National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for include gas plant

  1. Power plant including an exhaust gas recirculation system for injecting recirculated exhaust gases in the fuel and compressed air of a gas turbine engine

    DOEpatents

    Anand, Ashok Kumar; Nagarjuna Reddy, Thirumala Reddy; Shaffer, Jason Brian; York, William David

    2014-05-13

    A power plant is provided and includes a gas turbine engine having a combustor in which compressed gas and fuel are mixed and combusted, first and second supply lines respectively coupled to the combustor and respectively configured to supply the compressed gas and the fuel to the combustor and an exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system to re-circulate exhaust gas produced by the gas turbine engine toward the combustor. The EGR system is coupled to the first and second supply lines and configured to combine first and second portions of the re-circulated exhaust gas with the compressed gas and the fuel at the first and second supply lines, respectively.

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

    SciTech Connect

    Wilding, Bruce M; Turner, Terry D

    2014-12-02

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

  3. Property:Number of Plants included in Capacity Estimate | Open...

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

    Plants included in Capacity Estimate Jump to: navigation, search Property Name Number of Plants included in Capacity Estimate Property Type Number Retrieved from "http:...

  4. Property:Number of Plants Included in Planned Estimate | Open...

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

    Number of Plants Included in Planned Estimate Jump to: navigation, search Property Name Number of Plants Included in Planned Estimate Property Type String Description Number of...

  5. Gas storage materials, including hydrogen storage materials

    DOEpatents

    Mohtadi, Rana F; Wicks, George G; Heung, Leung K; Nakamura, Kenji

    2013-02-19

    A material for the storage and release of gases comprises a plurality of hollow elements, each hollow element comprising a porous wall enclosing an interior cavity, the interior cavity including structures of a solid-state storage material. In particular examples, the storage material is a hydrogen storage material such as a solid state hydride. An improved method for forming such materials includes the solution diffusion of a storage material solution through a porous wall of a hollow element into an interior cavity.

  6. Gas storage materials, including hydrogen storage materials

    DOEpatents

    Mohtadi, Rana F; Wicks, George G; Heung, Leung K; Nakamura, Kenji

    2014-11-25

    A material for the storage and release of gases comprises a plurality of hollow elements, each hollow element comprising a porous wall enclosing an interior cavity, the interior cavity including structures of a solid-state storage material. In particular examples, the storage material is a hydrogen storage material, such as a solid state hydride. An improved method for forming such materials includes the solution diffusion of a storage material solution through a porous wall of a hollow element into an interior cavity.

  7. ,"Florida Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Florida Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption ... 10:36:24 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Florida Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption ...

  8. Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers in California (Including Vehicle...

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    California (Including Vehicle Fuel) (Million Cubic Feet) Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers in California (Including Vehicle Fuel) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun ...

  9. Natural Gas Deliveries to Commercial Consumers (Including Vehicle...

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    Deliveries to Commercial Consumers (Including Vehicle Fuel through 1996) in the U.S. (Million Cubic Feet) Natural Gas Deliveries to Commercial Consumers (Including Vehicle Fuel ...

  10. Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers in Minnesota (Including Vehicle...

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    Minnesota (Including Vehicle Fuel) (Million Cubic Feet) Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers in Minnesota (Including Vehicle Fuel) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun ...

  11. Energy Department Expands Gas Gouging Reporting System to Include...

    Energy Saver

    Expands Gas Gouging Reporting System to Include 1-800 Number: 1-800-244-3301 Energy Department Expands Gas ... of reformulated gasoline in storage and is already helping to ...

  12. Natural Gas Deliveries to Commercial Consumers (Including Vehicle...

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    California (Million Cubic Feet) Natural Gas Deliveries to Commercial Consumers (Including Vehicle Fuel through 1996) in California (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun ...

  13. Natural Gas Deliveries to Commercial Consumers (Including Vehicle...

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) Natural Gas Deliveries to Commercial Consumers (Including Vehicle Fuel through 1996) in Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  14. DOE Considers Natural Gas Utility Service Options: Proposal Includes

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) (indexed site)

    30-mile Natural Gas Pipeline from Pasco to Hanford | Department of Energy Considers Natural Gas Utility Service Options: Proposal Includes 30-mile Natural Gas Pipeline from Pasco to Hanford DOE Considers Natural Gas Utility Service Options: Proposal Includes 30-mile Natural Gas Pipeline from Pasco to Hanford January 23, 2012 - 12:00pm Addthis Media Contacts Cameron Hardy, DOE , (509) 376-5365, Cameron.Hardy@rl.doe.gov RICHLAND, WASH. - The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is considering

  15. Safety aspects of gas centrifuge enrichment plants

    SciTech Connect

    Hansen, A.H.

    1987-01-01

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

  16. Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers in New Mexico (Including Vehicle...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Mexico (Including Vehicle Fuel) (Million Cubic Feet) Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers in New Mexico (Including Vehicle Fuel) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul ...

  17. Natural Gas Plant Liquids Proved Reserves

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    Natural Gas Plant Liquids contained in Total Natural Gas Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Period: Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & ...

  18. Natural Gas Deliveries to Commercial Consumers (Including Vehicle...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Mexico (Million Cubic Feet) Natural Gas Deliveries to Commercial Consumers (Including Vehicle Fuel through 1996) in New Mexico (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul ...

  19. Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers in Ohio (Including Vehicle...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers in Ohio (Including Vehicle Fuel) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2001 136,340 110,078 102,451 66,525 ...

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

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

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

  1. Florida Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Barrels)","Refining District New Mexico Gas Plant Production of Natural Gas ...,54568,744,154,590,9462,512,376,8574,37142,19467,3862,7903,733,5177,4264,2956 ...

  3. Florida Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

  4. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic...

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

  5. ,"Natural Gas Plant Liquids Proved Reserves"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Proved Reserves" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Natural Gas Plant ...

  6. ,"Natural Gas Plant Liquids Proved Reserves"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  7. Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

  8. Insurance recovery for manufactured gas plant liabilities

    SciTech Connect

    Koch, G.S.; Wise, K.T.; Hanser, P.

    1997-04-15

    This article addresses insurance and liability issues arising from former manufactured gas plant sites. Three issues are discussed in detail: (1) how to place a value on a potential insurance recovery or damage award, (2) how to maximize recovery through litigation or settlement, and (3) how to mediate coverage disputes to avoid litigation. The first issue, valuing potential recovery, is discussed in the most detail. An approach is outlined which includes organizing policy data, evaluating site facts relevant to coverage, estimating site costs, estimating coverage likelihoods, and assessing the expected value of litigation. Probability and cost estimate data is provided to aid in assessments.

  9. ,"Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production ... 2:38:38 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production ...

  10. ,"Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected ... 7:26:00 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected ...

  11. West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production ... NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Processing NGPL ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    for" ,"Data 1","Mississippi (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected ... 1: Mississippi (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected ... to Contents","Data 1: Texas (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected ...

  14. ,"Louisiana (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids,...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected ... Contents","Data 1: Louisiana (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected ...

  15. ,"Alaska (with Total Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Alaska (with Total Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected ... to Contents","Data 1: Alaska (with Total Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected ...

  16. ,"Alabama (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Alabama (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected ... Contents","Data 1: Alabama (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Lower 48 Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected ... to Contents","Data 1: Lower 48 Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected ...

  18. Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million ... NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Utah Natural Gas Plant Processing NGPL Production, ...

  19. Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million ... Release Date: 06302016 Next Release Date: 07292016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant ...

  20. West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption ... Release Date: 06302016 Next Release Date: 07292016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant ...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million ... Release Date: 06302016 Next Release Date: 07292016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant ...

  2. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production ... NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Kansas Natural Gas Plant Processing NGPL Production, ...

  3. Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet...

    Annual Energy Outlook

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million ... Release Date: 06302016 Next Release Date: 07292016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant ...

  4. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million ... Release Date: 06302016 Next Release Date: 07292016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant ...

  5. Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production ... NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Processing NGPL Production, ...

  6. Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production ... NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Processing NGPL Production, ...

  7. Safeguards at Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants: Why is Iran a...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Safeguards at Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants: Why is Iran a Threat? Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Safeguards at Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants: Why is Iran a ...

  8. Safeguards at Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants: Why is Iran a...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Technical Report: Safeguards at Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants: Why is Iran a Threat? Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Safeguards at Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants: ...

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

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) (indexed site)

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

  10. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  11. North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  12. Renewable Energy: Plants in Your Gas Tank

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) (indexed site)

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

  13. "NATURAL GAS PROCESSING PLANT SURVEY"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

  15. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 370,670 341,778 322,944 259,565 190,503 191,034 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand...

  16. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 1,112,510 1,110,236 1,218,855 1,310,331 1,377,119 1,696,107 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted ...

  17. Illinois Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 5,393 294 320 1967-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 231 40 36 1983-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 345 1,043 0 0 47 42 1967

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

  20. Gas treating alternatives for LNG plants

    SciTech Connect

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

    1998-12-31

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

  1. Percentage of Total Natural Gas Industrial Deliveries included in Prices

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    City Gate Price Residential Price Percentage of Total Residential Deliveries included in Prices Commercial Price Percentage of Total Commercial Deliveries included in Prices Industrial Price Percentage of Total Industrial Deliveries included in Prices Electric Power Price Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 View History U.S.

  2. Percentage of Total Natural Gas Residential Deliveries included in Prices

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    City Gate Price Residential Price Percentage of Total Residential Deliveries included in Prices Commercial Price Percentage of Total Commercial Deliveries included in Prices Industrial Price Percentage of Total Industrial Deliveries included in Prices Electric Power Price Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 View History U.S.

  3. Percentage of Total Natural Gas Industrial Deliveries included...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Price Percentage of Total Industrial Deliveries included in Prices Vehicle Fuel Price Electric Power Price Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Alabama (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0...

  5. Federal Offshore--Louisiana and Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  6. ,"Federal Offshore--Louisiana and Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Federal Offshore--Louisiana and Alabama Natural Gas Plant ... AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Federal Offshore--Louisiana and Alabama Natural Gas Plant ...

  7. Texas - RRC District 6 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

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

    Annual Energy Outlook

    Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 ...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 ...

  10. Texas - RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves...

    Annual Energy Outlook

    Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 ...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 ...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 ...

  13. Texas - RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves...

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

  14. Texas - RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves...

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

  15. Texas - RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 ...

  16. Texas State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 ...

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

    Annual Energy Outlook

    Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Louisiana State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

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

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

  19. ,"New Mexico--West Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    ...","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico--West Natural Gas Plant Liquids, ... 8:53:57 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: New Mexico--West Natural Gas Plant Liquids, ...

  20. ,"New Mexico--East Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    ...","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico--East Natural Gas Plant Liquids, ... 8:53:57 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: New Mexico--East Natural Gas Plant Liquids, ...

  1. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    ...","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected ... 8:54:02 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected ...

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

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    This special report presents an analysis of natural gas processing plants in the United States as of 2009 and highlights characteristics of this segment of the industry. The purpose of the paper is to examine the role of natural gas processing plants in the natural gas supply chain and to provide an overview and summary of processing plant characteristics in the United States, such as locations, capacities, and operations. Key Findings There were 493 operational natural gas processing plants in

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

  5. Gas Reactor Plant Analyzer and Simulator for Hydrogen Production

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center

    2004-01-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    2006-06-30

    adjustment. Water produced from this process should require little processing for use, depending on the end application. Test Series II water quality was not as good as that obtained in Test Series I; however, this was believed to be due to a system upset that contaminated the product water system during Test Series II. The amount of water that can be recovered from flue gas with the LDDS is a function of several variables, including desiccant temperature, L/G in the absorber, flash drum pressure, liquid-gas contact method, and desiccant concentration. Corrosion will be an issue with the use of calcium chloride as expected but can be largely mitigated through proper material selection. Integration of the LDDS with either low-grade waste heat and or ground-source heating and cooling can affect the parasitic power draw the LDDS will have on a power plant. Depending on the amount of water to be removed from the flue gas, the system can be designed with no parasitic power draw on the power plant other than pumping loads. This can be accomplished in one scenario by taking advantage of the heat of absorption and the heat of vaporization to provide the necessary temperature changes in the desiccant with the flue gas and precipitates that may form and how to handle them. These questions must be addressed in subsequent testing before scale-up of the process can be confidently completed.

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

    Annual Energy Outlook

    Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Alaska (with Total Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Lower 48 Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Louisiana (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

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

    Annual Energy Outlook

    Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Mississippi (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

  13. Federal Offshore--California Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves...

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

  14. Federal Offshore--Louisiana and Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Federal Offshore--Louisiana and Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Texas (Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in ... Date: 8312016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent New Mexico-Texas

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

    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 ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  18. Delaware Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  19. Indiana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet...

    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 ...

  20. Wyoming Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

  2. Kansas Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  3. Kentucky Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  4. Washington Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  5. Utah Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  6. Indiana Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  8. Energy Department Expands Gas Gouging Reporting System to Include 1-800

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) (indexed site)

    Number: 1-800-244-3301 | Department of Energy Expands Gas Gouging Reporting System to Include 1-800 Number: 1-800-244-3301 Energy Department Expands Gas Gouging Reporting System to Include 1-800 Number: 1-800-244-3301 September 6, 2005 - 9:50am Addthis Washington, DC - Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman announced today that the Department of Energy has expanded its gas gouging reporting system to include a toll-free telephone hotline. The hotline is available to American consumers starting

  9. Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant Safeguards System Modeling

    SciTech Connect

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

    2006-06-05

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    South Dakota Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption South Dakota Natural Gas Consumption by End Use Plant Fuel Consumption of Natural Gas (Summary)

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

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Willson, Paul; Smith, Alistair

    2007-07-01

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

  14. Natural Gas Plant Stocks of Natural Gas Liquids

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Dexin Wang

    2012-03-31

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

  16. Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update / Figure 1

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Analysis Gulf of Mexico States Gulf of Mexico States Gulf of Mexico States The Gulf of Mexico area, which includes the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, has in the past accounted for the majority of natural gas production. Processing plants are especially important in this part of the country because of the amount of NGLs in the natural gas produced and existence of numerous petro-chemical plants seeking that feedstock in this area. Consequently, the States along

  18. Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    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 ...

  19. Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production...

    Annual Energy Outlook

    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 ...

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

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

  1. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 ...

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

    Annual Energy Outlook

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Federal Offshore--Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

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

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

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

    Annual Energy Outlook

    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...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    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 ...

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

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

  7. Sensitivity and optimization analyses of the ``ACOGAS`` gas conditioning plant

    SciTech Connect

    Ochoa, D.; Cardenas, A.R.

