breakthrough of the CO2 to surrounding wells. Eighty-one tons of CO2 (1.39 MMCF) were injected over a 20-hour period, after which the well was shut in for a 32-day 'soak' period before production was resumed. Results demonstrated injection rates of 1.67 MMCF of gas per day, which was much higher than anticipated and no CO2 was detected in gas samples taken from eight immediately offsetting observation wells. All data collected during this test was analyzed, interpreted, and incorporated into the reservoir characterization study and used to develop the geologic model. The geologic model was used as input into a reservoir simulation performed by Fekete Associates, Inc., to estimate the behavior of reservoir fluids when large quantities of CO2 are injected into the 'Clinton' sandstone. Results strongly suggest that the majority of the injected CO2 entered the matrix porosity of the reservoir pay zones, where it diffused into the oil. Evidence includes: (A) the volume of injected CO2 greatly exceeded the estimated capacity of the hydraulic fracture and natural fractures; (B) there was a gradual injection and pressure rate build-up during the test; (C) there was a subsequent, gradual flashout of the CO2 within the reservoir during the ensuing monitored production period; and (D) a large amount of CO2 continually off-gassed from wellhead oil samples collected as late as 3 1/2 months after injection. After the test well was returned to production, it produced 174 bbl of oil during a 60-day period (September 22 to November 21, 2008), which represents an estimated 58 percent increase in incremental oil production over preinjection estimates of production under normal, conditions. The geologic model was used in a reservoir simulation model for a 700-acre model area and to design a pilot to test the model. The model was designed to achieve a 1-year response time and a five-year simulation period. The reservoir simulation modeling indicated that the injection wells could enhance oil production and lead to an additional 20 percent recovery in the pilot area over a five-year period. The base case estimated that by injecting 500 MCF per day of CO2 into each of the four corner wells, 26,000 STBO would be produced by the central producer over the five-year period. This would compare to 3,000 STBO if a new well were drilled without the benefit of CO2 injection. This study has added significant knowledge to the reservoir characterization of the 'Clinton' in the ECOF and succeeded in identifying a range on CO2-EOR potential. However, additional data on fluid properties (PVT and swelling test), fractures (oriented core and microseis), and reservoir characteristics (relative permeability, capillary pressure, and wet ability) are needed to further narrow the uncertainties and refine the reservoir model and simulation. After collection of this data and refinement of the model and simulation, it is recommended that a larger scale cyclic-CO2 injection test be conducted to better determine the efficacy of CO2-EOR in the 'Clinton' reservoir in the ECOF.

  14. Silurian "Clinton" Sandstone Reservoir Characterization for Evaluation of CO2-EOR Potential in the East Canton Oil Field, Ohio

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Riley, Ronald; Wicks, John; Perry, Christopher

    2009-12-30

    The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of using CO2-enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in the East Canton oil field (ECOF). Discovered in 1947, the ECOF in northeastern Ohio has produced approximately 95 million barrels (MMbbl) of oil from the Silurian Clinton sandstone. The original oil-in-place (OOIP) for this field was approximately 1.5 billion bbl and this study estimates by modeling known reservoir parameters, that between 76 and 279 MMbbl of additional oil could be produced through secondary recovery in this field, depending on the fluid and formation response to CO2 injection. A CO2 cyclic test (Huff-n-Puff) was conducted on a well in Stark County to test the injectivity in a Clinton-producing oil well in the ECOF and estimate the dispersion or potential breakthrough of the CO2 to surrounding wells. Eighty-one tons of CO2 (1.39 MMCF) were injected over a 20-hour period, after which the well was shut in for a 32-day soak period before production was resumed. Results demonstrated injection rates of 1.67 MMCF of gas per day, which was much higher than anticipated and no CO2 was detected in gas samples taken from eight immediately offsetting observation wells. All data collected during this test was analyzed, interpreted, and incorporated into the reservoir characterization study and used to develop the geologic model. The geologic model was used as input into a reservoir simulation performed by Fekete Associates, Inc., to estimate the behavior of reservoir fluids when large quantities of CO2 are injected into the Clinton sandstone. Results strongly suggest that the majority of the injected CO2 entered the matrix porosity of the reservoir pay zones, where it diffused into the oil. Evidence includes: (A) the volume of injected CO2 greatly exceeded the estimated capacity of the hydraulic fracture and natural fractures; (B) there was a gradual injection and pressure rate build-up during the test; (C) there was a subsequent, gradual flashout of the CO2 within the reservoir during the ensuing monitored production period; and (D) a large amount of CO2 continually off-gassed from wellhead oil samples collected as late as 3 months after injection. After the test well was returned to production, it produced 174 bbl of oil during a 60-day period (September 22 to November 21, 2008), which represents an estimated 58 percent increase in incremental oil production over preinjection estimates of production under normal, conditions. The geologic model was used in a reservoir simulation model for a 700-acre model area and to design a pilot to test the model. The model was designed to achieve a 1-year response time and a five-year simulation period. The reservoir simulation modeling indicated that the injection wells could enhance oil production and lead to an additional 20 percent recovery in the pilot area over a five-year period. The base case estimated that by injecting 500 MCF per day of CO2 into each of the four corner wells, 26,000 STBO would be produced by the central producer over the five-year period. This would compare to 3,000 STBO if a new well were drilled without the benefit of CO2 injection. This study has added significant knowledge to the reservoir characterization of the Clinton in the ECOF and succeeded in identifying a range on CO2-EOR potential. However, additional data on fluid properties (PVT and swelling test), fractures (oriented core and microseis), and reservoir characteristics (relative permeability, capillary pressure, and wet ability) are needed to further narrow the uncertainties and refine the reservoir model and simulation. After collection of this data and refinement of the model and simulation, it is recommended that a larger scale cyclic- CO2 injection test be conducted to better determine the efficacy of CO2-EOR in the Clinton reservoir in the ECOF.

  15. Increased oil production and reserves utilizing secondary/tertiary recovery techniques on small reservoirs in the Paradox basin, Utah. Quarterly technical progress report, April 1, 1996--June 30, 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Allison, M.L.

    1996-08-01

    The primary objective of this project is to enhance domestic petroleum production by demonstration and technology transfer of an advanced oil recovery technology in the Paradox basin, southeastern Utah. If this project can demonstrate technical and economic feasibility, the technique can be applied to approximately 100 additional small fields in the Paradox basin alone, and result in increased recovery of 150 to 200 million barrels of oil. This project is designed to characterize five shallow-shelf carbonate reservoirs in the Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian) Paradox Formation and choose the best candidate for a pilot demonstration project for either a waterflood or carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}-)flood project. The field demonstration, monitoring of field performance, and associated validation activities will take place in the Paradox basin within the Navajo Nation. The results of this project will be transferred to industry and other researchers through a petroleum extension service, creation of digital databases for distribution, technical workshops and seminars, field trips, technical presentations at national and regional professional meetings, and publication in newsletters and various technical or trade journals.

  16. The Potosi Reservoir Model 2013

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Adushita, Yasmin; Smith, Valerie; Leetaru, Hannes

