National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for year sng production

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sun, Xiaolei; Rink, Nancy

    2011-04-30

    This report presents the results of the research and development conducted on an Advanced Hydrogasification Process (AHP) conceived and developed by Arizona Public Service Company (APS) under U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) contract: DE-FC26-06NT42759 for Substitute Natural Gas (SNG) production from western coal. A double-wall (i.e., a hydrogasification contained within a pressure shell) down-flow hydrogasification reactor was designed, engineered, constructed, commissioned and operated by APS, Phoenix, AZ. The reactor is ASME-certified under Section VIII with a rating of 1150 pounds per square inch gage (psig) maximum allowable working pressure at 1950 degrees Fahrenheit ({degrees}F). The reaction zone had a 1.75 inch inner diameter and 13 feet length. The initial testing of a sub-bituminous coal demonstrated ~ 50% carbon conversion and ~10% methane yield in the product gas under 1625{degrees}F, 1000 psig pressure, with a 11 seconds (s) residence time, and 0.4 hydrogen-to-coal mass ratio. Liquid by-products mainly contained Benzene, Toluene, Xylene (BTX) and tar. Char collected from the bottom of the reactor had 9000-British thermal units per pound (Btu/lb) heating value. A three-dimensional (3D) computational fluid dynamic model simulation of the hydrodynamics around the reactor head was utilized to design the nozzles for injecting the hydrogen into the gasifier to optimize gas-solid mixing to achieve improved carbon conversion. The report also presents the evaluation of using algae for carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) management and biofuel production. Nannochloropsis, Selenastrum and Scenedesmus were determined to be the best algae strains for the project purpose and were studied in an outdoor system which included a 6-meter (6M) radius cultivator with a total surface area of 113 square meters (m{sup 2}) and a total culture volume between 10,000 to 15,000 liters (L); a CO{sub 2} on-demand feeding system; an on-line data collection system for temperature, p

  2. Sorption-Enhanced Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG) Production from Syngas. A Novel Process Combining CO Methanation, Water-Gas Shift, and CO2 Capture

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lebarbier, Vanessa M.C.; Dagle, Robert A.; Kovarik, Libor; Albrecht, Karl O.; Li, Xiaohong S.; Li, Liyu; Taylor, Charles E.; Bao, Xinhe; Wang, Yong

    2013-07-08

    Synthetic natural gas (SNG) production from syngas is under investigation again due to the desire for less dependency from imports and the opportunity for increasing coal utilization and reducing green house gas emission. CO methanation is highly exothermic and substantial heat is liberated which can lead to process thermal imbalance and deactivation of the catalyst. As a result, conversion per pass is limited and substantial syngas recycle is employed in conventional processes. Furthermore, the conversion of syngas to SNG is typically performed at moderate temperatures (275 to 325°C) to ensure high CH4 yields since this reaction is thermodynamically limited. In this study, the effectiveness of a novel integrated process for the SNG production from syngas at high temperature (i.e. 600°C) was investigated. This integrated process consists of combining a CO methanation nickel-based catalyst with a high temperature CO2 capture sorbent in a single reactor. Integration with CO2 separation eliminates the reverse-water-gas shift and the requirement for a separate water-gas shift (WGS) unit. Easing of thermodynamic constraint offers the opportunity of enhancing yield to CH4 at higher operating temperature (500-700ºC) which also favors methanation kinetics and improves the overall process efficiency due to exploitation of reaction heat at higher temperatures. Furthermore, simultaneous CO2 capture eliminates green house gas emission. In this work, sorption-enhanced CO methanation was demonstrated using a mixture of a 68% CaO/32% MgAl2O4 sorbent and a CO methanation catalyst (Ni/Al2O3, Ni/MgAl2O4, or Ni/SiC) utilizing a syngas ratio (H2/CO) of 1, gas-hour-space velocity (GHSV) of 22 000 hr-1, pressure of 1 bar and a temperature of 600°C. These conditions resulted in ~90% yield to methane, which was maintained until the sorbent

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Raymond Hobbs

    2007-05-31

    The Advanced Hydrogasification Process (AHP)--conversion of coal to methane--is being developed through NETL with a DOE Grant and has successfully completed its first phase of development. The results so far are encouraging and have led to commitment by DOE/NETL to begin a second phase--bench scale reactor vessel testing, expanded engineering analysis and economic perspective review. During the next decade new means of generating electricity, and other forms of energy, will be introduced. The members of the AHP Team envision a need for expanded sources of natural gas or substitutes for natural gas, to fuel power generating plants. The initial work the team has completed on a process to use hydrogen to convert coal to methane (pipeline ready gas) shows promising potential. The Team has intentionally slanted its efforts toward the needs of US electric utilities, particularly on fuels that can be used near urban centers where the greatest need for new electric generation is found. The process, as it has evolved, would produce methane from coal by adding hydrogen. The process appears to be efficient using western coals for conversion to a highly sought after fuel with significantly reduced CO{sub 2} emissions. Utilities have a natural interest in the preservation of their industry, which will require a dramatic reduction in stack emissions and an increase in sustainable technologies. Utilities tend to rank long-term stable supplies of fuel higher than most industries and are willing to trade some ratio of cost for stability. The need for sustainability, stability and environmentally compatible production are key drivers in the formation and progression of the AHP development. In Phase II, the team will add a focus on water conservation to determine how the basic gasification process can be best integrated with all the plant components to minimize water consumption during SNG production. The process allows for several CO{sub 2} reduction options including consumption of

  4. Validation of the materials-process-product model (coal SNG). [Estimating method for comparing processes, changing assumptions and technology assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Albanese, A.; Bhagat, N.; Friend, L.; Lamontagne, J.; Pouder, R.; Vinjamuri, G.

    1980-03-01

    The use of coal as a source of high Btu gas is currently viewed as one possible means of supplementing dwindling natural gas supplies. While certain coal gasification processes have demonstrated technical feasibility, much uncertainty and inconsistency remains regarding the capital and operating costs of large scale coal conversion facilities; cost estimates may vary by as much as 50%. Studies conducted for the American Gas Association (AGA) and US Energy Research and Development Administration by C.F. Braun and Co. have defined technical specifications and cost guidelines for estimating costs of coal gasification technologies (AGA Guidelines). Based on the AGA Guidelines, Braun has also prepared cost estimates for selected coal gasification processes. Recent efforts by International Research and Technology Inc. (IR and T) have led to development of the Materials-Process-Product Model (MPPM), a comprehensive anaytic tool for evaluation of processes and costs for coal gasification and other coal conversion technologies. This validation of the MPPM presents a comparison of engineering and cost computation methodologies employed in the MPPM to those employed by Braun and comparison of MPPM results to Braun cost estimates. These comparisons indicate that the MPPM has the potential to be a valuable tool for assisting in the evaluation of coal gasification technologies.

  5. Comparative life-cycle air emissions of coal, domestic natural gas, LNG, and SNG for electricity generation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Paulina Jaramillo; W. Michael Griffin; H. Scott Matthews

    2007-09-15

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that in the coming decades the United States' natural gas (NG) demand for electricity generation will increase. Estimates also suggest that NG supply will increasingly come from imported liquefied natural gas (LNG). Additional supplies of NG could come domestically from the production of synthetic natural gas (SNG) via coal gasification-methanation. The objective of this study is to compare greenhouse gas (GHG), SOx, and NOx life-cycle emissions of electricity generated with NG/LNG/SNG and coal. This life-cycle comparison of air emissions from different fuels can help us better understand the advantages and disadvantages of using coal versus globally sourced NG for electricity generation. Our estimates suggest that with the current fleet of power plants, a mix of domestic NG, LNG, and SNG would have lower GHG emissions than coal. If advanced technologies with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) are used, however, coal and a mix of domestic NG, LNG, and SNG would have very similar life-cycle GHG emissions. For SOx and NOx we find there are significant emissions in the upstream stages of the NG/LNG life-cycles, which contribute to a larger range in SOx and NOx emissions for NG/LNG than for coal and SNG. 38 refs., 3 figs., 2 tabs.

  6. Sorption-enhanced synthetic natural gas (SNG) production from...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    A novel process combining CO methanation, water-gas shift, and CO2 capture Citation ... A novel process combining CO methanation, water-gas shift, and CO2 capture Authors: ...

  7. Energy Production Over the Years | Department of Energy

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

    Production Over the Years Energy Production Over the Years US Energy Production Through the Years Click on each state to learn more about how much energy it produces Pick an energy source Total Energy Produced Coal Crude Oil Natural Gas Total Renewable Energy Non-Biofuel Renewable Energy Biofuels Nuclear Power Source: EIA State Energy Data Systems

  8. Six-Year Review of Covered Products

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This memorandum explains that the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) requires the Department of Energy to re-evaluate efficiency standards for all covered appliances and products...

  9. US Energy Production over the Years Data | Department of Energy

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

    US Energy Production over the Years Data US Energy Production over the Years Data total_states_link.xlsx (93.19 KB) total_sectors_link.xls (44.5 KB) us_93_02_v3.json (437.85 KB) More Documents & Publications ESPC Project Performance: Supplemental Data Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Methodology Audit Report: OAS-FS-12-06

  10. Calendar Year 2008 Program Benefits for ENERGY STAR Labeled Products

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Homan, GregoryK; Sanchez, Marla; Brown, RichardE; Lai, Judy

    2010-08-24

    This paper presents current and projected savings for ENERGY STAR labeled products, and details the status of the model as implemented in the September 2009 spreadsheets. ENERGY STAR is a voluntary energy efficiency labeling program operated jointly by the Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE), designed to identify and promote energy-efficient products, buildings and practices. Since the program inception in 1992, ENERGY STAR has become a leading international brand for energy efficient products, and currently labels more than thirty products, spanning office equipment, heating, cooling and ventilation equipment, commercial and residential lighting, home electronics, and major appliances. ENERGY STAR's central role in the development of regional, national and international energy programs necessitates an open process whereby its program achievements to date as well as projected future savings are shared with stakeholders. This report presents savings estimates for ENERGY STAR labeled products. We present estimates of energy, dollar, and carbon savings achieved by the program in the year 2008, annual forecasts for 2009 and 2010, and cumulative savings estimates for the period 1993 through 2008 and cumulative forecasts for the period 2009 through 2015. Through 2008 the program saved 8.8 Quads of primary energy and avoided the equivalent of 158 metric tones carbon (MtC). The forecast for the period 2009-2015 is 18.1 Quads or primary energy saved and 316 MtC emissions avoided. The sensitivity analysis bounds the best estimate of carbon avoided between 104 MtC and 213 MtC (1993 to 2008) and between 206 MtC and 444 MtC (2009 to 2015). In this report we address the following questions for ENERGY STAR labeled products: (1) How are ENERGY STAR impacts quantified; (2) What are the ENERGY STAR achievements; and (3) What are the limitations to our method?

  11. Calendar Year 2009 Program Benefits for ENERGY STAR Labeled Products

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Homan, Gregory K; Sanchez, Marla C.; Brown, Richard E.

    2010-11-15

    ENERGY STAR is a voluntary energy efficiency labeling program operated jointly by the Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE), designed to identify and promote energy-efficient products, buildings and practices. Since the program inception in 1992, ENERGY STAR has become a leading international brand for energy efficient products, and currently labels more than thirty products, spanning office equipment, heating, cooling and ventilation equipment, commercial and residential lighting, home electronics, and major appliances. ENERGY STAR's central role in the development of regional, national and international energy programs necessitates an open process whereby its program achievements to date as well as projected future savings are shared with stakeholders. This report presents savings estimates from the use ENERGY STAR labeled products. We present estimates of energy, dollar, and carbon savings achieved by the program in the year 2009, annual forecasts for 2010 and 2011, and cumulative savings estimates for the period 1993 through 2009 and cumulative forecasts for the period 2010 through 2015. Through 2009 the program saved 9.5 Quads of primary energy and avoided the equivalent of 170 million metric tons carbon (MMTC). The forecast for the period 2009-2015 is 11.5 Quads or primary energy saved and 202 MMTC emissions avoided. The sensitivity analysis bounds the best estimate of carbon avoided between 110 MMTC and 231 MMTC (1993 to 2009) and between 130 MMTC and 285 MMTC (2010 to 2015).

  12. U.S. oil production expected to decline over next year, rebounding...

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

    9, 2015 U.S. oil production expected to decline over next year, rebounding in late 2016 U.S. monthly crude oil production is expected to decline through the middle of next year in ...

  13. U.S. Energy Production Through the Years | Department of Energy

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

    Energy Production Through the Years U.S. Energy Production Through the Years December 10, 2014 - 1:00pm Addthis US Energy Production Through the Years Click on each state to learn more about how much energy it produces Pick an energy source Total Energy Produced Coal Crude Oil Natural Gas Total Renewable Energy Non-Biofuel Renewable Energy Biofuels Nuclear Power Source: EIA State Energy Data Systems Daniel Wood Daniel Wood Data Visualization and Cartographic Specialist, Office of Public Affairs

  14. Hydrogen Production and Consumption in the U.S.: The Last 25 Years.

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    (Journal Article) | SciTech Connect Journal Article: Hydrogen Production and Consumption in the U.S.: The Last 25 Years. Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Hydrogen Production and Consumption in the U.S.: The Last 25 Years. This article was requested by Cryogas International, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. At the title suggests, the article identifies hydrogen consumption in the U.S., broken out by the major contributors to total production. Explanatory

  15. Calendar Year 2007 Program Benefits for ENERGY STAR Labeled Products

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sanchez, Marla Christine; Homan, Gregory; Brown, Richard

    2008-10-31

    ENERGY STAR is a voluntary energy efficiency-labeling program operated jointly by the United States Department of Energy and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Since the program inception in 1992, ENERGY STAR has become a leading international brand for energy efficient products. ENERGY STAR's central role in the development of regional, national, and international energy programs necessitates an open process whereby its program achievements to date as well as projected future savings are shared with committed stakeholders. Through 2007, the program saved 7.1 Quads of primary energy and avoided 128 MtC equivalent. The forecast shows that the program is expected to save 21.2 Quads of primary energy and avoid 375 MtC equivalent over the period 2008-2015. The sensitivity analysis bounds the best estimate of carbon avoided between 84 MtC and 172 MtC (1993 to 2007) and between 243 MtC and 519 MtC (2008 to 2015).

  16. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    69 YEAR 2014 Males 34 Females 35 YEAR 2014 SES 5 EJEK 1 EN 05 8 EN 04 5 NN (Engineering) 27 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 22 NU (TechAdmin Support) 1 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska...

  17. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    42 YEAR 2014 Males 36 Females 6 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 2 EJEK 5 EN 05 7 EN 04 6 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 15 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 6 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male...

  18. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    4 YEAR 2012 Males 65 Females 29 YEAR 2012 SES 3 EJEK 5 EN 04 3 NN (Engineering) 21 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 61 NU (TechAdmin Support) 1 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male 0 American...

  19. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    4 YEAR 2011 Males 21 Females 23 YEAR 2011 SES 3 EJEK 1 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 3 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 31 NU (TechAdmin Support) 5 YEAR 2011 American Indian Male 0 American...

  20. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    92 YEAR 2012 Males 52 Females 40 YEAR 2012 SES 1 EJEK 7 EN 04 13 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 27 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 38 NU (TechAdmin Support) 5 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male 0...

  1. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    558 YEAR 2013 Males 512 Females 46 YEAR 2013 SES 2 EJEK 2 EN 04 1 NN (Engineering) 11 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 220 NU (TechAdmin Support) 1 NV (Nuc Mat Courier) 321 YEAR 2013...

  2. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    11 YEAR 2012 Males 78 Females 33 YEAR 2012 SES 2 EJEK 9 EN 05 1 EN 04 33 NN (Engineering) 32 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 31 NU (TechAdmin Support) 3 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male 2...

  3. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    300 YEAR 2011 Males 109 Females 191 YEAR 2011 SES 9 EJEK 1 NN (Engineering) 2 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 203 NU (TechAdmin Support) 38 NF (Future Ldrs) 47 YEAR 2011 American Indian...

  4. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    02 YEAR 2011 Males 48 Females 54 YEAR 2011 SES 5 EJEK 1 NN (Engineering) 13 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 80 NU (TechAdmin Support) 3 YEAR 2011 American Indian Male 0 American Indian...

  5. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    8 YEAR 2013 Males 27 Females 11 YEAR 2013 SES 1 EN 05 1 EN 04 11 NN (Engineering) 8 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 15 NU (TechAdmin Support) 2 YEAR 2013 American Indian Alaska Native Male...

  6. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    31 YEAR 2013 Males 20 Females 11 YEAR 2013 SES 2 EN 04 4 NN (Engineering) 12 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 12 NU (TechAdmin Support) 1 YEAR 2013 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,...

  7. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    16 YEAR 2012 Males 84 Females 32 YEAR 2012 SES 26 EJEK 2 EN 05 9 NN (Engineering) 39 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 30 NU (TechAdmin Support) 10 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male 0 American...

  8. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    34 YEAR 2012 Males 66 Females 68 YEAR 2012 SES 6 NN (Engineering) 15 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 110 NU (TechAdmin Support) 3 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male 1 American Indian Female 2...

  9. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    86 YEAR 2012 Males 103 Females 183 YEAR 2012 SES 7 EJEK 1 NN (Engineering) 1 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 202 NU (TechAdmin Support) 30 NF (Future Ldrs) 45 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male...

  10. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    80 YEAR 2012 Males 51 Females 29 YEAR 2012 SES 1 EJEK 22 EN 04 21 NN (Engineering) 14 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 21 NU (TechAdmin Support) 1 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male 0 American...

  11. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    1 YEAR 2012 Males 30 Females 11 YEAR 2012 SES 1 EN 05 1 EN 04 11 NN (Engineering) 9 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 17 NU (TechAdmin Support) 2 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male 0 American...

  12. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    96 YEAR 2013 Males 69 Females 27 YEAR 2013 SES 1 EJEK 9 EN 04 27 NN (Engineering) 26 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 30 NU (TechAdmin Support) 3 YEAR 2013 American Indian Alaska Native Male...

  13. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    31 YEAR 2012 Males 19 Females 12 YEAR 2012 SES 2 EN 04 4 NN (Engineering) 12 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 12 NU (TechAdmin Support) 1 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male 0 American Indian...

  14. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    0 YEAR 2013 Males 48 Females 32 YEAR 2013 SES 2 EJEK 7 EN 04 11 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 23 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 33 NU (TechAdmin Support) 3 YEAR 2013 American Indian Alaska...

  15. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    40 YEAR 2011 Males 68 Females 72 YEAR 2011 SES 5 EJEK 1 NN (Engineering) 16 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 115 NU (TechAdmin Support) 3 YEAR 2011 American Indian Male 1 American Indian...

  16. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    00 YEAR 2012 Males 48 Females 52 YEAR 2012 SES 5 EJEK 1 NN (Engineering) 11 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 80 NU (TechAdmin Support) 3 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male 0 American Indian...

  17. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    137 YEAR 2013 Males 90 Females 47 YEAR 2013 SES 2 SL 1 EJEK 30 EN 04 30 EN 03 2 NN (Engineering) 23 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 45 NU (TechAdmin Support) 4 YEAR 2013 American Indian...

  18. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    of Employees 14 GENDER YEAR 2012 Males 9 Females 5 YEAR 2012 SES 2 EJEK 2 NN (Engineering) 4 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 6 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male 0 American Indian Female 0...

  19. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    3 YEAR 2012 Males 21 Females 22 YEAR 2012 SES 3 EJEK 1 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 3 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 30 NU (TechAdmin Support) 5 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male 0 American...

  20. EIS-0002: Allocation of Petroleum Feedstock, Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., Sollers Point SNG Plant, Sollers Point, Baltimore County, MD

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Economic Regulatory Administration (ERA) developed this EIS to evaluate the social, economic and environmental impacts which may occur within the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BG&E) service area as a result of the ERA' s proposed decision to allocate up to 2,186,000 barrels per year of naphtha feedstock to BG&E to operate BG&E's existing synthetic natural gas facility located on Sollers Point in Baltimore County, Maryland.

  1. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Males 139 Females 88 YEAR 2012 SES 13 EX 1 EJEK 8 EN 05 23 EN 04 20 EN 03 2 NN (Engineering) 91 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 62 NU (TechAdmin Support) 7 YEAR 2012 American Indian...