    1995-11-01

    ACOGAS is a gas dew point control plant (water and hydrocarbons), operated by Lagoven S.A., a subsidiary of Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA). The ACOGAS plant located in Jusepin, Eastern Venezuela, produces stabilized condensate from an inlet gas stream which is a mixture of different gravity gases obtained by separation and compression from various oil production fields in the area. Sensitivity and optimization analyses of the plant and the stabilizer tower were carried out to evaluate the effects of: plant capacity reductions during shutdowns of some unspared systems of the plant; composition changes from original design basis; segregation of the lean gas currents from the inlet gas stream, reducing total flow but increasing GPM (C{sub 3}{sup +}) content; and incorporating condensate from the upstream compression processes in the inlet gas stream. It is shown that significant increases of stabilized condensate production could be obtained, while maintaining the quality for the condensate and lean residual gas within specifications, by various low cost modifications to the upstream processes and the stabilizer tower. Additionally, a change of the stabilizer tower valves could lower the minimum acceptable inlet flow, thereby increasing flexibility during shutdowns and low feed gas flows.

  8. Florida-Florida Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook

    2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 2,915 5,526 2014-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 173 173 2014-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous ...

  9. Florida-Florida Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 2,915 5,526 2014-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 173 173 2014-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 233 235 2014

  10. Illinois-Illinois Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 294 320 2014-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 40 36 2014-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 47 42 2014

  11. Pennsylvania-Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2013 2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 51,023 5,826 34,780 2013-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 1,201 248 2,077 2013-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 346 2,967

    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 131,959 226,544 159,840 194,075 246,877 2011-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 8,687 8,346 17,765 23,501 2012-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million

  12. Thermodynamic analysis of a possible CO{sub 2}-laser plant included in a heat engine cycle

    SciTech Connect

    Bisio, G.; Rubatto, G.

    1998-07-01

    In these last years, several plants have been realized in some industrialized countries to recover pressure exergy from various fluids. That has been done by means of suitable turbines in particular for blast-furnace top gas and natural gas. Various papers have examined the topic, considering pros and cons. High-power CO{sub 2}-lasers are being more and more widely used for welding, drilling and cutting in machine shops. In the near future different kinds of metal surface treatments will probably become routine practice with laser units. The industries benefiting most from high power lasers will be: the automotive industry, shipbuilding, the offshore industry, the aerospace industry, the nuclear and the chemical processing industries. Both degradation and cooling problems may be alleviated by allowing the gas to flow through the laser tube and by reducing its pressure outside this tube. Thus, a thermodynamic analysis on high-power CO{sub 2}-lasers with particular reference to a possible energy recovery is justified. In previous papers the critical examination of the concept of efficiency has led one of the present authors to the definition of an operational domain in which the process can be achieved. This domain is confined by regions of no entropy production (upper limit) and no useful effects (lower limit). On the basis of these concepts and of what has been done for pressure exergy recovery from other fluids, exergy investigations and an analysis of losses are performed for a cyclic process including a high performance CO2 laser. Thermodynamic analysis of flow processes in a CO{sub 2}-laser plant shows that the inclusion of a turbine in this plant allows us to recover the most part of the exergy necessary for the compressor; in addition, the water consumption for the refrigeration in the heat exchanger is reduced.

  13. Model operating permits for natural gas processing plants

    SciTech Connect

    Arend, C.

    1995-12-31

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

  14. Pennsylvania-Ohio Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    2013 2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 51,023 5,826 34,780 2013-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 1,201 248 2,077 2013-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 346 2,967 2014

  15. Mississippi-Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 5,415 5,021 4,527 5,633 5,770 2011-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 350 359 365 257 2012-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 495 348 2014

  16. Ohio-Ohio Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 2,211 32,760 344,073 603,712 2012-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 118 1,353 24,411 33,495 2012-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 33,332 46,606 2014

  17. Tennessee-Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 6,200 6,304 5,721 5,000 4,612 2011-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 343 340 281 252 2012-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 382 339 2014

  18. Wyoming-Colorado Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

  19. Alaska Onshore Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2013 2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 2,811,384 2,735,783 2,729,167 2013-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 17,670 15,724 14,987 2013-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 18,434 17,468 2014

  20. Arkansas-Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 5,611 6,872 7,781 8,058 7,084 2011-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 336 378 457 427 2012-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 582 551 2014

  1. Selection of an acid-gas removal process for an LNG plant

    SciTech Connect

    Stone, J.B.; Jones, G.N.; Denton, R.D.

    1996-12-31

    Acid gas contaminants, such as, CO{sub 2}, H{sub 2}S and mercaptans, must be removed to a very low level from a feed natural gas before it is liquefied. CO{sub 2} is typically removed to a level of about 100 ppm to prevent freezing during LNG processing. Sulfur compounds are removed to levels required by the eventual consumer of the gas. Acid-gas removal processes can be broadly classified as: solvent-based, adsorption, cryogenic or physical separation. The advantages and disadvantages of these processes will be discussed along with design and operating considerations. This paper will also discuss the important considerations affecting the choice of the best acid-gas removal process for LNG plants. Some of these considerations are: the remoteness of the LNG plant from the resource; the cost of the feed gas and the economics of minimizing capital expenditures; the ultimate disposition of the acid gas; potential for energy integration; and the composition, including LPG and conditions of the feed gas. The example of the selection of the acid-gas removal process for an LNG plant.

  2. Natural Gas Plant Field Production: Natural Gas Liquids

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Product: Natural Gas Liquids Pentanes Plus Liquefied Petroleum Gases Ethane Propane Normal Butane Isobutane Period-Unit: Monthly-Thousand Barrels Monthly-Thousand Barrels per Day Annual-Thousand Barrels Annual-Thousand Barrels per Day Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Product Area Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 View History U.S. 108,784 105,106 111,388 108,530 110,754 105,378 1981-2016 PADD 1

  3. Michigan-Michigan Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 21,518 21,243 21,416 18,654 16,288 2011-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 2,046 2,005 1,593 1,565 2012-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 1,922 1,793 2014

  4. Wyoming-Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 1,622,025 1,544,493 1,442,021 1,389,782 1,352,224 2011-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 65,256 47,096 42,803 35,418 2012-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 60,873 48,552 2014

  5. Gulf of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 1,317,031 1,002,608 1,000,964 902,550 2012-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 60,320 49,143 52,331 51,570 2012-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 0 0 87,478 70,292 75,648 74,564 2007

  6. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  7. Alaska Offshore Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 7,622 14,197 14,197 14,196 14,196 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 2014 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 2015 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 2016 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 - = No Data

  8. CO₂ Capture Membrane Process for Power Plant Flue Gas

    SciTech Connect

    Toy, Lora; Kataria, Atish; Gupta, Raghubir

    2012-04-01

    Because the fleet of coal-fired power plants is of such importance to the nation's energy production while also being the single largest emitter of CO₂, the development of retrofit, post-combustion CO₂ capture technologies for existing and new, upcoming coal power plants will allow coal to remain a major component of the U.S. energy mix while mitigating global warming. Post-combustion carbon capture technologies are an attractive option for coal-fired power plants as they do not require modification of major power-plant infrastructures, such as fuel processing, boiler, and steam-turbine subsystems. In this project, the overall objective was to develop an advanced, hollow-fiber, polymeric membrane process that could be cost-effectively retrofitted into current pulverized coal-fired power plants to capture at least 90% of the CO₂ from plant flue gas with 95% captured CO₂ purity. The approach for this project tackled the technology development on three different fronts in parallel: membrane materials R&D, hollow-fiber membrane module development, and process development and engineering. The project team consisted of RTI (prime) and two industrial partners, Arkema, Inc. and Generon IGS, Inc. Two CO₂-selective membrane polymer platforms were targeted for development in this project. For the near term, a next-generation, high-flux polycarbonate membrane platform was spun into hollow-fiber membranes that were fabricated into both lab-scale and larger prototype (~2,200 ft²) membrane modules. For the long term, a new fluoropolymer membrane platform based on poly(vinylidene fluoride) [PVDF] chemistry was developed using a copolymer approach as improved capture membrane materials with superior chemical resistance to flue-gas contaminants (moisture, SO₂, NOx, etc.). Specific objectives were: - Development of new, highly chemically resistant, fluorinated polymers as membrane materials with minimum selectivity of 30 for CO₂ over N₂ and CO₂ permeance

  9. Assessment and remediation at former manufactured gas plants

    SciTech Connect

    Mehan, D.G.

    1995-12-01

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 6 3 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 148 145 150 142 128 125 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Fuel

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

    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 506 516 501 488 382 339 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 34 35 30 19 31 21 13 1990's 0 14 9 0 3 2 3 7 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Fuel

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  4. Gas engines provide cogeneration service for Fantoni MDF plant

    SciTech Connect

    Chellini, R.

    1996-12-01

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

  5. New Measures to Safeguard Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants

    SciTech Connect

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

    2011-01-01

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  9. Texas - RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 ...

  10. Texas - RRC District 8A Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 8A Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 ...

  11. Texas - RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 ...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Field Production: Natural Gas Liquids " ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Natural Gas Plant Field Production: Natural Gas Liquids ",16,"Monthly","8/2016","1/15/1981" ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016"

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

    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 19 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production,

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

    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 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  5. Casting Apparatus Including A Gas Driven Molten Metal Injector And Method

    DOEpatents

    Meyer, Thomas N.

    2004-06-01

    The casting apparatus (50) includes a holding vessel (10) for containing a supply of molten metal (12) and a casting mold (52) located above the holding vessel (10) and having a casting cavity (54). A molten metal injector (14) extends into the holding vessel (10) and is at least partially immersed in the molten metal (12) in the holding vessel (10). The molten metal injector (14) is in fluid communication with the casting cavity (54). The molten metal injector (14) has an injector body (16) defining an inlet opening (24) for receiving molten metal into the injector body (16). A gas pressurization source (38) is in fluid communication with the injector body (16) for cyclically pressurizing the injector body (16) and inducing molten metal to flow from the injector body (16) to the casting cavity (54). An inlet valve (42) is located in the inlet opening (24) in the injector body (16) for filling molten metal into the injector body (16). The inlet valve (42) is configured to prevent outflow of molten metal from the injector body (16) during pressurization and permit inflow of molten metal into the injector body (16) after pressurization. The inlet valve (42) has an inlet valve actuator (44) located above the surface of the supply of molten metal (12) and is operatively connected to the inlet valve (42) for operating the inlet valve (42) between open and closed positions.

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

    SciTech Connect

    Watson, F

    1983-06-27

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

  7. Testing in flue gas cleaning systems of waste incineration plants

    SciTech Connect

    Wallen, B.; Bergquist, A.; Nordstroem, J.

    1995-07-01

    Test racks containing creviced, welded coupons of stainless steels (SS), nickel-based alloys, and titanium were exposed in gas cleaning systems in municipal waste incineration plants. The environments in the cleaning systems were very corrosive. The best corrosion resistance was shown by the superaustenitic SS UNS S32654 and the nickel-based alloys UNS N10276 (C-276) and N06022 (C-22). Titanium performed poorly and was attacked by excessive uniform corrosion.

  8. Preventive techniques of pollution control, the reliability and safety in core sectors including thermal power plant installations and economic evaluation

    SciTech Connect

    Tewari, J.K.

    1997-12-31

    This paper reports on a study of pollution control techniques, thermal power plant reliability and safety, and economics. Included are some illustrative examples dealing with pollution control. Topics include environmental planning, prevention strategy, pesticide use, food pollution, soil pollution, water pollution, thermal power plant emissions, and pollution control equipment.

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    2008-06-13

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 158 171 148 171 205 191 218 1990's 156 159 341 235 116 181 217 253 222 274 2000's 208 272 251 343 395 483 549 495 575 599 2010's 881 963 2,529 9,200 11,602 3,478 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 439 457 542 437 449 474 519 1990's 557 518 423 295 206 168 168 188 208 235 2000's 218 396 249 512 606 697 820 816 788 771 2010's 800 604 612 645 657 639 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 50 63 71 69 96 88 87 1990's 14 14 16 20 36 32 37 39 40 42 2000's 43 40 37 17 18 12 8 5 0 0 2010's 0 0 127 202 468 3,464 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages:

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Education - Teach & Learn

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 982 966 7,077 4,709 6,270 6,646 7,646 1990's 637 188 268 352 467 468 451 508 405 405 2000's 441 653 890 504 490 433 509 404 470 489 2010's 529 423 622 797 871 783 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Barrels) 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 disclosure

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 74 1980's 97 85 79 91 80 86 87 87 92 100 1990's 86 103 97 108 93 62 61 71 72 73 2000's 105 106 99 68 85 85 110 115 100 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring

  12. Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Michigan

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    (Million Cubic Feet) Extracted in Michigan (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Michigan (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 1,922 1,793 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  13. Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Mississippi

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    (Million Cubic Feet) Extracted in Mississippi (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Mississippi (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 495 348 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Cubic Feet) Montana (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Montana (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 1,340 1,359 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Montana-Montana

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    (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 303 344 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Montana-North Dakota

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    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 27 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Montana-Wyoming

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois (Million Cubic Feet) North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Illinois (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 2,086 2,075 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent North Dakota-Illinoi

  18. Ohio Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in West Virginia

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio 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 12,884 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Ohio-West Virginia

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Cubic Feet) Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 655 466 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Oklahoma-Kansas

  20. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Oklahoma

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    (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 166,776 160,777 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Oklahoma-Oklahoma

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    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 2,122 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Oklahoma-Texas

  2. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Ohio

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    (Million Cubic Feet) 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 2,967 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Pennsylvania-Ohio

  3. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Pennsylvania

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Pennsylvania (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 25,308 33,318 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  4. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in West

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    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 17,257 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  5. Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Tennessee

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    (Million Cubic Feet) Extracted in Tennessee (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Tennessee (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 382 339 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    (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 6,184 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Texas Onshore-Oklahoma

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    (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 790,721 802,015 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Texas Onshore-Texas

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    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 469 247 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Utah-Wyoming

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) Extracted in West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 57,582 77,539 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Cubic Feet) Colorado (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Colorado (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 16,070 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Wyoming-Colorado

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    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 48,552 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Wyoming-Wyoming

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    (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.

  16. Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Arkansas

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    (Million Cubic Feet) Extracted in Arkansas (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Arkansas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 582 551 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Arkansas-Arkansas

  17. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Colorado

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Colorado (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 85,151 104,600 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Colorado-Colorado

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    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 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Colorado-Kansas

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    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 31 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Colorado-Utah

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    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 233 235 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    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 13,021 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  2. Illinois Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Illinois

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    (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 42 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Cubic Feet) Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 16,496 15,043 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Kansas-Kansas

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    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 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Kansas-Oklahoma

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    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 13 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Kansas-Texas

  6. Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kentucky

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kentucky (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 5,006 4,677 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Kentucky-Kentucky

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    (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 1,399 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Kentucky-West

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    (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 325 340 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Louisiana Onshore-Texas

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  10. Description of the Portsmouth Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant

    SciTech Connect

    Arthur, W.B.