    2014-09-30

    As a part of a larger project co-funded by the United States Department of Energy (US DOE) to evaluate the potential of formations within the Cambro-Ordovician strata above the Mt. Simon as potential targets for carbon sequestration in the Illinois and Michigan Basins, the Illinois Clean Coal Institute (ICCI) requested Schlumberger to evaluate the potential injectivity and carbon dioxide (CO2) plume size of the Cambrian Potosi Formation. The evaluation of this formation was accomplished using wireline data, core data, pressure data, and seismic data from the US DOE-funded Illinois Basin–Decatur Project (IBDP) being conducted by the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium in Macon County, Illinois. In 2010, technical performance evaluations on the Cambrian Potosi Formation were performed through reservoir modeling. The data included formation tops from mud logs, well logs from the VW1 and the CCS1 wells, structural and stratigraphic formation from three dimensional (3D) seismic data, and field data from several waste water injection wells for Potosi Formation. Intention was for two million tons per annum (MTPA) of CO2 to be injected for 20 years. In the preceding, the 2010 Potosi heterogeneous model (referred to as the "Potosi Dynamic Model 2010" in this topical report) was re-run using a new injection scenario; 3.2 MTPA for 30 years. The extent of the Potosi Dynamic Model 2010, however, appeared too small for the new injection target. It was not sufficiently large enough to accommodate the evolution of the plume. The new model, Potosi Dynamic Model 2013a, was built by extending the Potosi Dynamic Model 2010 grid to 30 miles x 30 miles (48.3km x48.3km), while preserving all property modeling workflows and layering. This model was retained as the base case of Potosi Dynamic Model 2013a. The Potosi reservoir model was updated to take into account the new data from the verification well VW2 which was drilled in 2012. The new porosity and permeability modeling was performed to take into account the log data from the new well. Revisions of the 2010 modeling assumptions were also done on relative permeability, capillary pressures, formation water salinity, and the maximum allowable well bottomhole pressure. Dynamic simulations were run using the injection target of 3.2 MTPA for 30 years. This new dynamic model was named Potosi Dynamic Model 2013b. Due to the major uncertainties on the vugs permeability, two models were built; the Pessimistic and Optimistic Cases. The Optimistic Case assumes vugs permeability of 9,000 mD, which is analog to the vugs permeability identified in the pressure fall off test of a waste water injector in the Tuscola site, approx. 40 miles (64.4km) away from the IBDP area. The Pessimistic Case assumes that the vugs permeability is equal to the log data, which does not take into account the permeability from secondary porosity. The probability of such case is deemed low and could be treated as the worst case scenario, since the contribution of secondary porosity to the permeability is neglected and the loss circulation events might correspond to a much higher permeability. It is considered important, however, to identify the range of possible reservoir performance since there are no rigorous data available for the vugs permeability. The Optimistic Case gives an average CO2 injection rate of 0.8 MTPA and cumulative injection of 26 MT in 30 years, which corresponds to 27% of the injection target. The injection rate is approx. 3.2 MTPA in the first year as the well is injecting into the surrounding vugs, and declines rapidly to 0.8 MTPA in year 4 once the surrounding vugs are full and the CO2 start to reach the matrix. This implies that according to this preliminary model, a minimum of four (4) wells could be required to achieve the injection target. This result is lower than the injectivity estimated in the Potosi Dynamic Model 2013a (43 MT in 30 years), since the permeability model applied in the Potosi Dynamic Model 2013b is more conservative. This revision was deemed necessary to treat the uncertainty in a more appropriate manner. As the CO2 follows the paths where vugs interconnection exists, a reasonably large and irregular plume extent was created. For the Optimistic Case, the plume extends 17 miles (27.4km) in E-W and 14 miles (22.5km) in N-S directions after 30 years. After injection is completed, the plume continues to migrate laterally, mainly driven by the remaining pressure gradient. After 100 years post injection, the plume extends 20 miles (32.2km) in E-W and 15.5 miles (24.9km) in N-S directions. Should the targeted cumulative injection of 96 MT be achieved; a much larger plume extent could be expected. For the Optimistic Case, the increase of reservoir pressure at the end of injection is approximately 1200 psia (8,274 kPa) around the injector and gradually decreases away from the well. The reservoir pressure increase is less than 30 psia (206.8 kPa) beyond 14 miles (22.5km) away from injector. Should the targeted cumulative injection of 96 MT be achieved; a much larger areal pressure increase could be expected. The initial reservoir pressure is nearly restored after approximately 100 years post injection. The presence of matrix slows down the pressure dissipations. The Pessimistic Case gives an average CO2 injection rate of 0.2 MTPA and cumulative injection of 7 MT in 30 years, which corresponds to 7% of the injection target. This implies that in the worst case scenario, a minimum of sixteen (16) wells could be required to achieve the injection target. The present evaluation is mainly associated with uncertainty on the vugs permeability, distribution, and interconnectivity. The different results indicated by the Optimistic and Pessimistic Cases signify the importance of vugs permeability characterization. Therefore, injection test and pressure interference test among the wells could be considered to evaluate the local vugs permeability, extent, and interconnectivity. Porosity mapping derived from the seismic inversion could also be used in the succeeding task to characterize the lateral porosity distribution within the reservoir. With or without seismic inversion porosity mapping, it is worth exploring whether increased lateral heterogeneity plays a significant role in Potosi injectivity. Investigations on vugular, dolomitic outcrops suggest that there may be significantly greater lateral heterogeneity than what has been modeled here. Facies modeling within the Potosi has yet to be thoroughly addressed. The carbonates during the time of deposition are believed to be regionally extensive. However, it may be worth delineating the reservoir with other regional wells or modern day analogues to understand the extent of the Potosi. More specifically, the model could incorporate lateral changes or trends if deemed necessary to represent facies transition. Data acquisitions to characterize the fracture pressure gradient, the formation water properties, the relative permeability, and the capillary pressure could also be considered in order to allow a more rigorous evaluation of the Potosi storage performance. A simulation using several injectors could also be considered to determine the required number of wells to achieve the injection target while taking into account the pressure interference.

  17. Energy Department Announces $10 Million to Speed Enhanced Geothermal Systems into the Market

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    In support President Obamas all-of-the-above energy strategy, the Energy Department today announced $10 million to improve subsurface characterization for enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) by developing state-of-the-art methods that quantify critical underground reservoir properties as they change over time.

  18. Quantitative/Statistical Approach to Bullet-to-Firearm Identification with Consecutively Manufactured Barrels

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Peter Striupaitis; R.E. Gaensslen

    2005-01-30

    Efforts to use objective image comparison and bullet scanning technologies to distinguish bullets from consecutively manufactured handgun barrels from two manufacturers gave mixed results. The ability of a technology to reliably distinguish between matching and non-matching bullets, where the non-matching bullets were as close in pattern to the matching ones as is probably possible, would provide evidence that the distinctions could be made ''objectively'', and independently of human eyes. That evidence is identical or very close to what seems to be needed to satisfy Daubert standards. It is fair to say that the FTI IBIS image comparison technology correctly distinguished between all the Springfield barrel bullets, and between most but not all of the HiPoint barrel bullets. In the HiPoint cases that were not distinguished 100% of the time, they would he distinguished correctly at least 83% of the time. These results, although obviously limited to the materials used in the comparisons, provide strong evidence that barrel-to-bullet matching is objectively reliable. The results with SciClops were less compelling. The results do not mean that bullet-to-barrel matching is not objectively reliable--rather, they mean that this version of the particular technology could not quite distinguish between these extremely similar yet different bullets as well as the image comparison technology did. In a number of cases, the numerical results made the correct distinctions, although they were close to one another. It is hard to say from this data that this technology differs in its ability to make distinctions between the manufacturers, because the results are very similar with both. The human examiner results were as expected. We did not expect any misidentifications, and there were not any. It would have been preferable to have a higher return rate, and thus more comparisons in the overall sample. As noted, the ''consecutively manufactured barrel exercise'' has been done before, with the same outcome.

  19. Video: SuperTruck Barreling Down the Road of Sustainability | Department of

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

    Energy SuperTruck Barreling Down the Road of Sustainability Video: SuperTruck Barreling Down the Road of Sustainability May 14, 2015 - 4:30pm Addthis New Energy 101 video shows how the Energy Department's SuperTruck initiative is making Class 8 trucks more fuel efficient and less expensive to operate. | Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy video. Paul Lester Paul Lester Digital Content Specialist, Office of Public Affairs KEY FACTS SuperTruck initiative helping make Class 8

  20. Maquoketa paleotopography key to reservoirs in western Illinois

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Whitaker, S.T.; Ledbetter, J.C.

    1996-08-12

    Shallow Silurian reservoirs in western Illinois have been a primary target for exploration since the late 1950s. It was not until the discovery and development of Buckhorn Consolidated field in the early 1980s, however, that significant drilling efforts for Silurian reservoirs were focused on western Illinois. At Buckhorn, 1.7 million bbl of oil have been produced from a basal Silurian dolomite at about 650 ft. Drawn by inexpensive drilling and available acreage, hundreds of operators flocked to western Illinois to try their luck. By the late 1980s, however, exploration efforts in western Illinois were curtailed due to the failure to locate additional significant reservoirs. Much of this failure was due to the lack of a suitable geologic model that could be used to explain the reason for reservoir development and thereby guide exploration efforts. An article by Whitaker and Howard in 1995 presented a geologic model explaining Silurian reservoir development and stratigraphic entrapment of oil at Buckhorn Consolidated field were formed as Silurian dolomite in-filled a shallow paleovalley cut into the underlying Ordovician Maquoketa shale. Some companies have recently initiated new exploration efforts in the area using this model. This paper discusses the efforts and results of several of these new areas.