  2. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    563 YEAR 2012 Males 518 Females 45 YEAR 2012 SES 1 EJEK 2 EN 04 1 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 12 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 209 NU (TechAdmin Support) 2 NV (Nuc Mat Courier) 335 YEAR 2012...

  3. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    7 YEAR 2012 Males 64 Females 33 YEAR 2012 SES 2 EJEK 3 EN 05 1 EN 04 30 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 26 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 32 NU (TechAdmin Support) 2 YEAR 2012 American Indian...

  4. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    4 YEAR 2012 Males 37 Females 7 YEAR 2012 SES 1 EJEK 6 EN 05 5 EN 04 7 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 17 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 6 NU (TechAdmin Support) 1 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male 2...

  5. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    7 YEAR 2011 Males 38 Females 9 YEAR 2011 SES 1 EJEK 6 EN 05 5 EN 04 7 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 19 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 7 NU (TechAdmin Support) 1 YEAR 2011 American Indian Male 2...

  6. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    8 YEAR 2013 Males 62 Females 26 YEAR 2013 SES 1 EJEK 3 EN 05 1 EN 04 28 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 25 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 27 NU (TechAdmin Support) 2 YEAR 2013 American Indian...

  7. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    6 YEAR 2012 Males 64 Females 32 YEAR 2012 SES 1 EJEK 5 EN 05 3 EN 04 23 EN 03 9 NN (Engineering) 18 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 33 NU (TechAdmin Support) 4 YEAR 2012 American Indian...

  8. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    5 YEAR 2013 Males 58 Females 27 YEAR 2013 SES 1 EJEK 4 EN 05 3 EN 04 21 EN 03 8 NN (Engineering) 16 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 28 NU (TechAdmin Support) 4 YEAR 2013 American Indian...

  9. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    78 YEAR 2012 Males 57 Females 21 YEAR 2012 SES 2 SL 1 EJEK 12 EN 04 21 EN 03 2 NN (Engineering) 12 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 24 NU (TechAdmin Support) 4 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male...

  10. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    26 YEAR 2014 Males 81 Females 45 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 1 SL1 EJEK 25 EN 04 26 EN 03 2 NN (Engineering) 23 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 44 NU (TechAdmin Support) 4 YEAR 2014 American ...

  11. Legend and legacy: Fifty years of defense production at the Hanford Site

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

    (Technical Report) | SciTech Connect Legend and legacy: Fifty years of defense production at the Hanford Site Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Legend and legacy: Fifty years of defense production at the Hanford Site × You are accessing a document from the Department of Energy's (DOE) SciTech Connect. This site is a product of DOE's Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) and is provided as a public service. Visit OSTI to utilize additional information resources in

  12. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    2012 Males 149 Females 115 YEAR 2012 SES 17 EX 1 EJEK 7 EN 05 2 EN 04 9 EN 03 2 NN (Engineering) 56 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 165 NU (TechAdmin Support) 4 GS 13 1 YEAR 2012 American...

  13. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    5 YEAR 2014 Males 61 Females 24 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 1 EJ/EK 8 EN 04 22 NN (Engineering) 23 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 28 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 3 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 2 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 3 African American Male (AA M) 0 African American Female (AA F) 0 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 3 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 13 Hispanic Female (H F) 10 White Male (W M) 43 White Female (W F) 11

  14. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    2 YEAR 2014 Males 57 Females 25 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 3 EJ/EK 4 EN 04 2 NN (Engineering) 20 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 53 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 0 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 0 African American Male (AA M) 9 African American Female (AA F) 9 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 2 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 1 Hispanic Male (H M) 3 Hispanic Female (H F) 5 White Male (W M) 43 White Female (W F) 10 DIVERSITY TOTAL WORKFORCE

  15. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    93 YEAR 2014 Males 50 Females 43 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 EJ/EK 3 NN (Engineering) 13 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 74 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 3 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 0 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 2 African American Male (AA M) 5 African American Female (AA F) 6 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 0 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 6 Hispanic Female (H F) 14 White Male (W M) 39 White Female (W F) 21 DIVERSITY

  16. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    YEAR 2014 Males 11 Females 2 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 2 EJ/EK 1 EN 04 1 NN (Engineering) 5 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 4 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 0 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 0 African American Male (AA M) 0 African American Female (AA F) 0 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 1 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 0 Hispanic Female (H F) 0 White Male (W M) 10 White Female (W F) 2 DIVERSITY TOTAL WORKFORCE GENDER

  17. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    9 YEAR 2014 Males 9 Females 10 YEAR 2014 SES 7 ED 1 EJ/EK 1 EN 05 1 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 8 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 1 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 0 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 1 African American Male (AA M) 1 African American Female (AA F) 5 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 1 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 0 Hispanic Female (H F) 3 White Male (W M) 7 White Female (W F) 1 PAY PLAN DIVERSITY TOTAL

  18. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    5 YEAR 2014 Males 92 Females 43 YEAR 2014 SES 8 EX 1 EJ/EK 4 EN 05 9 EN 04 12 EN 03 2 NN (Engineering) 57 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 42 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 1 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 1 African American Male (AA M) 9 African American Female (AA F) 11 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 4 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 2 Hispanic Male (H M) 12 Hispanic Female (H F) 7 White Male (W M) 66 White Female (W F) 22 PAY PLAN

  19. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    563 YEAR 2014 Males 517 Females 46 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 2 EJ/EK 2 EN 04 1 NN (Engineering) 11 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 218 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 2 NV (Nuc Mat Courier) 327 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 14 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 2 African American Male (AA M) 18 African American Female (AA F) 1 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 8 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 2 Hispanic Male (H M) 76 Hispanic Female (H F) 21 White Male

  20. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    89 YEAR 2014 Males 98 Females 91 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 14 EX 1 EJ/EK 3 EN 05 1 EN 04 4 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 32 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 130 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 2 GS 15 1 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 1 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 0 African American Male (AA M) 5 African American Female (AA F) 14 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 3 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 7 Hispanic Male (H M) 7 Hispanic Female (H F) 10 White Male

  1. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    3 YEAR 2014 Males 162 Females 81 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 26 EJ/EK 3 EN 05 7 NN (Engineering) 77 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 108 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 22 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 0 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 1 African American Male (AA M) 5 African American Female (AA F) 9 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 1 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 2 Hispanic Female (H F) 0 White Male (W M) 154 White Female (W F)

  2. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    74 YEAR 2014 Males 96 Females 78 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 8 EJ/EK 4 EN 04 11 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 34 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 113 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 3 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 2 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 1 African American Male (AA M) 3 African American Female (AA F) 11 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 5 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 25 Hispanic Female (H F) 25 White Male (W M) 61 White

  3. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    4 YEAR 2014 Males 7 Females 7 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 1 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 7 GS 15 1 GS 14 2 GS 13 2 GS 10 1 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 0 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 0 African American Male (AA M) 3 African American Female (AA F) 2 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 0 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 0 Hispanic Female (H F) 0 White Male (W M) 4 White Female (W F) 5 DIVERSITY TOTAL WORKFORCE GENDER

  4. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    16 YEAR 2014 Males 72 Females 144 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 8 EJ/EK 1 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 198 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 9 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 2 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 2 African American Male (AA M) 10 African American Female (AA F) 38 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 1 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 3 Hispanic Male (H M) 15 Hispanic Female (H F) 33 White Male (W M) 44 White Female (W F) 68 DIVERSITY TOTAL

  5. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    26 YEAR 2014 Males 81 Females 45 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 1 SL 1 EJ/EK 25 EN 04 26 EN 03 2 NN (Engineering) 23 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 44 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 4 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 0 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 1 African American Male (AA M) 3 African American Female (AA F) 7 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 4 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 1 Hispanic Male (H M) 6 Hispanic Female (H F) 6 White Male (W M) 68 White

  6. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    446 YEAR 2014 Males 1626 Females 820 YEAR 2014 SES 97 EX 2 ED 1 SL 1 EJ/EK 84 EN 05 38 EN 04 162 EN 03 18 NN (Engineering) 427 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 1216 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 66 NV (Nuc Mat Courier) 327 GS 15 2 GS 14 2 GS 13 2 GS 10 1 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 27 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 24 African American Male (AA M) 90 African American Female (AA F) 141 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 63 Asian American Pacific Islander Female

  7. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    1 YEAR 2014 Males 48 Females 33 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 1 EJ/EK 8 EN 04 10 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 27 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 29 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 5 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 0 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 3 African American Male (AA M) 0 African American Female (AA F) 2 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 2 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 12 Hispanic Female (H F) 12 White Male (W M) 34 White Female

  8. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    8 YEAR 2014 Males 18 Females 10 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 1 EN 05 1 EN 04 4 NN (Engineering) 12 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 9 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 1 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 0 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 1 African American Male (AA M) 4 African American Female (AA F) 4 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 1 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 0 Hispanic Female (H F) 0 White Male (W M) 13 White Female (W F) 5

  9. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    8 YEAR 2014 Males 18 Females 20 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 3 EJ/EK 1 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 3 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 28 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 2 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 0 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 0 African American Male (AA M) 1 African American Female (AA F) 1 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 0 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 1 Hispanic Male (H M) 4 Hispanic Female (H F) 7 White Male (W M) 13 White Female (W F) 11

  10. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    White Male (W M) 26 White Female (W F) 16 DIVERSITY TOTAL WORKFORCE GENDER Livermore Field ... YEARS OF FEDERAL SERVICE SUPERVISOR RATIO AGE Livermore Field Office As of March 22, 2014 ...

  11. U.S. Domestic Oil Production Exceeds Imports for First Time in 18 Years |

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

    Department of Energy Domestic Oil Production Exceeds Imports for First Time in 18 Years U.S. Domestic Oil Production Exceeds Imports for First Time in 18 Years November 15, 2013 - 3:47pm Addthis Source: Energy Information Administration Short Term Energy Outlook. Chart by Daniel Wood. Allison Lantero Allison Lantero Digital Content Specialist, Office of Public Affairs In February 1995, The Brady Bunch Movie and Billy Madison were in movie theaters, "Creep" by TLC was at the top of

  12. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    25 Females 10 YEAR 2014 SES 1 EN 04 11 NN (Engineering) 8 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 13 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 2 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 0 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 1 African American Male (AA M) 1 African American Female (AA F) 3 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 0 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 0 Hispanic Female (H F) 0 White Male (W M) 24 White Female (W F) 6 TOTAL WORKFORCE GENDER Kansas City

  13. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    9 Females 24 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 1 EJ/EK 4 EN 05 3 EN 04 22 EN 03 8 NN (Engineering) 15 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 27 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 3 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 2 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 1 African American Male (AA M) 5 African American Female (AA F) 2 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 21 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 2 Hispanic Male (H M) 5 Hispanic Female (H F) 3 White Male (W M) 26 White Female (W F) 16

  14. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    17 Females 18 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 1 EJ/EK 3 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 30 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 1 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 1 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 2 African American Male (AA M) 3 African American Female (AA F) 7 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 1 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 2 Hispanic Female (H F) 6 White Male (W M) 10 White Female (W F) 3 DIVERSITY TOTAL WORKFORCE GENDER Associate

  15. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    8 Females 25 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 1 EJ/EK 3 EN 05 1 EN 04 25 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 25 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 25 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 2 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 1 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 1 African American Male (AA M) 3 African American Female (AA F) 3 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 2 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 2 Hispanic Male (H M) 6 Hispanic Female (H F) 6 White Male (W M) 46 White Female (W F) 13

  16. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    -9.09% YEAR 2012 2013 SES 1 1 0.00% EN 05 1 1 0.00% EN 04 11 11 0.00% NN (Engineering) 8 8 0.00% NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 17 14 -17.65% NU (TechAdmin Support) 2 2...

  17. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Females 863 YEAR 2013 SES 102 EX 3 SL 1 EJEK 89 EN 05 41 EN 04 170 EN 03 18 NN (Engineering) 448 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 1249 NU (TechAdmin Support) 76 NV (Nuc Mat Courier) 321...

  18. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Females 942 YEAR 2012 SES 108 EX 4 SL 1 EJEK 96 EN 05 45 EN 04 196 EN 03 20 NN (Engineering) 452 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 1291 NU (TechAdmin Support) 106 NV (Nuc Mat Courier) 335...

  19. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    YEAR 2012 2013 SES 2 1 -50.00% EN 05 0 1 100.00% EN 04 4 4 0.00% NN (Engineering) 13 12 -7.69% NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 13 9 -30.77% NU (TechAdmin Support) 1 1...

  20. Five Years of Cyclotron Radioisotope Production Experiences at the First PET-CT in Venezuela

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Colmenter, L.; Coelho, D.; Esteves, L. M.; Ruiz, N.; Morales, L.; Lugo, I.; Sajo-Bohus, L.; Liendo, J. A.; Greaves, E. D.; Barros, H.; Castillo, J.

    2007-10-26

    Five years operation of a compact cyclotron installed at PET-CT facility in Caracas, Venezuela is given. Production rate of {sup 18}F labeled FDG, operation and radiation monitoring experience are included. We conclude that {sup 18}FDG CT-PET is the most effective technique for patient diagnosis.

  1. Hydrogen Production and Consumption in the U.S.: The Last 25 Years.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brown, Daryl R.

    2015-09-01

    This article was requested by Cryogas International, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. At the title suggests, the article identifies hydrogen consumption in the U.S., broken out by the major contributors to total production. Explanatory information is provided describing the causes underlying the significant changes seen in the summary data.

  2. Deepwater royalty relief product of 3 1/2 year U.S. political effort

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Davis, R.E.; Neff, S.

    1996-04-01

    Against the backdrop of more than 20 years of increasingly stringent environmental regulation, ever-expanding exploration and development moratoria on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), and reductions in producer tax incentives, oil and natural gas exploration companies active in deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico recently won a significant legislative victory. On Nov. 28, 1995, President Clinton signed into law S.395, the Alaska Power Administration Sale Act. Title 3 of S.395 embodies the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act. This landmark legislation provides substantial incentives for oil and natural gas production in the gulf of Mexico by temporarily eliminating royalties on certain deepwater leases. It is the first direct incentive for oil and gas production enacted at the federal level in many years. This paper reviews the elements used to arrive at this successful legislation including the congressional leadership. It describes debates, cabinet level discussions, and use of parlimentary procedures.

  3. Investigations on catalyzed steam gasification of biomass. Appendix A. Feasibility study of methane production via catalytic gasification of 2000 tons of wood per day

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mudge, L.K.; Weber, S.L.; Mitchell, D.H.; Sealock, L.J. Jr.; Robertus, R.J.

    1981-01-01

    A study has been made of the economic feasibility of producing substitute natural gas (SNG) from wood via catalytic gasification with steam. The plant design in this study was developed from information on gasifier operation supplied by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL). The plant is designed to process 2000 tons per day of dry wood to SNG. Plant production is 21.6 MM scfd of SNG with a HHV of 956 Btu per scf. All process and support facilities necessary to convert wood to SNG are included. The plant location is Newport, Oregon. The capital cost for the plant is $95,115,000 - September, 1980 basis. Gas production costs which allow for return on capital have been calculated for various wood prices for both utility and private investor financing. For utility financing, the gas production costs are respectively $5.09, $5.56, $6.50, and $8.34 per MM Btu for wood costs of $5, $10, $20, and $40 per dry ton delivered to the plant at a moisture content of 49.50 wt %. For private investor financing, the corresponding product costs are $6.62, $7.11, $8.10, and $10.06 per MM Btu. The cost calculated by the utility financing method includes a return on equity of 15% and an interest rate of 10% on the debt. The private investor financing method, which is 100% equity financing, incorporates a discounted cash flow (DCF) return on equity of 12%. The thermal efficiency without taking an energy credit for by-product char is 58.3%.

  4. Isotope Production and Distribution Program`s Fiscal Year 1997 financial statement audit

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1998-03-27

    The Department of Energy Isotope Production and Distribution Program mission is to serve the national need for a reliable supply of isotope products and services for medicine, industry and research. The program produces and sells hundreds of stable and radioactive isotopes that are widely utilized by domestic and international customers. Isotopes are produced only where there is no U.S. private sector capability or other production capacity is insufficient to meet U.S. needs. The Department encourages private sector investment in new isotope production ventures and will sell or lease its existing facilities and inventories for commercial purposes. The Isotope Program reports to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. The Isotope Program operates under a revolving fund established by the Fiscal Year (FY) 1990 Energy and Water Appropriations Act and maintains financial viability by earning revenues from the sale of isotopes and services and through annual appropriations. The FY 1995 Energy and Water Appropriations Act modified predecessor acts to allow prices charged for Isotope Program products and services to be based on production costs, market value, the needs of the research community, and other factors. Although the Isotope Program functions as a business, prices set for small-volume, high-cost isotopes that are needed for research purposes may not achieve full-cost recovery. As a result, isotopes produced by the Isotope Program for research and development are priced to provide a reasonable return to the U.S. Government without discouraging their use. Commercial isotopes are sold on a cost-recovery basis. Because of its pricing structure, when selecting isotopes for production, the Isotope Program must constantly balance current isotope demand, market conditions, and societal benefits with its determination to operate at the lowest possible cost to U.S. taxpayers. Thus, this report provides a financial analysis of this situation.

  5. Navy Mobility Fuels Forecasting System report: Navy fuel production in the year 2000

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hadder, G.R.; Davis, R.M.

    1991-09-01

    The Refinery Yield Model of the Navy Mobility Fuels Forecasting System has been used to study the feasibility and quality of Navy JP-5 jet fuel and F-76 marine diesel fuel for two scenarios in the year 2000. Both scenarios account for environmental regulations for fuels produced in the US and assume that Eastern Europe, the USSR, and the People`s Republic of China have free market economies. One scenario is based on business-as-usual market conditions for the year 2000. The second scenario is similar to first except that USSR crude oil production is 24 percent lower. During lower oil production in the USSR., there are no adverse effects on Navy fuel availability, but JP-5 is generally a poorer quality fuel relative to business-as-usual in the year 2000. In comparison with 1990, there are two potential problems areas for future Navy fuel quality. The first problem is increased aromaticity of domestically produced Navy fuels. Higher percentages of aromatics could have adverse effects on storage, handling, and combustion characteristics of both JP-5 and F-76. The second, and related, problem is that highly aromatic light cycle oils are blended into F-76 at percentages which promote fuel instability. It is recommended that the Navy continue to monitor the projected trend toward increased aromaticity in JP-5 and F-76 and high percentages of light cycle oils in F-76. These potential problems should be important considerations in research and development for future Navy engines.

  6. Navy Mobility Fuels Forecasting System report: Navy fuel production in the year 2000

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hadder, G.R.; Davis, R.M.

    1991-09-01

    The Refinery Yield Model of the Navy Mobility Fuels Forecasting System has been used to study the feasibility and quality of Navy JP-5 jet fuel and F-76 marine diesel fuel for two scenarios in the year 2000. Both scenarios account for environmental regulations for fuels produced in the US and assume that Eastern Europe, the USSR, and the People's Republic of China have free market economies. One scenario is based on business-as-usual market conditions for the year 2000. The second scenario is similar to first except that USSR crude oil production is 24 percent lower. During lower oil production in the USSR., there are no adverse effects on Navy fuel availability, but JP-5 is generally a poorer quality fuel relative to business-as-usual in the year 2000. In comparison with 1990, there are two potential problems areas for future Navy fuel quality. The first problem is increased aromaticity of domestically produced Navy fuels. Higher percentages of aromatics could have adverse effects on storage, handling, and combustion characteristics of both JP-5 and F-76. The second, and related, problem is that highly aromatic light cycle oils are blended into F-76 at percentages which promote fuel instability. It is recommended that the Navy continue to monitor the projected trend toward increased aromaticity in JP-5 and F-76 and high percentages of light cycle oils in F-76. These potential problems should be important considerations in research and development for future Navy engines.

  7. Post operational investigation of the recovered North East Frigg subsea production equipment after 10 year`s service

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Worley, L.J.; Fjaertoft, L.

    1995-12-31

    Elf Petroleum Norge had for 10 years been operating the North East Frigg field. This gas field was the first subsea field on the Norwegian Continental shelf. It was shut down on the 8th May 1993. Elf Petroleum Norge used the shut down as an ideal opportunity to review the performance of the subsea equipment. An investigation was initiated,its purpose, to gather information regarding the history, wear, effect of cathodic protection, corrosion etc from the X-mas tree components.