    1980-12-16

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    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 42 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  17. Integrated capture of fossil fuel gas pollutants including CO.sub.2 with energy recovery

    DOEpatents

    Ochs, Thomas L.; Summers, Cathy A.; Gerdemann, Steve; Oryshchyn, Danylo B.; Turner, Paul; Patrick, Brian R.

    2011-10-18

    A method of reducing pollutants exhausted into the atmosphere from the combustion of fossil fuels. The disclosed process removes nitrogen from air for combustion, separates the solid combustion products from the gases and vapors and can capture the entire vapor/gas stream for sequestration leaving near-zero emissions. The invention produces up to three captured material streams. The first stream is contaminant-laden water containing SO.sub.x, residual NO.sub.x particulates and particulate-bound Hg and other trace contaminants. The second stream can be a low-volume flue gas stream containing N.sub.2 and O.sub.2 if CO2 purification is needed. The final product stream is a mixture comprising predominantly CO.sub.2 with smaller amounts of H.sub.2O, Ar, N.sub.2, O.sub.2, SO.sub.X, NO.sub.X, Hg, and other trace gases.

  18. An assessment of radiolytic gas generation: Impacts from Rocky Flats Plant residue elimination alternatives. Final report

    SciTech Connect

    Not Available

    1993-02-26

    This report evaluates the Sandia National Laboratory-Albuquerque analytical model that is used to support present wattage limit decisions for various matrix forms from the Residue Elimination Project for Waste Isolation Pilot Plant waste acceptability. This study includes (1) a comparison of the SNL-A model to Rocky Flats Plant models for consistency of assumptions and the phenomena considered in the models, and (2) an evaluation of the appropriateness of the Sandia National Laboratory-Albuquerque model to Rocky Flats Plant residues, considering that the original intent was to model wastes rather than residues. The study draws the following conclusions: (1) only real-time gas generation testing of specific waste streams may provide a sound basis for an increase in the transportation wattage limit of specific waste streams, and (2) the radiolytic gas generation rate from Residue Elimination Project waste emplaced at Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, under worst-case conditions, is not a significant factor in comparison to the total gas generation rate due to radiolysis, microbial degradation, and corrosion.

  19. NGNP: High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor Key Definitions, Plant Capabilities, and Assumptions

    SciTech Connect

    Phillip Mills

    2012-02-01

    This document is intended to provide a Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project tool in which to collect and identify key definitions, plant capabilities, and inputs and assumptions to be used in ongoing efforts related to the licensing and deployment of a high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR). These definitions, capabilities, and assumptions are extracted from a number of sources, including NGNP Project documents such as licensing related white papers [References 1-11] and previously issued requirement documents [References 13-15]. Also included is information agreed upon by the NGNP Regulatory Affairs group's Licensing Working Group and Configuration Council. The NGNP Project approach to licensing an HTGR plant via a combined license (COL) is defined within the referenced white papers and reference [12], and is not duplicated here.

  20. Hindered amine development and operating experience at Quirk Creek Gas Plant

    SciTech Connect

    Smart, P.; Devenny, I. [Imperial Oil Resources Ltd., Calgary, Alberta (Canada); Rendall, A. [Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals, Calgary, Alberta (Canada)

    1997-12-31

    The Imperial Oil Resources Limited Quirk Creek gas plant has a significant natural gas treating challenge. The natural gas feed contains H{sub 2}S, CO{sub 2}, carbonyl sulfide, mercaptans and elemental sulfur. The trace sulfur components are difficult to remove with conventional solvents. Over its 26 year history, three different solvents have been used. The latest solvent, a hybrid of a hindered amine and a physical solvent, has been operating for over two years, with better than expected performance. This high capacity solvent has lowered operating costs by over $500,000/yr by reducing solids formation. The development work, including pilot testing at Quirk Creek, and the operating history will be reviewed.

  1. Construction and start-up of a 250 kW natural gas fueled MCFC demonstration power plant

    SciTech Connect

    Figueroa, R.A.; Carter, J.; Rivera, R.; Otahal, J.

    1996-12-31

    San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) is participating with M-C Power in the development and commercialization program of their internally manifolded heat exchanger (IMHEX{reg_sign}) carbonate fuel cell technology. Development of the IMHEX technology base on the UNOCAL test facility resulted in the demonstration of a 250 kW thermally integrated power plant located at the Naval Air Station at Miramar, California. The members of the commercialization team lead by M-C Power (MCP) include Bechtel Corporation, Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc., and Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries (IHI). MCP produced the fuel cell stack, Bechtel was responsible for the process engineering including the control system, Stewart & Stevenson was responsible for packaging the process equipment in a skid (pumps, desulfurizer, gas heater, turbo, heat exchanger and stem generator), IHI produced a compact flat plate catalytic reformer operating on natural gas, and SDG&E assumed responsibility for plant construction, start-up and operation of the plant.

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 123,847 122,272 113,937 113,093 126,712 118,683 128,759 1990's 166,120 172,035 170,734 165,507 158,826 154,721 153,039 157,013 153,966 144,544 2000's 144,971 128,836 133,427 123,383 127,356 133,306 140,414 139,262 142,476 152,948 2010's 151,818 155,358 171,359 178,682 184,723 183,429 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not

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

    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

  4. Systems approach used in the Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant

    SciTech Connect

    Rooks, W.A. Jr.

    1982-01-01

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 121 116 93 1970's 79 55 70 71 75 68 61 45 64 49 1980's 41 29 40 55 61 145 234 318 272 254 1990's 300 395 604 513 513 582 603 734 732 879 2000's 586 691 566 647 634 700 794 859 1,008 1,295 2010's 4,578 8,931 12,003 20,936 39,989 53,542 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 121,848 123,993 104,292 102,185 123,008 121,936 134,132 1990's 82,828 83,733 86,623 74,925 66,600 75,845 69,235 71,155 63,368 68,393 2000's 69,174 63,137 63,031 56,018 55,970 45,837 46,205 51,499 42,957 39,002 2010's 40,814 42,633 42,123 34,179 30,527 34,488 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 3,995 4,136 4,142 3,831 4,365 3,896 4,141 1990's 3,212 3,343 3,096 3,282 3,367 3,337 3,011 2,674 3,073 2,912 2000's 2,455 2,587 2,445 2,798 2,419 2,318 2,363 2,076 1,982 1,686 2010's 1,684 1,303 1,174 1,071 1,152 839 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 855 830 641 591 385 298 280 1990's 621 708 573 538 463 399 382 372 363 638 2000's 786 722 758 251 895 1,018 1,138 1,196 1,140 1,150 2010's 1,155 1,042 1,111 1,103 1,310 1,286 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

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

    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 11,221 486 466 495 348 - = No Data Reported; --

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

    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 1,730 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 2,086 2,165 2,216 1,957 2,737 2,112 2,005 1990's 4,835 4,777 4,753 4,734 5,059 4,542 4,283 4,420 4,471 4,553 2000's 4,738 3,874 5,141 4,548 4,602 4,816 4,364 4,323 4,283 4,521 2010's 4,294 5,473 5,887 6,707 5,736 8,079 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

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

    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 59,490 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 29,750 31,237 31,121 29,705 35,751 40,508 38,392 1990's 39,249 42,166 39,700 39,211 35,432 34,900 35,236 30,370 26,034 25,055 2000's 25,934 28,266 25,525 26,276 27,818 27,380 28,435 28,213 27,161 24,089 2010's 23,238 24,938 27,809 32,119 36,231 37,692 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

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

    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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 1,129 1,178 1,249 1,303 1,564 1,634 1,875 1990's 3,710 3,720 4,477 4,453 3,747 3,806 2,827 2,468 2,391 5,336 2000's 5,377 3,491 4,148 3,293 3,914 3,740 6,028 6,269 6,858 6,470 2010's 6,441 6,939 6,616 6,804 6,462 6,436 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 1,225 1,736 1,807 1,582 4,278 2,390 2,537 1990's 27,720 36,088 36,741 35,503 37,347 39,116 40,334 40,706 39,601 41,149 2000's 42,519 42,243 44,008 44,762 44,016 43,386 38,938 41,197 40,286 39,447 2010's 37,316 35,339 37,397 36,638 36,707 37,615 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

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

    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

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

    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 213 268 424 486 582 551 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable;

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 7,662 7,715 7,699 7,105 8,780 8,408 8,521 1990's 7,958 7,809 8,008 7,096 6,388 4,287 4,520 4,796 4,511 4,212 2000's 3,572 2,893 2,781 2,568 2,760 2,875 2,475 2,540 2,318 2,611 2010's 2,370 2,253 2,417 2,834 2,361 1,861 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 5,057 5,060 5,243 4,406 5,715 5,541 6,591 1990's 8,455 9,081 12,233 11,863 12,482 13,560 14,894 12,435 12,200 12,863 2000's 13,064 13,871 15,904 15,927 17,093 15,641 16,347 16,218 18,613 21,288 2010's 25,090 28,265 29,383 25,806 30,873 35,981 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) (indexed site)

    Consumption After Energy Assessment | Department of Energy Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P.: Ammonia Plant Greatly Reduces Natural Gas Consumption After Energy Assessment Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P.: Ammonia Plant Greatly Reduces Natural Gas Consumption After Energy Assessment This case study describes how Terra Nitrogen Company saved 497,000 MMBtu and $3.5 million yearly after upgrading the steam system in its ammonia plant in Verdigris, Oklahoma. Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P.: Ammonia Plant

  4. Casting Apparatus Including A Gas Driven Molten Metal Injector And Method

    DOEpatents

    Trudel, David R.; Meyer, Thomas N.; Kinosz, Michael J.; Arnaud, Guy; Bigler, Nicolas

    2003-06-17

    The filtering molten metal injector system includes a holder furnace, a casting mold supported above the holder furnace, and at least one molten metal injector supported from a bottom side of the casting mold. The holder furnace contains a supply of molten metal. The mold defines a mold cavity for receiving the molten metal from the holder furnace. The molten metal injector projects into the holder furnace. The molten metal injector includes a cylinder defining a piston cavity housing a reciprocating piston for pumping the molten metal upward from the holder furnace to the mold cavity. The cylinder and piston are at least partially submerged in the molten metal when the holder furnace contains the molten metal. The cylinder or the piston includes a molten metal intake for receiving the molten metal into the piston cavity when the holder furnace contains molten metal. A conduit connects the piston cavity to the mold cavity. A molten metal filter is located in the conduit for filtering the molten metal passing through the conduit during the reciprocating movement of the piston. The molten metal intake may be a valve connected to the cylinder, a gap formed between the piston and an open end of the cylinder, an aperture defined in the sidewall of the cylinder, or a ball check valve incorporated into the piston. A second molten metal filter preferably covers the molten metal intake to the injector.

  5. Phase I: the pipeline-gas demonstration plant. Demonstration plant engineering and design. Volume 17. Plant section 2500 - Plant and Instrument Air

    SciTech Connect

    1981-05-01

    Contract No. EF-77-C-01-2542 between Conoco Inc. and the US Department of Energy provides for the design, construction, and operation of a demonstration plant capable of processing bituminous caking coals into clean pipeline quality gas. The project is currently in the design phase (Phase I). This phase is scheduled to be completed in June 1981. One of the major efforts of Phase I is the process and project engineering design of the Demonstration Plant. The design has been completed and is being reported in 24 volumes. This is Volume 17 which reports the design of Plant Section 2500 - Plant and Instrument Air. The plant and instrument air system is designed to provide dry, compressed air for a multitude of uses in plant operations and maintenance. A single centrifugal air compressor provides the total plant and instrument air requirements. An air drying system reduces the dew point of the plant and instrument air. Plant Section 2500 is designed to provide air at 100/sup 0/F and 100 psig. Both plant and instrument air are dried to a -40/sup 0/F dew point. Normal plant and instrument air requirements total 1430 standard cubic feet per minute.

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

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) (indexed site)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    3. Natural Gas Processing Plants Utilization Rates Based on 2008 Flows Figure 3. Natural Gas Processing Plants Utilization Rates Based on 2008 Flows Note: Average utilization rates are based on 2008 flows and 2009 capacity, which were used as a proxy for 2009 and reported 2009 capacity reported on Form EIA-757.

  8. Near-Zero Emissions Oxy-Combustion Flue Gas Purification - Power Plant Performance

    SciTech Connect

    Andrew Seltzer; Zhen Fan

    2011-03-01

    A technical feasibility assessment was performed for retrofitting oxy-fuel technology to an existing power plant burning low sulfur PRB fuel and high sulfur bituminous fuel. The focus of this study was on the boiler/power generation island of a subcritical steam cycle power plant. The power plant performance in air and oxy-firing modes was estimated and modifications required for oxy-firing capabilities were identified. A 460 MWe (gross) reference subcritical PC power plant was modeled. The reference air-fired plant has a boiler efficiency (PRB/Bituminous) of 86.7%/89.3% and a plant net efficiency of 35.8/36.7%. Net efficiency for oxy-fuel firing including ASU/CPU duty is 25.6%/26.6% (PRB/Bituminous). The oxy-fuel flue gas recirculation flow to the boiler is 68%/72% (PRB/bituminous) of the flue gas (average O{sub 2} in feed gas is 27.4%/26.4%v (PRB/bituminous)). Maximum increase in tube wall temperature is less than 10ºF for oxy-fuel firing. For oxy-fuel firing, ammonia injected to the SCR was shut-off and the FGD is applied to remove SOx from the recycled primary gas stream and a portion of the SOx from the secondary stream for the high sulfur bituminous coal. Based on CFD simulations it was determined that at the furnace outlet compared to air-firing, SO{sub 3}/SO{sub 2} mole ratio is about the same, NOx ppmv level is about the same for PRB-firing and 2.5 times for bituminous-firing due to shutting off the OFA, and CO mole fraction is approximately double. A conceptual level cost estimate was performed for the incremental equipment and installation cost of the oxyfuel retrofit in the boiler island and steam system. The cost of the retrofit is estimated to be approximately 81 M$ for PRB low sulfur fuel and 84 M$ for bituminous high sulfur fuel.

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    1998-01-01

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

  14. Equipment-performance survey of the Bi-Gas coal-gasification pilot plant

    SciTech Connect

    Not Available

    1983-04-29

    An equipment performance survey was conducted at the Bi-Gas Coal Gasification Pilot Plant, Homer City, Indiana, under contract with the US Department of Energy, Morgantown Energy Technology Center (METC). Review of plant design files and maintenance records identified incidences of malfunctions and history of corrective modifications of equipment in the pilot plant. Interviews with plant engineering, operation, and maintenance personnel were made to obtain details of the malfunctions, probable causes, corrective actions, and the results of the corrective actions on ten selected equipment items. Based on the survey, significant experience and technology gaps in the equipment for the Bi-Gas pilot plant were identified.