  1. RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION OF UPPER DEVONIAN GORDON SANDSTONE, JACKSONBURG STRINGTOWN OIL FIELD, NORTHWESTERN WEST VIRGINIA

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    S. Ameri; K. Aminian; K.L. Avary; H.I. Bilgesu; M.E. Hohn; R.R. McDowell; D.L. Matchen

    2001-07-01

    The Jacksonburg-Stringtown oil field contained an estimated 88,500,000 barrels of oil in place, of which approximately 20,000,000 barrels were produced during primary recovery operations. A gas injection project, initiated in 1934, and a pilot waterflood, begun in 1981, yielded additional production from limited portions of the field. The pilot was successful enough to warrant development of a full-scale waterflood in 1990, involving approximately 8,900 acres in three units, with a target of 1,500 barrels of oil per acre recovery. Historical patterns of drilling and development within the field suggests that the Gordon reservoir is heterogeneous, and that detailed reservoir characterization is necessary for understanding well performance and addressing problems observed by the operators. The purpose of this work is to establish relationships among permeability, geophysical and other data by integrating geologic, geophysical and engineering data into an interdisciplinary quantification of reservoir heterogeneity as it relates to production. Conventional stratigraphic correlation and core description shows that the Gordon sandstone is composed of three parasequences, formed along the Late Devonian shoreline of the Appalachian Basin. The parasequences comprise five lithofacies, of which one includes reservoir sandstones. Pay sandstones were found to have permeabilities in core ranging from 10 to 200 mD, whereas non-pay sandstones have permeabilities ranging from below the level of instrumental detection to 5 mD; Conglomeratic zones could take on the permeability characteristics of enclosing materials, or could exhibit extremely low values in pay sandstone and high values in non-pay or low permeability pay sandstone. Four electrofacies based on a linear combination of density and scaled gamma ray best matched correlations made independently based on visual comparison of geophysical logs. Electrofacies 4 with relatively high permeability (mean value > 45 mD) was determined to be equivalent to the pay sandstone within the Gordon reservoir. Three-dimensional models of the electrofacies in the pilot waterflood showed that electrofacies 4 is present throughout this area, and the other electrofacies are more disconnected. A three-layer, back-propagation artificial neural network with three slabs in the middle layer can be used to predict permeability and porosity from gamma ray and bulk density logs, the first and the second derivatives of the log data with respect to depth, well location, and log baselines. Two flow units were defined based on the stratigraphic model and geophysical logs. A three-dimensional reservoir model including the flow units, values of permeability calculated through the artificial neural network and injection pressure-rate information were then used as inputs for a reservoir simulator to predict oil production performance for the center producers in the pilot area. This description of the reservoir provided significantly better simulation results than earlier results obtained using simple reservoir models. Bulk density and gamma ray logs were used to identify flow units throughout the field. As predicted by the stratigraphic analysis, one of the flow units crosses stratigraphic units in the reservoir. A neural network was used to predict permeability values for each flow unit in producer and injection wells. The reservoir simulator was utilized to predict the performance of two flood patterns located to the north of the pilot area. Considering the simple model utilized for simulation, the results are in very good agreement with the field history.

  2. Collapsible sheath fluid reservoirs for flow cytometers

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Mark, Graham A. (Los Alamos, NM)

    2000-01-01

    The present invention is a container in the form of a single housing for holding fluid, including a first collapsible reservoir having a first valve. The first reservoir initially contains a volume of fluid. The container also includes a second reservoir, initially empty (or substantially empty), expandable to a second volume. The second reservoir has a second valve. As the volume of said first reservoir decreases, the volume of the second reservoir proportionally increases.

  3. Water resources review: Ocoee reservoirs, 1990

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cox, J.P.

    1990-08-01

    Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is preparing a series of reports to make technical information on individual TVA reservoirs readily accessible. These reports provide a summary of reservoir purpose and operation; physical characteristics of the reservoir and watershed; water quality conditions; aquatic biological conditions; and designated, actual and potential uses of the reservoir and impairments of those use. This reservoir status report addressed the three Ocoee Reservoirs in Polk County, Tennessee.

  4. Analysis of real-time reservoir monitoring : reservoirs, strategies, & modeling.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mani, Seethambal S.; van Bloemen Waanders, Bart Gustaaf; Cooper, Scott Patrick; Jakaboski, Blake Elaine; Normann, Randy Allen; Jennings, Jim; Gilbert, Bob; Lake, Larry W.; Weiss, Chester Joseph; Lorenz, John Clay; Elbring, Gregory Jay; Wheeler, Mary Fanett; Thomas, Sunil G.; Rightley, Michael J.; Rodriguez, Adolfo; Klie, Hector; Banchs, Rafael; Nunez, Emilio J.; Jablonowski, Chris

    2006-11-01

    The project objective was to detail better ways to assess and exploit intelligent oil and gas field information through improved modeling, sensor technology, and process control to increase ultimate recovery of domestic hydrocarbons. To meet this objective we investigated the use of permanent downhole sensors systems (Smart Wells) whose data is fed real-time into computational reservoir models that are integrated with optimized production control systems. The project utilized a three-pronged approach (1) a value of information analysis to address the economic advantages, (2) reservoir simulation modeling and control optimization to prove the capability, and (3) evaluation of new generation sensor packaging to survive the borehole environment for long periods of time. The Value of Information (VOI) decision tree method was developed and used to assess the economic advantage of using the proposed technology; the VOI demonstrated the increased subsurface resolution through additional sensor data. Our findings show that the VOI studies are a practical means of ascertaining the value associated with a technology, in this case application of sensors to production. The procedure acknowledges the uncertainty in predictions but nevertheless assigns monetary value to the predictions. The best aspect of the procedure is that it builds consensus within interdisciplinary teams The reservoir simulation and modeling aspect of the project was developed to show the capability of exploiting sensor information both for reservoir characterization and to optimize control of the production system. Our findings indicate history matching is improved as more information is added to the objective function, clearly indicating that sensor information can help in reducing the uncertainty associated with reservoir characterization. Additional findings and approaches used are described in detail within the report. The next generation sensors aspect of the project evaluated sensors and packaging survivability issues. Our findings indicate that packaging represents the most significant technical challenge associated with application of sensors in the downhole environment for long periods (5+ years) of time. These issues are described in detail within the report. The impact of successful reservoir monitoring programs and coincident improved reservoir management is measured by the production of additional oil and gas volumes from existing reservoirs, revitalization of nearly depleted reservoirs, possible re-establishment of already abandoned reservoirs, and improved economics for all cases. Smart Well monitoring provides the means to understand how a reservoir process is developing and to provide active reservoir management. At the same time it also provides data for developing high-fidelity simulation models. This work has been a joint effort with Sandia National Laboratories and UT-Austin's Bureau of Economic Geology, Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering, and the Institute of Computational and Engineering Mathematics.

  5. Supercritical Carbon Dioxide / Reservoir Rock Chemical Interactions...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Reservoir Rock Chemical Interactions Jump to: navigation, search Geothermal Lab Call Projects for Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Reservoir Rock...

  6. Reservoir-Stimulation Optimization with Operational Monitoring...

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

    Reservoir-Stimulation Optimization with Operational Monitoring for Creation of Enhanced Geothermal Systems Reservoir-Stimulation Optimization with Operational Monitoring for ...

  7. Potosi Reservoir Modeling; History and Recommendations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, Valerie; Leetaru, Hannes