  8. Fuel Cell Technologies Office Multi-Year Research, Development, and Demonstration Plan - Section 3.1 Hydrogen Production

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

    Production Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan Page 3.1 - 1 3.1 Hydrogen Production Hydrogen can be produced from diverse energy resources, using a variety of process technologies. Energy resource options include fossil, nuclear, and renewables. Examples of process technologies include thermochemical, biological, electrolytic, and photolytic. 3.1.1 Technical Goal and Objectives Goal Research and develop technologies for low-cost, highly efficient hydrogen production from

  9. Fuel Cell Technologies Office Multi-Year Research, Development, and Demonstration Plan - Section 3.1 Hydrogen Production

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

    PRODUCTION SECTION Multi-Year Research, Development, and Demonstration Plan Page 3.1 - 1 3.1 Hydrogen Production Hydrogen can be produced from diverse energy resources, using a variety of process technologies. Energy resource options include fossil, nuclear, and renewables. Examples of process technologies include thermochemical, biological, electrolytic, and photolytic. 3.1.1 Technical Goal and Objectives Goal Research and develop technologies for low-cost, highly efficient hydrogen production

  10. Calendar Year 2007 Program Benefits for U.S. EPA Energy Star Labeled Products: Expanded Methodology

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sanchez, Marla; Homan, Gregory; Lai, Judy; Brown, Richard

    2009-09-24

    This report provides a top-level summary of national savings achieved by the Energy Star voluntary product labeling program. To best quantify and analyze savings for all products, we developed a bottom-up product-based model. Each Energy Star product type is characterized by product-specific inputs that result in a product savings estimate. Our results show that through 2007, U.S. EPA Energy Star labeled products saved 5.5 Quads of primary energy and avoided 100 MtC of emissions. Although Energy Star-labeled products encompass over forty product types, only five of those product types accounted for 65percent of all Energy Star carbon reductions achieved to date, including (listed in order of savings magnitude)monitors, printers, residential light fixtures, televisions, and furnaces. The forecast shows that U.S. EPA?s program is expected to save 12.2 Quads of primary energy and avoid 215 MtC of emissions over the period of 2008?2015.

  11. Isotope production and distribution Programs Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 Financial Statement Audit (ER-FC-96-01)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1996-02-12

    The charter of the Department of Energy (DOE) Isotope Production and Distribution Program (Isotope Program) covers the production and sale of radioactive and stable isotopes, associated byproducts, surplus materials such as lithium and deuterium, and related isotope services. Services provided include, but are not limited to, irradiation services, target preparation and processing, source encapsulation and other special preparations, analyses, chemical separations, and leasing of stable isotopes for research purposes. Isotope Program products and services are sold worldwide for use in a wide variety of research, development, biomedical, and industrial applications. The Isotope Program reports to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. The Isotope Program operates under a revolving fund, as established by the Fiscal Year 1990 Energy and Water Appropriations Act (Public Law 101-101). The Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriations Act (Public Law 103-316) modified predecessor acts to allow prices charged for Isotope Program products and services to be based on production costs, market value, the needs of the research community, and other factors. Prices set for small-volume, high-cost isotopes that are needed for research may not achieve full-cost recovery. Isotope Program costs are financed by revenues from the sale of isotopes and associated services and through payments from the isotope support decision unit, which was established in the DOE fiscal year 1995 Energy, Supply, Research, and Development appropriation. The isotope decision unit finances the production and processing of unprofitable isotopes that are vital to the national interest.

  12. Energy Independence and Security Act Six-Year Review of Covered Products

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This memorandum explains that the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) requires the Department of Energy to re-evaluate efficiency standards for all covered appliances and products...

  13. Health, safety, and environmental risks from energy production: A year-long reality check

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Oldenburg, C.M.

    2011-04-01

    Large-scale carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) offers the benefit of reducing CO{sub 2} emissions and thereby mitigating climate change risk, but it will also bring its own health, safety, and environmental risks. Curtis M. Oldenburg, Editor-in-Chief, considers these risks in the context of the broader picture of energy production. Over the last year, there have been major acute health, safety, and environmental (HSE) consequences related to accidents involving energy production from every major primary energy source. These are, in chronological order: (i) the Upper Big Branch (coal) Mine disaster, (ii) the Gulf of Mexico Macondo (oil) well blowout, (iii) the San Bruno (natural gas) pipeline leak and explosion, and (iv) the Fukushima (nuclear) reactor radioactivity releases. Briefly, the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster occurred in West Virginia on April 5, 2010, when natural methane in the mine ignited, causing the deaths of 29 miners, the worst coal mine disaster in the USA since 1970. Fifteen days later, the Macondo oil well in the Gulf of Mexico suffered a blowout, with a gas explosion and fire on the floating drilling platform that killed 11 people. The oil and gas continued to flow out of the well at the seafloor until July 15, 2010, spilling a total of approximately 5 million barrels of oil into the sea. On September 9, 2010, a 30-inch (76-cm) buried, steel, natural gas pipeline in San Bruno, California, leaked gas and exploded in a residential neighborhood, killing 8 people in their homes and burning a total of 38 homes. Flames were up to 1000 ft (300 m) high, and the initial explosion itself reportedly measured 1.1 on the Richter scale. Finally, on March 11, 2011, a magnitude 9.0 earthquake off the coast of Japan's main island, Honshu, caused a tsunami that crippled the backup power and associated cooling systems for six reactor cores and their spent fuel storage tanks at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. At time of writing, workers trying to bring

  14. Plutonium: The first 50 years. United States plutonium production, acquisition, and utilization from 1944 through 1994

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1996-02-01

    The report contains important newly declassified information regarding the US production, acquisition, and removals of plutonium. This new information, when combined with previously declassified data, has allowed the DOE to issue, for the first time, a truly comprehensive report on the total DOE plutonium inventory. At the December 7, 1993, Openness Press Conference, the DOE declassified the plutonium inventories at eight locations totaling 33.5 metric tons (MT). This report declassifies the remainder of the DOE plutonium inventory. Newly declassified in this report is the quantity of plutonium at the Pantex Site, near Amarillo, Texas, and in the US nuclear weapons stockpile of 66.1 MT, which, when added to the previously released inventory of 33.5 MT, yields a total plutonium inventory of 99.5 MT. This report will document the sources which built up the plutonium inventory as well as the transactions which have removed plutonium from that inventory. This report identifies four sources that add plutonium to the DOE/DoD inventory, and seven types of transactions which remove plutonium from the DOE/DoD inventory. This report also discusses the nuclear material control and accountability system which records all nuclear material transactions, compares records with inventory and calculates material balances, and analyzes differences to verify that nuclear materials are in quantities as reported. The DOE believes that this report will aid in discussions in plutonium storage, safety, and security with stakeholders as well as encourage other nations to declassify and release similar data. These data will also be available for formulating policies with respect to disposition of excess nuclear materials. The information in this report is based on the evaluation of available records. The information contained in this report may be updated or revised in the future should additional or more detailed data become available.

  15. Audit Report - Department of Energy's Isotope Development and Production for Research and Applications Program's Fiscal Year 2010 Balance Sheet Audit, OAS-FS-13-09

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

    Audits and Inspections Audit Report Department of Energy's Isotope Development and Production for Research and Applications Program's Fiscal Year 2010 Balance Sheet Audit OAS-FS-13-09 January 2013 MEMORANDUM FOR THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE FROM: Daniel M. Weeber Assistant Inspector General for Office of Inspector General SUBJECT: INFORMATION Production for Research and Applications Program's Fiscal Year 2010 Balance Sheet Audit The attached report presents the results of the independent

  16. Production

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Algae production R&D focuses on exploring resource use and availability, algal biomass development and improvements, characterizing algal biomass components, and the ecology and engineering of cultivation systems.

  17. Management Letter on the Department of Energy's Isotope Development and Production for Research and Applications Program's Fiscal Year 2009 Balance Sheet Audit, OAS-FS-12-09

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

    Department of Energy's Isotope Development and Production for Research and Applications Program's Fiscal Year 2009 Balance Sheet Audit OAS-FS-12-09 June 2012 January 30, 2012 Mr. Gregory Friedman, Inspector General Dr. Jehanne Gillo, Director, Facilities and Project Management Division, Office of Nuclear Physics U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 Dear Mr. Friedman and Dr. Gillo: We have audited the balance sheet of the United States Department of Energy's (Department or DOE) Isotope

  18. Eastern States Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Eastern States Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 2 2 -...

  19. Pennsylvania Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 1 1 65...

  20. Arkansas Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Arkansas Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 94 279 527 2010's...

  1. Michigan Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Michigan Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 148 122 132...

  2. North Dakota Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) North Dakota Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 3 3 25...

  3. Kentucky Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Kentucky Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 2 2 5 2010's 4 4...

  4. Colorado Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Colorado Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 1 2010's 1 3...

  5. Kansas Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Kansas Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 1 3 1 - No Data...

  6. Louisiana--North Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana--North Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 1...

  7. Louisiana--South Onshore Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet...

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

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana--South Onshore Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9...

  8. New Mexico--West Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) New Mexico--West Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 1 ...

  9. New Mexico--West Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) New Mexico--West Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's ...

  10. New Mexico--East Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) New Mexico--East Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 2 0 1 ...

  11. New Mexico--East Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) New Mexico--East Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's ...

  12. Analysis of the structural parameters that influence gas production from the Devonian shale. Annual progress report, 1979-1980. Volume III. Data repository and reports published during fiscal year 1979-1980: production, unsponsored research

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Negus-De Wys, J.; Dixon, J. M.; Evans, M. A.; Lee, K. D.; Ruotsala, J. E.; Wilson, T. H.; Williams, R. T.

    1980-10-01

    This document consists of the following papers: inorganic geochemistry studies of the Eastern Kentucky Gas Field; lithology studies of upper Devonian well cuttings in the Eastern Kentucky Gas Field; possible effects of plate tectonics on the Appalachian Devonian black shale production in eastern Kentucky; preliminary depositional model for upper Devonian Huron age organic black shale in the Eastern Kentucky Gas Field; the anatomy of a large Devonian black shale gas field; the Cottageville (Mount Alto) Gas Field, Jackson County, West Virginia: a case study of Devonian shale gas production; the Eastern Kentucky Gas Field: a geological study of the relationships of Ohio Shale gas occurrences to structure, stratigraphy, lithology, and inorganic geochemical parameters; and a statistical analysis of geochemical data for the Eastern Kentucky Gas Field.

  13. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    2 40 -4.76% YEAR 2013 2014 Males 37 35 -5.41% Females 5 5 0% YEAR 2013 2014 SES 2 2 0% EJEK 5 4 -20.00% EN 05 5 7 40.00% EN 04 6 6 0% EN 03 1 1 0% NN...

  14. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    79 67 -15.19% YEAR 2013 2014 Males 44 34 -22.73% Females 35 33 -5.71% YEAR 2013 2014 SES 6 4 -33.33% EJEK 1 1 0% EN 05 9 8 -11.11% EN 04 6 5 -16.67% NN...

  15. Separation of flue-gas scrubber sludge into marketable products. Fourth year, first quarterly technical progress report, September 1, 1996--December 31, 1996 (Quarter No. 13)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kawatra, S.K.; Eisele, T.C.

    1996-12-01

    To reduce their sulfur emissions, many coal-fired electric power plants use wet flue-gas scrubbers. These scrubbers convert sulfur oxides into solid sulfate and sulfite sludge, which must then be disposed of. This sludge is a result of reacting limestone with sulfur dioxide to precipitate calcium sulfite and calcium sulfate. It consists of calcium sulfite (CaSO{sub 3}{circ}0.5H{sub 2}O), gypsum (CaSO{sub 4}{circ}2H{sub 2}O), and unreacted limestone (CaCO{sub 3}) or lime (Ca(OH)2), with miscellaneous objectionable impurities such as iron oxides, silicates, and magnesium, sodium, and potassium oxides or salts. These impurities prevent many sludges from being utilized as a replacement for natural gypsum, and as a result they must be disposed of in landfills, which presents a serious disposal problem. Knowledge of scrubber sludge characteristics is necessary for the development of purification technologies which will make it possible to directly utilize scrubber sludges rather than landfilling them. This project is studying the use of minimal-reagent froth flotation as the purification process, using the surface properties of the particles of unreacted limestone to remove them and their associated impurities from the material, leaving a purified calcium sulfite/gypsum product.

  16. Long-Term Demonstration of Hydrogen Production from Coal at Elevated Temperatures Year 6 - Activity 1.12 - Development of a National Center for Hydrogen Technology

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Stanislowski, Joshua; Tolbert, Scott; Curran, Tyler; Swanson, Michael

    2012-04-30

    The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) has continued the work of the National Center for Hydrogen Technology® (NCHT®) Program Year 6 Task 1.12 project to expose hydrogen separation membranes to coal-derived syngas. In this follow-on project, the EERC has exposed two membranes to coal-derived syngas produced in the pilot-scale transport reactor development unit (TRDU). Western Research Institute (WRI), with funding from the State of Wyoming Clean Coal Technology Program and the North Dakota Industrial Commission, contracted with the EERC to conduct testing of WRI’s coal-upgrading/gasification technology for subbituminous and lignite coals in the EERC’s TRDU. This gasifier fires nominally 200–500 lb/hour of fuel and is the pilot-scale version of the full-scale gasifier currently being constructed in Kemper County, Mississippi. A slipstream of the syngas was used to demonstrate warm-gas cleanup and hydrogen separation using membrane technology. Two membranes were exposed to coal-derived syngas, and the impact of coal-derived impurities was evaluated. This report summarizes the performance of WRI’s patent-pending coalupgrading/ gasification technology in the EERC’s TRDU and presents the results of the warm-gas cleanup and hydrogen separation tests. Overall, the WRI coal-upgrading/gasification technology was shown to produce a syngas significantly lower in CO2 content and significantly higher in CO content than syngas produced from the raw fuels. Warm-gas cleanup technologies were shown to be capable of reducing sulfur in the syngas to 1 ppm. Each of the membranes tested was able to produce at least 2 lb/day of hydrogen from coal-derived syngas.

  17. The flash pyrolysis and methanolysis of biomass (wood) for production of ethylene, benzene and methanol

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Steinberg, M.; Fallon, P.T.; Sundaram, M.S.

    1990-02-01

    The process chemistry of the flash pyrolysis of biomass (wood) with the reactive gases, H{sub 2} and CH{sub 4} and with the non-reactive gases He and N{sub 2} is being determined in a 1 in. downflow tubular reactor at pressures from 20 to 1000 psi and temperatures from 600 to 1000{degrees}C. With hydrogen, flash hydropyrolysis leads to high yields of methane and CO which can be used for SNG and methanol fuel production. With methane, flash methanolysis leads to high yields of ethylene, benzene and CO which can be used for the production of valuable chemical feedstocks and methanol transportation fuel. At reactor conditions of 50 psi and 1000{degrees}C and approximately 1 sec residence time, the yields based on pine wood carbon conversion are up to 25% for ethylene, 25% for benzene, and 45% for CO, indicating that over 90% of the carbon in pine is converted to valuable products. Pine wood produces higher yields of hydrocarbon products than Douglas fir wood; the yield of ethylene is 2.3 times higher with methane than with helium or nitrogen, and for pine, the ratio is 7.5 times higher. The mechanism appears to be a free radical reaction between CH{sub 4} and the pyrolyzed wood. There appears to be no net production or consumption of methane. A preliminary process design and analysis indicates a potentially economical competitive system for the production of ethylene, benzene and methanol based on the methanolysis of wood. 10 refs., 18 figs., 1 tab.

  18. Louisiana (with State Offshore) Shale Production (Billion Cubic...

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

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana (with State Offshore) Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8...

  19. Mississippi (with State off) Shale Production (Billion Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    off) Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Mississippi (with State off) Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8...

  20. Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8...

  1. Kansas Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Reserves Based Production...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Kansas Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

  2. North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

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

    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 ...

  3. 2015 Domestic Uranium Production Report

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

    and Development Drilling","Mine Production of Uranium ","Uranium Concentrate Production ","Uranium Concentrate Shipments ","Employment " "Year","Drilling (million feet)"," ...

  4. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    7 35 -5.41% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 27 25 -7.41% ↓ Females 10 10 0% / YEAR 2013 2014 SES 1 1 0% / EN 05 1 1 0% / EN 04 11 10 -9.09% ↓ NN (Engineering) 8 8 0% / NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 14 15 7.14% ↑ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 2 0 -100% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 0 0 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 1 1 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 1 1 0% / African American Female (AA,F) 3 3 0% / Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI,M) 0 0 0% /

  5. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    5 79 -7.06% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 59 57 -3.39% ↓ Females 26 22 -15.38% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 1 0 -100% ↓ EJ/EK 4 3 -25.00% ↓ EN 05 3 2 -33.33% ↓ EN 04 22 22 0% / EN 03 8 8 0% / NN (Engineering) 16 15 -6.25% ↓ NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 28 26 -7.14% ↓ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 3 3 0% / YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 2 2 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 1 1 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 5 4 -20.00% ↓ African American Female (AA,F) 3 2

  6. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    91 81 -10.99% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 67 56 -16.42% ↓ Females 24 25 4.17% ↑ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 1 2 100% ↑ EJ/EK 9 8 -11.11% ↓ EN 04 25 22 -12.00% ↓ NN (Engineering) 24 20 -16.67% ↓ NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 29 26 -10.34% ↓ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 3 3 0% / YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 2 2 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 3 3 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 0 0 0% / African American Female (AA,F) 0 0 0% / Asian American Pacific Islander

  7. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    21 -4.55% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 10 8 -20.00% ↓ Females 12 13 8.33% ↑ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 10 7 -30.00% ↓ EX 0 2 100% ↑ EJ/EK 1 1 0% / EN 05 0 1 100% ↑ EN 04 0 1 100% ↑ NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 9 8 -11.11% ↓ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 1 1 0% / ED 00 1 0 -100% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 0 0 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 2 1 -50.00% ↓ African American Male (AA,M) 1 1 0% / African American Female (AA,F) 5 4 -20.00% ↓ Asian

  8. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    41 155 9.93% ↑ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 92 106 15.22% ↑ Females 49 49 0% / YEAR 2013 2014 SES 8 8 0% / EX 1 1 0% / EJ/EK 4 4 0% / EN 05 11 10 -9.09% ↓ EN 04 11 14 27.27% ↑ EN 03 2 5 150% ↑ NN (Engineering) 60 63 5.00% ↑ NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 44 50 13.64% ↑ YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 1 1 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 1 1 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 7 10 42.86% ↑ African American Female (AA,F) 13 11 -15.38% ↓ Asian American

  9. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    563 560 -0.53% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 518 514 -0.77% ↓ Females 45 46 2.22% ↑ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 2 2 0% / EJ/EK 2 2 0% / EN 04 1 1 0% / NN (Engineering) 11 11 0% / NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 218 221 1.38% ↑ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 1 2 100% ↑ NV (Nuc Mat Courier) 328 321 -2.13% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 15 15 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 2 2 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 19 18 -5.26% ↓ African American Female (AA,F) 1 1 0% /

  10. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    97 180 -8.63% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 105 89 -15.24% ↓ Females 92 91 -1.09% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 14 13 -7.14% ↓ EX 1 1 0% / EJ/EK 3 3 0% / EN 05 1 1 0% / EN 04 4 2 -50.00% ↓ EN 03 1 1 0% / EN 00 0 3 100% ↑ NN (Engineering) 35 27 -22.86% ↓ NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 135 126 -6.67% ↓ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 2 2 0% / GS 15 0 1 100% ↑ GS 13 1 0 -100% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 2 1 -50.00% ↓ American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 0 0 0% /

  11. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    *Total number of Employees 122 112 -8.20% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 90 84 -6.67% ↓ Females 32 28 -12.50% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 26 24 -7.69% ↓ EJ/EK 3 3 0% / EN 05 8 9 12.50% ↑ NN (Engineering) 48 47 -2.08% ↓ NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 30 26 -13.33% ↓ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 7 3 -57.14% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 0 0 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 1 1 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 3 3 0% / African American Female (AA,F) 7 6 -14.29%

  12. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    4 79 -5.95% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 59 55 -6.78% ↓ Females 25 24 -4.00% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 3 3 0% / EJ/EK 4 4 0% / EN 04 2 1 -50.00% ↓ NN (Engineering) 20 20 0% / NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 55 51 -7.27% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 0 0 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 0 0 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 10 10 0% / African American Female (AA,F) 9 8 -11.11% ↓ Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI,M) 2 2 0% / Asian American Pacific