  15. Approach to IAEA material-balance verification at the Portsmouth Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant

    SciTech Connect

    Gordon, D.M.; Sanborn, J.B.; Younkin, J.M.; DeVito, V.J.

    1983-01-01

    This paper describes a potential approach by which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) might verify the nuclear-material balance at the Portsmouth Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant (GCEP). The strategy makes use of the attributes and variables measurement verification approach, whereby the IAEA would perform independent measurements on a randomly selected subset of the items comprising the U-235 flows and inventories at the plant. In addition, the MUF-D statistic is used as the test statistic for the detection of diversion. The paper includes descriptions of the potential verification activities, as well as calculations of: (1) attributes and variables sample sizes for the various strata, (2) standard deviations of the relevant test statistics, and (3) the detection sensitivity which the IAEA might achieve by this verification strategy at GCEP.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    (Million Cubic Feet) Gulf of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption Gulf of Mexico Natural Gas Consumption by End Use Plant Fuel Consumption of Natural

  17. Simulated coal gas MCFC power plant system verification. Final report

    SciTech Connect

    1998-07-30

    The objective of the main project is to identify the current developmental status of MCFC systems and address those technical issues that need to be resolved to move the technology from its current status to the demonstration stage in the shortest possible time. The specific objectives are separated into five major tasks as follows: Stack research; Power plant development; Test facilities development; Manufacturing facilities development; and Commercialization. This Final Report discusses the M-C power Corporation effort which is part of a general program for the development of commercial MCFC systems. This final report covers the entire subject of the Unocal 250-cell stack. Certain project activities have been funded by organizations other than DOE and are included in this report to provide a comprehensive overview of the work accomplished.

  18. Defining the needs for gas centrifuge enrichment plants advanced safeguards

    SciTech Connect

    Boyer, Brian David; Erpenbeck, Heather H; Miller, Karen A; Swinhoe, Martyn T; Ianakiev, Kiril; Marlow, Johnna B

    2010-04-05

    Current safeguards approaches used by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at gas centrifuge enrichment plants (GCEPs) need enhancement in order to verify declared low-enriched (LEU) production, detect undeclared LEU production and detect highly enriched uranium (HEU) production with adequate detection probability using nondestructive assay (NDA) techniques. At present inspectors use attended systems, systems needing the presence of an inspector for operation, during inspections to verify the mass and {sup 235}U enrichment of declared UF{sub 6} containers used in the process of enrichment at GCEPs. In verifying declared LEU production, the inspectors also take samples for off-site destructive assay (DA) which provide accurate data, with 0.1% to 0.5% measurement uncertainty, on the enrichment of the UF{sub 6} feed, tails, and product. However, taking samples of UF{sub 6} for off-site analysis is a much more labor and resource intensive exercise for the operator and inspector. Furthermore, the operator must ship the samples off-site to the IAEA laboratory which delays the timeliness of results and interruptions to the continuity of knowledge (CofK) of the samples during their storage and transit. This paper contains an analysis of possible improvements in unattended and attended NDA systems such as process monitoring and possible on-site analysis of DA samples that could reduce the uncertainty of the inspector's measurements and provide more effective and efficient IAEA GCEPs safeguards. We also introduce examples advanced safeguards systems that could be assembled for unattended operation.

  19. Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update / National

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Overview Processing Capacity National Overview Processing Capacity Processing plants are typically clustered close to major producing areas, with a high number of plants close to the Federal Gulf of Mexico offshore and the Rocky Mountain production areas (Figure 1). In terms of both the number of plants and processing capacity, about half of these plants are concentrated in the States along the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf States have been some of the most prolific natural gas producing areas. U.S.

  20. Synthesis Gas Demonstration Plant, Baskett, Kentucky: environmental report

    SciTech Connect

    1980-01-01

    A summary of the potential environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed plant is presented. The construction and operation of the plant are discussed in detail.

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

    SciTech Connect

    Diemer, P.E.; Seyfferth, W.

    1997-12-31

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

  2. Gas turbine power plant with supersonic shock compression ramps

    DOEpatents

    Lawlor, Shawn P.; Novaresi, Mark A.; Cornelius, Charles C.

    2008-10-14

    A gas turbine engine. The engine is based on the use of a gas turbine driven rotor having a compression ramp traveling at a local supersonic inlet velocity (based on the combination of inlet gas velocity and tangential speed of the ramp) which compresses inlet gas against a stationary sidewall. The supersonic compressor efficiently achieves high compression ratios while utilizing a compact, stabilized gasdynamic flow path. Operated at supersonic speeds, the inlet stabilizes an oblique/normal shock system in the gasdynamic flow path formed between the rim of the rotor, the strakes, and a stationary external housing. Part load efficiency is enhanced by use of a lean pre-mix system, a pre-swirl compressor, and a bypass stream to bleed a portion of the gas after passing through the pre-swirl compressor to the combustion gas outlet. Use of a stationary low NOx combustor provides excellent emissions results.

  3. New Measures to Safeguard Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants (Conference...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    use equipment for process monitoring of load cells at feed and withdrawal (FW) stations. ... CAPACITY; GAS CENTRIFUGES; IAEA; MONITORING; ORNL; SAFEGUARDS; SENSORS; ...

  4. Control Scheme Modifications Increase Efficiency of Steam Generation System at Exxon Mobil Gas Plant

    SciTech Connect

    2002-01-01

    This case study highlights control scheme modifications made to the steam system at ExxonMobil's Mary Ann Gas Plant in Mobile, Alabama, which improved steam flow efficiency and reduced energy costs.

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

    Annual Energy Outlook

    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 ...

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

    Annual Energy Outlook

    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 ...

  7. File:BOEMRE oil.gas.plant.platform.sta.brbra.map.4.2010.pdf ...

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

    oil.gas.plant.platform.sta.brbra.map.4.2010.pdf Jump to: navigation, search File File history File usage Federal Leases in Pacific Ocean, near Santa Barbara Channel Size of this...

  8. Impact of different plants on the gas profile of a landfill cover

    SciTech Connect

    Reichenauer, Thomas G.; Watzinger, Andrea; Riesing, Johann; Gerzabek, Martin H.

    2011-05-15

    Research highlights: > Plants influence gas profile and methane oxidation in landfill covers. > Plants regulate water content and increase the availability of oxygen for methane oxidation. > Plant species with deep roots like alfalfa showed more stimulation of methane oxidation than plants with shallow root systems like grasses. - Abstract: Methane is an important greenhouse gas emitted from landfill sites and old waste dumps. Biological methane oxidation in landfill covers can help to reduce methane emissions. To determine the influence of different plant covers on this oxidation in a compost layer, we conducted a lysimeter study. We compared the effect of four different plant covers (grass, alfalfa + grass, miscanthus and black poplar) and of bare soil on the concentration of methane, carbon dioxide and oxygen in lysimeters filled with compost. Plants were essential for a sustainable reduction in methane concentrations, whereas in bare soil, methane oxidation declined already after 6 weeks. Enhanced microbial activity - expected in lysimeters with plants that were exposed to landfill gas - was supported by the increased temperature of the gas in the substrate and the higher methane oxidation potential. At the end of the first experimental year and from mid-April of the second experimental year, the methane concentration was most strongly reduced in the lysimeters containing alfalfa + grass, followed by poplar, miscanthus and grass. The observed differences probably reflect the different root morphology of the investigated plants, which influences oxygen transport to deeper compost layers and regulates the water content.

  9. DISPOSAL OF TRU WASTE FROM THE PLUTONIUM FINISHING PLANT IN PIPE OVERPACK CONTAINERS TO WIPP INCLUDING NEW SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

    SciTech Connect

    Hopkins, A.M.; Sutter, C.; Hulse, G.; Teal, J.

    2003-02-27

    The Department of Energy is responsible for the safe management and cleanup of the DOE complex. As part of the cleanup and closure of the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) located on the Hanford site, the nuclear material inventory was reviewed to determine the appropriate disposition path. Based on the nuclear material characteristics, the material was designated for stabilization and packaging for long term storage and transfer to the Savannah River Site or, a decision for discard was made. The discarded material was designated as waste material and slated for disposal to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). Prior to preparing any residue wastes for disposal at the WIPP, several major activities need to be completed. As detailed a processing history as possible of the material including origin of the waste must be researched and documented. A technical basis for termination of safeguards on the material must be prepared and approved. Utilizing process knowledge and processing history, the material must be characterized, sampling requirements determined, acceptable knowledge package and waste designation completed prior to disposal. All of these activities involve several organizations including the contractor, DOE, state representatives and other regulators such as EPA. At PFP, a process has been developed for meeting the many, varied requirements and successfully used to prepare several residue waste streams including Rocky Flats incinerator ash, Hanford incinerator ash and Sand, Slag and Crucible (SS&C) material for disposal. These waste residues are packed into Pipe Overpack Containers for shipment to the WIPP.

  10. Membrane Process to Capture CO{sub 2} from Coal-Fired Power Plant Flue Gas

    SciTech Connect

    Merkel, Tim; Wei, Xiaotong; Firat, Bilgen; He, Jenny; Amo, Karl; Pande, Saurabh; Baker, Richard; Wijmans, Hans; Bhown, Abhoyjit

    2012-03-31

    This final report describes work conducted for the U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE NETL) on development of an efficient membrane process to capture carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) from power plant flue gas (award number DE-NT0005312). The primary goal of this research program was to demonstrate, in a field test, the ability of a membrane process to capture up to 90% of CO{sub 2} in coal-fired flue gas, and to evaluate the potential of a full-scale version of the process to perform this separation with less than a 35% increase in the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). Membrane Technology and Research (MTR) conducted this project in collaboration with Arizona Public Services (APS), who hosted a membrane field test at their Cholla coal-fired power plant, and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and WorleyParsons (WP), who performed a comparative cost analysis of the proposed membrane CO{sub 2} capture process. The work conducted for this project included membrane and module development, slipstream testing of commercial-sized modules with natural gas and coal-fired flue gas, process design optimization, and a detailed systems and cost analysis of a membrane retrofit to a commercial power plant. The Polaris? membrane developed over a number of years by MTR represents a step-change improvement in CO{sub 2} permeance compared to previous commercial CO{sub 2}-selective membranes. During this project, membrane optimization work resulted in a further doubling of the CO{sub 2} permeance of Polaris membrane while maintaining the CO{sub 2}/N{sub 2} selectivity. This is an important accomplishment because increased CO{sub 2} permeance directly impacts the membrane skid cost and footprint: a doubling of CO{sub 2} permeance halves the skid cost and footprint. In addition to providing high CO{sub 2} permeance, flue gas CO{sub 2} capture membranes must be stable in the presence of contaminants including SO{sub 2}. Laboratory tests showed no

  11. RADIO FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION DEVICES: EFFECTIVENESS IN IMPROVING SAFEGUARDS AT GAS-CENTRIFUGE URANIUM-ENRICHMENT PLANTS.

    SciTech Connect

    JOE,J.

    2007-07-08

    Recent advances in radio frequency identification devices (RFIDs) have engendered a growing interest among international safeguards experts. Potentially, RFIDs could reduce inspection work, viz. the number of inspections, number of samples, and duration of the visits, and thus improve the efficiency and effectiveness of international safeguards. This study systematically examined the applications of RFIDs for IAEA safeguards at large gas-centrifuge enrichment plants (GCEPs). These analyses are expected to help identify the requirements and desirable properties for RFIDs, to provide insights into which vulnerabilities matter most, and help formulate the required assurance tests. This work, specifically assesses the application of RFIDs for the ''Option 4'' safeguards approach, proposed by Bruce Moran, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), for large gas-centrifuge uranium-enrichment plants. The features of ''Option 4'' safeguards include placing RFIDs on all feed, product and tails (F/P/T) cylinders, along with WID readers in all FP/T stations and accountability scales. Other features of Moran's ''Option 4'' are Mailbox declarations, monitoring of load-cell-based weighing systems at the F/P/T stations and accountability scales, and continuous enrichment monitors. Relevant diversion paths were explored to evaluate how RFIDs improve the efficiency and effectiveness of safeguards. Additionally, the analysis addresses the use of RFIDs in conjunction with video monitoring and neutron detectors in a perimeter-monitoring approach to show that RFIDs can help to detect unidentified cylinders.

  12. EIS-0071: Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division Industrial Fuels Gas Demonstration Plant, Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee

    Energy.gov [DOE]

    The U.S. Department of Energy developed this EIS to assesses the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of a 3,155-ton-per-day capacity facility, which will demonstrate the technical operability, economic viability, and environmental acceptability of the Memphis Division of Light, Gas and Water coal gasification plant at Memphis, Tennessee.

  13. Sour gas plant remediation technology research and demonstration project, Task 7.53. Topical report, January--December 1993

    SciTech Connect

    Stepan, D.J.; Kuehnel, V.; Schmit, C.R.

    1994-02-01

    Recognizing the potential impacts of sour gas plant operations on the subsurface environment, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) and Environment Canada initiated a multiphase study focusing on research related to the development and demonstration of remedial technologies for soil and groundwater contamination at these facilities. Research performed under this project was designed to supplement and be coordinated with research activities being conducted at an operational sour gas plant located in Rocky Mountain House, Alberta, Canada. These research tasks included hydrogeological site characterization, subsurface contaminant characterization, ex situ treatment of groundwater, and subsurface remediation of residual contamination in the unsaturated zone. Ex situ treatment of groundwater included evaluations of air stripping, steam stripping, advanced oxidation, and biological treatment, as well as the development of an artificial freeze crystallization process. Soil vapor extraction was evaluated as a technique to address residual contamination in the unsaturated zone.

  14. Ohio-West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2013 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 271 142,003 2013-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 14 12,423 2013-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 12,884 2015

  15. Texas Offshore-Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 7492 2015-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 296 2015-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 434 2015

  16. Texas Offshore-Texas Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) NA NA 2014-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) NA NA 2014-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) NA NA 2014

  17. Texas Onshore-New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2012 2013 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 29,056 869 2012-2013 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 3,262 90 2012-2013

  18. California Offshore-California Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2013 2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) NA 381 174 2013-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) NA 8 6 2013-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 9 7 2014

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    onsh Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Calif--San Joaquin Basin onsh Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) No Data Available For This Series - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 CA, San Joaquin Basin Onshore Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and

    Gross Withdrawals

  20. Expander-gas processing plant converted to boost C3 recovery at Canada's Judy Creek

    SciTech Connect

    Khan, S.A.

    1985-06-03

    This article discusses Esso Resources Canada Ltd's conversion of its Judy Creek cryogenic expander gas plant in Alberta to a process which can boost recovery of propane and heavier hydrocarbons. After conversion, propane recovery at the plant increased from 72% to 95%. At constant plant feed rates, 100% propane recovery has been recorded. The total investment for the conversion, less than $750,000, was paid out in under 6 months.