    2014-09-30

    As a part of a larger project co-funded by the United States Department of Energy (US DOE) to evaluate the potential of formations within the Cambro-Ordovician strata above the Mt. Simon as potential targets for carbon sequestration in the Illinois and Michigan Basins, the Illinois Clean Coal Institute (ICCI) requested Schlumberger to evaluate the potential injectivity and carbon dioxide (CO₂) plume size of the Cambrian Potosi Formation. The evaluation of this formation was accomplished using wireline data, core data, pressure data, and seismic data from two projects: the US DOE-funded Illinois Basin–Decatur Project being conducted by the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium in Macon County, Illinois, as well as data from the Illinois – Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (IL-ICCS) project funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In 2010, technical performance evaluations on the Cambrian Potosi Formation were performed through reservoir modeling. The data included formation tops from mud logs, well logs from the Verification Well 1 (VW1) and the Injection Well (CCS1), structural and stratigraphic formation from three dimensional (3D) seismic data, and field data from several waste water injection wells for the Potosi Formation. The intention was for two million tonnes per annum (MTPA) of CO₂ to be injected for 20 years into the Potosi Formation. In 2013, updated reservoir models for the Cambrian Potosi Formation were evaluated. The data included formation tops from mud logs, well logs from the CCS1, VW1, and Verification Well 2 (VW2) wells, structural and stratigraphic formation from a larger 3D seismic survey, and field data from several waste water injection wells for Potosi Formation. The objective is to simulate the injection of CO₂ at a rate 3.5 million tons per annum (3.2 million tonnes per annum [MTPA]) for 30 years 106 million tons (96 MT total) into the Potosi Formation. The Potosi geomodeling efforts have evolved from using data from a single well in 2010 to the inclusion of data from three wells in 2013 which largely leverage the porosity and permeability logs plus knowledge of lost circulation zones. The first Potosi model (Potosi Geobody Model 2010) attempted to use the available seismic inversion data to inform the geomodel and predict vugular zones in advance of drilling VW1. Lost circulation zones in VW1 came in as the geologists predicted. The model was not implemented in subsequent simulation work. To date, reservoir models used for flow simulation work have relied predominately on Gaussian distributed properties (porosity and permeability) and have employed a single injection well. Potosi Model 2013b incorporated the new VW2 logs, and exhibited an extra level of sophistication by delineating the vugular intervals. This method added further realism that likely represents the best reservoir approximation to date. Where the 2010 reservoir models were 10 by 10 mi (16 by 16 km) in area, the 2013 models were expanded in size to 30 by 30 mi (48 by 48 km). The latest reservoir simulations show that a minimum of four injectors might be required to meet target injection rates. Still, there is data that requires further scrutiny and modeling methodologies that require testing for the Potosi Formation. This work is currently ongoing, and the next phase of the reservoir modeling intends to implement valuable data like porosity derived from seismic inversion, seismically derived geobodies, or a combination of both to further define vugular zones and the porosity distribution within the Potosi Formation. Understanding the dual porosity, dual permeability character of the Potosi remains the greatest challenge in representing this formation. Further analysis of the FMI* fullbore formation microimager data may aid in assessing this uncertainty. The Potosi Formation is indeed an interesting formation, and recommendations to further characterize it are included in the following list: - Data acquisition to identify the vugs permeability, distribution, and interconnectivity could be considered to perform a more rigorous evaluation of the Potosi Formation injectivity and capacity. This could be achieved by performing an injection test on a vugular interval to determine the vugs permeability, and an interference test between wells to evaluate the local vugs extent and interconnectivity. - A thorough study of the available FMI data may reveal specifics on estimating the vug to matrix ratio. This estimate could be used to further condition the porosity distribution. Porosity logs alone might underestimate the formation’s porosity associated with vugs. Porosity mapping derived from the seismic inversion could also be used in the succeeding task to characterize the lateral porosity distribution within the reservoir. This could involve the geobody methodology previously attempted in 2010. With or without seismic inversion porosity mapping, it is worth exploring whether increased lateral heterogeneity plays a significant role in Potosi injectivity. Investigations on vugular, dolomitic outcrops suggest that there may be significantly greater lateral heterogeneity than what has been modeled here. - The FMI data also reveals the presence of and helps describe open fractures. The presence of fractures will further enhance the formation’s permeability. The task of leveraging this data in the geomodeling effort still remains. Under the best of circumstances, this data describing open fractures may be combined with seismic attributes to delineate fracture corridors. Fracture modeling would certainly add another layer of sophistication to the model. Its contribution and applicability remain to be explored. - Facies modeling within the Potosi has yet to be thoroughly addressed. The carbonates during the time of deposition are believed to be regionally extensive. However, it may be worth delineating the reservoir with other regional wells or modern day analogues to understand the extent of the Potosi. More specifically, the model could incorporate lateral changes or trends if deemed necessary to represent facies transition. - Currently there is no fracture gradient data available for the Potosi in the Decatur project area. The acquisition of the fracture pressure data could be considered to determine an appropriate maximum allowable bottomhole injection pressure. This would allow the evaluation of injectivity and the required number of wells in a more precise manner. - Special core analysis (SCAL) to determine the relative permeability and capillary pressure of the vugs and matrix could be considered to have a better estimation of the reservoir injectivity and plume extent. - Formation water sampling and analysis could be considered for the Potosi to estimate the water salinity and properties. A vertical flow performance evaluation could be considered for the succeeding task to determine the appropriate tubing size, the required injection tubing head pressure, and to investigate whether the corresponding well injection rate falls within the tubing erosional velocity limit. - A simulation using several injectors could also be considered to determine the required number of wells to achieve the injection target while taking into account the pressure interference.

  8. Altering Reservoir Wettability to Improve Production from Single Wells

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    W. W. Weiss

    2006-09-30

    Many carbonate reservoirs are naturally fractured and typically produce less than 10% original oil in place during primary recovery. Spontaneous imbibition has proven an important mechanism for oil recovery from fractured reservoirs, which are usually weak waterflood candidates. In some situations, chemical stimulation can promote imbibition of water to alter the reservoir wettability toward water-wetness such that oil is produced at an economic rate from the rock matrix into fractures. In this project, cores and fluids from five reservoirs were used in laboratory tests: the San Andres formation (Fuhrman Masho and Eagle Creek fields) in the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico; and the Interlake, Stony Mountain, and Red River formations from the Cedar Creek Anticline in Montana and South Dakota. Solutions of nonionic, anionic, and amphoteric surfactants with formation water were used to promote waterwetness. Some Fuhrman Masho cores soaked in surfactant solution had improved oil recovery up to 38%. Most Eagle Creek cores did not respond to any of the tested surfactants. Some Cedar Creek anticline cores had good response to two anionic surfactants (CD 128 and A246L). The results indicate that cores with higher permeability responded better to the surfactants. The increased recovery is mainly ascribed to increased water-wetness. It is suspected that rock mineralogy is also an important factor. The laboratory work generated three field tests of the surfactant soak process in the West Fuhrman Masho San Andres Unit. The flawlessly designed tests included mechanical well clean out, installation of new pumps, and daily well tests before and after the treatments. Treatments were designed using artificial intelligence (AI) correlations developed from 23 previous surfactant soak treatments. The treatments were conducted during the last quarter of 2006. One of the wells produced a marginal volume of incremental oil through October. It is interesting to note that the field tests were conducted in an area of the field that has not met production expectations. The dataset on the 23 Phosphoria well surfactant soaks was updated. An analysis of the oil decline curves indicted that 4.5 lb of chemical produced a barrel of incremental oil. The AI analysis supports the adage 'good wells are the best candidates.' The generally better performance of surfactant in the high permeability core laboratory tests supports this observation. AI correlations were developed to predict the response to water-frac stimulations in a tight San Andres reservoir. The correlations maybe useful in the design of Cedar Creek Anticline surfactant soak treatments planned for next year. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance scans of dolomite cores to measure porosity and saturation during the high temperature laboratory work were acquired. The scans could not be correlated with physical measurement using either conventional or AI methods.

  9. " Million U.S. Housing Units"

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

    Lighting Usage Indicators by UrbanRural Location, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,,"UrbanRural Location (as Self-Reported)" ,"Housing Units (millions)" "Lighting Usage ...

  10. " Million U.S. Housing Units"

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

    Water Heating Characteristics by UrbanRural Location, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,,"UrbanRural Location (as Self-Reported)" ,"Housing Units (millions)" "Water Heating ...

  11. Predicting interwell heterogeneity in fluvial-deltaic reservoirs: Outcrop observations and applications of progressive facies variation through a depositional cycle

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Knox, P.R.; Barton, M.D.

    1997-08-01

    Nearly 11 billion barrels of mobile oil remain in known domestic fluvial-deltaic reservoirs despite their mature status. A large percentage of this strategic resource is in danger of permanent loss through premature abandonment. Detailed reservoir characterization studies that integrate advanced technologies in geology, geophysics, and engineering are needed to identify remaining resources that can be targeted by near-term recovery methods, resulting in increased production and the postponement of abandonment. The first and most critical step of advanced characterization studies is the identification of reservoir architecture. However, existing subsurface information, primarily well logs, provides insufficient lateral resolution to identify low-permeability boundaries that exist between wells and compartmentalize the reservoir. Methods to predict lateral variability in fluvial-deltaic reservoirs have been developed on the basis of outcrop studies and incorporate identification of depositional setting and position within a depositional cycle. The position of a reservoir within the framework of a depositional cycle is critical. Outcrop studies of the Cretaceous Ferron Sandstone of Utah have demonstrated that the architecture and internal heterogeneity of sandstones deposited within a given depositional setting (for example, delta front) vary greatly depending upon whether they were deposited in the early, progradational part of a cycle or the late, retrogradational part of a cycle. The application of techniques similar to those used by this study in other fluvial-deltaic reservoirs will help to estimate the amount and style of remaining potential in mature reservoirs through a quicklook evaluation, allowing operators to focus characterization efforts on reservoirs that have the greatest potential to yield additional resources.

  12. Geothermal Reservoir Dynamics - TOUGHREACT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pruess, Karsten; Xu, Tianfu; Shan, Chao; Zhang, Yingqi; Wu,Yu-Shu; Sonnenthal, Eric; Spycher, Nicolas; Rutqvist, Jonny; Zhang,Guoxiang; Kennedy, Mack

    2005-03-15

    This project has been active for several years and has focused on developing, enhancing and applying mathematical modeling capabilities for fractured geothermal systems. The emphasis of our work has recently shifted towards enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) and hot dry rock (HDR), and FY05 is the first year that the DOE-AOP actually lists this project under Enhanced Geothermal Systems. Our overall purpose is to develop new engineering tools and a better understanding of the coupling between fluid flow, heat transfer, chemical reactions, and rock-mechanical deformation, to demonstrate new EGS technology through field applications, and to make technical information and computer programs available for field applications. The objectives of this project are to: (1) Improve fundamental understanding and engineering methods for geothermal systems, primarily focusing on EGS and HDR systems and on critical issues in geothermal systems that are difficult to produce. (2) Improve techniques for characterizing reservoir conditions and processes through new modeling and monitoring techniques based on ''active'' tracers and coupled processes. (3) Improve techniques for targeting injection towards specific engineering objectives, including maintaining and controlling injectivity, controlling non-condensable and corrosive gases, avoiding scale formation, and optimizing energy recovery. Seek opportunities for field testing and applying new technologies, and work with industrial partners and other research organizations.