  13. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    8 87 -1.14% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 46 46 0% / Females 42 41 -2.38% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 1 0 -100% ↓ EJ/EK 4 2 -50.00% ↓ NN (Engineering) 12 12 0% / NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 68 70 2.94% ↑ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 3 3 0% / YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 0 0 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 2 2 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 5 5 0% / African American Female (AA,F) 5 6 20.00% ↑ Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI,M) 0 0 0% / Asian

  14. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    1 14 27.27% ↑ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 9 12 33.33% ↑ Females 2 2 0% / YEAR 2013 2014 SES 2 2 0% / EJ/EK 1 1 0% / EN 04 0 1 100% ↑ EN 00 0 1 100% ↑ NN (Engineering) 5 5 0% / NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 3 4 33.33% ↑ YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 0 0 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 0 0 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 0 0 0% / African American Female (AA,F) 0 0 0% / Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI,M) 1 1 0% / Asian American Pacific

  15. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    79 164 -8.38% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 100 92 -8.00% ↓ Females 79 72 -8.86% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 8 8 0% / EJ/EK 4 3 -25.00% ↓ EN 04 11 11 0% / EN 03 1 1 0% / EN 00 0 2 100% ↑ NN (Engineering) 39 32 -17.95% ↓ NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 111 104 -6.31% ↓ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 5 3 -40.00% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 1 2 100% ↑ American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 2 1 -50.00% ↓ African American Male (AA,M) 4 3 -25.00% ↓ African American

  16. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    40 36 -10.00% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 18 18 0% / Females 22 18 -18.18% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 3 2 -33.33% ↓ EJ/EK 1 1 0% / EN 03 1 1 0% / NN (Engineering) 3 3 0% / NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 30 27 -10.00% ↓ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 2 2 0% / YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 0 0 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 0 0 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 1 1 0% / African American Female (AA,F) 1 1 0% / Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI,M) 0 0 0% /

  17. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    4 30 -11.76% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 16 14 -12.50% ↓ Females 18 16 -11.11% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 1 1 0% / EJ/EK 3 1 -66.67% ↓ NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 29 27 -6.90% ↓ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 1 1 0% / YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 1 1 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 2 2 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 3 3 0% / African American Female (AA,F) 7 6 -14.29% ↓ Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI,M) 1 1 0% / Asian American Pacific Islander

  18. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    9 209 -8.73% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 76 76 0% / Females 153 133 -13.07% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 9 6 -33.33% ↓ EJ/EK 1 1 0% / NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 208 194 -6.73% ↓ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 11 8 -27.27% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 2 2 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 3 2 -33.33% ↓ African American Male (AA,M) 10 10 0% / African American Female (AA,F) 39 36 -7.69% ↓ Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI,M) 1 1 0% / Asian American

  19. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    7 80 -8.05% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 62 57 -8.06% ↓ Females 25 23 -8.00% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 1 1 0% / EJ/EK 3 3 0% / EN 05 1 1 0% / EN 04 27 24 -11.11% ↓ EN 03 1 0 -100% ↓ NN (Engineering) 26 25 -3.85% ↓ NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 26 24 -7.69% ↓ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 2 2 0% / YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 1 1 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 1 1 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 3 2 -33.33% ↓ African American Female (AA,F) 3 3 0% / Asian

  20. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    502 2381 -4.84% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 1663 1593 -4.21% ↓ Females 839 788 -6.08% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 104 90 -13.46% ↓ EX 2 4 100% ↑ SL 1 0 -100% ↓ EJ/EK 88 73 -17.05% ↓ EN 05 40 41 2.50% ↑ EN 04 169 157 -7.10% ↓ EN 03 18 21 100% ↑ EN 00 0 6 100% ↑ NN (Engineering) 441 416 -5.67% ↓ NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 1239 1190 -3.95% ↓ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 66 57 -13.64% ↓ NV (Nuc Mat Courier) 328 321 -2.13% ↓ GS 15 1 2 100% ↑ GS 13 2 2 0% / GS 10 3 1 -66.67% ↓ YEAR 2013

  1. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    80 83 3.75% ↑ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 48 50 4.17% ↑ Females 32 33 3.13% ↑ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 2 1 -50.00% ↓ EJ/EK 8 7 -12.50% ↓ EN 04 11 9 -18.18% ↓ EN 03 1 1 0% / NN (Engineering) 24 27 12.50% ↑ NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 32 33 3.13% ↑ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 2 5 150% ↑ YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 0 0 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 3 3 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 0 0 0% / African American Female (AA,F) 2 2 0% / Asian American

  2. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    8 27 -3.57% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 18 17 -5.56% ↓ Females 10 10 0% / YEAR 2013 2014 SES 1 1 0% / EN 05 1 1 0% / EN 04 4 3 -25.00% ↓ NN (Engineering) 12 12 0% / NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 9 9 0% / NU (Tech/Admin Support) 1 1 0% / YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 0 0 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 1 1 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 4 4 0% / African American Female (AA,F) 3 4 33.33% ↑ Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI,M) 1 1 0% / Asian

  3. Utah Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic...

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

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Utah Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7...

  4. Alabama--State Offshore Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million...

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

    Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama--State Offshore Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 ...

  5. Alaska--State Offshore Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million...

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

    Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska--State Offshore Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 ...

  6. Year Modules

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

    Annual photovoltaic module shipments, 2004-2014 (peak kilowatts) Year Modules 2004 143,274 2005 204,996 2006 320,208 2007 494,148 2008 920,693 2009 1,188,879 2010 2,644,498 2011 3,772,075 2012 4,655,005 2013 4,984,881 2014 6,237,524 Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-63B, 'Annual Photovoltaic Cell/Module Shipments Report.' Note: Includes both U.S. Shipments and Exports.

  7. Year Modules

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

    dollars per peak watt) Year Modules 2004 $2.99 2005 $3.19 2006 $3.50 2007 $3.37 2008 $3.49 2009 $2.79 2010 $1.96 2011 $1.59 2012 $1.15 2013 $0.75 2014 $0.87 Table 4. Average value of photovoltaic modules, 2004-2014 Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-63B, 'Annual Photovoltaic Cell/Module Shipments Report.' Note: Dollars are not adjusted for inflation.

  8. Alabama (with State Offshore) Shale Production (Billion Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Alabama (with State Offshore) Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 2010's 0 - No Data...

  9. Montana Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead...

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

    Montana Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's ...

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

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

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

  11. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Crude Oil Production (Million...

    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...

  12. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Dry Natural Gas Production (Billion...

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

    (Billion Cubic Feet) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Dry Natural Gas Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9...

  13. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Natural Gas Liquids Production...

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

    (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...

  14. Ohio Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Ohio Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 14...

  15. Michigan Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion...

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

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Michigan Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  16. Louisiana Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion...

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

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  17. Kentucky Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion...

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

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Kentucky Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  18. Mississippi Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Mississippi Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  19. Florida Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic...

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

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Florida Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  20. Montana Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic...

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

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Montana Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  1. Alaska Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Alaska Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  2. Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  3. Wyoming Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Wyoming Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  4. Colorado Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Colorado Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  5. Alabama Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic...

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

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Alabama Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  6. Federal Offshore--Alabama Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million...

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

    Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Federal Offshore--Alabama Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 ...

  7. Federal Offshore--Louisiana Natural Gas Marketed Production ...

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

    Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Federal Offshore--Louisiana Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 ...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  9. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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 ...

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

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

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

  11. Miscellaneous States Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production...

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

    Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Miscellaneous States Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  12. U.S. Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) U.S. Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7...

  13. HPSS Yearly Network Traffic

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

    HPSS Yearly Network Traffic HPSS Yearly Network Traffic Yearly Summary of IO Traffic Between Storage and Network Destinations These bar charts show the total transfer traffic for...

  14. Western States Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Western States Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 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: Shale Gas Production

  15. Alabama--State Offshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic...

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

    State Offshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama--State Offshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

  16. U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Estimated Production from Reserves...

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

    Estimated Production from Reserves (Million Barrels) U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Estimated Production from Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 ...

  17. HPSS Yearly Network Traffic

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

    HPSS Yearly Network Traffic HPSS Yearly Network Traffic Yearly Summary of I/O Traffic Between Storage and Network Destinations These bar charts show the total transfer traffic for each year between storage and network destinations (systems within and outside of NERSC). Traffic for the current year is an estimate derived by scaling the known months traffic up to 12 months. The years shown are calendar years. The first graph shows the overall growth in network traffic to storage over the years.

  18. LNG to the year 2000

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Davenport, S.T.

    1984-04-01

    By 2000, about 190 MM metric-tpy of LNG will be moving in world trade, with Asia-Pacific as the dominant producer By the year 2000, approximately 190 million metric tons per year of LNG will be moving in worldwide trade. Production of LNG will be spread throughout most of the world, with Asia-Pacific as the dominant producer. LNG will be delivered only to the heavily industrialized areas of North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific. The success of any LNG project will be dependent on its individual economics, market needs, financial planning, and governmental permit processes. We hope industry will be able to put together the LNG projects required to meet the quanitities of production forecast here for the year 2000.

  19. Webtrends Archives by Fiscal Year — Publication Library

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    From the EERE Web Statistics Archive: Corporate sites, Webtrends archives for the EERE Publication and Product Library by fiscal year.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  1. Montana Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Montana Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 12 13 7 2010's 13 13 16 19 42 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production Montana Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production Shale

  2. Virginia Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Virginia Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 3 3 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: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production Virginia Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production Shale Gas

  3. Wyoming Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Wyoming Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 7 102 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: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production Wyoming Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production Shale Gas

  4. 50 Years of Space

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

    50 Years of Space science-innovationassetsimagesicon-science.jpg 50 Years of Space Since 1943, some of the world's smartest and most dedicated technical people have ...

  5. Offshore Development and Production

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    1999-01-01

    Natural gas production in the federal offshore has increased substantially in recent years, gaining more than 400 billion cubic feet between 1993 and 1997 to a level of 5.14 trillion cubic feet.

  6. Hydrogen Production and Purification from Coal and Other Heavy...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Hydrogen Production and Purification from Coal and Other Heavy Feedstocks Year 6 - ... Title: Hydrogen Production and Purification from Coal and Other Heavy Feedstocks Year 6 - ...

  7. Louisiana - South Onshore Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production...

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

    Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana - South Onshore Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1...

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

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

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

  9. Lower 48 States Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion...

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

    Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3...

  10. New Mexico - West Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production...

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

    Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) New Mexico - West Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 ...

  11. New Mexico - East Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production...

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

    Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) New Mexico - East Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 ...

  12. NNSA Production Office | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Us Our Operations Management and Budget Office of Civil Rights Workforce Statistics NNSA Production Office NNSA Production Office FY15 Year End Report Semi Annual...

  13. Oklahoma Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 40 168 249 2010's 403 476 637 698 869 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production Oklahoma Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and

  14. West Virginia Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) West Virginia Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 11 2010's 80 192 345 498 869 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production West Virginia Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes,

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

  17. CALiPER Year in Review 2012

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2012-12-10

    The CALiPER program has tested more than 500 products since its inception in 2006, revealing a variety of performance trends, holding manufacturers accountable for claims, and identifying concerns that limit adoption. Over the past six years, the LED marketplace has changed substantially; previously relegated to niche status, LED products are now a viable alternative in many product categories and market share is expected to grow rapidly. This document summarizes recent testing results and provides an overview of multiyear trends.

  18. 70 years after Trinity

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

    70 years after Trinity 70 years after Trinity Though the world has seen many changes since Trinity, one thing has remained constant: Los Alamos remains essential to our nation's ...

  19. Secretary Moniz's First Year

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    We're looking back at some of the biggest moments from Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz's first year in office.

  20. Fiscal Year Ended

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

    Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2014 Report to Congress July 2016 United States Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 Department of Energy | July 2016 Report on Uncosted Balances for Fiscal Year Ended 2014| Page iii Executive Summary As required by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-486), the Department of Energy is submitting a Report on Uncosted Balances for Fiscal Year Ended 2014. This report presents the results of the Department's annual analysis of uncosted obligation

  1. 2013 Year in Review

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

    3 Year in Review i 2013 YIR May 2014 Year-in-Review: 2013 Energy Infrastructure Events and Expansions Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability U.S. Department of Energy DOE / 2013 Year in Review ii 2013 YIR For Further Information This report was prepared by the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability under the direction of Patricia Hoffman, Assistant Secretary, and William Bryan, Deputy Assistant Secretary. Specific

  2. Agency Improvement Plan For Fiscal Year 2006 and Fiscal Year...

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

    Agency Improvement Plan For Fiscal Year 2006 and Fiscal Year 2007 Agency Improvement Plan For Fiscal Year 2006 and Fiscal Year 2007 Department of Energy Report and Agency ...

  3. GreenBuy Award Winners By Fiscal Year

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

    By Fiscal Year FY2015 GreenBuy Award Winners Site Name Award Products Categories Argonne National Lab (2 nd yr) Gold 13 products5 categories Brookhaven National Lab Gold 11 ...

  4. Final Year Project Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hubsch, Tristan

    2013-06-20

    In the last years of this eighteen-year grant project, the research efforts have focused mostly on the study of off-shell representations of supersymmetry, both on the worldline and on the world- sheet, i.e., both in supersymmetric quantum mechanics and in supersymmetric field theory in 1+1-dimensional spacetime.

  5. The Availability and Price of Petroleum and Petroleum Products...

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

    boosted global liquid fuels production relative to year-ago levels. However, OPEC crude oil production decreased slightly from year-ago levels, as production gains in Libya and...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 469 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Utah-Wyoming

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 13 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Colorado-Kansas

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Utah (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Utah (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 34 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Colorado-Utah

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Oklahoma (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Oklahoma (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 7 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Kansas-Oklahoma

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 12 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Kansas-Texas

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 27 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Montana-Wyoming

  12. New Mexico--West Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

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

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

  13. New Mexico--East Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

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

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

  14. Allocation Year Rollover process

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

    Allocatio Year Rollover process Allocation Year Rollover process December 23, 2013 by Francesca Verdier Allocation Year 2013 (AY13) ends at 23:59:59 on Monday, January 13, 2014. AY14 runs from Tuesday, January 14, 2014 through Monday, January 12, 2015. The major features of the rollover are: charging acroess the AY boundary: All batch jobs will continue running during the rollover. Time accrued before midnight will be charged to AY13 repos; time accrued after midnight will be charged to AY14

  15. Texas - RRC District 9 Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas - RRC District 9 Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  16. Texas - RRC District 10 Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production...

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

    Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas - RRC District 10 Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  17. Texas - RRC District 8 Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production...

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

    Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas - RRC District 8 Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  18. Welcome Year in Review

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Training Meeting Orlando, Florida-May 23-25, 2006 Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy & the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Welcome & Year In Review Peter Dessaules...

  19. Year 2000 awareness

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Holmes, C.

    1997-11-01

    This report contains viewgraphs on the challenges business face with the year 2000 software problem. Estimates, roadmaps, virtual factory software, current awareness, and world wide web references are given.

  20. Name Address Place Zip Sector Product Stock Symbol Year founded...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Energy Inc Suite Inco Innovation Centre Memorial University of Newfoundland PO Box St John s A1C S7 Marine and Hydrokinetic http http www greyislandenergy com Canada Gulfstream...

  1. MTBE Production Economics

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    MTBE Production Economics Tancred C. M. Lidderdale Contents 1. Summary 2. MTBE Production Costs 3. Relationship between price of MTBE and Reformulated Gasoline 4. Influence of Natural Gas Prices on the Gasoline Market 5. Regression Results 6. Data Sources 7. End Notes 1. Summary Last year the price of MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) increased dramatically on two occasions (Figure 1) (see Data Sources at end of article.): 1. Between April and June 2000, the price (U.S. Gulf Coast waterborne

  2. California (with State off) Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 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: Coalbed Methane Estimated Production California Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production Coalbed Methane Production

  3. Mississippi (with State off) Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 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: Coalbed Methane Estimated Production Mississippi Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production Coalbed Methane Production

  4. YEAR IN REVIEW

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

    Amped Up Newsletter Volume 1, No. 1 | February 2015 2014 ANNUAL REPORT 2014 YEAR IN REVIEW Volume 1, No. 1, January/February 2015 What's Happening @ EERE IN THIS ISSUE A Message from Dave.......................................... 2 EERE All Hands Meeting ..................................... 3 Staffing Update ..................................................... 4 2014 Success Stories .......................................... 6 Sustainable Transportation ............................ 6 Renewable

  5. Domestic Uranium Production Report

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    9. Summary production statistics of the U.S. uranium industry, 1993-2015 Year Exploration and development surface drilling (million feet) Exploration and development drilling expenditures 1 (million dollars) Mine production of uranium (million pounds U3O8) Uranium concentrate production (million pounds U3O8) Uranium concentrate shipments (million pounds U3O8) Employment (person-years) 1993 1.1 5.7 2.1 3.1 3.4 871 1994 0.7 1.1 2.5 3.4 6.3 980 1995 1.3 2.6 3.5 6.0 5.5 1,107 1996 3.0 7.2 4.7 6.3

  6. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Crude Oil Production from Less...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Less than 200 Meters Deep (Million Barrels) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Crude Oil Production from Less than 200 Meters Deep (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3...

  7. Coal production, 1991

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1992-10-01

    Coal production in the United States in 1991 declined to a total of 996 million short tons, ending the 6-year upward trend in coal production that began in 1985. The 1991 figure is 33 million short tons below the record level of 1.029 billion short tons produced in 1990 (Table 1). Tables 2 through 33 in this report include data from mining operations that produced, prepared, and processed 10,000 or more short tons during the year. These mines yielded 993 million short tons, or 99.7 percent of the total coal production in 1991, and their summary statistics are discussed below. The majority of US coal (587 million short tons) was produced by surface mining (Table 2). Over half of all US surface mine production occurred in the Western Region, though the 60 surface mines in this area accounted for only 5 percent of the total US surface mines. The high share of production was due to the very large surface mines in Wyoming, Texas and Montana. Nearly three quarters of underground production was in the Appalachian Region, which accounted for 92 percent of underground mines. Continuous mining methods produced the most coal among those underground operations that responded. Of the 406 million short tons, 59 percent (239 million short tons) was produced by continuous mining methods, followed by longwall (29 percent, or 119 million short tons), and conventional methods (11 percent, or 46 million short tons).

  8. 2015 Domestic Uranium Production Report

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    9 2015 Domestic Uranium Production Report Release Date: May 5, 2016 Next Release Date: May 2017 Year Exploration Mining Milling Processing Reclamation Total 2003 W W W W 117 321 ...

  9. 2015 Domestic Uranium Production Report

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

    7. Employment in the U.S. uranium production industry by state, 2003-15" "person-years" "State(s)",2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013,2014,2015 ...

  10. Alaska--State Offshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska--State Offshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 35,577 40,269 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Dry Production

  11. California--State Offshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) California--State Offshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 5,051 5,952 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Dry Production

  12. Texas--State Offshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Texas--State Offshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 16,506 11,222 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Dry Production

  13. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Percentage of Crude Oil Production...

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

    Production from Greater than 200 Meters Deep (Percent) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Percentage of Crude Oil Production from Greater than 200 Meters Deep (Percent) Decade Year-0...

  14. Hydrogen Production

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2014-09-01

    This 2-page fact sheet provides a brief introduction to hydrogen production technologies. Intended for a non-technical audience, it explains how different resources and processes can be used to produce hydrogen. It includes an overview of research goals as well as “quick facts” about hydrogen energy resources and production technologies.