  1. ANALYSIS OF A HIGH TEMPERATURE GAS-COOLED REACTOR POWERED HIGH TEMPERATURE ELECTROLYSIS HYDROGEN PLANT

    SciTech Connect

    M. G. McKellar; E. A. Harvego; A. M. Gandrik

    2010-11-01

    An updated reference design for a commercial-scale high-temperature electrolysis (HTE) plant for hydrogen production has been developed. The HTE plant is powered by a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) whose configuration and operating conditions are based on the latest design parameters planned for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). The current HTGR reference design specifies a reactor power of 600 MWt, with a primary system pressure of 7.0 MPa, and reactor inlet and outlet fluid temperatures of 322°C and 750°C, respectively. The reactor heat is used to produce heat and electric power to the HTE plant. A Rankine steam cycle with a power conversion efficiency of 44.4% was used to provide the electric power. The electrolysis unit used to produce hydrogen includes 1.1 million cells with a per-cell active area of 225 cm2. The reference hydrogen production plant operates at a system pressure of 5.0 MPa, and utilizes a steam-sweep system to remove the excess oxygen that is evolved on the anode (oxygen) side of the electrolyzer. The overall system thermal-to-hydrogen production efficiency (based on the higher heating value of the produced hydrogen) is 42.8% at a hydrogen production rate of 1.85 kg/s (66 million SCFD) and an oxygen production rate of 14.6 kg/s (33 million SCFD). An economic analysis of this plant was performed with realistic financial and cost estimating The results of the economic analysis demonstrated that the HTE hydrogen production plant driven by a high-temperature helium-cooled nuclear power plant can deliver hydrogen at a competitive cost. A cost of $3.03/kg of hydrogen was calculated assuming an internal rate of return of 10% and a debt to equity ratio of 80%/20% for a reactor cost of $2000/kWt and $2.41/kg of hydrogen for a reactor cost of $1400/kWt.

  2. Greenhouse Gas emissions from California Geothermal Power Plants

    DOE Data Explorer

    Sullivan, John

    The information given in this file represents GHG emissions and corresponding emission rates for California flash and dry steam geothermal power plants. This stage of the life cycle is the fuel use component of the fuel cycle and arises during plant operation. Despite that no fossil fuels are being consumed during operation of these plants, GHG emissions nevertheless arise from GHGs present in the geofluids and dry steam that get released to the atmosphere upon passing through the system. Data for the years of 2008 to 2012 are analyzed.

  3. Greenhouse Gas emissions from California Geothermal Power Plants

    DOE Data Explorer

    Sullivan, John

    2014-03-14

    The information given in this file represents GHG emissions and corresponding emission rates for California flash and dry steam geothermal power plants. This stage of the life cycle is the fuel use component of the fuel cycle and arises during plant operation. Despite that no fossil fuels are being consumed during operation of these plants, GHG emissions nevertheless arise from GHGs present in the geofluids and dry steam that get released to the atmosphere upon passing through the system. Data for the years of 2008 to 2012 are analyzed.

  4. Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update / Table 1

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    1. Natural Gas Processing Plant Capacity by State Natural Gas Processing Capacity (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Number of Natural Gas Plants Average Plant Capacity (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Change Between 2004 and 2009 State 2009 Percent of U.S. Total 2009 Percent of U.S. Total 2004 2009 Capacity (Percent) Number of Plants Texas 19,740 25.5 163 33.1 95 121 24.7 -3 Louisiana 18,535 23.9 60 12.2 271 309 12.3 -1 Wyoming 7,273 9.4 37 7.5 154 197 5.1 -8 Colorado 3,791 4.9 44 8.9 49 86 81.1 1

  5. Integration of oxygen plants and gas turbines in IGCC facilities

    SciTech Connect

    Smith, A.R.; Sorensen, J.C.; Woodward, D.W.

    1996-10-01

    The commercialization of Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (IGCC) power has been aided by concepts involving the integration of a cryogenic air separation unit (ASU) with the gas turbine combined-cycle module. It is known and now widely accepted that an ASU designed for elevated pressure service and optimally integrated with the gas turbine can increase overall IGCC power output, increase overall efficiency, and decrease the net cost of power generation compared to non-integrated facilities employing low pressure ASU`s. Depending upon the specific gas turbine, gasification technology, NO{sub x} emission specification, and other site specific factors, various degrees of compressed air and nitrogen integration are optimal. Air Products has supplied ASU`s with no integration (Destec/Plaquemine IGCC), nitrogen-only integration (Tampa Electric/Polk County IGCC), and full air and nitrogen integration (Demkolec/Buggenum IGCC). Continuing advancements in both air separation and gas turbine technologies offer new integration opportunities to further improve performance and reduce costs. This paper reviews basic integration principles, highlights the integration scheme used at Polk County, and describes some advanced concepts based on emerging gas turbines. Operability issues associated with integration will be reviewed and control measures described for the safe, efficient, and reliable operation of these facilities.

  6. Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Dry Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Proved Reserves as of 12/31 1992-2007 Estimated Production 1992-2007 Production (Million Cubic Feet) Number of Producing Gas Wells 1,852 2,226 1,892 1,588 1,377 1,163 1998-2015 Number of Gas Producing Oil Wells 3,046 3,012 3,022 3,038 2,965 2011-2015 Gross Withdrawals 2,259,144 1,830,913 1,527,875 1,326,697 1,275,738 1,309,380 1997-2015 From Gas Wells 1,699,908 1,353,929 1,013,914 817,340 706,715 668,012 1997-2015 From Oil Wells 559,235 476,984 513,961

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Separation, Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) California State Offshore Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 226 1980's 160 244 232 221 206 1990's 188 55 59 63 59 56 47 54 39 58 2000's 86 80 85 76 85 89 85 79 54 53 2010's 63 79 65 75 76 - = No Data

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Miscellaneous States Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 156 1980's 180 193 74 81 77 77 136 66 84 87 1990's 72 76 93 96 67 69 68 44 39 67 2000's 42 83 100 134 110 132 139 241 272 349 2010's 363 393 233 188 185 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available;

  9. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Field Production

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Natural Gas Liquids 757,019 808,865 881,306 951,057 1,100,298 1,194,630 1981-2015 Pentanes Plus 101,155 106,284 116,002 126,809 143,831 156,568 1981-2015 Liquefied Petroleum Gases ...

  10. Pennsylvania-West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 10,273 236,886 101,613 124,130 2012-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 195 7,150 9,890 11,945 2012-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 14,335 17,257

  11. South Dakota-North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Propane-Air 1980-2007 Biomass 1999-2005 Other 1980-2005

    2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 113 86 71 62 2012-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 23 19 16 15 2012-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 21 19 2014

  12. Texas Onshore-Kansas Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 57,971 63,053 144,573 112,694 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 2,727 5,881 5,145...

  13. Alabama Offshore-Alabama Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 53,348 53,771 49,474 35,026 2012-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 2,695 2,767 2,519 1,627 2012-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 3,978 3,721 2,411

  14. Louisiana Offshore-Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 151,301 99,910 94,790 89,406 2012-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 3,378 2,694 2,454 2,851 2012-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 5,100 3,585 4,172 2012

  15. Special considerations on operating a fuel cell power plant using natural gas with marginal heating value

    SciTech Connect

    Moses, L. Ng; Chien-Liang Lin; Ya-Tang Cheng

    1996-12-31

    In realizing new power generation technologies in Taiwan, a phosphoric acid fuel cell power plant (model PC2513, ONSI Corporation) has been installed in the premises of the Power Research Institute of the Taiwan Power Company in Taipei County of Taiwan. The pipeline gas supplying to the site of this power plant has a high percentage of carbon dioxide and thus a slightly lower heating value than that specified by the manufacturer. Because of the lowering of heating value of input gas, the highest Output power from the power plant is understandably less than the rated power of 200 kW designed. Further, the transient response of the power plant as interrupted from the Grid is also affected. Since this gas is also the pipeline gas supplying to the heavily populated Taipei Municipal area, it is conceivable that the success of the operations of fuel cells using this fuel is of vital importance to the promotion of the use of this power generation technology in Taiwan. Hence, experiments were set up to assess the feasibility of this fuel cell power plant using the existing pipeline gas in this part of Taiwan where fuel cells would most likely find useful.

  16. A TECHNICAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF AMINE-BASED CO2 CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY FOR POWER PLANT GREENHOUSE GAS CONTROL

    SciTech Connect

    Edward S. Rubin; Anand B. Rao

    2002-10-01

    Capture and sequestration of CO{sub 2} from fossil fuel power plants is gaining widespread interest as a potential method of controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Performance and cost models of an amine (MEA)-based CO{sub 2} absorption system for post-combustion flue gas applications have been developed, and integrated with an existing power plant modeling framework that includes multi-pollutant control technologies for other regulated emissions. The integrated model has been applied to study the feasibility and cost of carbon capture and sequestration at both new and existing coal-burning power plants. The cost of carbon avoidance was shown to depend strongly on assumptions about the reference plant design, details of the CO{sub 2} capture system design, interactions with other pollution control systems, and method of CO{sub 2} storage. The CO{sub 2} avoidance cost for retrofit systems was found to be generally higher than for new plants, mainly because of the higher energy penalty resulting from less efficient heat integration, as well as site-specific difficulties typically encountered in retrofit applications. For all cases, a small reduction in CO{sub 2} capture cost was afforded by the SO{sub 2} emission trading credits generated by amine-based capture systems. Efforts are underway to model a broader suite of carbon capture and sequestration technologies for more comprehensive assessments in the context of multi-pollutant environmental management.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Separation, Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 32,208 1980's 33,443 32,870 31,268 31,286 30,282 29,515 28,684 27,457 26,609 26,611 1990's 26,242 25,088 24,701 23,551 23,913 24,532 24,715 24,666

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    39,215 134,305 128,312 120,666 110,232 104,065 1992-2015 From Gas Wells 29,961 32,602 27,009 27,182 24,945 23,925 1992-2015 From Oil Wells 6,195 5,975 10,978 8,794 7,939 8,406 1992-2015 From Shale Gas Wells 0 0 0 2012-2015 From Coalbed Wells 103,060 95,727 90,325 84,690 77,347 71,735 2007-2015 Repressuring 736 531 NA NA NA NA 1992-2015 Vented and Flared 2,085 3,012 NA NA NA NA 1992-2015 Nonhydrocarbon Gases Removed 8,200 13,830 NA NA NA NA 1992-2015 Marketed Production 128,194 116,932 128,312

  19. California Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    273,136 237,388 214,509 219,386 218,668 217,517 1992-2015 From Gas Wells 71,189 62,083 76,704 73,493 53,520 53,473 1992-2015 From Oil Wells 106,442 80,957 49,951 51,625 57,572 56,081 1992-2015 From Shale Gas Wells 55,344 107,513 107,964 2012-2015 Repressuring 15,767 13,702 NA NA NA NA 1992-2015 Vented and Flared 2,790 2,424 NA NA NA NA 1992-2015 Nonhydrocarbon Gases Removed 3,019 2,624 NA NA NA NA 1992-2015 Marketed Production 251,559 218,638 214,509 219,386 218,668 217,517 1992-2015 Dry

  20. Louisiana Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2,148,447 2,969,297 2,882,193 2,289,193 1,907,296 1,731,680 1992-2015 From Gas Wells 848,745 819,264 707,705 710,608 666,337 571,633 1992-2015 From Oil Wells 57,024 61,727 43,936 44,213 43,479 39,240 1992-2015 From Shale Gas Wells 2,130,551 1,199,807 1,120,806 2012-2015 From Coalbed Wells 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2015 Repressuring 3,490 4,895 NA 2,829 3,199 4,248 1992-2015 Vented and Flared 4,432 6,153 NA 3,912 4,606 3,748 1992-2015 Nonhydrocarbon Gases Removed NA NA NA NA NA NA 2003-2015 Marketed

  1. West Virginia-West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 116,955 189,278 315,229 867,111 1,090,383 2011-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 8,010 14,195 41,116 56,642 2012-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 57,582 77,539 2014

  2. Alabama Onshore-Alabama Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 100,491 33,921 35,487 31,116 31,198 2011-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 2,614 2,781 2,620 2,700 2012-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 3,132 3,323 3,402 2012

  3. California Onshore-California Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 180,648 169,203 164,401 162,413 143,732 2011-2015 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 9,923 10,641 9,597 8,993 2012-2015 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 12,755 13,192 12,344

  4. Second-Generation Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion: Small gas turbine induustrial plant study

    SciTech Connect

    Shenker, J.; Garland, R.; Horazak, D.; Seifert, F.; Wenglarz, R.

    1992-07-01

    Second-Generation Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion (PFBC) plants provide a coal-fired, high-efficiency, combined-cycle system for the generation of electricity and steam. The plants use lime-based sorbents in PFB combustors to meet environmental air standards without back-end gas desulfurization equipment. The second-generation system is an improvement over earlier PFBC concepts because it can achieve gas temperatures of 2100[degrees]F and higher for improved cycle efficiency while maintaining the fluidized beds at 1600[degrees]F for enhanced sulfur capture and minimum alkali release. Second-generation PFBC systems are capable of supplying the electric and steam process needs of industrial plants. The basic second-generation system can be applied in different ways to meet a variety of process steam and electrical requirements. To evaluate the potential of these systems in the industrial market, conceptual designs have been developed for six second-generation PFBC plants. These plants cover a range of electrical outputs from 6.3 to 41.5 MWe and steam flows from 46,067 to 442,337 lb/h. Capital and operating costs have been estimated for these six plants and for equivalent (in size) conventional, coal-fired atmospheric fluidized bed combustion cogeneration plants. Economic analyses were conducted to compare the cost of steam for both the second-generation plants and the conventional plants.

  5. Second-Generation Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion: Small gas turbine industrial plant study

    SciTech Connect

    Shenker, J.; Garland, R.; Horazak, D.; Seifert, F.; Wenglarz, R.