  13. Improved oil recovery in fluvial dominated deltaic reservoirs of Kansas - Near-term, Class I

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Green, D.W.; Willhite, G.P.; Reynolds, Rodney R.; McCune, A. Dwayne; Michnick, Michael J.; Walton, Anthony W.; Watney, W. Lynn

    2000-06-08

    This project involved two demonstration projects, one in a Marrow reservoir located in the southwestern part of the state and the second in the Cherokee Group in eastern Kansas. Morrow reservoirs of western Kansas are still actively being explored and constitute an important resource in Kansas. Cumulative oil production from the Morrow in Kansas is over 400,000,000 bbls. Much of the production from the Morrow is still in the primary stage and has not reached the mature declining state of that in the Cherokee. The Cherokee Group has produced about 1 billion bbls of oil since the first commercial production began over a century ago. It is a billion-barrel plus resource that is distributed over a large number of fields and small production units. Many of the reservoirs are operated close to the economic limit, although the small units and low production per well are offset by low costs associated with the shallow nature of the reservoirs (less than 1000 ft. deep).

  14. Mississippi (with State Offshore) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Mississippi (with State Offshore) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 49 68 2000's 38 71 42 68 79 87 79 35 126 117 2010's 94 90 82 73 85 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015

  15. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore - Texas Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore - Texas Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 215 207 2000's 222 180 154 147 72 64 68 53 56 125 2010's 102 52 34 33 84 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  16. Louisiana (with State Offshore) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Louisiana (with State Offshore) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 198 226 2000's 204 227 185 190 150 193 198 193 144 149 2010's 183 152 157 180 221 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  17. Calif--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Calif--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 53 56 2000's 68 97 122 117 63 112 149 98 31 29 2010's 66 69 55 60 45 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  18. Calif--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Calif--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 740 321 2000's 234 233 111 110 158 238 228 168 117 146 2010's 210 163 226 214 216 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  19. California (with State Offshore) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) California (with State Offshore) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's NA NA 937 511 2000's 464 508 336 313 267 455 496 335 197 272 2010's 522 542 627 606 588 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  20. U.S. Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Reserves in Nonproducing

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

    Reservoirs (Million Barrels) in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 530 418 2000's 498 562 489 399 409 430 504 559 593 511 2010's 694 880 1,429 1,380 1,716 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next

  1. Chickamauga reservoir embayment study - 1990

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Meinert, D.L.; Butkus, S.R.; McDonough, T.A.

    1992-12-01

    The objectives of this report are three-fold: (1) assess physical, chemical, and biological conditions in the major embayments of Chickamauga Reservoir; (2) compare water quality and biological conditions of embayments with main river locations; and (3) identify any water quality concerns in the study embayments that may warrant further investigation and/or management actions. Embayments are important areas of reservoirs to be considered when assessments are made to support water quality management plans. In general, embayments, because of their smaller size (water surface areas usually less than 1000 acres), shallower morphometry (average depth usually less than 10 feet), and longer detention times (frequently a month or more), exhibit more extreme responses to pollutant loadings and changes in land use than the main river region of the reservoir. Consequently, embayments are often at greater risk of water quality impairments (e.g. nutrient enrichment, filling and siltation, excessive growths of aquatic plants, algal blooms, low dissolved oxygen concentrations, bacteriological contamination, etc.). Much of the secondary beneficial use of reservoirs occurs in embayments (viz. marinas, recreation areas, parks and beaches, residential development, etc.). Typically embayments comprise less than 20 percent of the surface area of a reservoir, but they often receive 50 percent or more of the water-oriented recreational use of the reservoir. This intensive recreational use creates a potential for adverse use impacts if poor water quality and aquatic conditions exist in an embayment.

  2. Reservoir characterization of Pennsylvanian Sandstone Reservoirs. Annual report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kelkar, M.

    1992-09-01

    This annual report describes the progress during the second year of a project on Reservoir Characterization of Pennsylvanian Sandstone Reservoirs. The report is divided into three sections: (i) reservoir description and scale-up procedures; (ii) outcrop investigation; (iii) in-fill drilling potential. The first section describes the methods by which a reservoir can be characterized, can be described in three dimensions, and can be scaled up with respect to its properties, appropriate for simulation purposes. The second section describes the progress on investigation of an outcrop. The outcrop is an analog of Bartlesville Sandstone. We have drilled ten wells behind the outcrop and collected extensive log and core data. The cores have been slabbed, photographed and the several plugs have been taken. In addition, minipermeameter is used to measure permeabilities on the core surface at six inch intervals. The plugs have been analyzed for the permeability and porosity values. The variations in property values will be tied to the geological descriptions as well as the subsurface data collected from the Glen Pool field. The third section discusses the application of geostatistical techniques to infer in-fill well locations. The geostatistical technique used is the simulated annealing technique because of its flexibility. One of the important reservoir data is the production data. Use of production data will allow us to define the reservoir continuities, which may in turn, determine the in-fill well locations. The proposed technique allows us to incorporate some of the production data as constraints in the reservoir descriptions. The technique has been validated by comparing the results with numerical simulations.

  3. Application of Integrated Reservoir Management and Reservoir Characterization to Optimize Infill Drilling

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1998-01-01

    Infill drilling if wells on a uniform spacing without regard to reservoir performance and characterization foes not optimize reservoir development because it fails to account for the complex nature of reservoir heterogeneities present in many low permeability reservoirs, and carbonate reservoirs in particular. New and emerging technologies, such as geostatistical modeling, rigorous decline curve analysis, reservoir rock typing, and special core analysis can be used to develop a 3-D simulation model for prediction of infill locations.

  4. Texas Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 7,018,237...

  5. Precise mapping of the magnetic field in the CMS barrel yoke using cosmic rays

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chatrchyan, S.; et al.,

    2010-03-01

    The CMS detector is designed around a large 4 T superconducting solenoid, enclosed in a 12000-tonne steel return yoke. A detailed map of the magnetic field is required for the accurate simulation and reconstruction of physics events in the CMS detector, not only in the inner tracking region inside the solenoid but also in the large and complex structure of the steel yoke, which is instrumented with muon chambers. Using a large sample of cosmic muon events collected by CMS in 2008, the field in the steel of the barrel yoke has been determined with a precision of 3 to 8% depending on the location.

  6. Replacing the Whole BarrelTo Reduce U.S. Dependence on Oil

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

    Replacing the Whole Barrel To Reduce U.S. Dependence on Oil July 2013 Biofuels are improving America's energy security and helping to lower prices at the pump. Photo: iStock/ 3295439. Cover photos from iStock/ 13311982, 8047298, 6019274, 16059398, 6439341 If we are going to control our energy future, then we've got to have an all-of-the-above strategy. We've got to develop every source of American energy-not just oil and gas, but wind power and solar power, nuclear power, biofuels. President

  7. Tenth workshop on geothermal reservoir engineering: proceedings

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1985-01-22

    The workshop contains presentations in the following areas: (1) reservoir engineering research; (2) field development; (3) vapor-dominated systems; (4) the Geysers thermal area; (5) well test analysis; (6) production engineering; (7) reservoir evaluation; (8) geochemistry and injection; (9) numerical simulation; and (10) reservoir physics. (ACR)

  8. Microsecond acquisition of heterogeneous structure in the folding of a TIM barrel protein

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wu, Ying; Kondrashkina, Elena; Kayatekin, Can; Matthews, C. Robert; Bilsel, Osman (NWU); (UMASS, Amherst)

    2008-09-29

    The earliest kinetic folding events for ({beta}{alpha}){sub 8} barrels reflect the appearance of off-pathway intermediates. Continuous-flow microchannel mixing methods interfaced to small-angle x-ray scattering (SAXS), circular dichroism (CD), time-resolved Foerster resonant energy transfer (trFRET), and time-resolved fluorescence anisotropy (trFLAN) have been used to directly monitor global and specific dimensional properties of the partially folded state in the microsecond time range for a representative ({beta}{alpha}){sub 8} barrel protein. Within 150 {micro}s, the {alpha}-subunit of Trp synthase ({alpha}TS) experiences a global collapse and the partial formation of secondary structure. The time resolution of the folding reaction was enhanced with trFRET and trFLAN to show that, within 30 {micro}s, a distinct and autonomous partially collapsed structure has already formed in the N-terminal and central regions but not in the C-terminal region. A distance distribution analysis of the trFRET data confirmed the presence of a heterogeneous ensemble that persists for several hundreds of microseconds. Ready access to locally folded, stable substructures may be a hallmark of repeat-module proteins and the source of early kinetic traps in these very common motifs. Their folding free-energy landscapes should be elaborated to capture this source of frustration.