  15. Nevada Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet) Nevada Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 53 30 21 16 13 11 9 9 8 2000's 7 7 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 2010's 4 3 4 3 3 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 8/31/2016 Next Release Date: 9/30/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Dry Production Nevada Natural Gas Gross

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

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

    Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 72 1980's 74 19 12 0 1990's 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 8/31/2016 Next Release Date: 9/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  17. Louisiana--Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana--Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 2,849,980 1,884,566 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Dry Production Louisiana Onshore Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals

  18. Texas (with State Offshore) Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas (with State Offshore) Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 11 8 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: Coalbed Methane Estimated Production Texas Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves, Reserves

  19. Texas (with State Offshore) Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas (with State Offshore) Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 988 1,503 1,789 2010's 2,218 2,900 3,649 3,876 4,156 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production Texas Shale Gas Proved

  20. Texas--RRC District 1 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas--RRC District 1 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 11 2010's 41 156 362 630 822 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production TX, RRC District 1 Shale Gas Proved Reserves,

  1. Texas--RRC District 10 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas--RRC District 10 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 5 5 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: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production TX, RRC District 10 Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves

  2. Texas--RRC District 5 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas--RRC District 5 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 437 769 954 2010's 1,053 1,266 1,256 1,128 1,022 - = 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: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production TX, RRC District 5 Shale Gas

  3. Texas--RRC District 6 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas--RRC District 6 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 3 28 2010's 219 382 486 409 270 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production TX, RRC District 6 Shale Gas Proved Reserves,

  4. Texas--RRC District 8 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas--RRC District 8 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 1 4 3 2010's 7 5 22 62 78 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production TX, RRC District 8 Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves

  5. Texas--RRC District 9 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas--RRC District 9 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 460 586 643 2010's 725 612 626 619 639 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production TX, RRC District 9 Shale Gas Proved

  6. Illinois Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Illinois

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Liquids Production Extracted in Illinois (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Illinois (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 47 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 8/31/2016 Next Release Date: 9/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  7. Alabama--Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama--Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 125,180 106,903 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Dry Production Alabama Onshore

  8. Calif--Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Calif--Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 201,754 205,320 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Dry Production California Onsho

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

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

    Cubic Feet) Liquids Production Extracted in Florida (Million Cubic Feet) Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Florida (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 233 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 8/31/2016 Next Release Date: 9/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Florida-Florida

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

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

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

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

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

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 2010's 506 516 501 488 382 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 8/31/2016 Next Release Date: 9/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Processing NGPL

  12. Texas--Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Texas--Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 6,878,956 7,135,326 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Dry Production Texas Onshore Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and

  13. U.S. Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) U.S. Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 1,293 2,116 3,110 2010's 5,336 7,994 10,371 11,415 13,447 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production U.S. Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves

  14. ,"Projected Year Base","Year","Summer",,,"Eastern Power Grid...

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

    2008 " ,"(Megawatts and Percent)" ,"Projected Year Base","Year","Summer",,,"Eastern Power Grid",,,"Texas Power Grid",,,"Western Power Grid" ,,,"Contiguous...

  15. ,"Projected Year Base","Year","Summer",,,"Eastern Power Grid...

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

    2009 " ,"(Megawatts and Percent)" ,"Projected Year Base","Year","Summer",,,"Eastern Power Grid",,,"Texas Power Grid",,,"Western Power Grid" ,,,"Contiguous...

  16. Isotopes Products

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

    Isotopes Products Isotopes Products Isotopes produced at Los Alamos National Laboratory are saving lives, advancing cutting-edge research and keeping the U.S. safe. Products stress and rest Stress and rest Rb-82 PET images in a patient with dipyridamole stress-inducible lateral wall and apical ischemia. (http://www.fac.org.ar/scvc/llave/image/machac/machaci.htm#f2,3,4) Strontium-82 is supplied to our customers for use in Sr-82/Rb-82 generator technologies. The generators in turn are supplied to

  17. Clean Energy Production Tax Credit (Personal)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    NOTE: Senate Bill 936 (Maryland Clean Energy Incentive Act of 2016) extended production tax credit for two years, from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2018. 

  18. Clean Energy Production Tax Credit (Corporate)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    NOTE: Senate Bill 936 (Maryland Clean Energy Incentive Act of 2016) extended production tax credit for two years, from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2018. 

  19. Forest Products

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Purchased energy remains the third largest manufacturing cost for the forest products industry–despite its extensive use of highly efficient co-generation technology. The industry has worked with...

  20. Hydrogen Production

    Fuel Cell Technologies Publication and Product Library (EERE)

    This 2-page fact sheet provides a brief introduction to hydrogen production technologies. Intended for a non-technical audience, it explains how different resources and processes can be used to produ

  1. Concurrent Transfers Historical Yearly Peak

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

    the graph for current year shows the data for the year-to-date peak. Daily Storage Concurrency Daily Storage Concurrency Daily Storage Concurrency Daily Storage Concurrency Daily...

  2. Planning for Years to Come

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

    Planning for Years to Come Planning for Years to Come LANL's Governing Policy on the Environment August 1, 2013 Water sampling tour for the Association of Experiential Education ...

  3. Projects of the year

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hansen, T.

    2007-01-15

    The Peabody Hotel, Orlando, Florida was the site of Power Engineering magazine's 2006 Projects of the Year Awards Banquet, which kicked-off the Power-Gen International conference and exhibition. The Best Coal-fired Project was awarded to Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association Inc., owner of Springenville Unit 3. This is a 400 MW pulverized coal plant in Springeville, AZ, sited with two existing coal-fired units. Designed to fire Powder River Basin coal, it has low NOx burners and selective catalytic reduction for NOx control, dry flue gas desulfurization for SO{sub 2} control and a pulse jet baghouse for particulate control. It has a seven-stage feedwater heater and condensers to ensure maximum performance. Progress Energy-Carolinas' Asheville Power Station FGD and SCR Project was awarded the 2006 coal-fired Project Honorable Mention. This plant in Skyland, NC was required to significantly reduce NOx emissions. When completed, the improvements will reduce NOx by 93% compared to 1996 levels and SO{sub 2} by 93% compared to 2001 levels. Awards for best gas-fired, nuclear, and renewable/sustainable energy projects are recorded. The Sasyadko Coal-Mine Methane Cogeneration Plant near Donezk, Ukraine, was given the 2006 Honorable Mention for Best Renewable/Sustainable Energy Project. In November 2004, Ukraine was among 14 nations to launch the Methane to Markets partnership. The award-winning plant is fuelled by methane released during coal extraction. It generates 42 MW of power. 4 photos.

  4. Bottom production

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Baines, J.; Baranov, S.P.; Bartalini, P.; Bay, A.; Bouhova, E.; Cacciari, M.; Caner, A.; Coadou, Y.; Corti, G.; Damet, J.; Dell-Orso, R.; De Mello Neto, J.R.T.; Domenech, J.L.; Drollinger, V.; Eerola, P.; Ellis, N.; Epp, B.; Frixione, S.; Gadomski, S.; Gavrilenko, I.; Gennai, S.; George, S.; Ghete, V.M.; Guy, L.; Hasegawa, Y.; Iengo, P.; Jacholkowska, A.; Jones, R.; Kharchilava, A.; Kneringer, E.; Koppenburg, P.; Korsmo, H.; Kramer, M.; Labanca, N.; Lehto, M.; Maltoni, F.; Mangano, M.L.; Mele, S.; Nairz, A.M.; Nakada, T.; Nikitin, N.; Nisati, A.; Norrbin, E.; Palla, F.; Rizatdinova, F.; Robins, S.; Rousseau, D.; Sanchis-Lozano, M.A.; Shapiro, M.; Sherwood, P.; Smirnova, L.; Smizanska, M.; Starodumov, A.; Stepanov, N.; Vogt, R.

    2000-03-15

    In the context of the LHC experiments, the physics of bottom flavoured hadrons enters in different contexts. It can be used for QCD tests, it affects the possibilities of B decays studies, and it is an important source of background for several processes of interest. The physics of b production at hadron colliders has a rather long story, dating back to its first observation in the UA1 experiment. Subsequently, b production has been studied at the Tevatron. Besides the transverse momentum spectrum of a single b, it has also become possible, in recent time, to study correlations in the production characteristics of the b and the b. At the LHC new opportunities will be offered by the high statistics and the high energy reach. One expects to be able to study the transverse momentum spectrum at higher transverse momenta, and also to exploit the large statistics to perform more accurate studies of correlations.

  5. Webtrends Archives by Fiscal Year - Publication Library | Department...

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

    EERE Publication and Product Library by fiscal year. Publication Library FY09 (1.85 MB) Publication Library FY10 (2.68 MB) Publication Library FY11 (2.96 MB) More Documents & ...

  6. LANL PDMLink Product Structure Implementation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Scully, Christopher J.

    2012-08-29

    Over the past 2 and a half years LANL has done both functionality exploration as well as production implementations of PDMLink Product Structure to control the configuration of many of the LANL Design Agency Products. Based on this experience LANL has been recommending for over a year that future product structure implementation in PDMLink do not use the two digit suffix in the number field of enterprise parts (or WTParts). The suffix will be part of one of the attributes for Part Number. Per the TBP's the two digit suffix represents a change in form, fit, or function in a part or a change in the production agency or a number of other conditions. It also denotes backward compatibility with earlier suffixed parts (see TBP 402 section 3.1).

  7. Aggregate Transfers Historical Yearly Peak

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

    Transfers Historical Yearly Peak Aggregate Transfers Historical Yearly Peak These plots show the yearly peak days from 2000 to the present. BE CAREFUL because the graphs are autoscaling - check the scales on each axis before you compare graphs. Note that the graph for current year shows the data for the year-to-date peak. Daily Aggregate Bandwidth Daily Aggregate Bandwidth Daily Aggregate Bandwidth Daily Aggregate Bandwidth Daily Aggregate Bandwidth Daily Aggregate Bandwidth Daily Aggregate

  8. Concurrent Transfers Historical Yearly Peak

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

    Transfers Historical Yearly Peak Concurrent Transfers Historical Yearly Peak These plots show the yearly peak days from 2000 to present. BE CAREFUL because the graphs are autoscaling - check the scales on each axis before you compare graphs. Note that the graph for current year shows the data for the year-to-date peak. Daily Storage Concurrency Daily Storage Concurrency Daily Storage Concurrency Daily Storage Concurrency Daily Storage Concurrency Daily Storage Concurrency Daily Storage

  9. YEAR 2 BIOMASS UTILIZATION

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Christopher J. Zygarlicke

    2004-11-01

    This Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) Year 2 Biomass Utilization Final Technical Report summarizes multiple projects in biopower or bioenergy, transportation biofuels, and bioproducts. A prototype of a novel advanced power system, termed the high-temperature air furnace (HITAF), was tested for performance while converting biomass and coal blends to energy. Three biomass fuels--wood residue or hog fuel, corn stover, and switchgrass--and Wyoming subbituminous coal were acquired for combustion tests in the 3-million-Btu/hr system. Blend levels were 20% biomass--80% coal on a heat basis. Hog fuel was prepared for the upcoming combustion test by air-drying and processing through a hammer mill and screen. A K-Tron biomass feeder capable of operating in both gravimetric and volumetric modes was selected as the HITAF feed system. Two oxide dispersion-strengthened (ODS) alloys that would be used in the HITAF high-temperature heat exchanger were tested for slag corrosion rates. An alumina layer formed on one particular alloy, which was more corrosion-resistant than a chromia layer that formed on the other alloy. Research activities were completed in the development of an atmospheric pressure, fluidized-bed pyrolysis-type system called the controlled spontaneous reactor (CSR), which is used to process and condition biomass. Tree trimmings were physically and chemically altered by the CSR process, resulting in a fuel that was very suitable for feeding into a coal combustion or gasification system with little or no feed system modifications required. Experimental procedures were successful for producing hydrogen from biomass using the bacteria Thermotoga, a deep-ocean thermal vent organism. Analytical procedures for hydrogen were evaluated, a gas chromatography (GC) method was derived for measuring hydrogen yields, and adaptation culturing and protocols for mutagenesis were initiated to better develop strains that can use biomass cellulose. Fly ash derived from

  10. DOE Five Year Commercialization Support Plan | Department of Energy

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

    Webcasts » DOE Five Year Commercialization Support Plan DOE Five Year Commercialization Support Plan On July 2, 2007, Marc Ledbetter, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, provided an overview of DOE's Commercialization Support Plan. Key elements of the Plan include buyer guidance such as ENERGY STAR® criteria for SSL products, design competitions, technology demonstrations and procurements, product testing, technical information dissemination, and standards and test procedure support. View

  11. 60 Years of Computing | Department of Energy

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

    60 Years of Computing 60 Years of Computing

  12. Production of Substitute Natural Gas from Coal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Andrew Lucero

    2009-01-31

    The goal of this research program was to develop and demonstrate a novel gasification technology to produce substitute natural gas (SNG) from coal. The technology relies on a continuous sequential processing method that differs substantially from the historic methanation or hydro-gasification processing technologies. The thermo-chemistry relies on all the same reactions, but the processing sequences are different. The proposed concept is appropriate for western sub-bituminous coals, which tend to be composed of about half fixed carbon and about half volatile matter (dry ash-free basis). In the most general terms the process requires four steps (1) separating the fixed carbon from the volatile matter (pyrolysis); (2) converting the volatile fraction into syngas (reforming); (3) reacting the syngas with heated carbon to make methane-rich fuel gas (methanation and hydro-gasification); and (4) generating process heat by combusting residual char (combustion). A key feature of this technology is that no oxygen plant is needed for char combustion.

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

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

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

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

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

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 20 23 29 41 67 68 50 44 46 1990's 58 49 72 95 104 94 85 83 78 78 2000's 78 86 72 68 58 29 5 9 0 0 2010's 0 0 155 2,116 33,332 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 8/31/2016 Next Release Date: 9/30/2016 Referring

  15. Pennsylvania Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic

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

    Feet) Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 52 69 117 1980's 68 94 102 121 134 123 116 128 162 136 1990's 160 140 139 138 141 113 132 129 131 130 2000's 117 114 133 165 155 181 176 183 211 273 2010's 591 1,248 2,241 3,283 4,197 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  16. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Ohio

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Extracted in Ohio (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Ohio (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 346 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 8/31/2016 Next Release Date: 9/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Pennsylvania-Ohio

  17. Alabama Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Alabama Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 24 42 46 1980's 64 85 1990's 104 146 256 281 391 360 373 376 394 376 2000's 359 345 365 350 327 300 287 274 257 254 2010's 223 218 214 175 176 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next

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

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

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

  19. California State Offshore Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production

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

    (Billion Cubic Feet) Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) California State Offshore Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 114 213 231 1980's 164 254 252 241 231 1990's 192 59 63 64 61 59 49 56 44 76 2000's 91 85 92 83 86 90 90 82 57 57 2010's 66 82 66 75 76 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  4. Indiana Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 135 394 367 365 217 412 416 1990's 399 232 174 192 107 249 360 526 615 855 2000's 899 1,064 1,309 1,464 3,401 3,135 2,921 3,606 4,701 4,927 2010's 6,802 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available;

  5. Kentucky Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Kentucky Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 48 52 49 1980's 60 52 44 38 54 53 56 58 60 65 1990's 62 78 61 66 64 67 58 79 63 59 2000's 67 73 79 78 83 85 66 80 93 108 2010's 96 101 83 81 70 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next

  6. Maryland Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 31 60 39 20 44 29 34 1990's 22 29 33 28 26 22 0 118 63 18 2000's 34 32 22 48 34 46 NA NA NA NA 2010's NA - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  7. Mississippi Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic

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

    Feet) Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Mississippi Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 88 121 154 1980's 170 196 198 159 181 151 165 178 181 155 1990's 141 143 109 111 82 91 88 93 79 79 2000's 78 94 98 94 93 86 83 100 110 100 2010's 87 75 64 61 54 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  8. Missouri Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 4 4 4 4 4 4 1990's 7 19 27 14 8 16 25 5 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  9. Montana Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Montana Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 49 44 47 1980's 61 86 45 49 46 49 42 42 60 43 1990's 48 48 52 50 49 51 52 55 51 41 2000's 67 73 77 86 95 100 117 112 114 113 2010's 93 75 65 62 58 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015

  10. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Oklahoma

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Oklahoma (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 166,776 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Oklahoma-Oklahoma

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 2,434 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Oklahoma-Texas

  12. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in West

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 14,335 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7 (Million Cubic Feet)

    Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Texas Offshore Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Oklahoma (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 8,718 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Texas Onshore-Oklahoma

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 790,721 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Texas Onshore-Texas

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 60,873 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Wyoming-Wyoming

  17. Texas Onshore Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and Production

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

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

    7,615,836 7,565,123

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  2. 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:

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  4. 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:

  5. 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:

  6. 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

  7. 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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 6 1980's 6 6 5 5 6 7 6 6 7 7 1990's 7 7 7 7 6 4 4 4 4 4 2000's 6 6 6 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 2010's 5 5 8 10 41 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet)

    Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alabama (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alabama (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 3,978 3,721 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL

  11. California Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    47,281 46,755 41,742 32,313 32,924 34,206 1977 California (Million Cubic Feet)

    Plant Liquids Production Extracted in California (Million Cubic Feet) California Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in California (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 9 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Mississippi (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi (Million Cubic Feet) Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Mississippi (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 9,793 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Gulf of

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 1,465 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Kentucky-West Virginia

  14. Louisiana Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7 Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet)

    Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 5,100 3,585 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages:

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 325 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Louisiana Onshore-Texas

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) North Dakota (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in North Dakota (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 303 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Montana-North Dakota

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

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

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

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

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

    Barrels) Liquids, 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.

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

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

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

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

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

    Barrels) Liquids, 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:

  1. Alaska Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Alaska Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 206 216 228 1980's 213 235 261 273 324 312 324 349 400 401 1990's 339 353 414 393 423 396 446 475 513 459 2000's 506 461 460 478 478 469 408 388 354 358 2010's 317 327 299 285 304 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  2. Arizona Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Arizona Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 26 10 0 0 0 0 1,360 1990's 2,125 1,225 730 548 691 500 405 401 411 439 2000's 332 266 243 426 306 211 588 634 503 695 2010's 165 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  3. Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 109 120 100 1980's 117 121 158 206 188 175 123 129 159 166 1990's 164 173 204 188 186 182 200 189 170 163 2000's 154 160 157 166 170 174 188 269 456 698 2010's 951 1,079 1,151 1,140 1,142 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  4. California Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic

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

    Feet) Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) California Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 301 313 347 1980's 294 372 345 335 306 1990's 293 308 285 252 244 216 217 212 246 266 2000's 282 336 291 265 247 268 255 253 237 239 2010's 243 311 200 188 176 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  5. Illinois Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 1,030 1,530 1,324 1,887 1,371 1,338 1,477 1990's 677 466 346 250 333 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2010's NA - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  6. 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

  7. Utah Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Utah Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 62 58 54 1980's 61 79 87 68 76 73 60 60 40 64 1990's 71 81 111 165 184 165 180 177 216 220 2000's 226 288 286 278 282 308 349 365 417 447 2010's 432 449 478 456 433 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  8. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Crude Oil Production from Greater...

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

    Greater than 200 Meters Deep (Million Barrels) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Crude Oil Production from Greater than 200 Meters Deep (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  9. 2013 Director's New Year Address

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

    has in store for the ALS. An immediate answer is - a celebration - as the ALS marks its 20th year of operation. We'll spend some time this year looking back at what we've...

  10. WIPP_Marks_12_Years

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

    Marks 12 Years of Operations CARLSBAD, N.M., March 28, 2011 - On Saturday, March 26, 2011, ... It has now been 12 years since WIPP received its first shipment of transuranic (TRU) ...

  11. Oil Production

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    1989-07-01

    A horizontal and slanted well model was developed and incorporated into BOAST, a black oil simulator, to predict the potential production rates for such wells. The HORIZONTAL/SLANTED WELL MODEL can be used to calculate the productivity index, based on the length and location of the wellbore within the block, for each reservoir grid block penetrated by the horizontal/slanted wellbore. The well model can be run under either pressure or rate constraints in which wellbore pressuresmore » can be calculated as an option of infinite-conductivity. The model can simulate the performance of multiple horizontal/slanted wells in any geometric combination within reservoirs.« less

  12. Petroleum products

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1987-01-01

    This book is the first of three volumes devoted to petroleum products and lubricants. This volume begins with standard D 56 and contains all petroleum standards up to D 1947. It contains specifications and test methods for fuels, solvents, burner fuel oils, lubricating oils, cutting oils, lubricating greases, fluids measurement and sampling, liquified petroleum gases, light hydrocarbons, plant spray oils, sulfonates, crude petroleum, petrolatam, and wax.

  13. Hydrogen Production

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

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

  14. Hydrogen Production

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

    Production Hydrogen can be produced using diverse, domestic resources. Fossil fuels, such as natural gas and coal, can be converted to produce hydrogen, and the use of carbon capture, utilization, and storage can reduce the carbon footprint of these processes. Hydrogen can also be produced from low carbon and renewable resources, including biomass grown from non-food crops and splitting water using electricity from wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, and hydroelectric. This diversity of potential

  15. Product separator

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Welsh, Robert A.; Deurbrouck, Albert W.