    1992-07-01

    Second-Generation Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion (PFBC) plants provide a coal-fired, high-efficiency, combined-cycle system for the generation of electricity and steam. The plants use lime-based sorbents in PFB combustors to meet environmental air standards without back-end gas desulfurization equipment. The second-generation system is an improvement over earlier PFBC concepts because it can achieve gas temperatures of 2100{degrees}F and higher for improved cycle efficiency while maintaining the fluidized beds at 1600{degrees}F for enhanced sulfur capture and minimum alkali release. Second-generation PFBC systems are capable of supplying the electric and steam process needs of industrial plants. The basic second-generation system can be applied in different ways to meet a variety of process steam and electrical requirements. To evaluate the potential of these systems in the industrial market, conceptual designs have been developed for six second-generation PFBC plants. These plants cover a range of electrical outputs from 6.3 to 41.5 MWe and steam flows from 46,067 to 442,337 lb/h. Capital and operating costs have been estimated for these six plants and for equivalent (in size) conventional, coal-fired atmospheric fluidized bed combustion cogeneration plants. Economic analyses were conducted to compare the cost of steam for both the second-generation plants and the conventional plants.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1995 880 880 880 880 880 880 880 880 880 880 880 880 1996 880 650 650 650 880 1,071 1,083 1,088 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1997 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1998 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1999 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    (Million Cubic Feet) 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 NA NA - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Sales (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Sales (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 906 448 458 403 442 440 931 670 282 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Liquids Reserves Sales

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 494 0 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Nevada Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980's 0 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 53 30 21 16 1 11 9 9 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  14. U.S. Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Barrels) Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) U.S. Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 679 681 638 622 678 1990's 619 640 610 630 624 655 776 920 931 998 2000's 1,078 976 973 725 721 696 653 624 548 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next

  15. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore - Louisiana and Alabama Natural Gas Plant

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore - Louisiana and Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 614 566 532 512 575 1990's 519 545 472 490 500 496 621 785 776 833 2000's 921 785 783 598 615 603 575 528 464 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  16. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore - Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Reserves (Million Barrels) Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore - Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 62 66 64 88 80 100 89 89 78 1990's 82 79 118 115 103 134 132 121 143 161 2000's 153 182 182 119 98 85 74 92 83 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  17. Fuel gas conditioning process

    DOEpatents

    Lokhandwala, Kaaeid A.

    2000-01-01

    A process for conditioning natural gas containing C.sub.3+ hydrocarbons and/or acid gas, so that it can be used as combustion fuel to run gas-powered equipment, including compressors, in the gas field or the gas processing plant. Compared with prior art processes, the invention creates lesser quantities of low-pressure gas per unit volume of fuel gas produced. Optionally, the process can also produce an NGL product.

  18. pH Adjustment of Power Plant Cooling Water with Flue Gas/ Fly Ash - Energy

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    Innovation Portal Advanced Materials Advanced Materials Find More Like This Return to Search pH Adjustment of Power Plant Cooling Water with Flue Gas/ Fly Ash Sandia National Laboratories Contact SNL About This Technology Publications: PDF Document Publication Market Sheet (547 KB) Technology Marketing Summary Increased recycling of power plant cooling water calls for low-cost means of preventing the formation of calcium carbonate and silicate scale. Hardness (Ca and Mg) and silica are two

  19. NGNP: High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor Key Definitions, Plant Capabilities, and Assumptions

    SciTech Connect

    Wayne Moe

    2013-05-01

    This document provides key definitions, plant capabilities, and inputs and assumptions related to the Next Generation Nuclear Plant to be used in ongoing efforts related to the licensing and deployment of a high temperature gas-cooled reactor. These definitions, capabilities, and assumptions were extracted from a number of NGNP Project sources such as licensing related white papers, previously issued requirement documents, and preapplication interactions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

  20. Approach to IAEA verification of the nuclear-material balance at the Portsmouth Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant (GCEP)

    SciTech Connect

    Gordon, D.M.; Sanborn, J.B.; Younkin, J.M.; DeVito, V.J.

    1982-01-01

    This paper describes a potential approach by which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) might verify the nuclear-material balance at the Portsmouth Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant (GCEP), should that plant be placed under IAEA safeguards. The strategy makes use of the attributes and variables measurement verification approach, whereby the IAEA would perform independent measurements on a randomly selected subset of the items comprising the U-235 flows and inventories at the plant. In addition, the MUF-D statistic is used as the test statistics for the detection of diversion. The paper includes descriptions of the potential verification activities, as well as calculations of (a) attributes and variables sample sizes for the various strata, (b) standard deviations of the relevant test statistics, and (c) the sensitivity for detection of diversion which the IAEA might achieve by this verification strategy at GCEP.

  1. Texas Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    7,565,123 7,910,898 8,127,004 8,285,436 8,647,988 8,791,961 1992-2015 From Gas Wells 4,413,767 3,771,162 3,603,948 3,101,759 2,661,424 2,307,184 1992-2015 From Oil Wells 848,406 1,073,301 860,123 1,166,425 1,557,704 1,800,946 1992-2015 From Shale Gas Wells 3,662,933 4,408,980 4,683,831 2012-2015 Repressuring 558,854 502,020 437,367 423,413 440,153 533,047 1992-2015 Vented and Flared 39,569 35,248 47,530 76,113 90,125 113,786 1992-2015 Nonhydrocarbon Gases Removed 279,981 284,557 183,118 166,328

  2. Outlook for third Malaysian LNG plant brighter with big gas find

    SciTech Connect

    Not Available

    1993-05-03

    Prospects for a third liquefied natural gas export complex in Malaysia are brighter than ever. A unit of Occidental Petroleum Corp. has drilled its fourth and biggest natural gas strike into a carbonate reef on Block SK-8 off Sarawak, East Malaysia, turning up still more potential reserves for the country's proposed third LNG plant. The find brings to a combined total of 5 tcf of gas in place in the four SK-8 fields for which Oxy has disclosed test results. Well details are given. The LNG project under study would make Malaysia the largest supplier of LNG to the rapidly expanding East Asian market, Oxy said.

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    2009-03-31

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Arkansas Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 60 60,355 61,630 61,848 1990's 61,530 61,731 62,221 62,952 63,821 65,490 67,293 68,413 69,974 71,389 2000's 72,933 71,875 71,530 71,016 70,655 69,990 69,475 69,495 69,144 69,043 2010's 67,987 67,815 68,765 68,791 69,011 69,265 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Colorado Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 108 109,770 110,769 112,004 1990's 112,661 113,945 114,898 115,924 115,994 118,502 121,221 123,580 125,178 129,041 2000's 131,613 134,393 136,489 138,621 138,543 137,513 139,746 141,420 144,719 145,624 2010's 145,460 145,837 145,960 150,145 150,235 150,545 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable;

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Kansas Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 82,934 83,810 85,143 1990's 85,539 86,874 86,840 87,735 86,457 88,163 89,168 85,018 89,654 86,003 2000's 87,007 86,592 87,397 88,030 86,640 85,634 85,686 85,376 84,703 84,715 2010's 84,446 84,874 84,673 84,969 85,654 86,034 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Kentucky Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 63,024 63,971 65,041 1990's 67,086 68,461 69,466 71,998 73,562 74,521 76,079 77,693 80,147 80,283 2000's 81,588 81,795 82,757 84,110 84,493 85,243 85,236 85,210 84,985 83,862 2010's 84,707 84,977 85,129 85,999 85,630 85,961 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Michigan Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 178,469 185,961 191,474 1990's 195,766 198,890 201,561 204,453 207,629 211,817 214,843 222,726 224,506 227,159 2000's 230,558 225,109 247,818 246,123 246,991 253,415 254,923 253,139 252,382 252,017 2010's 249,309 249,456 249,994 250,994 253,127 254,484 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA =

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Montana Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 21,382 22,246 22,219 1990's 23,331 23,185 23,610 24,373 25,349 26,329 26,374 27,457 28,065 28,424 2000's 29,215 29,429 30,250 30,814 31,357 31,304 31,817 32,472 33,008 33,731 2010's 34,002 34,305 34,504 34,909 35,205 35,777 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) New Mexico Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 36,444 36,940 36,960 1990's 38,026 38,622 40,312 40,166 39,846 38,099 37,796 38,918 42,067 43,834 2000's 44,164 44,306 45,469 45,491 45,961 47,745 47,233 48,047 49,235 48,846 2010's 48,757 49,406 48,914 50,163 50,216 50,584 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Elements) Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) North Dakota Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 11,905 12,104 12,454 1990's 12,742 12,082 12,353 12,650 12,944 13,399 13,789 14,099 14,422 15,050 2000's 15,531 15,740 16,093 16,202 16,443 16,518 16,848 17,013 17,284 17,632 2010's 17,823 18,421 19,089 19,855 20,687 21,345 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Oklahoma Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 87,824 86,666 86,172 1990's 85,790 86,744 87,120 88,181 87,494 88,358 89,852 90,284 89,711 80,986 2000's 80,558 79,045 80,029 79,733 79,512 78,726 78,745 93,991 94,247 94,314 2010's 92,430 93,903 94,537 95,385 96,005 96,471 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Utah Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 31,329 32,637 32,966 1990's 34,697 35,627 36,145 37,816 39,183 40,101 40,107 40,689 42,054 43,861 2000's 47,201 47,477 50,202 51,063 51,503 55,174 55,821 57,741 59,502 60,781 2010's 61,976 62,885 63,383 64,114 65,134 66,143 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Elements) Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) West Virginia Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 31,283 33,192 33,880 1990's 32,785 32,755 33,289 33,611 33,756 36,144 33,837 33,970 35,362 35,483 2000's 41,949 35,607 35,016 35,160 34,932 36,635 34,748 34,161 34,275 34,044 2010's 34,063 34,041 34,078 34,283 34,339 34,448 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Wyoming Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 15,342 15,093 14,012 1990's 13,767 14,931 15,064 15,315 15,348 15,580 17,036 15,907 16,171 16,317 2000's 16,366 16,027 16,170 17,164 17,490 17,904 18,016 18,062 19,286 19,843 2010's 19,977 20,146 20,387 20,617 20,894 20,816 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  16. ASSESSMENT OF SUBSURFACE FATE OF MONOETHANOLAMINE AT SOUR GAS PROCESSING PLANT SITES-PHASE III

    SciTech Connect

    James A. Sorensen

    1999-02-01

    Alkanolamines are commonly used by the natural gas industry to remove hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and other acid gases from the natural gas in which they occur (''sour'' gas if hydrogen sulfide is present). At sour gas-processing plants, as at all plants that use alkanolamines for acid gas removal (AGR), spills and on-site management of wastes containing alkanolamines and associated reaction products have occasionally resulted in subsurface contamination that is presently the focus of some environmental concern. In 1994, the Energy and Environmental Research Center (EERC) initiated a three-phase program to investigate the natural attenuation processes that control the subsurface transport and fate of the most commonly used alkanolamine in Canada, monoethanolamine (MEA). Funding for the MEA research program was provided by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), Canadian Occidental Petroleum Ltd. (CanOxy), Gas Research Institute (GRI), Environment Canada, and the National Energy Board of Canada. The MEA research program focused primarily on examining the biodegradability of MEA and MEA-related waste materials in soils and soil-slurries under a variety of environmentally relevant conditions, evaluating the mobility of MEA in soil and groundwater and the effectiveness of bioremediation techniques for removing contaminants and toxicity from MEA-contaminated soil. The presently inactive Okotoks sour gas-processing plant, owned by CanOxy in Alberta, Canada, was the source of samples and field data for much of the laboratory-based experimental work and was selected to be the location for the field-based efforts to evaluate remediation techniques. The objective of the research program is to provide the natural gas industry with ''real world'' data and insights developed under laboratory and field conditions regarding the effective and environmentally sound use of biological methods for the remediation of soil

  17. Pipeline gas demonstration plant, Phase I. Quarterly technical progress report for September 1980-November 1980

    SciTech Connect

    Eby, R.J.

    1980-12-01

    Work was performed in the following tasks in Phase I of the Pipeline Gas Demonstration Plant Program: Site Evaluation and Selection; Demonstration Plant Environmental Analysis; Feedstock Plans, Licenses, Permits and Easements; Demonstration Plant Definitive Design; Construction Planning; Economic Reassessment; Technical Support; Long Lead Procurement List; and Project Management. The Preliminary Construction Schedule was delivered to the Government on October 3, 1980, constituting an early delivery of the construction schedule called for in the scope of work for Task VI. The major work activity continues to be the effort in Task VI, Demonstration Plant Definitive Design, with two 30% Design Review meetings being held with the Government. Work in Task VII, Construction Planning, was initiated. Work has progressed satisfactorily in the other tasks in support of the Demonstration Plant Program. A Cost Change Proposal was submitted because of an increase in the scope of work and an extension of the schedule for Phase I to 47 months.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2,826,952 2,798,220 2,857,485 2,882,956 2,803,410 2,804,644 1992-2015 From Gas Wells 85,383 76,066 74,998 64,537 81,565 80,946 1992-2015 From Oil Wells 2,741,569 2,722,154 2,782,486 2,818,418 2,721,845 2,723,698 1992-2015 From Coalbed Wells 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2015 Repressuring 2,502,371 2,494,216 2,532,559 2,597,184 2,492,588 2,496,471 1992-2015 Vented and Flared 8,034 9,276 9,244 5,670 5,779 4,836 1992-2015 Marketed Production 316,546 294,728 315,682 280,101 305,043 303,337 1992-2015 Dry

  19. Federal Offshore-California Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Feet) Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Federal Offshore--Gulf of Mexico Natural Gas Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 2,759 2,577 2,704 2,628 2,728 3,009 3,168 3,155 3,079 3,055 3,298 3,469 1998 2,634 2,460 2,582 2,509 2,605 2,873 3,025 3,012 2,940 2,859 3,086 3,247 1999 1,809 1,689 1,773 1,723 1,789 1,973 2,077 2,068 2,019 1,963 2,119 2,230 2000 2,535 2,432 2,503 2,403 2,472 2,717 2,977 2,947 3,184 2,870 3,060 3,207 2001 1,207 1,359

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Thousand Cubic Feet) Price (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas Pipeline and Distribution Use Price (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0.21 0.20 0.20 1970's 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.27 0.29 0.54 0.58 0.83 0.98 1.11 1980's 1.78 2.12 2.56 3.07 2.88 2.97 2.73 2.68 2.53 2.17 1990's 2.06 2.29 2.44 1.97 1.88 1.66 2.63 2.68 2.27 2.48 2000's 3.12 3.94 NA -- -- -- - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA

  1. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Field Production

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 View History Natural Gas Liquids 108,784 105,106 111,388 108,530 110,754 105,378 1981-2016 Pentanes Plus 12,970 12,520 13,325 13,410 14,415 14,558 1981-2016 Liquefied Petroleum Gases 95,814 92,586 98,063 95,120 96,339 90,820 1981-2016 Ethane 39,579 38,526 42,236 41,404 40,189 34,198 1981-2016 Propane 36,460 35,200 36,169 34,716 36,225 36,471 1981-2016 Normal Butane 10,271 9,308 9,681 9,335 10,049 10,132 1981-2016 Isobutane 9,504 9,552 9,977 9,665 9,876

  2. Energy recovery during expansion of compressed gas using power plant low-quality heat sources

    DOEpatents

    Ochs, Thomas L.; O'Connor, William K.

    2006-03-07

    A method of recovering energy from a cool compressed gas, compressed liquid, vapor, or supercritical fluid is disclosed which includes incrementally expanding the compressed gas, compressed liquid, vapor, or supercritical fluid through a plurality of expansion engines and heating the gas, vapor, compressed liquid, or supercritical fluid entering at least one of the expansion engines with a low quality heat source. Expansion engines such as turbines and multiple expansions with heating are disclosed.