  9. Increasing Waterflooding Reservoirs in the Wilmington Oil Field through Improved Reservoir Characterization and Reservoir Management, Class III

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Koerner, Roy; Clarke, Don; Walker, Scott; Phillips, Chris; Nguyen, John; Moos, Dan; Tagbor, Kwasi

    2001-08-07

    This project was intended to increase recoverable waterflood reserves in slope and basin reservoirs through improved reservoir characterization and reservoir management. The particular application of this project is in portions of Fault Blocks IV and V of the Wilmington Oil Field, in Long Beach, California, but the approach is widely applicable in slope and basin reservoirs, transferring technology so that it can be applied in other sections of the Wilmington field and by operators in other slope and basin reservoirs is a primary component of the project.

  10. Sunset Reservoir Solar Power Plant | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Reservoir Solar Power Plant Facility Sunset Reservoir Sector Solar Facility Type Photovoltaic Developer Recurrent Energy Location San Francisco, California Coordinates...

  11. THMC Modeling of EGS Reservoirs … Continuum through Discontinuum...

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

    Evolution and Induced Seismicity THMC Modeling of EGS Reservoirs Continuum through Discontinuum Representations: Capturing Reservoir Stimulation, Evolution and ...

  12. Development of Reservoir Characterization Techniques and Production Models for Exploiting Naturally Fractured Reservoirs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wiggins, M.L.; Evans, R.D.; Brown, R.L.; Gupta, A.

    2001-03-28

    This report focuses on integrating geoscience and engineering data to develop a consistent characterization of the naturally fractured reservoirs. During this reporting period, effort was focused on relating seismic data to reservoir properties of naturally fractured reservoirs, scaling well log data to generate interwell descriptors of these reservoirs, enhancing and debugging a naturally fractured reservoir simulator, and developing a horizontal wellbore model for use in the simulator.

  13. The Potosi Reservoir Model 2013c, Property Modeling Update

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Adushita, Yasmin; Smith, Valerie; Leetaru, Hannes

    2014-09-30

    As part of a larger project co-funded by the United States Department of Energy (US DOE) to evaluate the potential of formations within the Cambro-Ordovician strata above the Mt. Simon as potential targets for carbon sequestration in the Illinois and Michigan Basins, the Illinois Clean Coal Institute (ICCI) requested Schlumberger to evaluate the potential injectivity and carbon dioxide (CO2) plume size of the Cambrian Potosi Formation. The evaluation of this formation was accomplished using wireline data, core data, pressure data, and seismic data from this project as well as two other separately funded projects: the US DOE-funded Illinois Basin–Decatur Project (IBDP) being conducted by the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC) in Macon County, Illinois, and the Illinois Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (ICCS) project funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In 2010, technical performance evaluations on the Cambrian Potosi Formation were performed through reservoir modeling. The data included formation tops from mud logs, well logs from the Verification Well #1 (VW1) and the Injection Well (CCS1), structural and stratigraphic formation from three dimensional (3D) seismic data, and field data from several waste water injection wells for Potosi Formation. The intention was for 2.2 million tons per annum (2 million tonnes per annum [MTPA]) of CO2 to be injected for 20 years. In the Task Error! Reference source not found., the 2010 Potosi heterogeneous model (referred to as the "Potosi Dynamic Model 2010") was re-run using a new injection scenario of 3.5 million tons per annum (3.2 MTPA) for 30 years. The extent of the Potosi Dynamic Model 2010, however, appeared too small for the new injection target. The models size was insufficient to accommodate the evolution of the plume. The new model, Potosi Dynamic Model 2013a, was built by extending the Potosi Dynamic Model 2010 grid to 30 by 30 mi (48 by 48 km), while preserving all property modeling workflows and layering. This model was retained as the base case. In the preceding Task [1], the Potosi reservoir model was updated to take into account the new data from the Verification Well #2 (VW2) which was drilled in 2012. The porosity and permeability modeling was revised to take into account the log data from the new well. Revisions of the 2010 modeling assumptions were also done on relative permeability, capillary pressures, formation water salinity, and the maximum allowable well bottomhole pressure. Dynamic simulations were run using the injection target of 3.5 million tons per annum (3.2 MTPA) for 30 years. This dynamic model was named Potosi Dynamic Model 2013b. In this Task, a new property modeling workflow was applied, where seismic inversion data guided the porosity mapping and geobody extraction. The static reservoir model was fully guided by PorosityCube interpretations and derivations coupled with petrophysical logs from three wells. The two main assumptions are: porosity features in the PorosityCube that correlate with lost circulation zones represent vugular zones, and that these vugular zones are laterally continuous. Extrapolation was done carefully to populate the vugular facies and their corresponding properties outside the seismic footprint up to the boundary of the 30 by 30 mi (48 by 48 km) model. Dynamic simulations were also run using the injection target of 3.5 million tons per annum (3.2 MTPA) for 30 years. This new dynamic model was named Potosi Dynamic Model 2013c. Reservoir simulation with the latest model gives a cumulative injection of 43 million tons (39 MT) in 30 years with a single well, which corresponds to 40% of the injection target. The injection rate is approx. 3.2 MTPA in the first six months as the well is injecting into the surrounding vugs, and declines rapidly to 1.8 million tons per annum (1.6 MTPA) in year 3 once the surrounding vugs are full and the CO2 start to reach the matrix. After, the injection rate declines gradually to 1.2 million tons per annum (1.1 MTPA) in year 18 and stays constant. This implies that a minimum of three (3) wells could be required in the Potosi to reach the injection target. The injectivity evaluated in this Task was higher compared to the preceding Task, since the current facies modeling (guided by the porosity map from the seismic inversion) indicated a higher density of vugs within the vugular zones. 5 As the CO2 follows the paths where vugs interconnection exists, a reasonably large and irregular plume extent was created. After 30 years of injection, the plume extends 13.7 mi (22 km) in E-W and 9.7 mi (16 km) in N-S directions. After injection finishes, the plume continues to migrate laterally, mainly driven by the remaining pressure gradient. After 60 years post-injection, the plume extends 14.2 mi (22.8 km) in E-W and 10 mi (16 km) in N-S directions, and remains constant as the remaining pressure gradient has become very low. Should the targeted cumulative injection of 106 million tons (96 MT) be achieved; a much larger plume extent could be expected. The increase of reservoir pressure at the end of injection is approximately 1,200 psia (8,274 kPa) around the injector and gradually decreases away from the well. The reservoir pressure increase is less than 10 psia (69 kPa) beyond 14 mi (23 km) away from injector. Should the targeted cumulative injection of 106 million tons (96 MT) be achieved; a much larger areal pressure increase could be expected. The reservoir pressure declines rapidly during the first 30 years post injection and the initial reservoir pressure is nearly restored after 100 years post-injection. The present evaluation is mainly associated with uncertainty on the vugs permeability and interconnectivity. The use of porosity mapping from seismic inversion might have reduced the uncertainty on the lateral vugs body distributions. However, major uncertainties on the Potosi vugs permeability remains. Therefore, injection test and pressure interference test among the wells could be considered to evaluate the local vugs permeability, extent, and interconnectivity. Facies modeling within the Potosi has yet to be thoroughly addressed. The carbonates during the time of deposition are believed to be regionally extensive. However, it may be worth delineating the reservoir with other regional wells or modern day analogues to understand the extent of the Potosi. More specifically, the model could incorporate lateral changes or trends if deemed necessary to represent facies transition. Data acquisitions to characterize the fracture pressure gradient, the formation water properties, the relative permeability, and the capillary pressure could also be considered in order to allow a more rigorous evaluation of the Potosi storage performance. A simulation using several injectors could also be considered to determine the required number of wells and appropriate spacing to achieve the injection target while taking into account the pressure interference.

  14. 4. International reservoir characterization technical conference

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1997-04-01

    This volume contains the Proceedings of the Fourth International Reservoir Characterization Technical Conference held March 2-4, 1997 in Houston, Texas. The theme for the conference was Advances in Reservoir Characterization for Effective Reservoir Management. On March 2, 1997, the DOE Class Workshop kicked off with tutorials by Dr. Steve Begg (BP Exploration) and Dr. Ganesh Thakur (Chevron). Tutorial presentations are not included in these Proceedings but may be available from the authors. The conference consisted of the following topics: data acquisition; reservoir modeling; scaling reservoir properties; and managing uncertainty. Selected papers have been processed separately for inclusion in the Energy Science and Technology database.