    1976-01-20

    A secondary light sensitive photoelectric product separator for use with a primary product separator that concentrates a material so that it is visually distinguishable from adjacent materials. The concentrate separation is accomplished first by feeding the material onto a vibratory inclined surface with a liquid flow, such as a wet concentrating table. Vibrations generally perpendicular to the stream direction of flow cause the concentrate to separate from its mixture according to its color. When the concentrate and its surrounding stream reach the recovery end of the table, a detecting device notes the line of color demarcation and triggers a signal if it differs from a normal condition. If no difference is noted nothing moves on the second separator. However, if a difference is detected in the constant monitoring of the color line's location, a product splitter and recovery unit normally positioned near the color line at the recovery end, moves to a new position. In this manner the selected separated concentrate is recovered at a maximum rate regardless of variations in the flow stream or other conditions present.

  16. Independent Statistics & Analysis Drilling Productivity Report

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

    Independent Statistics & Analysis Drilling Productivity Report The seven regions analyzed in this report accounted for 92% of domestic oil production growth and all domestic natural gas production growth during 2011-14. August 2016 For key tight oil and shale gas regions U.S. Energy Information Administration Contents Year-over-year summary 2 Bakken Region 3 Eagle Ford Region 4 Haynesville Region 5 Marcellus Region 6 Niobrara Region 7 Permian Region 8 Utica Region 9 Explanatory notes 10

  17. Waste management fiscal year 1998 progress report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1998-12-31

    The Waste Management Program is pleased to issue the Fiscal Year 1998 Progress Report presenting program highlights and major accomplishments of the last year. This year-end update describes the current initiatives in waste management and the progress DOE has made toward their goals and objectives, including the results of the waste management annual performance commitments. One of the most important program efforts continues to be opening the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), located near Carlsbad, New Mexico, for the deep geologic disposal of transuranic waste. A major success was achieved this year by the West Valley Demonstration Project in New York, which in June completed the project`s production phase of high-level waste processing ahead of schedule and under budget. Another significant accomplishment this year was the award of two privatization contracts for major waste management operations, one at Oak ridge for transuranic waste treatment, and one at Hanford for the Tank Waste Remediation System privatization project. DOE is proud of the progress that has been made, and will continue to pursue program activities that allow it to safely and expeditiously dispose of radioactive and hazardous wastes across the complex, while reducing worker, public, and environmental risks.

  18. Geothermal Technologies Program Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Request

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Presentation (Program Document) | SciTech Connect Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Request Presentation Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Geothermal Technologies Program Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Request Presentation Geothermal Technologies Program fiscal year 2103 budget request presentation by Doug Hollett, Program Manager. Authors: DOE Publication Date: 2012-03-13 OSTI Identifier: 1219566 Resource Type: Program Document Research Org: EERE Publication and Product Library Sponsoring Org:

  19. U.S. Federal Offshore Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production...

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

    Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) U.S. Federal Offshore Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  20. Texas - RRC District 8A Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production...

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

    Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas - RRC District 8A Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  1. Transfer Activity Historical Yearly Peak

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

    Activity Historical Yearly Peak Transfer Activity Historical Yearly Peak The plots below show the yearly peak days from 2000 to the present. BE CAREFUL because the graphs are autoscaling - check the scales on each axis before you compare graphs. Note that the graph for the current year shows the data for the year-to-date peak. Transfers Started/In Progress Transfers Started/In Progress Transfers Started/In Progress Transfers Started/In Progress Transfers Started/In Progress Transfers Started/In

  2. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 0 Hispanic Female (H F) 0 White Male (W M) 13 White Female (W F) 5 DIVERSITY TOTAL WORKFORCE GENDER Savannah ...

  3. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 0 Hispanic Female (H F) 0 White Male (W M) 24 White Female (W F) 6 TOTAL WORKFORCE GENDER Kansas City Field ...

  4. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 2 Hispanic Male (H M) 6 Hispanic Female (H F) 6 White Male (W M) 46 White Female (W F) 13 DIVERSITY TOTAL WORKFORCE GENDER Nevada ...

  5. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 13 Hispanic Female (H F) 10 White Male (W M) 43 White Female (W F) 11 DIVERSITY TOTAL WORKFORCE GENDER Los ...

  6. Year

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

    Note: Total may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding. Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration, Form 7000-2, 'Quarterly Mine ...

  7. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    2012 2013 SES 2 1 -50.00% EJEK 10 9 -10.00% EN 04 27 24 -11.11% NN (Engineering) 28 24 -14.29% NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 31 29 -6.45% NU (TechAdmin Support) 4...

  8. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    SES 1 2 100.00% EJEK 2 2 0.00% EN 04 1 1 0.00% EN 03 1 0 -100.00% NN (Engineering) 12 11 -8.33% NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 216 218 0.93% NU (TechAdmin Support) 2...

  9. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    2013 SES 2 2 0.00% EJEK 7 8 14.29% EN 04 11 11 0.00% EN 03 1 1 0.00% NN (Engineering) 23 24 4.35% NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 35 32 -8.57% NU (TechAdmin Support) 3 2...

  10. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 2 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 12 Hispanic Female (H F) 12 White Male (W M) 34 White Female ...

  11. 2015 Year-in-Review

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

    5 Year-in-Review i 2015 YIR May 2016 Year-in-Review: 2015 Energy Infrastructure Events and Expansions Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability U.S. Department of Energy DOE / 2015 Year-in-Review ii 2015 YIR For Further Information This report was prepared by the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability under the direction of Patricia Hoffman, Assistant Secretary, and Devon Streit, Deputy Assistant Secretary. Specific questions about this report may be directed to John

  12. Hydrogen program summary Fiscal Year 1994

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1995-03-01

    The annual program summary provides stakeholders within the hydrogen community with a snapshop of important advances that have occurred in the National Hydrogen Program over the fiscal year, including industry interactions and cooperation. The document will also be used to encourage additional potential industrial partners to join the Hydrogen Program Team. Fiscal Year 1994 marked a turning point for the Hydrogen Program, with a budget that grew significantly. The focus of the program was broadened to include development of hydrogen production technologies using municipal solid waste and biomass, in addition to an increased emphasis on industrial involvement and near-term demonstration projects. In order to maintain its near- and long-term balance, the Hydrogen Program will continue with basic, fundamental research that provides the long-term, high-risk, high-payoff investment in hydrogen as an energy carrier.

  13. Domestic Uranium Production Report

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6. Employment in the U.S. uranium production industry by category, 2003-15 person-years Year Exploration Mining Milling Processing Reclamation Total 2003 W W W W 117 321 2004 18 108 W W 121 420 2005 79 149 142 154 124 648 2006 188 121 W W 155 755 2007 375 378 107 216 155 1,231 2008 457 558 W W 154 1,563 2009 175 441 W W 162 1,096 2010 211 400 W W 125 1,073 2011 208 462 W W 102 1,191 2012 161 462 W W 179 1,196 2013 149 392 W W 199 1,156 2014 86 246 W W 161 787 2015 58 251 W W 116

  14. Hydrogen Production Related Links | Department of Energy

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

    Production Related Links Hydrogen Production Related Links The following resources provide details about U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-funded hydrogen production activities, research plans and roadmaps, models and tools, and additional related links. DOE-Funded Hydrogen Production Activities Each year, hydrogen and fuel cell projects funded by DOE's Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program are reviewed for their merit during an Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting. View posters and

  15. Design and evaluation of Cities Service/Rockwell hydrogasification commercial plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Agrawal, P.D.; Butt, N.M.; Sarma, K.R.

    1980-08-01

    This report covers a preliminary conceptual design and economic evaluation of a commercial scale plant capable of converting high-sulfur bituminous caking coal to a high-Btu pipeline quality SNG. The plant, which has a rated capacity of 250 Billion Btu per day SNG, is based on Cities Service/Rockwell hydrogasification technology. Two cases of plant design were examined to produce cost estimates accurate to +-25% in 1979 dollars. The base case, designed for moderate production of liquids (5.8% conversion of carbon to liquid product), has a cost of SNG of $4.43/MMBtu using the utility financing method (UFM) and $6.42/MMBtu using the discounted cash flow method (DCFM) of financing. The alternate case, zero liquids production, has gas costs of $5.00 (UFM) and $6.96 (DCFM). Further tests by Rockwell have indicated that 11.4% carbon conversion to liquid products (99% benzene) is possible. If the plant is scaled up to produce the same amoung of SNG with this increased yield of liquid, and if the value of the benzene produced is estimated to be $0.90 per gallon, the costs of gas for this case are $4.38/MMBtu (UFM) and $6,48/MMBtu (DCFM). If the value of benzene is taken as $2.00 per gallon, these costs become $3.14/MMBtu (UFM) and $5.23/MMBtu (DCFM). The economic assumptions involved in these calculations are detailed.

  16. NETL: The First 100 Years

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2015-07-21

    The National Energy Technology Laboratory celebrates 100 years of innovative energy technology development. NETL has been a leader in energy technology development. This video takes a look back at the many accomplishments over the past 100 years. These advances benefit the American people, enhance our nation's energy security and protect our natural resources.

  17. Good Year - Bad Year Financial Planning Workshop handout - April...

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

    unit's financial reserve balance at the end of a year or be used as an input for a TPP assessment. This metric is the most direct measure of BPA's ability to pay Treasury....

  18. Year's End 2012 | Jefferson Lab

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

    Annual photovoltaic module shipments, 2004-2014 (peak kilowatts) Year Modules 2004 143,274 2005 204,996 2006 320,208 2007 494,148 2008 920,693 2009 1,188,879 2010 2,644,498 2011 3,772,075 2012 4,655,005 2013 4,984,881 2014 6,237,524 Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-63B, 'Annual Photovoltaic Cell/Module Shipments Report.' Note: Includes both U.S. Shipments and Exports.

    Year's End 2012 Year's End 2012 September 27, 2012 Throughout history, civilizations have developed

  19. Visualizing Twenty Years of Applications

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Potel, Mike; Wong, Pak C.

    2014-11-01

    This issue of IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications marks the 20th anniversary of the Applications department as a regular feature of the magazine. We thought it might be interesting to look back at the 20 years of Applications department articles to assess its evolution over that time. By aggregating all twenty years of articles and applying a little statistical and visual analytics, we’ve uncovered some interesting characteristics and trends we thought we’d share to mark this 20 year milestone.

  20. Iron production maintenance effectiveness system

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Augstman, J.J.

    1996-12-31

    In 1989, an internal study in the Coke and Iron Maintenance Department identified the opportunities available to increase production, by decreasing unscheduled maintenance delays from 4.6%. A five year front loaded plan was developed, and presented to the company president. The plan required an initial investment of $1.4 million and a conservative break-even point was calculated to be 2.5 years. Due to budget restraints, it would have to be self-funded, i.e., generate additional production or savings, to pay for the program. The program began in 1991 at number 2 coke plant and the blast furnaces. This paper will describe the Iron Production Maintenance Effectiveness System (ME), which began with the mechanical and pipefitting trades.

  1. Photovoltaic hydrogen production

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hiser, H.W.; Memory, S.B.; Veziroglu, T.N.; Padin, J.

    1996-10-01

    This is a new project, which started in June 1995, and involves photovoltaic hydrogen production as a fuel production method for the future. In order to increase the hydrogen yield, it was decided to use hybrid solar collectors to generate D.C. electricity, as well as high temperature steam for input to the electrolyzer. In this way, some of the energy needed to dissociate the water is supplied in the form of heat (or low grade energy), to generate steam, which results in a reduction of electrical energy (or high grade energy) needed. As a result, solar to hydrogen conversion efficiency is increased. In the above stated system, the collector location, the collector tracking sub-system (i.e., orientation/rotation), and the steam temperature have been taken as variables. Five locations selected - in order to consider a variety of latitudes, altitudes, cloud coverage and atmospheric conditions - are Atlanta, Denver, Miami, Phoenix and Salt Lake City. Plain PV and hybrid solar collectors for a stationary south facing system and five different collector rotation systems have been analyzed. Steam temperatures have been varied between 200{degrees}C and 1200{degrees}C. During the first year, solar to hydrogen conversion efficiencies have been considered. The results show that higher steam temperatures, 2 dimensional tracking system, higher elevations and dryer climates causes higher conversion efficiencies. Cost effectiveness of the sub-systems and of the overall system will be analyzed during the second year. Also, initial studies will be made of an advanced high efficiency hybrid solar hydrogen production system.

  2. Production Planning Model

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    1998-04-20

    PRODMOD is an integrated computational tool for performing dynamic simulation and optimization for the entire high level waste complex at the Savannah River Site (SRS) It is being used at SRS for planning purposes so that all waste can be processed efficiently. The computational tool 1) optimizes waste blending sequences, 2) minimizes waste volume production, 3) reduces waste processing time, 4) provides better process control and understanding, and 5) assists strategic planning, scheduling, and costmore » estimation. PRODMOD has been developed using Aspen Technology''s software development package SPEEDUP. PRODMOD models all the key HLW processing operations at SRS: storage and evaporation: saltcake production and dissolution: filtration (dewatering): precipitation: sludge and precipitate washing: glass, grout, and organics production. Innovative approaches have been used in making PRODMOD a very fast computational tool. These innovative approaches are 1) constructing a dynamic problem as a steady state problem 2) mapping between event-space (batch processes) and time-space (dynamic processes) without sacrificing the details in the batch process. The dynamic nature of the problem is constructed in linear form where time dependence is implicit. The linear constructs and mapping algorithms have made it possible to devise a general purpose optimization scheme which couples the optimization driver with the PRODMOD simulator. The optimization scheme is capable of generating single or multiple optimal input conditions for different types of objective functions over single or multiple years of operations depending on the nature of the objective function and operating constraints.« less

  3. PRODUCTION OF CARBON PRODUCTS USING A COAL EXTRACTION PROCESS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dady Dadyburjor; Philip R. Biedler; Chong Chen; L. Mitchell Clendenin; Manoj Katakdaunde; Elliot B. Kennel; Nathan D. King; Liviu Magean; Peter G. Stansberry; Alfred H. Stiller; John W. Zondlo

    2004-08-31

    This Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory sponsored project developed carbon products, using mildly hydrogenated solvents to extract the organic portion of coal to create synthetic pitches, cokes, carbon foam and carbon fibers. The focus of this effort was on development of lower cost solvents, milder hydrogenation conditions and improved yield in order to enable practical production of these products. This technology is needed because of the long-term decline in production of domestic feedstocks such as petroleum pitch and coal tar pitch. Currently, carbon products represents a market of roughly 5 million tons domestically, and 19 million tons worldwide. Carbon products are mainly derived from feedstocks such as petroleum pitch and coal tar pitch. The domestic supply of petroleum pitch is declining because of the rising price of liquid fuels, which has caused US refineries to maximize liquid fuel production. As a consequence, the long term trend has a decline in production of petroleum pitch over the past 20 years. The production of coal tar pitch, as in the case of petroleum pitch, has likewise declined significantly over the past two decades. Coal tar pitch is a byproduct of metallurgical grade coke (metcoke) production. In this industry, modern metcoke facilities are recycling coal tar as fuel in order to enhance energy efficiency and minimize environmental emissions. Metcoke production itself is dependent upon the production requirements for domestic steel. Hence, several metcoke ovens have been decommissioned over the past two decades and have not been replaced. As a consequence sources of coal tar are being taken off line and are not being replaced. The long-term trend is a reduction in coal tar pitch production. Thus import of feedstocks, mainly from Eastern Europe and China, is on the rise despite the relatively large transportation cost. To reverse this trend, a new process for producing carbon products is needed. The process must be

  4. Richland Operations Office's Fiscal Year...

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

    (fiscal year 2015) Basis of Evaluation: Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plan (PEMP) Award Fee Available: 10,899,475 Award Fee Earned: 10,591,975 Award Fee Area ...

  5. Microsoft Word - The Oppenheimer Years

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

    Oppenheimer Years 1943-1945 At 5:29:45 am MWT on July 16, 1945, the world's first atomic ... Oppenheimer wanted to attend graduate school in Great Britain, where he hoped to study ...

  6. Twenty Years of Clean Energy

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

    Twenty Years of Clean Energy For more information contact: George Douglas (303) 275-4096 ... the floors of U.S. forests is converted into clean-burning ethanol to power cars. ...

  7. PORTSMOUTH 2015 YEAR IN REVIEW

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    PORTSMOUTH 2015 YEAR IN REVIEW At the Portsmouth site this year, it was critical to have alignment among regulatory decisions and agreements, deactivation, shipping, and preliminary work on the on-site waste disposal facility. In 2015, we made significant progress in all of those areas. Our workforce performed admirably in 2015 and we look forward to continuing our momentum in 2016." - Dr. Vincent Adams, Portsmouth Site Director, DOE Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

  8. Multi-Year Program Plan

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    The Department of Energy’s Building Technologies Office’s (BTO’s) Multi-Year Program Plan (MYPP) for Fiscal Years 2016-2020 provides a broad overview of the energy use in the buildings sector, the opportunities for cost-effective energy savings, the barriers to their achievement, and BTO’s strategies and goals for achieving significant reductions in building energy use intensity.

  9. Monthly Biodiesel Production Report

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

    U.S. Biodiesel production capacity and production million gallons Period Annual Production ... B100 is the industry designation for pure biodiesel; a biodiesel blend contains both pure ...

  10. Draft dry year tools (generation/planning)

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

    BPA White Book Dry Year Tools Firstgov Dry Year Tools November 9, 2006 - Final Dry Year Guide: The Final Dry Year Guide (PDF, 5 pages, 44 kb) and Figure 1 - Dry Year Strategy (PDF,...

  11. STEO January 2013 - oil production increase

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

    since 1988. Most of America's oil production growth over the next two years will come from more drilling activity in tight shale rock formations located in North Dakota and Texas

  12. Sandia National Laboratories: The First Fifty Years (Journal Article) |

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

    SciTech Connect Journal Article: Sandia National Laboratories: The First Fifty Years Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Sandia National Laboratories: The First Fifty Years × You are accessing a document from the Department of Energy's (DOE) SciTech Connect. This site is a product of DOE's Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) and is provided as a public service. Visit OSTI to utilize additional information resources in energy science and technology. A paper copy of

  13. Office of Packaging and Transportation Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Report |

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

    Department of Energy Packaging and Transportation Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Report Office of Packaging and Transportation Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Report The Office of Environmental Management (EM) was established to mitigate the risks and hazards posed by the legacy of nuclear weapons production and research. The most ambitious and far ranging of these missions is dealing with the environmental legacy of the Cold War. Many problems posed by its operations are unique, and include the

  14. Office of Secure Transportation Ten-Year Site Plan

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Secure Transportation Ten-Year Site Plan Fiscal Year 2016 OST M 1.02 Prepared by Facilities Management Branch NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government, nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process

  15. California (with State off) Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 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: Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 California Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production

    off) Shale

  16. Florida Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 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: Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Florida Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production

    + Lease Condensate Proved

  17. Michigan Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 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: Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Michigan Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production

    + Lease Condensate Proved

  18. North Dakota Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 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: Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 North Dakota Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production

    + Lease Condensate Proved

  19. Management practices--production analysis and improvement

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Minnucci, C.A.; Hernai, A.S.

    1984-02-01

    In 1978, the U.S. Department of Energy funded a 2-year study to identify and quantify causes of the post-1969 coal mine productivity decline. A large number of factors hypothesized to have affected productivity during this period were analyzed using regression techniques. The results were particularly interesting for two of the factors--mining method and shift scheduling. The study results indicate that the use of longwall mining has an insignificant impact on overall mine productivity, compared to other methods, and mines operating on a two-production shift per day schedule are more productive than mines employing other shift schedules.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 356 1980's 350 349 376 397 425 416 411 402 351 331 1990's 318 346 327 316 305 343 323 372 342 191 2000's 191 311 326 315 373 367 396 458 473 494 2010's 566 578 522 481 598 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  1. Texas--RRC District 2 onsh Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas--RRC District 2 onsh Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 7 141 327 474 649 - = 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: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production TX, RRC District 2 Onshore Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves

  2. Texas--RRC District 3 onsh Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas--RRC District 3 onsh Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 2 10 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production TX, RRC District 3 Onshore Shale Gas Proved Reserves,

  3. Texas--RRC District 4 onsh Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas--RRC District 4 onsh Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 5 2010's 26 154 305 316 381 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production TX, RRC District 4 Onshore Shale Gas Proved

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 62 1980's 82 99 99 129 103 101 106 90 95 71 1990's 74 81 67 73 61 69 64 57 48 34 2000's 34 28 24 31 42 89 131 200 269 326 2010's 359 416 295 332 312 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  5. Texas--RRC District 7B Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas--RRC District 7B Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 90 141 145 2010's 140 184 258 218 165 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production TX, RRC District 7B Shale Gas Proved

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 168 1980's 120 172 184 204 219 242 232 231 226 225 1990's 234 218 266 250 241 255 285 309 266 291 2000's 291 271 326 319 365 391 404 464 402 412 2010's 465 549 524 438 473 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  7. Texas--RRC District 7C Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas--RRC District 7C Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 0 0 2 13 111 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production TX, RRC District 7C Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 8A Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 350 1980's 289 335 296 262 282 282 331 307 325 332 1990's 353 333 257 297 267 284 262 290 226 222 2000's 222 250 180 163 197 248 231 260 194 201 2010's 230 239 242 239 245 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  9. Texas--RRC District 8A Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas--RRC District 8A Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 0 0 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: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production TX, RRC District 8A Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and

  10. The Availability and Price of Petroleum and Petroleum Products...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    three-year average production total of 4.0 million bbld (Table 1). * Global surplus crude oil production capacity in May and June was 2.4 million bbld, which is 0.3 million bbl...