  3. Rotor dynamic analysis of GCEP (Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant) Tails Withdrawal Test Facility AC-12 compressor

    SciTech Connect

    Spencer, J.W.

    1982-01-22

    The reliable operation of the centrifugal compressors utilized in the gaseous diffusion process is of great importance due to the critical function of these machines in product and tails withdrawal, cascade purge and evacuation processes, the purge cascade and product booster applications. The same compressors will be used in equally important applications within the Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant (GCEP). In response to concern over the excessive vibration exhibited by the AC-12 compressor in the No. 3 position of the GCEP Tails Withdrawal Test Facility, a rotor-bearing dynamic analysis was performed on the compressor. This analysis included the acquisition and reduction of compressor vibration data, characterization and modeling of the rotorbearing system, a computer dynamic study, and recommendations for machine modification. The compressor dynamic analysis was performed for rotor speeds of 9000 rpm and 7200 to 7800 rpm, which includes all possible opreating speeds of the compressor in the GCEP Test Facility. While the analysis was performed on this particular AC-12 compressor, the results should be pertinent to other AC-12 applications as well. Similar diagnostic and analytical techniques can be used to evaluate operation of other types of centrifugal compressors.

  4. Advanced combustion technologies for gas turbine power plants

    SciTech Connect

    Vandsburger, U.; Desu, S.B.; Roe, L.A.

    1995-10-01

    During the second half of fiscal year 1995 progress was made in all three funded subject areas of the project as well as in a new area. Work in the area of mixing and combustion management through flow actuation was transferred into an enclosed facility. Jet mixing in a ducted co-flow was examined. The same jets were also subjected to a strong acoustic field established in the duct. Excitation of the jet with static spatial modes was shown to be effective even in the presence of co-flow and the acoustic field. Only when a wall is placed at the jet exit plane did the acoustic field dominate the jet dispersion (as expected due to reflective boundary conditions and the jet shear layer receptivity). This case is, however, not the most relevant to gas turbine combustors since it precludes co-flow. In the area of combustor testing, the design, fabrication, and assembly of a modular combustor test rig for project has been completed at the University of Arkansas. In the area of high temperature piezoceramic actuator materials development, Sr{sub 2}(Nb{sub x}Ta{sub 1-x}){sub 2}O{sub 7} powders have been synthesized, and bulk samples and thick films sintered. These materials have a curie temperature of about 1400{degrees}C compared with 300{degrees}C for the commercially available PZT. While at room temperature the new materials show a piezoelectric constant (d{sub 33}) which is a factor of 100 lower than PZT, at high temperatures they can exhibit significant action. A new area of non-linear, neural-net based, controllers for mixing and combustion control has been added during the second contract year. This work is not funded by the contract. Significant progress was made in this area. Neural nets with up to 15 neurons in the hidden layer were trained with experimental data and also with data generated using linear stability theory. System ID was performed successfully. The network was then used to predict the behavior of jets excited at other modes not used for the training.

  5. Microbial Gas Generation Under Expected Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Repository Conditions: Final Report

    SciTech Connect

    Gillow, J.B.; Francis, A.

    2011-07-01

    Gas generation from the microbial degradation of the organic constituents of transuranic (TRU) waste under conditions expected in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) was investigated. The biodegradation of mixed cellulosic materials and electron-beam irradiated plastic and rubber materials (polyethylene, polyvinylchloride, hypalon, leaded hypalon, and neoprene) was examined. We evaluated the effects of environmental variables such as initial atmosphere (air or nitrogen), water content (humid ({approx}70% relative humidity, RH) and brine inundated), and nutrient amendments (nitogen phosphate, yeast extract, and excess nitrate) on microbial gas generation. Total gas production was determined by pressure measurement and carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) and methane (CH{sub 4}) were analyzed by gas chromatography; cellulose degradation products in solution were analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography. Microbial populations in the samples were determined by direct microscopy and molecular analysis. The results of this work are summarized.

  6. Gas turbines for coal-fired turbocharged PFBC boiler power plants

    SciTech Connect

    Wenglarz, R.; Drenker, S.

    1984-11-01

    A coal-fired turbocharged boiler using fluidized bed combustion at high pressure would be more compact than a pulverized coal fired boiler. The smaller boiler size could permit the utility industry to adopt efficient modular construction methods now widely used in other industries. A commercial turbocharger of the capacity needed to run a 250 MW /SUB e/ power plant does not exist; commercial gas turbines of the correct capacity exist, but they are not matched to this cycle's gas temperature of less than 538/sup 0/C (1000/sup 0/F). In order to avoid impeding the development of the technology, it will probably be desirable to use existing machines to the maximum extent possible. This paper explores the advantages and disadvantages of applying either standard gas turbines or modified standard gas turbines to the turbocharged boiler.

  7. U.S. Total Natural Gas Plant Stocks

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Total Crude Oil and Petroleum Products (Incl. SPR) 2,039,093 2,035,511 2,026,773 2,035,819 2,028,853 2,035,945 1990-2016 Total Crude Oil and Petroleum Products (Excl. SPR) 1,344,003 1,340,422 1,331,684 1,340,731 1,333,766 1,340,858 1990-2016 Crude Oil (Including SPR) 1,169,048 1,163,800 1,163,247 1,177,666 1,180,097 1,185,371 1982-2016 Commercial Crude Oil (Excl. Lease Stock) 473,958 468,711 468,158 482,578 485,010 490,284 1982-2016 Commercial Crude Oil (Incl. Lease Stock) 1982-2016 Alaska

  8. Evaluation of gasification and gas cleanup processes for use in molten carbonate fuel cell power plants. Final report. [Contains lists and evaluations of coal gasification and fuel gas desulfurization processes

    SciTech Connect

    Jablonski, G.; Hamm, J.R.; Alvin, M.A.; Wenglarz, R.A.; Patel, P.

    1982-01-01

    This report satisfies the requirements for DOE Contract AC21-81MC16220 to: List coal gasifiers and gas cleanup systems suitable for supplying fuel to molten carbonate fuel cells (MCFC) in industrial and utility power plants; extensively characterize those coal gas cleanup systems rejected by DOE's MCFC contractors for their power plant systems by virtue of the resources required for those systems to be commercially developed; develop an analytical model to predict MCFC tolerance for particulates on the anode (fuel gas) side of the MCFC; develop an analytical model to predict MCFC anode side tolerance for chemical species, including sulfides, halogens, and trace heavy metals; choose from the candidate gasifier/cleanup systems those most suitable for MCFC-based power plants; choose a reference wet cleanup system; provide parametric analyses of the coal gasifiers and gas cleanup systems when integrated into a power plant incorporating MCFC units with suitable gas expansion turbines, steam turbines, heat exchangers, and heat recovery steam generators, using the Westinghouse proprietary AHEAD computer model; provide efficiency, investment, cost of electricity, operability, and environmental effect rankings of the system; and provide a final report incorporating the results of all of the above tasks. Section 7 of this final report provides general conclusions.

  9. Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update / Regional

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Analysis Rocky Mountain States and California Regional Analysis Rocky Mountain States and California Rocky Mountain States and California The Rocky Mountain States, which include all of the States west of the Great Plains and Texas and those east of California, have seen significant natural gas production increases over the last decade. With the development of new production basins, including the San Juan Basin, Powder River Basin, and Green River Basin, natural gas processing capacity in

  10. Carbon dioxide absorber and regeneration assemblies useful for power plant flue gas

    DOEpatents

    Vimalchand, Pannalal; Liu, Guohai; Peng, Wan Wang

    2012-11-06

    Disclosed are apparatus and method to treat large amounts of flue gas from a pulverized coal combustion power plant. The flue gas is contacted with solid sorbents to selectively absorb CO.sub.2, which is then released as a nearly pure CO.sub.2 gas stream upon regeneration at higher temperature. The method is capable of handling the necessary sorbent circulation rates of tens of millions of lbs/hr to separate CO.sub.2 from a power plant's flue gas stream. Because pressurizing large amounts of flue gas is cost prohibitive, the method of this invention minimizes the overall pressure drop in the absorption section to less than 25 inches of water column. The internal circulation of sorbent within the absorber assembly in the proposed method not only minimizes temperature increases in the absorber to less than 25.degree. F., but also increases the CO.sub.2 concentration in the sorbent to near saturation levels. Saturating the sorbent with CO.sub.2 in the absorber section minimizes the heat energy needed for sorbent regeneration. The commercial embodiments of the proposed method can be optimized for sorbents with slower or faster absorption kinetics, low or high heat release rates, low or high saturation capacities and slower or faster regeneration kinetics.

  11. Integration and optimization of the gas removal system for hybrid-cycle OTEC power plants

    SciTech Connect

    Rabas, T.J.; Panchal, C.B.; Stevens, H.C. )

    1990-02-01

    A preliminary design of the noncondensible gas removal system for a 10 mWe, land-based hybrid-cycle OTEC power plant has been developed and is presented herein. This gas removal system is very different from that used for conventional power plants because of the substantially larger and continuous noncondensible gas flow rates and lower condenser pressure levels which predicate the need for higher-efficiency components. Previous OTEC studies discussed the need for multiple high-efficiency compressors with intercoolers; however, no previous design effort was devoted to the details of the intercoolers, integration and optimization of the intercoolers with the compressors, and the practical design constraints and feasibility issues of these components. The resulting gas removal system design uses centrifugal (radial) compressors with matrix-type crossflow aluminum heat exchangers as intercoolers. Once-through boiling of ammonia is used as the heat sink for the cooling and condensing of the steam-gas mixture. A computerized calculation method was developed for the performance analysis and subsystem optimization. For a specific number of compressor units and the stream arrangement, the method is used to calculate the dimensions, speeds, power requirements, and costs of all the components.

  12. Gas centrifuge enrichment plants inspection frequency and remote monitoring issues for advanced safeguards implementation

    SciTech Connect

    Boyer, Brian David; Erpenbeck, Heather H; Miller, Karen A; Ianakiev, Kiril D; Reimold, Benjamin A; Ward, Steven L; Howell, John

    2010-09-13

    Current safeguards approaches used by the IAEA at gas centrifuge enrichment plants (GCEPs) need enhancement in order to verify declared low enriched uranium (LEU) production, detect undeclared LEU production and detect high enriched uranium (BEU) production with adequate probability using non destructive assay (NDA) techniques. At present inspectors use attended systems, systems needing the presence of an inspector for operation, during inspections to verify the mass and {sup 235}U enrichment of declared cylinders of uranium hexafluoride that are used in the process of enrichment at GCEPs. This paper contains an analysis of how possible improvements in unattended and attended NDA systems including process monitoring and possible on-site destructive analysis (DA) of samples could reduce the uncertainty of the inspector's measurements providing more effective and efficient IAEA GCEPs safeguards. We have also studied a few advanced safeguards systems that could be assembled for unattended operation and the level of performance needed from these systems to provide more effective safeguards. The analysis also considers how short notice random inspections, unannounced inspections (UIs), and the concept of information-driven inspections can affect probability of detection of the diversion of nuclear material when coupled to new GCEPs safeguards regimes augmented with unattended systems. We also explore the effects of system failures and operator tampering on meeting safeguards goals for quantity and timeliness and the measures needed to recover from such failures and anomalies.

  13. Analysis of the effectiveness of gas centrifuge enrichment plants advanced safeguards

    SciTech Connect

    Boyer, Brian David; Erpenbeck, Heather H; Miller, Karen A; Swinjoe, Martyn T; Ianakiev, Kiril D; Marlow, Johnna B

    2010-01-01

    Current safeguards approaches used by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at gas centrifuge enrichment plants (GCEPs) need enhancement in order to verify declared low-enriched uranium (LEU) production, detect undeclared LEU production and detect highly enriched uranium (HEU) production with adequate detection probability using non destructive assay (NDA) techniques. At present inspectors use attended systems, systems needing the presence of an inspector for operation, during inspections to verify the mass and 235U enrichment of declared UF6 containers used in the process of enrichment at GCEPs. This paper contains an analysis of possible improvements in unattended and attended NDA systems including process monitoring and possible on-site destructive assay (DA) of samples that could reduce the uncertainty of the inspector's measurements. These improvements could reduce the difference between the operator's and inspector's measurements providing more effective and efficient IAEA GCEPs safeguards. We also explore how a few advanced safeguards systems could be assembled for unattended operation. The analysis will focus on how unannounced inspections (UIs), and the concept of information-driven inspections (IDS) can affect probability of detection of the diversion of nuclear materials when coupled to new GCEPs safeguards regimes augmented with unattended systems.

  14. Optimizing Techology to Reduce Mercury and Acid Gas Emissions from Electric Power Plants

    SciTech Connect

    Jeffrey C. Quick; David E. Tabet; Sharon Wakefield; Roger L. Bon

    2004-01-31

    More than 56,000 coal quality data records from five public data sets have been selected for use in this project. These data will be used to create maps showing where coals with low mercury and acid-gas emissions might be found for power plants classified by air-pollution controls. Average coal quality values, calculated for 51,156 commercial coals by U.S. county-of-origin, are listed in the appendix. Coal moisture values are calculated for commercially shipped coal from 163 U.S. counties, where the raw assay data (including mercury and chlorine values) are reported on a dry basis. The calculated moisture values are verified by comparison with observed moisture values in commercial coal. Moisture in commercial U.S. coal shows provincial variation. For example, high volatile C bituminous rank coal from the Interior province has 3% to 4% more moisture than equivalent Rocky Mountain province coal. Mott-Spooner difference values are calculated for 4,957 data records for coals collected from coal mines and exploration drill holes. About 90% of the records have Mott-Spooner difference values within {+-}250 Btu/lb.