  15. THMC Modeling of EGS Reservoirs … Continuum through Discontinuum

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

    Representations: Capturing Reservoir Stimulation, Evolution and Induced Seismicity | Department of Energy THMC Modeling of EGS Reservoirs … Continuum through Discontinuum Representations: Capturing Reservoir Stimulation, Evolution and Induced Seismicity THMC Modeling of EGS Reservoirs … Continuum through Discontinuum Representations: Capturing Reservoir Stimulation, Evolution and Induced Seismicity THMC Modeling of EGS Reservoirs … Continuum through Discontinuum Representations: Capturing

  16. The role of reservoir characterization in the reservoir management process (as reflected in the Department of Energy`s reservoir management demonstration program)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fowler, M.L.; Young, M.A.; Madden, M.P.

    1997-08-01

    Optimum reservoir recovery and profitability result from guidance of reservoir practices provided by an effective reservoir management plan. Success in developing the best, most appropriate reservoir management plan requires knowledge and consideration of (1) the reservoir system including rocks, and rock-fluid interactions (i.e., a characterization of the reservoir) as well as wellbores and associated equipment and surface facilities; (2) the technologies available to describe, analyze, and exploit the reservoir; and (3) the business environment under which the plan will be developed and implemented. Reservoir characterization is the essential to gain needed knowledge of the reservoir for reservoir management plan building. Reservoir characterization efforts can be appropriately scaled by considering the reservoir management context under which the plan is being built. Reservoir management plans de-optimize with time as technology and the business environment change or as new reservoir information indicates the reservoir characterization models on which the current plan is based are inadequate. BDM-Oklahoma and the Department of Energy have implemented a program of reservoir management demonstrations to encourage operators with limited resources and experience to learn, implement, and disperse sound reservoir management techniques through cooperative research and development projects whose objectives are to develop reservoir management plans. In each of the three projects currently underway, careful attention to reservoir management context assures a reservoir characterization approach that is sufficient, but not in excess of what is necessary, to devise and implement an effective reservoir management plan.

  17. Table 5.17 Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 1977-2011 (Thousand Barrels...

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

    which the costs associated with the importation and delivery of crude oil are the responsibility of the commercial importer under contract to supply the SPR. 6Includes 30 million ...

  18. Detailed Surface Analysis Of Incremental Centrifugal Barrel Polishing (CBP) Of Single-Crystal Niobium Samples

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Palczewski, Ari D.; Hui Tian; Trofimova, Olga; Reece, Charles E.

    2011-07-01

    We performed Centrifugal Barrel Polishing (CBP) on single crystal niobium samples/coupons housed in a stainless steel sample holder following the polishing recipe developed at Fermi Lab (FNAL) in 2011 \\cite{C. A. Cooper 2011}. Post CBP, the sample coupons were analyzed for surface roughness, crystal composition and structure, and particle contamination. Following the initial analysis each coupon was high pressure rinsed (HRP) and analyzed for the effectiveness of contamination removal. We were able to obtain the mirror like surface finish after the final stage of tumbling, although some defects and embedded particles remained. In addition, standard HPR appears to have little effect on removing embedded particles which remain after each tumbling step, although final polishing media removal was partially affected by standard/extended HPR.

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

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

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

  20. Table 5.18 Crude Oil Domestic First Purchase Prices, 1949-2011 (Dollars per Barrel)

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

    8 Crude Oil Domestic First Purchase Prices, 1949-2011 (Dollars per Barrel) Year Alaska North Slope California Texas U.S. Average Nominal 1 Real 2 Nominal 1 Real 2 Nominal 1 Real 2 Nominal 1 Real 2 1949 – – – – NA NA NA NA 2.54 17.52 [R] 1950 – – – – NA NA NA NA 2.51 17.13 [R] 1951 – – – – NA NA NA NA 2.53 16.10 [R] 1952 – – – – NA NA NA NA 2.53 15.83 [R] 1953 – – – – NA NA NA NA 2.68 16.57 [R] 1954 – – – – NA NA NA NA 2.78 17.03 [R] 1955 – – – – NA NA NA NA 2.77 16.69

  1. Table 5.6 Petroleum Exports by Country of Destination, 1960-2011 (Thousand Barrels)

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

    Petroleum Exports by Country of Destination, 1960-2011 (Thousand Barrels) Year Belgium 1 Brazil Canada France Italy Japan Mexico Nether- lands South Korea Spain United Kingdom U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico Other Total 1960 1,128 1,547 12,622 1,591 2,184 22,681 6,428 2,057 NA NA 4,273 487 18,908 73,906 1961 1,418 1,337 8,401 1,442 1,706 21,473 4,548 1,496 NA NA 3,705 400 17,637 63,563 1962 1,182 1,649 7,714 969 1,994 19,687 4,981 1,671 NA NA 3,044 344 18,155 61,390 1963 3,191 1,335 7,987

  2. OPTIMIZING CENTRIFUGAL BARREL POLISHING FOR MIRROR FINISH SRF CAVITY AND RF TESTS AT JEFFERSON LAB

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ari Palczewski, Rongli Geng, Hui Tian

    2012-07-01

    We performed Centrifugal Barrel Polishing (CBP) on a 1.3 GHz fine grain TESLA single cell cavity and 1.5 GHz fine grain CEBAF high gradient superconducting radio frequency (SRF) single cell cavity following a modified recipe originally developed at Fermi National Accelerator Lab (FNAL). We were able to obtain a mirror like surface similar to that obtained at FNAL, while reducing the number of CBP steps and total processing time. This paper will discuss the change in surface and subsequent cavity performance post CBP, after a 800 C bake (no pre-bake chemistry) and minimal controlled electro-polishing (10 micron). In addition to Q vs. E{sub ACC} thermometry mapping with preheating characteristics and optical inspection of the cavity after CBP will also be shown.

  3. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2 Alaska - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S2. Summary statistics for natural gas - Alaska, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 269 277 185 R 159 170 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 127,417 112,268

  4. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2 Connecticut - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S7. Summary statistics for natural gas - Connecticut, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0 From Oil

  5. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6 District of Columbia - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S9. Summary statistics for natural gas - District of Columbia, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  6. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    0 Indiana - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S16. Summary statistics for natural gas - Indiana, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 620 914 819 R 921 895 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 6,802 9,075

  7. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2 Maryland - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S22. Summary statistics for natural gas - Maryland, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 7 8 9 7 7 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 43 34 44 32 20 From Oil

  8. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    4 Massachusetts - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S23. Summary statistics for natural gas - Massachusetts, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0

  9. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    8 Minnesota - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S25. Summary statistics for natural gas - Minnesota, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0 From Oil

  10. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6 Nebraska - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S29. Summary statistics for natural gas - Nebraska, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 276 322 270 R 357 310 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 2,092 1,854

  11. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    0 New Hampshire - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S31. Summary statistics for natural gas - New Hampshire, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0

  12. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    8 North Carolina - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S35. Summary statistics for natural gas - North Carolina, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0

  13. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    50 North Dakota - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S36. Summary statistics for natural gas - North Dakota, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 188 239 211 200 200 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  14. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2 South Carolina - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S42. Summary statistics for natural gas - South Carolina, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0

  15. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6 Washington - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S49. Summary statistics for natural gas - Washington, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0 From Oil

  16. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    80 Wisconsin - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S51. Summary statistics for natural gas - Wisconsin, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0 From Oil

  17. One Million Electric Vehicles By 2015

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    none,

    2011-02-01

    February 2011 status report on the steps needed to achieve President Obama's goal of putting one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

  18. " Million U.S. Housing Units"

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

    3 Lighting Usage Indicators by Number of Household Members, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing ... Members","5 or More Members" "Lighting Usage Indicators" "Total U.S. Housing ...

  19. " Million U.S. Housing Units"

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

    3 Lighting Usage Indicators by Type of Housing Unit, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ... in Buildings With--" "Lighting Usage Indicators",,"Detached","Attached"...

  20. One million curies of radioactive material recovered

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

    Radioactive material recovered One million curies of radioactive material recovered The accomplishment represents a major milestone in protecting our nation and the world from...

  1. ,"Texas Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)"

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

    ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","930...

  2. " Million U.S. Housing Units"

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

    8 Water Heating Characteristics by Number of Household Members, 2005" " Million U.S. ... Members","4 Members","5 or More Members" "Water Heating Characteristics" ...

  3. " Million U.S. Housing Units"

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

    8 Water Heating Characteristics by Year of Construction, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing ... to 1989","1990 to 1999","2000 to 2005" "Water Heating Characteristics" ...