  11. Fact #662: February 14, 2011 World Biodiesel Production

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Europe has been the dominant region for biodiesel production with increased production each year since 2005. North America has been a distant second led by the United States until 2009. In 2009, U...

  12. ARM - VAP Product - armbestns

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

    Surface Products : ARMBESTNS Measurements The measurements below provided by this product are those considered scientifically relevant. Atmospheric moisture Atmospheric...

  13. Two Year Difference | Jefferson Lab

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

    Two Year Difference Two Year Difference May 19, 2014 On May 19, 2012, we held an Open House; on Saturday, May 17, 2014, we held an Open House; it's a habit. And what a day we had on Saturday! The weather was perfect. The extent to which we are able to open the lab is a major surprise for many visitors. They arrive with the expectation that maybe we open one building with displays. Instead, they find themselves getting into the accelerator, the Central Helium Liquefier, and ALL the experimental

  14. Pedernales oilfield, eastern Venezuela: The first 100 years

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gluyas, J.; Oliver, J.; Wilson, W.

    1996-08-01

    Petroleum seeps and surface tar mats attracted oil explorers to Pedernales in eastern Venezuela 100 years ago. Commercial production from the Pedernales Field was established by Creole in 1933. In three production periods, broken by WWII and the end of the Creole-Texaco refining contract, Creole and Lagoven produced about 60 MMSTB from about 60 wells in about 60 years. Peak production was in the late 1950s, when the field delivered 12,000 BOPD. Production was stopped in 1986. In March 1993, BP Venezuela acquired the license to reactivate Pedernales on behalf of Lagoven, and BP`s first well in the field was drilled in August 1994. A second was completed in early 1995. The production from each well was sufficiently encouraging for commerciality to be declared in March 1995. Phase 1 of the field reactivation demanded a production rate of 11,500 BOPD. As of now (September, 1995) six wells, including one gas disposal well, have been completed. Wells have been placed using a combination of old well data and mapping based on a close spaced 2D seismic survey shot in early 1994. Results from these first few wells indicate that the required production rate will be achieved despite severely depleted reservoir pressures. This paper tells the story of reactivation and re-evaluation of one of eastern Venezuela`s oldest oilfields.

  15. Transport woes threaten California production

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-05-23

    California oil producers face a loss of production this year because of constraints on pipeline and tanker transportation to Los Angeles area refineries. The potential bottleneck is occurring at a time when Outer Continental Shelf production is near capacity from Chevron Corp.'s Point Arguello project at the same time production is increasing from Exxon Corp.'s nearby Santa Ynex Unit (SYU) expansion. Both megaprojects must compete for pipeline space with onshore crude producers, notably in California's San Joaquin Valley (SJV). Recent development limiting transportation options include: An indefinite shutdown of Four Corners Pipe Line Co.'s 50,000 b/d Line No. 1, damaged by the Jan. 17 earthquake; Loss of a tanker permit by Chevron and partners for offshore Point Arguello production; Permanent shutdown of Exxon's offshore storage and treatment (OST) facility, which since 1981 has used tankers to transport about 20,000 b/d of SYU production from the Santa Barbara Channel to Los Angeles. The OST, the first commercial floating production system in the US -- placed in the Santa Barbara Channel in 1981 after a decade of precedent setting legal and political battles -- was shut down Apr. 4. The paper discusses these production concerns, available options, the OST shutdown, and the troubled history of the OST.

  16. Calendar Year Reports | Department of Energy

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

    Calendar Year Reports Calendar Year Reports Audit, Inspection and Other Reports The majority of Office of Inspector General reports are public. Certain reports, however, are not public as they contain information that is protected by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act. The provisions of these acts determine the availability of these reports. Calendar Year 2016 Calendar Year 2015 Calendar Year 2014 Calendar Year 2013 Calendar Year 2012 Calendar Year 2011 Calendar Year 2010

  17. FEMP Year in Review 2009

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2009-12-01

    In 2009, the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)undertook an ambitious reorganization of its program structure to be more responsive to the needs of its Federal agency customers. In this Year in Review 2009, you will learn more about FEMP achievements under its new program areas.

  18. Nuclear Materials Focus Area Fiscal Year 2002 Mid Year Review

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Thiel, Elizabeth Chilcote

    2002-05-01

    The Nuclear Materials Focus Area (NMFA) held its annual mid-year review on February 12 and 14, 2002, in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The purpose of this review was to examine both the technical aspects and the programmatic aspects of its technology development program. The focus area activities were reviewed by a panel consisting of personnel representing the end users of the technologies, and technical experts in nuclear materials. This year's review was somewhat different than in the past, as the stress was on how well the various projects being managed through the NMFA aligned with the two thrust areas and nine key goals and priorities recently issued by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for DOE's Office of Environmental Management (EM).

  19. Nuclear Materials Focus Area Fiscal Year 2002 Mid Year Review

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Thiel, E.C.; Fuhrman, P.W.

    2002-05-30

    The Nuclear Materials Focus Area (NMFA) held its annual mid-year review on February 12 and 14, 2002, in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The purpose of this review was to examine both the technical aspects and the programmatic aspects of its technology development program. The focus area activities were reviewed by a panel consisting of personnel representing the end users of the technologies, and technical experts in nuclear materials. This year's review was somewhat different than in the past, as the stress was on how well the various projects being managed through the NMFA aligned with the two thrust areas and nine key goals and priorities recently issued by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for DOE's Office of Environmental Management (EM).

  20. Decommissioning of U.S. Uranium Production Facilities

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    1995-01-01

    This report analyzes the uranium production facility decommissioning process and its potential impact on uranium supply and prices. 1995 represents the most recent publication year.

  1. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Natural Gas Liquids Production...

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

    Greater than 200 Meters Deep (Million Barrels) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Natural Gas Liquids Production from Greater than 200 Meters Deep (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0...

  2. The Availability and Price of Petroleum and Petroleum Products...

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

    over year-ago levels and the three-year average (Table 2). * Global surplus crude oil production capacity in July and August 2013 averaged 2.2 million bbld, which is 0.3...

  3. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Dry Natural Gas Production from...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Less than 200 Meters Deep (Billion Cubic Feet) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Dry Natural Gas Production from Less than 200 Meters Deep (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1...

  4. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Natural Gas Liquids Production...

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

    Less than 200 Meters Deep (Million Barrels) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Natural Gas Liquids Production from Less than 200 Meters Deep (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1...

  5. Domestic Uranium Production Report

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7. Employment in the U.S. uranium production industry by state, 2003-15 person-years State(s) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Wyoming 134 139 181 195 245 301 308 348 424 512 531 416 343 Colorado and Texas 48 140 269 263 557 696 340 292 331 248 198 105 79 Nebraska and New Mexico 92 102 123 160 149 160 159 134 127 W W W W Arizona, Utah, and Washington 47 40 75 120 245 360 273 281 W W W W W Alaska, Michigan, Nevada, and South Dakota 0 0 0 16 25 30 W W W W W 0 0

  6. Multi-Year SSL Market Development Support Plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ledbetter, Marc R.

    2012-05-01

    This plan sets out a strategic, five year framework for guiding DOE's market development support activities for high-performance solid-state lighting (SSL) products for the U.S. general illumination market. The market development support activities described in this plan, which span federal fiscal years 2012 to 2016, are intended to affect the types of SSL general illumination products adopted by the market, to accelerate commercial adoption of those products, and to support appropriate application of those products to maximize energy savings. DOE has established aggressive FY16 goals for these activities, including goals for the types of products brought to market, the market adoption of those products, and the energy savings achieved through use of SSL products. These goals are for the combined effect of DOE's SSL market development support and R and D investment, as well as the leveraged activities of its partners. Goals include: (1) inducing the market introduction of SSL products achieving 140 lumens per Watt (lm/W) for warm white products, and 155 lm/W for cool white products, and (2) inducing sales of high-performance SSL products that achieve annual site electricity savings of 21 terawatt hours (0.25 quadrillion Btus primary energy) by FY16. To overcome identified market barriers and to achieve the above five year goals, DOE proposes to carry out the following strategy. DOE will implement a multi-year program to accelerate adoption of good quality, high performance SSL products that achieve significant energy savings and maintain or improve lighting quality. Relying on lessons learned from past emerging technology introductions, such as compact fluorescent lamps, and using newly developed market research, DOE will design its efforts to minimize the likelihood that the SSL market will repeat mistakes that greatly delayed market adoption of earlier emerging technology market introductions. To achieve the maximum effect per dollar invested, DOE will work

  7. Future use of BI-GAS facility. Final report, Part II. [Other possible uses

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1981-09-01

    The 120 tpd BI-GAS pilot plant, intended to produce SNG at high pressure, was completed in 1976. For the next three and a half years, the operator, Stearns-Roger Inc., was engaged in operating the plant while overcoming a series of mechanical problems that have prevented the plant from running at design capacity and pressure. Since July 1980, these problems have apparently been corrected and considerable progress was made. In late 1979, the Yates Congressional Committee directed DOE to investigate the possibility of establishing an entrained-bed gasifier test facility at the site. In January 1981, the DOE established a study group composed of DOE and UOP/SDC personnel to determine how best to use the BI-GAS facility. The group considered four possibilities: Continue operation of the facility in accordance with the technical program plan developed by DOE and Stearns-Roger; modify the plant into an entrained-bed facility for testing components and processes; mothball the facility, or dismantle the facility. The group took the view that modifying the plant into a test facility would increase substantially the amount of engineering data available to the designers of commercial gasification plants. Since it appears that syngas plants will be of commercial interest sooner than SNG plants will, it was decided that the facility should test syngas production components and processes at high pressure. Consequently, it was recommended that: Operation of the plant be continued, both to collect data and to prove the BI-GAS process, as long as the schedule of the technical program plan is met; Begin at once to prepare a detailed design for modifying the BI-GAS plant to a high-pressure, entrained flow syngas test facility; and Implement the modification plan as soon as the BI-GAS process is proven or it becomes apparent that progress is unsatisfactory.

  8. The Mississippi CCS Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Doug Cathro

    2010-09-30

    The Mississippi CCS Project is a proposed large-scale industrial carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) project which would have demonstrated advanced technologies to capture and sequester carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) emissions from industrial sources into underground formations. Specifically, the Mississippi CCS Project was to accelerate commercialization of large-scale CO{sub 2} storage from industrial sources by leveraging synergy between a proposed petcoke to Substitute Natural Gas (SNG) plant that is selected for a Federal Loan Guarantee and would be the largest integrated anthropogenic CO{sub 2} capture, transport, and monitored sequestration program in the U.S. Gulf Coast Region. The Mississippi CCS Project was to promote the expansion of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in the Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana region which would supply greater energy security through increased domestic energy production. The capture, compression, pipeline, injection, and monitoring infrastructure would have continued to sequester CO{sub 2} for many years after the completion of the term of the DOE agreement. The objectives of this project were expected to be fulfilled through two distinct phases. The overall objective of Phase 1 was to develop a fully definitive project basis for a competitive Renewal Application process to proceed into Phase 2 - Design, Construction and Operations. Phase 1 included the studies that establish the engineering design basis for the capture, compression and transportation of CO{sub 2} from the MG SNG Project, and the criteria and specifications for a monitoring, verification and accounting (MVA) plan at the Soso oil field in Mississippi. The overall objective of Phase 2, was to execute design, construction and operations of three capital projects: the CO{sub 2} capture and compression equipment, the Mississippi CO{sub 2} Pipeline to Denbury's Free State Pipeline, and an MVA system at the Soso oil field.

  9. Hydrogen Production and Consumption in the U.S.: The Last 25...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Hydrogen Production and Consumption in the U.S.: The Last 25 Years. Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Hydrogen Production and Consumption in the U.S.: The Last 25 Years. ...

  10. U.S. crude oil production expected to exceed oil imports later...

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

    crude oil production expected to exceed oil imports later this year U.S. crude oil production is expected to surpass U.S. crude oil imports by the fourth quarter of this year. That ...

  11. Fact #862 March 2, 2015 Light Vehicle Production in Mexico More...

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

    2, 2015 Light Vehicle Production in Mexico More than Doubled in Last Five Years Fact 862 March 2, 2015 Light Vehicle Production in Mexico More than Doubled in Last Five Years ...

  12. Natural gas production on the rise

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

    Natural gas production on the rise After a brief slowdown in early 2016, U.S. natural gas production is expected to increase during the second half of this year and continue rising through 2017. In its new monthly forecast, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said domestic natural gas output during the fourth quarter of this year is expected to top 80 billion cubic feet per day and then climb to a new record of 82 billion cubic feet per day by end of 2017. With record production and

  13. Fiscal Year 2012 Revegetation Assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jenifer Nordstrom

    2012-11-01

    This report summarizes the Fiscal Year 2012 Revegetation Assessment by Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC. This assessment was conducted to supplement documentation related to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for Construction Activities and to ensure that disturbed vegetation and soil at various locations are being restored. This report provides the following information for each site being monitored by the Idaho National Laboratory Environmental Support and Services: • Summary of each site • Assessment of vegetation status and site stabilization at each location • Actions and Resolutions for each site. Ten disturbed sites were evaluated for this assessment. Six have achieved final stabilization. The remaining four sites not meeting the criteria for final stabilization will be evaluated again in the next fiscal year.

  14. Fiscal Year 2013 Revegetation Assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jenifer Nordstrom

    2013-11-01

    This report summarizes the Fiscal Year 2013 Revegetation Assessment by Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC. This assessment was conducted to supplement documentation related to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for Construction Activities and to ensure that disturbed vegetation and soil at various locations are being restored. This report provides the following information for each site being monitored by the Idaho National Laboratory Environmental Support and Services: Summary of each site Assessment of vegetation status and site stabilization at each location Actions and Resolutions for each site. Six disturbed sites were evaluated for this assessment. One has achieved final stabilization. The remaining five sites not meeting the criteria for final stabilization will be evaluated again in the next fiscal year.

  15. Biological production of products from waste gases

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Gaddy, James L.

    2002-01-22

    A method and apparatus are designed for converting waste gases from industrial processes such as oil refining, and carbon black, coke, ammonia, and methanol production, into useful products. The method includes introducing the waste gases into a bioreactor where they are fermented to various products, such as organic acids, alcohols, hydrogen, single cell protein, and salts of organic acids by anaerobic bacteria within the bioreactor. These valuable end products are then recovered, separated and purified.

  16. Covered Product Category: Cool Roof Products

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    FEMP provides acquisition guidance across a variety of product categories, including cool roof products, which are an ENERGY STAR®-qualified product category. Federal laws and requirements mandate that agencies meet these efficiency requirements in all procurement and acquisition actions that are not specifically exempted by law.

  17. Relating horsepower to drilling productivity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Givens, R.; Williams, G.; Wingfield, B.

    1996-12-31

    Many technological advancements have been made in explosive products and applications over the last 15 years resulting in productivity and cost gains. However, the application of total energy (engine horsepower) in the majority of rotary drilling technology, has remained virtually unchanged over that period. While advancements have been made in components, efficiency, and types of hydraulic systems used on drills, the application of current hydraulic technology to improve drilling productivity has not been interactive with end users. This paper will investigate how traditional design assumptions, regarding typical application of horsepower in current rotary drill systems, can actually limit productivity. It will be demonstrated by numeric analysis how changing the partitioning of available hydraulic energy can optimize rotary drill productivity in certain conditions. Through cooperative design ventures with drill manufacturers, increased penetration rates ranging from 20% to 100% have been achieved. Productivity was increased initially on some rigs by careful selection of optional hydraulic equipment. Additional gains were made in drilling rates by designing the rotary hydraulic circuit to meet the drilling energies predicted by computer modeling.

  18. Lease Condensate Estimated Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    per Thousand Cubic Feet) Lake Charles, LA Natural Gas LNG Imports from Equatorial Guinea (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Lake Charles, LA Natural Gas LNG Imports from Equatorial Guinea (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's -- 6.75 -- -- 2010's -- - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date:

  19. Fiscal Year 2009 Revegetation Assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Michael Lewis

    2009-10-01

    This report summarizes the Fiscal Year 2009 Revegetation Assessment by Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC. This assessment was conducted to supplement documentation related to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for Construction Activities and to ensure that disturbed vegetation and soil at various locations are being restored. This report provides the following information for each site being monitored by the Idaho National Laboratory Environmental Support and Services: • Summary of each site • Assessment of vegetation status and site stabilization at each location • Recommendation(s) for each site.

  20. Fiscal Year 2010 Revegetation Assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jenifer Nordstrom; Mike Lewis

    2010-11-01

    This report summarizes the Fiscal Year 2010 Revegetation Assessment by Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC. This assessment was conducted to supplement documentation related to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for Construction Activities and to ensure that disturbed vegetation and soil at various locations are being restored. This report provides the following information for each site being monitored by the Idaho National Laboratory Environmental Support and Services: • Summary of each site • Assessment of vegetation status and site stabilization at each location • Recommendation(s) for each site.

  1. DOE Technical Targets for Photobiological Hydrogen Production | Department

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

    of Energy Photobiological Hydrogen Production DOE Technical Targets for Photobiological Hydrogen Production These tables list the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) technical targets for photobiological hydrogen production. The tables are organized into separate sections for photolytic biological and photosynthetic bacterial hydrogen production systems. More information about targets can be found in the Hydrogen Production section of the Fuel Cell Technologies Office's Multi-Year Research,

  2. Economical Production of Pu-238

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Steven D. Howe; Douglas Crawford; Jorge Navarro; Terry Ring

    2013-02-01

    All space exploration missions traveling beyond Jupiter must use radioisotopic power sources for electrical power. The best isotope to power these sources is plutonium-238. The US supply of Pu-238 is almost exhausted and will be gone within the next decade. The Department of Energy has initiated a production program with a $10M allocation from NASA but the cost is estimated at over $100 M to get to production levels. The Center for Space Nuclear Research has conceived of a potentially better process to produce Pu-238 earlier and for significantly less cost. The new process will also produce dramatically less waste. Potentially, the front end costs could be provided by private industry such that the government only had to pay for the product produced. Under a NASA Phase I NIAC grant, the CSNR has evaluated the feasibility of using a low power, commercially available nuclear reactor to produce at least 1.5 kg of Pu-238 per year. The impact on the neutronics of the reactor have been assessed, the amount of Neptunium target material estimated, and the production rates calculated. In addition, the size of the post-irradiation processing facility has been established. In addition, a new method for fabricating the Pu-238 product into the form used for power sources has been identified to reduce the cost of the final product. In short, the concept appears to be viable, can produce the amount of Pu-238 needed to support the NASA missions, can be available within a few years, and will cost significantly less than the current DOE program.

  3. Grid-based Production

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

    Grid-based Production Grid-based Production PDSF is a Tier 2 site for ALICE and as such has the infrastructure in place to run automated grid-based ALICE production jobs. The main...

  4. Hydrogen Production and Consumption in the U.S.: The Last 25...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Hydrogen Production and Consumption in the U.S.: The Last 25 Years. Brown, Daryl R. hydrogen; production; U.S.; merchant; captive hydrogen; production; U.S.; merchant; captive This...