  15. Electric power monthly, September 1990. [Glossary included

    SciTech Connect

    Not Available

    1990-12-17

    The purpose of this report is to provide energy decision makers with accurate and timely information that may be used in forming various perspectives on electric issues. The power plants considered include coal, petroleum, natural gas, hydroelectric, and nuclear power plants. Data are presented for power generation, fuel consumption, fuel receipts and cost, sales of electricity, and unusual occurrences at power plants. Data are compared at the national, Census division, and state levels. 4 figs., 52 tabs. (CK)

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    1995-12-01

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

  17. Opportunities to more fully utilize safeguards information reported to the IAEA at Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants

    SciTech Connect

    Garner, James R; Whitaker, J Michael

    2015-01-01

    In an effort to increase transparency and to strengthen IAEA safeguards, more countries are adopting practices that provide the IAEA with more timely, safeguards-relevant information to confirm nuclear operations are as declared. At Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants (GCEPs) potential examples include installing unattended IAEA instruments that transmit selected information back to Vienna, instruments that collect and store measurement information on-site, and daily facility operator submissions of material receipts, shipments, or utilization of key operational systems (e.g., UF6 feed stations) to on-site mail boxes. Recently the IAEA has implemented the use of on-site mailbox systems supplemented with short notice or unannounced inspections to maintain effectiveness without significantly increasing the number of inspection days. While these measures significantly improves the IAEA’s effectiveness, we have identified several opportunities for how the use of this information could be improved and how some additional information would further improve safeguards. This paper presents concepts for how the safeguards information currently collected at GCEPs could be more effectively utilized through enhancing the way that raw data is displayed visually so that it is more intuitive to the inspector and provides for more effective inspection planning and execution, comparing information with previous IAEA inspection activities (lists of previous verified inventory), through comparing data with operator supplied data when inspectors arrive (notional inventory change reports), and through evaluating the data over time to provide even greater confidence in the data and operations as declared in between inspections. This paper will also discuss several potential improvements to the submissions themselves, such as including occupancy information about product and tails stations and including weight information for each station.

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 355 753 986 1970's 1,265 1,524 1,150 1,263 1,087 387 537 509 516 616 1980's 0 0 78 113 153 138 98 93 60 45 1990's 74 44 39 49 44 47 37 45 31 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Feet) Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980's 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: Natural

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Feet) and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) South Dakota Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980's 0 0 63 61 76 93 70 125 123 112 1990's 158 393 451 452 437 404 424 911 848 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release

  1. Critique of Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant off-gas sampling requirements

    SciTech Connect

    Goles, R.W.

    1996-03-01

    Off-gas sampling and monitoring activities needed to support operations safety, process control, waste form qualification, and environmental protection requirements of the Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant (HWVP) have been evaluated. The locations of necessary sampling sites have been identified on the basis of plant requirements, and the applicability of Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) reference sampling equipment to these HWVP requirements has been assessed for all sampling sites. Equipment deficiencies, if present, have been described and the bases for modifications and/or alternative approaches have been developed.

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 257 310 381 1970's 319 451 67 474 392 277 415 342 889 2,488 1980's 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1990's 1 0 0 1 1 1 3 3 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016

  3. Oregon Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 32 30 37 30 30 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 120 131 130 115 59 1990's 93 60 68 118 95 66 40 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring

  4. ,"Indiana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Indiana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  5. ,"Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1850_sla_2a.xls"

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Arizona Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 33 20 34 1970's 50 50 44 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980's 0 222 7 7 7 6 5 6 5 35 1990's 71 45 41 49 61 57 58 51 46 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring

  9. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",1998 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",1998 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  17. ,"New York Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New York Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",1998 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  18. ,"North Dakota Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","North Dakota Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",1998 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  19. ,"Rhode Island Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Rhode Island Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",1992 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  20. ,"South Dakota Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","South Dakota Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",1998 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  1. Renewable LNG: Update on the World's Largest Landfill Gas to LNG Plant

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) (indexed site)

    LNG Update on the world's largest landfill gas to LNG plant Mike McGowan Head of Government Affairs Linde NA, Inc. June 12, 2012 $18.3 billion global sales A leading gases and engineering company Linde North America Profile $2.3 billion in gases sales revenue in North America in 2011 5,000 employees throughout the U.S., Canada and the Caribbean Supplier of compressed and cryogenic gases and technology Atmospheric gases - oxygen, nitrogen, argon Helium LNG and LPG Hydrogen Rare gases Plant

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

    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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 45 1980's 48 68 52 73 81 76 69 70 67 56 1990's 63 61 66 72 74 82 85 75 75 64 2000's 59 53 60 56 64 72 74 94 88 77 2010's 113 203 374 698 1,037 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 177 1980's 164 179 212 228 217 211 184 166 150 140 1990's 132 160 172 196 200 204 210 170 169 152 2000's 140 144 170 135 149 148 159 143 131 127 2010's 129 158 184 196 199 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA =

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 172 1980's 177 183 204 212 208 183 197 197 186 188 1990's 208 204 207 213 220 217 241 261 267 300 2000's 316 281 279 202 253 238 246 250 231 231 2010's 258 402 562 1,069 987 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA =

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

    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

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

    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 =

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    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 =

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  15. Use of GTE-65 gas turbine power units in the thermal configuration of steam-gas systems for the refitting of operating thermal electric power plants

    SciTech Connect

    Lebedev, A. S.; Kovalevskii, V. P.; Getmanov, E. A.; Ermaikina, N. A.

    2008-07-15

    Thermal configurations for condensation, district heating, and discharge steam-gas systems (PGU) based on the GTE-65 gas turbine power unit are described. A comparative multivariant analysis of their thermodynamic efficiency is made. Based on some representative examples, it is shown that steam-gas systems with the GTE-65 and boiler-utilizer units can be effectively used and installed in existing main buildings during technical refitting of operating thermal electric power plants.

  16. Recovery Act: Johnston Rhode Island Combined Cycle Electric Generating Plant Fueled by Waste Landfill Gas

    SciTech Connect

    Galowitz, Stephen

    2013-06-30

    The primary objective of the Project was to maximize the productive use of the substantial quantities of waste landfill gas generated and collected at the Central Landfill in Johnston, Rhode Island. An extensive analysis was conducted and it was determined that utilization of the waste gas for power generation in a combustion turbine combined cycle facility was the highest and best use. The resulting project reflected a cost effective balance of the following specific sub-objectives. 1) Meet environmental and regulatory requirements, particularly the compliance obligations imposed on the landfill to collect, process and destroy landfill gas. 2) Utilize proven and reliable technology and equipment. 3) Maximize electrical efficiency. 4) Maximize electric generating capacity, consistent with the anticipated quantities of landfill gas generated and collected at the Central Landfill. 5) Maximize equipment uptime. 6) Minimize water consumption. 7) Minimize post-combustion emissions. To achieve the Project Objective the project consisted of several components. 1) The landfill gas collection system was modified and upgraded. 2) A State-of-the Art gas clean up and compression facility was constructed. 3) A high pressure pipeline was constructed to convey cleaned landfill gas from the clean-up and compression facility to the power plant. 4) A combined cycle electric generating facility was constructed consisting of combustion turbine generator sets, heat recovery steam generators and a steam turbine. 5) The voltage of the electricity produced was increased at a newly constructed transformer/substation and the electricity was delivered to the local transmission system. The Project produced a myriad of beneficial impacts. 1) The Project created 453 FTE construction and manufacturing jobs and 25 FTE permanent jobs associated with the operation and maintenance of the plant and equipment. 2) By combining state-of-the-art gas clean up systems with post combustion emissions control

  17. Bi-gas pilot plant operation. Technical progress report, 1 November-30 November 1980

    SciTech Connect

    1980-01-01

    Test G-14A was completed; Test G-15 was initiated and also completed. During the latter part of G-14A, solids feed and pressure control remained stable but problems in the slag removal and spray drying areas limited further completion of objectives. Test G-15 also had very stable solids feed but problems with the gas washer and slag tap burner interrupted testing. Accomplishments during operation were: control of Stage I temperature with fuel gas flow; operation at reduced fuel gas rates to the A and C char burners; operation with three char burners of the new design; and collection of material balance data. The BI-GAS staged concept of gasification was developed by Bituminous Coal Research primarily to maximize the yield of methane as the coal is devolitized by the hot, hydrogen rich gas in Stage II. At present, the major developmental effort is concentrated on gasification. Current goals are to assess the viability of the process from an operating and cost standpoint, determine possible improvements, and obtain design data for a full scale plant.

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  1. A Robust Infrastructure Design for Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant Unattended Online Enrichment Monitoring

    SciTech Connect

    Younkin, James R; Rowe, Nathan C; Garner, James R

    2012-01-01

    An online enrichment monitor (OLEM) is being developed to continuously measure the relative isotopic composition of UF6 in the unit header pipes of a gas centrifuge enrichment plant (GCEP). From a safeguards perspective, OLEM will provide early detection of a facility being misused for production of highly enriched uranium. OLEM may also reduce the number of samples collected for destructive assay and if coupled with load cell monitoring can provide isotope mass balance verification. The OLEM design includes power and network connections for continuous monitoring of the UF6 enrichment and state of health of the instrument. Monitoring the enrichment on all header pipes at a typical GCEP could require OLEM detectors on each of the product, tails, and feed header pipes. If there are eight process units, up to 24 detectors may be required at a modern GCEP. Distant locations, harsh industrial environments, and safeguards continuity of knowledge requirements all place certain demands on the network robustness and power reliability. This paper describes the infrastructure and architecture of an OLEM system based on OLEM collection nodes on the unit header pipes and power and network support nodes for groupings of the collection nodes. A redundant, self-healing communications network, distributed backup power, and a secure communications methodology. Two candidate technologies being considered for secure communications are the Object Linking and Embedding for Process Control Unified Architecture cross-platform, service-oriented architecture model for process control communications and the emerging IAEA Real-time And INtegrated STream-Oriented Remote Monitoring (RAINSTORM) framework to provide the common secure communication infrastructure for remote, unattended monitoring systems. The proposed infrastructure design offers modular, commercial components, plug-and-play extensibility for GCEP deployments, and is intended to meet the guidelines and requirements for unattended

  2. Multivariable Robust Control of a Simulated Hybrid Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Gas Turbine Plant

    SciTech Connect

    Tsai, Alex; Banta, Larry; Tucker, D.A.; Gemmen, R.S.

    2008-06-01

    This paper presents a systematic approach to the multivariable robust control of a hybrid fuel cell gas turbine plant. The hybrid configuration under investigation comprises a physical simulation of a 300kW fuel cell coupled to a 120kW auxiliary power unit single spool gas turbine. The facility provides for the testing and simulation of different fuel cell models that in turn help identify the key issues encountered in the transient operation of such systems. An empirical model of the facility consisting of a simulated fuel cell cathode volume and balance of plant components is derived via frequency response data. Through the modulation of various airflow bypass valves within the hybrid configuration, Bode plots are used to derive key input/output interactions in Transfer Function format. A multivariate system is then built from individual transfer functions, creating a matrix that serves as the nominal plant in an H-Infinity robust control algorithm. The controller’s main objective is to track and maintain hybrid operational constraints in the fuel cell’s cathode airflow, and the turbo machinery states of temperature and speed, under transient disturbances. This algorithm is then tested on a Simulink/MatLab platform for various perturbations of load and fuel cell heat effluence.

  3. Recovery Act: Brea California Combined Cycle Electric Generating Plant Fueled by Waste Landfill Gas

    SciTech Connect

    Galowitz, Stephen

    2012-12-31

    The primary objective of the Project was to maximize the productive use of the substantial quantities of waste landfill gas generated and collected at the Olinda Landfill near Brea, California. An extensive analysis was conducted and it was determined that utilization of the waste gas for power generation in a combustion turbine combined cycle facility was the highest and best use. The resulting Project reflected a cost effective balance of the following specific sub-objectives: • Meeting the environmental and regulatory requirements, particularly the compliance obligations imposed on the landfill to collect, process and destroy landfill gas • Utilizing proven and reliable technology and equipment • Maximizing electrical efficiency • Maximizing electric generating capacity, consistent with the anticipated quantities of landfill gas generated and collected at the Olinda Landfill • Maximizing equipment uptime • Minimizing water consumption • Minimizing post-combustion emissions • The Project produced and will produce a myriad of beneficial impacts. o The Project created 360 FTE construction and manufacturing jobs and 15 FTE permanent jobs associated with the operation and maintenance of the plant and equipment. o By combining state-of-the-art gas clean up systems with post combustion emissions control systems, the Project established new national standards for best available control technology (BACT). o The Project will annually produce 280,320 MWh’s of clean energy o By destroying the methane in the landfill gas, the Project will generate CO2 equivalent reductions of 164,938 tons annually. The completed facility produces 27.4 MWnet and operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

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

    Education - Teach & Learn

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

  5. ,"Alabama Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alabama Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1850_sal_2a.xls"

  6. ,"Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  7. ,"Alaska Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alaska Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1850_sak_2a.xls"

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alaska Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  9. ,"Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1850_sar_2a.xls"

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  11. ,"California Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1850_sca_2a.xls"

  12. ,"California Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  13. ,"Colorado Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Colorado Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1850_sco_2a.xls"

  14. ,"Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  15. ,"Kansas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Kansas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1850_sks_2a.xls"

  16. ,"Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  17. ,"Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1850_sky_2a.xls"

  18. ,"Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  19. ,"Michigan Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Michigan Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1850_smi_2a.xls"

  20. ,"Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  1. ,"Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1850_sms_2a.xls"

  2. ,"Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  3. ,"Montana Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Montana Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1850_smt_2a.xls"

  4. ,"Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  9. ,"Utah Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Utah Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1850_sut_2a.xls"

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  11. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1850_swv_2a.xls"

  12. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  13. ,"Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1850_swy_2a.xls"

  14. ,"Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  3. Corrosion testing in the flue gas cleaning and condensation systems in Swedish waste incineration plants

    SciTech Connect

    Wallen, B.; Bergqvist, A.; Nordstroem, J.

    1994-12-31

    Test racks containing creviced, welded coupons of stainless steels, nickel base alloys and titanium have been exposed in various parts of the gas cleaning systems in three municipal waste incineration plants. The flue gases were rich in hydrogen halides and the environments in the cleaning systems were very corrosive causing mainly crevice and pitting corrosion. The best corrosion resistance was shown by the superaustenitic stainless steel S32654 and the nickel base alloys N10276 and N06022. Titanium performed badly and was attacked by excessive uniform corrosion.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Analysis Alaska Regional Analysis Alaska Alaska The State of Alaska had the third-largest processing capacity, trailing only Texas and Louisiana. While much of the natural gas processed in Alaska does not enter any transmission system and is instead re-injected into reservoirs, its processing capability is nonetheless significant. At 9.5 Bcf per day of processing capacity, the State of Alaska accounted for about 12 percent of total U.S. capacity. As of 2009, there were a total of 4 plants in

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    (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 87,776 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent North

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Feet) Ohio (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Ohio (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 33,332 46,606 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Ohio-Ohio

  7. South Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in North Dakota

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    (Million Cubic Feet) Extracted in North Dakota (Million Cubic Feet) South 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 21 19 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent South

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Feet) Utah (Million Cubic Feet) Utah 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 18,183 15,051 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Utah-Utah

  9. ,"Nebraska Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Nebraska Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1850_sne_2a.xls"

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Nebraska Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1850_snm_2a.xls"

  12. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  13. ,"North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1850_snd_2a.xls"

  14. ,"North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  15. ,"Ohio Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Ohio Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1850_soh_2a.xls"

  16. ,"Ohio Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Ohio Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  17. ,"Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1850_sok_2a.xls"

  18. ,"Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  19. ,"Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Fuel Consumption (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1850_spa_2a.xls"

  20. ,"Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File