  4. " Million U.S. Housing Units"

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

    8 Water Heating Characteristics by Type of Housing Unit, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing ... Units",,"Apartments in Buildings With--" "Water Heating Characteristics",,"Detached","Atta...

  5. " Million U.S. Housing Units,...

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

    ,"Total U.S.1 (millions)",,,..."Below Poverty Line2" "Structural and Geographic ... the number of households below the poverty line, the annual household income and ...

  6. $26.6 Million for Hydropower

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Today, the Department of Energy and the Department of Interior announced $26.6 million of available funding for companies and entrepreneurs looking to advance hydropower.

  7. Storage capacity in hot dry rock reservoirs

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Brown, D.W.

    1997-11-11

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

  8. Advanced Oil Recovery Technologies for Improved Recovery from Slope Basin Clastic Reservoirs, Nash Draw Brushy Canyon Pool, Eddy County, NM

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mark B. Murphy

    2005-09-30

    The Nash Draw Brushy Canyon Pool in Eddy County New Mexico was a cost-shared field demonstration project in the U.S. Department of Energy Class III Program. A major goal of the Class III Program was to stimulate the use of advanced technologies to increase ultimate recovery from slope-basin clastic reservoirs. Advanced characterization techniques were used at the Nash Draw Pool (NDP) project to develop reservoir management strategies for optimizing oil recovery from this Delaware reservoir. The objective of the project was to demonstrate that a development program, which was based on advanced reservoir management methods, could significantly improve oil recovery at the NDP. Initial goals were (1) to demonstrate that an advanced development drilling and pressure maintenance program can significantly improve oil recovery compared to existing technology applications and (2) to transfer these advanced methodologies to other oil and gas producers. Analysis, interpretation, and integration of recently acquired geological, geophysical, and engineering data revealed that the initial reservoir characterization was too simplistic to capture the critical features of this complex formation. Contrary to the initial characterization, a new reservoir description evolved that provided sufficient detail regarding the complexity of the Brushy Canyon interval at Nash Draw. This new reservoir description was used as a risk reduction tool to identify 'sweet spots' for a development drilling program as well as to evaluate pressure maintenance strategies. The reservoir characterization, geological modeling, 3-D seismic interpretation, and simulation studies have provided a detailed model of the Brushy Canyon zones. This model was used to predict the success of different reservoir management scenarios and to aid in determining the most favorable combination of targeted drilling, pressure maintenance, well stimulation, and well spacing to improve recovery from this reservoir. An Advanced Log Analysis technique developed from the NDP project has proven useful in defining additional productive zones and refining completion techniques. This program proved to be especially helpful in locating and evaluating potential recompletion intervals, which has resulted in low development costs with only small incremental increases in lifting costs. To develop additional reserves at lower costs, zones behind pipe in existing wells were evaluated using techniques developed for the Brushy Canyon interval. These techniques were used to complete uphole zones in thirteen of the NDP wells. A total of 14 recompletions were done: four during 1999, four during 2000, two during 2001, and four during 2002-2003. These workovers added reserves of 332,304 barrels of oil (BO) and 640,363 MCFG (thousand cubic feet of gas) at an overall weighted average development cost of $1.87 per BOE (barrel of oil equivalent). A pressure maintenance pilot project in a developed area of the field was not conducted because the pilot area was pressure depleted, and the reservoir in that area was found to be compartmentalized and discontinuous. Economic analyses and simulation studies indicated that immiscible injection of lean hydrocarbon gas for pressure maintenance was not warranted at the NDP and would need to be considered for implementation in similar fields very soon after production has started. Simulation studies suggested that the injection of miscible carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) could recover significant quantities of oil at the NDP, but a source of low-cost CO{sub 2} was not available in the area. Results from the project indicated that further development will be under playa lakes and potash areas that were beyond the regions covered by well control and are not accessible with vertical wells. These areas, covered by 3-D seismic surveys that were obtained as part of the project, were accessed with combinations of deviated/horizontal wells. Three directional/horizontal wells have been drilled and completed to develop reserves under surface-restricted areas and potash mines. The third

  9. Skimming' a reservoir for trash

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shenman, L.E. )

    1993-02-01

    Several hydropower facilities are using a new technology for removing floating trash in reservoirs. Representatives from the facilities say the boat, called a trashskimmer, is efficient, easy to maneuver, and transportable. Designed by United Marine International, Inc., the pontoon boat features an operators cab that straddles an open hull between the skis of the pontoon, and uses dual propellers to maneuver through the water. The Marineskimmer allows the operator to approach the trash from the water side upstream of the plant. The Tennessee Valley Authority has used the boat since 1990.

  10. Emissions of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans from the open burning of household waste in barrels

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lemieux, P.M.; Lutes, C.C.; Abbott, J.A.; Aldous, K.M.

    2000-02-01

    Backyard burning of household waste in barrels is a common waste disposal practice for which pollutant emissions have not been well characterized. This study measured the emissions of several pollutants, including polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDDs/PCDFs), from burning mixtures designed to simulate waste generated by a recycling and a nonrecycling family in a 208-L (55-gal) burn barrel at the EPA's Open Burning Test Facility. This paper focuses on the PCDD/PCDF emissions and discusses the factors influencing PCDD/PCDF formation for different test burns. Four test burns were made in which the amount of waste placed in the barrel varied from 6.4 to 13.6 kg and the amount actually burned varied from 46.6% to 68.1%. Emissions of total PCDDs/PCDFs ranged between 0.0046 and 0.48 mg/kg of waste burned. Emissions are also presented in terms of 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents. Emissions of PCDDs/PCDFs appear to correlate with both copper and hydrochloric acid emissions. The results of this study indicate that backyard burning emits more PCDDs/PCDFs on a mass of refuse burned basis than various types of municipal waste combustors (MWCs). Comparison of burn barrel emissions to emissions from a hypothetical modern MWC equipped with high-efficiency flue gas cleaning technology indicates that about 2--40 households burning their trash daily in barrels can produce average PCDD/PCDF emissions comparable to a 182,000 kg/day (200 ton/day) MWC facility. This study provides important data on a potentially significant source of emissions of PCDDs/PCDFs.

  11. Characterization of Fractures in Geothermal Reservoirs Using...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Abstract The optimal design of production in fractured geothermal reservoirs requires knowledge of the resource's connectivity, therefore making fracture characterization highly...

  12. International reservoir operations agreement helps NW fish &...

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

    or 503-230-5131 International reservoir operations agreement helps Northwest fish and power Portland, Ore. - The Bonneville Power Administration and the British Columbia...

  13. Geothermometry At Blackfoot Reservoir Area (Hutsinpiller & Parry...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Activity Details Location Blackfoot Reservoir Area Exploration Technique Geothermometry Activity Date Usefulness useful DOE-funding Unknown References Amy Hutsinpiller, W. T....

  14. 201202 Reservoir System Modeling Technologies Conference

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

    Modeling Applied To The Columbia River - PSR Adjoint Modeling Framework for Real-Time Control of Water - Deltares Reservoir Operations Analysis in the Willamette Water 2100...

  15. Hydrothermal Convection Systems with Reservoir Temperatures greater...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Systems with Reservoir Temperatures greater than or equal to 90 degrees C Authors Brook, Mariner, Mabey, Swanson, Guffanti and Muffler Published Journal Assessment of...

  16. Evaluation Of Chemical Geothermometers For Calculating Reservoir...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Geothermometers For Calculating Reservoir Temperatures At Nevada Geothermal Power Plants Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Conference Paper:...

  17. Analysis of Geothermal Reservoir Stimulation using Geomechanics...

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

    Stochastic Analysis of Injection-Induced Seismicity Analysis of Geothermal Reservoir Stimulation using Geomechanics-Based Stochastic Analysis of Injection-Induced Seismicity ...

  18. Precise Gravimetry and Geothermal Reservoir Management | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Precise Gravimetry and Geothermal Reservoir Management Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Conference Paper: Precise Gravimetry and Geothermal...

  19. Geothermal reservoirs in hydrothermal convection systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sorey, M.L.

    1982-01-01

    Geothermal reservoirs commonly exist in hydrothermal convection systems involving fluid circulation downward in areas of recharge and upwards in areas of discharge. Because such reservoirs are not isolated from their surroundings, the nature of thermal and hydrologic connections with the rest of the system may have significant effects on the natural state of the reservoir and on its response to development. Conditions observed at numerous developed and undeveloped geothermal fields are discussed with respect to a basic model of the discharge portion of an active hydrothermal convection system. Effects of reservoir development on surficial discharge of thermal fluid are also delineated.

  20. Storage capacity in hot dry rock reservoirs

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Brown, Donald W. (Los Alamos, NM)

    1997-01-01

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