  5. ,"Weekly Blender Net Production"

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

    Net Production of Finished Motor Gasoline (Thousand Barrels per Day)","Weekly East Coast (PADD 1) Blender Net Production of Finished Motor Gasoline (Thousand Barrels per ...

  6. Production | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Research & Development Algal Biofuels Production Production PNNL image Algae ... growth rate and high oil content, that make algae attractive to convert into biofuels. ...

  7. J/ψ Production

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA (Dated: October 30, 2006) We study J production at RHIC and LHC energies with both initial production and regener- ation. ...

  8. Monthly Biodiesel Production Report

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

    Biodiesel (B100) production by Petroleum Administration for Defense District (PADD) ... Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-22M "Monthly Biodiesel Production ...

  9. Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves annual report of operations for fiscal year 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1996-12-31

    During fiscal year 1996, the Department of Energy continued to operate Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1 in California and Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 3 in Wyoming through its contractors. In addition, natural gas operations were conducted at Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 3. All productive acreage owned by the Government at Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 2 in California was produced under lease to private companies. The locations of all six Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves are shown in a figure. Under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976, production was originally authorized for six years, and based on findings of national interest, the President was authorized to extend production in three-year increments. President Reagan exercised this authority three times (in 1981, 1984, and 1987) and President Bush authorized extended production once (in 1990). President Clinton exercised this authority in 1993 and again in October 1996; production is presently authorized through April 5, 2000. 4 figs. 30 tabs.

  10. Yearly Energy Costs for Buildings

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    1991-03-20

    COSTSAFR3.0 generates a set of compliance forms which will be attached to housing Requests for Proposals (RFPs) issued by Departments or Agencies of the Federal Government. The compliance forms provide a uniform method for estimating the total yearly energy cost for each proposal. COSTSAFR3.0 analyzes specific housing projects at a given site, using alternative fuel types, and considering alternative housing types. The program is designed around the concept of minimizing overall costs through energy conservationmore » design, including first cost and future utility costs, and estabilishes a standard design to which proposed housing designs are compared. It provides a point table for each housing type that can be used to determine whether a proposed design meets the standard and how a design can be modified to meet the standard.« less

  11. Fiscal Year 2014 Revegetation Assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Nordstrom, Jenifer

    2015-03-01

    This report summarizes the Fiscal Year 2014 Revegetation Assessment by Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC. This assessment was conducted to document revegetation efforts at Idaho National Laboratory to ensure that disturbed vegetation and soil at various locations are being restored. This report provides the following information for each site being monitored by the Idaho National Laboratory Environmental Support and Services: • Summary of each site • Assessment of vegetation status and site stabilization at each location • Actions and Resolutions for each site. Five disturbed sites were evaluated for this assessment. Four sites are recommended to be removed from the annual assessment, and one is recommended for continued evaluation. New sites are also identified for future monitoring as part of the annual assessment.

  12. Fiscal Year 1987 Department of Energy Authorization (magnetic fusion energy). Hearings before the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production of the Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives, Ninety-Ninth Congress, Second Session, February 25, 26, 1986, Volume V

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1986-01-01

    Volume V of the hearing record covers two days of hearings on the magnetic fusion energy programs. Alvin Trivelpiece of DOE, Stephen Dean of Fusion Power Associates, Allen Mense of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, and George Miley of the University Fusion Association testified on the impact of budget reductions and the role of international cooperation in the fusion energy effort. Trivelpiece reviewed progress of the past 25 years, and discussed the problem of funding long-range energy options during an energy surplus. International collaboration has focused on the Engineering Test Reactor (ETR) program. Rep. Mike McCormack described some of the myths surrounding fusion research and its goals, and outlined three lines of approach toward reaching the goal of producing fusion electricity. Others commended changes in policy direction as being helpful despite budget cuts.

  13. Nebraska Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 2,091 2,300 1,944 1,403 1,261 910 878 1990's 793 785 1,177 1,375 2,098 1,538 1,332 1,194 1,285 1,049 2000's 879 883 892 1,168 1,172 1,172 NA 1,555 3,082 2,908 2010's 2,231 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable;

  14. Ohio Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 149,096 184,651 180,458 180,287 164,960 166,690 159,730 1990's 154,619 146,189 143,381 135,939 130,855 125,085 119,251 116,246 108,542 102,505 2000's 98,551 97,272 103,158 120,081 119,847 83,523 86,315 88,095 84,858

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

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

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

  16. Oklahoma Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 1,730,061 1,985,869 1,936,341 1,917,493 2,004,797 2,106,632 2,185,204 1990's 2,186,153 2,119,161 1,937,224 2,005,971 1,879,257 1,765,788 1,751,487 1,452,233 1,644,531 1,577,961 2000's 1,612,890 1,477,058 1,456,375

  17. Oregon Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 3 2,790 4,080 4,600 3,800 4,000 2,500 1990's 2,815 2,741 2,580 4,003 3,221 1,923 1,439 1,173 1,067 1,291 2000's 1,214 1,069 837 688 467 433 NA 390 751 751 2010's 1,376 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA =

  18. Pennsylvania Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 118,372 166,342 150,234 159,889 163,318 167,089 191,774 1990's 177,609 152,500 138,675 189,443 187,113 177,139 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2010's NA - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA =

  19. Alabama--onshore Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama--onshore Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 169,220 176,208 174,537 173,399 180,277 185,574 182,641 179,227 2000's 171,917 165,622 162,613 162,524 159,924 153,179 149,415 144,579 140,401 134,757 2010's 128,194 116,932 128,312 120,666 110,226 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  20. Alaska--onshore Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska--onshore Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 316,456 308,512 335,608 357,629 355,905 346,325 335,426 338,806 2000's 324,577 339,311 358,936 423,366 365,100 376,892 380,221 368,344 337,359 349,457 2010's 316,546 294,728 315,682 280,101 305,061 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  1. Calif--onshore Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Calif--onshore Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 306,829 260,560 251,390 232,005 231,640 236,725 264,610 330,370 2000's 323,864 328,778 309,399 290,212 273,232 274,817 278,933 264,838 259,988 239,037 2010's 251,559 218,638 214,509 219,386 218,512 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  2. California Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) California Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 4,487 4,701 4,700 1980's 5,000 3,928 3,740 3,519 3,374 1990's 3,185 3,004 2,778 2,682 2,402 2,243 2,082 2,273 2,244 2,387 2000's 2,849 2,681 2,591 2,450 2,634 3,228 2,794 2,740 2,406 2,773 2010's 2,647 2,934 1,999 1,887 2,107 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  3. California Federal Offshore Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production

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

    (Billion Cubic Feet) Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) California Federal Offshore Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 250 246 322 1980's 414 1,325 1,452 1,552 1,496 1990's 1,454 1,162 1,118 1,099 1,170 1,265 1,244 544 480 536 2000's 576 540 515 511 459 824 811 805 704 739 2010's 724 710 651 261 240 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  4. California--State Offshore Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) California--State Offshore Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 7,211 6,467 7,204 5,664 5,975 6,947 6,763 6,500 2000's 6,885 6,823 6,909 6,087 6,803 6,617 6,652 7,200 6,975 5,832 2010's 5,120 4,760 5,051 5,470 5,961 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  5. Federal Offshore California Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Federal Offshore California Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 51,592 48,825 50,833 41,886 48,879 42,018 43,904 45,844 2000's 45,831 42,223 43,896 40,917 39,884 36,204 29,624 35,121 29,506 31,706 2010's 30,162 26,779 27,262 27,454 28,245 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  6. Texas Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 43,591 43,264 40,574 38,711 38,167 38,381 1990's 38,192 36,174 35,093 34,718 35,974 36,542 38,270 37,761 37,584 40,157 2000's 42,082 43,527 44,297 45,730 49,955 56,507 61,836 72,091 77,546 80,424 2010's 88,997 98,165 86,924 90,349 97,154 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  7. Texas--onshore Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Texas--onshore Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 4,734,715 4,894,291 4,961,117 4,983,373 5,068,868 5,102,806 5,167,180 5,005,568 2000's 5,240,909 5,229,075 5,084,012 5,189,998 5,022,369 5,239,469 5,523,237 6,093,951 6,913,906 6,781,162 2010's 6,686,719 7,089,072 7,458,989 7,619,582 7,942,121 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available;

  8. Kentucky Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 46,720 61,518 73,126 80,195 70,125 44,725 72,417 1990's 75,333 78,904 79,690 86,966 73,081 74,754 81,435 79,547 81,868 76,770 2000's 81,545 81,723 88,259 87,609 94,259 92,795 95,320 95,437 114,116 NA 2010's 135,355

  9. Louisiana Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic

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

    Feet) Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 2,482 1,741 1,625 1,691 1,687 1990's 1,596 1,527 1,494 1,457 1,453 1,403 1,521 1,496 1,403 1,421 2000's 1,443 1,479 1,338 1,280 1,322 1,206 1,309 1,257 1,319 1,544 2010's 2,189 2,985 3,057 2,344 1,960 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

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

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

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

  11. Michigan Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 138,910 144,537 131,855 127,287 146,996 146,145 155,988 1990's 106,193 189,497 190,637 199,746 216,268 238,203 245,740 305,950 278,076 277,364 2000's 296,556 275,036 274,476 236,987 259,681 261,112 NA NA 153,130

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

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

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

  13. Mississippi Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 211,116 206,871 178,426 197,217 195,299 196,912 148,167 1990's 149,012 126,637 129,340 131,450 105,646 95,349 88,805 98,075 88,723 83,232 2000's 70,965 76,986 112,979 133,901 145,692 52,923 60,531 73,460 96,641

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

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

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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. Wyoming Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Wyoming Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 315 329 355 1980's 416 423 391 414 484 433 402 456 510 591 1990's 583 639 714 713 780 806 782 891 838 1,213 2000's 1,070 1,286 1,388 1,456 1,524 1,642 1,695 1,825 2,026 2,233 2010's 2,218 2,088 2,001 1,992 1,718 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  20. Wyoming Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 395,656 447,615 416,565 352,858 407,863 471,095 623,915 1990's 690,356 711,799 765,254 63,667 14,283 12,449 27,821 719,933 1,004,020 1,079,375 2000's 1,240,038 1,359,868 1,533,724 1,561,322 1,724,725 1,729,760

  1. Virginia Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Virginia Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 122 175 216 235 253 248 230 217 1990's 138 225 904 1,322 1,833 1,836 1,930 2,446 1,973 2,017 2000's 1,704 1,752 1,673 1,717 1,742 2,018 2,302 2,529 2,378 3,091 2010's 3,215 2,832 2,579 2,373 2,800 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  3. Louisiana--onshore Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana--onshore Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 1,511,271 1,517,415 1,531,493 1,589,019 1,437,037 1,325,445 1,360,141 1,403,510 2000's 1,314,375 1,350,494 1,226,613 1,219,627 1,226,268 1,189,611 1,264,850 1,293,590 1,292,366 1,472,722 2010's 2,140,525 2,958,249 2,882,193 2,282,452 1,918,626 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

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

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

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 5,191 1980's 5,187 5,478 5,611 6,280 6,121 6,109 6,348 6,327 6,448 6,000 1990's 5,944 5,860 5,878 5,709 5,722 5,896 6,179 6,001 5,868 6,112 2000's 6,596 6,190 6,243 5,857 6,338 6,551 6,795 7,323 7,530 8,258 2010's 9,521 10,537 10,489 11,655

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

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

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

  6. Alaska Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 211,569 211,579 222,637 304,841 271,120 228,284 192,760 1990's 191,798 200,557 206,259 224,786 201,891 227,797 193,278 191,017 192,982 186,727 2000's 189,896 197,735 200,871 199,616 413,667 502,887 494,323

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

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

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

  8. Arkansas Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 78,097 75,575 86,552 68,206 42,688 102,046 42,226 1990's 99,456 83,864 85,177 122,596 24,326 180,117 76,671 71,449 61,012 54,382 2000's 55,057 16,901 161,871 166,329 183,299 190,533 193,491 269,886 446,551 680,613

  9. California Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) California Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 282,639 343,079 361,739 329,366 346,720 327,399 283,509 1990's 275,738 211,841 195,515 76,381 199,649 263 37,823 219,216 264,810 382,715 2000's 323,864 328,778 309,399 293,691 276,520 274,817 278,933 268,016

  10. Colorado Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Colorado Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 174 167 156 1980's 163 165 196 156 171 166 188 159 188 220 1990's 229 282 320 387 447 514 540 562 676 719 2000's 759 882 964 1,142 1,050 1,104 1,174 1,326 1,441 1,524 2010's 1,590 1,694 1,681 1,527 1,561 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  11. Colorado Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 139,820 143,552 126,037 163,684 164,557 191,544 216,737 1990's 242,997 271,159 314,105 388,016 441,343 511,513 559,473 637,375 696,321 705,477 2000's 735,332 800,712 819,205 989,678 1,058,383 1,106,993 1,170,819

  12. Florida Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Florida Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 36 39 36 1980's 32 27 20 18 11 8 8 7 5 7 1990's 7 4 7 6 7 6 5 6 5 5 2000's 6 5 4 3 3 2 2 4 3 0 2010's 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

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

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

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

  14. Florida Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Florida Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 25,630 18,897 13,162 3,004 1,893 1,883 1,437 1990's 1,443 2,096 3,849 2,612 4,940 3,545 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2010's NA - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld

  15. Ohio Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Ohio Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 495 684 1,479 1980's 1,699 965 1,141 2,030 1,541 1,331 1,420 1,069 1,229 1,275 1990's 1,214 1,181 1,161 1,104 1,094 1,054 1,113 985 890 1,179 2000's 1,185 970 1,117 1,126 974 898 975 1,027 985 896 2010's 832 758 1,233 3,161 6,723 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  16. Oklahoma Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 13,889 14,417 13,816 1980's 13,138 14,699 16,207 16,211 16,126 16,040 16,685 16,711 16,495 15,916 1990's 16,151 14,725 13,926 13,289 13,487 13,438 13,074 13,439 13,645 12,543 2000's 13,699 13,558 14,886 15,401 16,238 17,123 17,464 19,031 20,845 22,769 2010's 26,345 27,830 26,599 26,873 31,778 -

  17. Pennsylvania Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic

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

    Feet) Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 769 899 1,515 1980's 951 1,264 1,429 1,882 1,575 1,617 1,560 1,647 2,072 1,642 1990's 1,720 1,629 1,528 1,717 1,800 1,482 1,696 1,852 1,840 1,772 2000's 1,741 1,775 2,216 2,487 2,361 2,782 3,050 3,361 3,577 6,985 2010's 13,960 26,529 36,348 49,674 59,873 - = No Data Reported; -- =

  18. Tennessee Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 3,950 5,022 4,686 3,464 2,707 2,100 1,900 1990's 2,067 1,856 1,770 1,660 1,990 1,820 1,690 1,510 1,420 1,230 2000's 1,150 2,000 2,050 1,803 2,100 2,200 2,663 3,942 4,700 5,478 2010's 5,144 - = No Data Reported; --

  19. Texas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 5,567 5,151 4,620 4,517 4,590 4,568 1990's 4,478 4,480 4,545 4,645 4,775 4,724 4,889 4,942 4,855 4,897 2000's 5,072 5,138 5,038 5,166 5,318 5,424 5,608 6,263 7,009 7,017 2010's 6,974 7,139 7,570 7,607 7,877 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

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

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

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 433,684 457,117 447,325 1970's 466,016 448,288 470,105 466,143 448,993 435,571 428,635 421,110 393,819 352,650 1980's 350,312 345,262 356,406 375,849 393,873 383,719 384,693 364,477 357,756 343,233 1990's 342,186 353,737 374,126 385,063 381,020 381,712 398,442 391,174 388,011 372,566 2000's 380,535 355,860

  1. Texas Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 6,227,995 6,630,246 6,367,936 6,465,964 6,414,021 6,386,544 6,276,968 1990's 6,476,032 6,066,256 5,893,069 5,769,437 5,834,671 5,592,323 4,684,140 4,716,304 4,777,945 5,719,128 2000's 5,869,901 5,159,233 5,166,315

  2. Global production through 2005

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Foreman, N.E.

    1996-12-01

    Two companion studies released recently should provide great food for thought among geo-political strategists and various national governments. If predictions contained in these Petroconsultants studies of oil and gas production trends for the next 10 years are realized, there will be great repercussions for net exporters and importers, alike. After analyzing and predicting trends within each of the world`s significant producing nations for the 1996--2005 period, the crude oil and condensate report concludes tat global production will jump nearly 24%. By contrast, worldwide gas output will leap 40%. The cast of characters among producers and exporters that will benefit from these increases varies considerably for each fuel. On the oil side, Russia and the OPEC members, particularly the Persian Gulf nations, will be back in the driver`s seat in terms of affecting export and pricing patterns. On the gas side, the leading producers will be an interesting mix of mostly non-OPEC countries. The reemergence of Persian Gulf oil producers, coupled with an anticipated long-term decline among top non-OPEC producing nations should present a sobering picture to government planners within large net importers, such as the US. They are likely to find themselves in much the same supply trap as was experienced in the 1970s, only this time the dependence on foreign oil supplies will be much worse. Gas supplies will not be similarly constrained, and some substitution for oil is probable. Here, two articles, ``World oil industry is set for transition`` and ``Worldwide gas surges forward in next decade,`` present a summary of the findings detailed in Petroconsultants` recent studies.

  3. Transmission Losses Product (pbl/products)

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

    Wind Smoothing and Intertie Service (Pilot) Firstgov Pricing for Transmission Losses Product Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Power Services offers to sell transmission...

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

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

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 16 1980's 18 20 24 35 33 33 30 22 23 15 1990's 20 23 24 23 23 23 44 46 32 161 2000's 49 35 34 24 31 31 32 43 44 87 2010's 163 158 197 233 343 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

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

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

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 24 1980's 32 42 44 61 61 62 73 76 72 65 1990's 61 53 55 50 50 47 48 31 31 24 2000's 24 43 39 40 44 40 42 50 126 192 2010's 225 237 214 183 193 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure

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

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

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 6 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 228 1980's 268 259 232 280 253 247 224 213 210 212 1990's 195 195 205 202 218 223 242 221 235 182 2000's 182 215 213 195 233 264 279 324 318 330 2010's 369 360 269 376 387 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

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

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

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 452 1980's 452 498 554 650 662 646 697 623 530 542 1990's 545 466 426 430 398 432 417 447 479 479 2000's 479 504 488 484 487 559 547 525 524 536 2010's 618 689 802 830 1,240 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

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

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

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 75 1980's 81 81 111 115 113 106 112 107 102 90 1990's 100 96 89 88 94 90 116 96 91 156 2000's 156 182 229 228 228 276 372 347 348 419 2010's 488 552 542 578 662 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 16 1980's 18 20 24 35 33 33 30 22 23 15 1990's 20 23 24 23 23 23 44 46 32 161 2000's 49 35 34 24 31 31 32 43 44 87 2010's 163 158 197 233 343 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 24 1980's 32 42 44 61 61 62 73 76 72 65 1990's 61 53 55 50 50 47 48 31 31 24 2000's 24 43 39 40 44 40 42 50 126 192 2010's 225 237 214 183 193 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 6 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 228 1980's 268 259 232 280 253 247 224 213 210 212 1990's 195 195 205 202 218 223 242 221 235 182 2000's 182 215 213 195 233 264 279 324 318 330 2010's 369 360 269 376 387 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 452 1980's 452 498 554 650 662 646 697 623 530 542 1990's 545 466 426 430 398 432 417 447 479 479 2000's 479 504 488 484 487 559 547 525 524 536 2010's 618 689 802 830 1,240 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 75 1980's 81 81 111 115 113 106 112 107 102 90 1990's 100 96 89 88 94 90 116 96 91 156 2000's 156 182 229 228 228 276 372 347 348 419 2010's 488 552 542 578 662 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  14. 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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama (Million Cubic Feet) Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alabama (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 7,442 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Gulf of Mexico-Alabama

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet) Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 51,010 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Gulf of Mexico-Louisia

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 7,404 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Gulf of Mexico-Texas

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Texas (Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 755 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent New Mexico-Texas

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) North Dakota (Million Cubic Feet) North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in North Dakota (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 48,504 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent North Dakota-North

  20. U.S. Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Reserves Based Production

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

    (Million Barrels) Based Production (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, 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 147 1980's 159 161 157 157 179 168 169 162 162 165 1990's 158 153 147 153 157 145 162 174 178 199 2000's 208 215 207 191 182 174 182 181 173 178 2010's 224 231 274 311 326 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of