Variability of Natural Gas Composition in Select Major Metropolitan Areas of The United States

GRI-92/0123 PB92-224617
VARIABILITY OF NATURAL GAS

COMPOSITION IN SELECT MAJOR
METROPOLITAN AREAS OF THE
UNITED STATES
Prepared By
W. E. Liss, Gas , Research Institute

W. H. Thrasher,
American Gas Association Laboratories
G. F. Steinmetz, Consultant
P. Chowdiah and A. Attari,
Institute of Gas Technology
March 1992
REPRODUCED BY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE
SPRINGFIELD, VA 22161
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 1. Report No. GRI-9210123 2. 3. PB92-224617

PAGE
4. Title and Subtitle: Variability of Natural Gas Composition in Select Major Metropolitan Areas of the 5. Report Date: March 1992
United States - Final Report
6.
7. Author(s): W. E. Uss, W. H. Thrasher, G. F. Steinmetz, P. Chowdiah, and A. Attari. 8. Performing Organization Rept.
No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. ProjecVTaskIWork Unit No.
American Gas Association Laboratories

8501 E. Pleasant Valley Road 11. Contract (C) or Grant (G) No.
Cleveland,OH 44131
(C) ~e9 298 1114a
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
Gas Research Institute Final Report
8600 West Bryn Mawr Avenue Aug. 1990 - February 1992
Chicago, Illinois 60631
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
This report quantifies potential regional and seasonal variations in the composition and physical properties of natural gas particularly as they
might impact stationary engines and natural gas vehicles. Over 6800 gas analyses were obtained from 26 major urban areas located in 19
states and each of the major geographical regions of the U.S. The report also includes two related stUdies. A study of peakshaving practices
indicated that the composition of send-out gases can be significantly affected by the addition of propane-air mixtures or vaporized liquefied
natural gas. A study of hydrocarbon dew points indicated that gaseous fuels with higher concentrations of heavier hydrocarbons have a greater
likelihood of condensing those heavy hydrocarbons under certain conditions of temperature and pressure. Those conditions are typical of what
might be found in the compressor system and fuel storage tanks of natural gas vehicles. This report is intended to provide a strong statistical
basis for understanding the chemical and physical properties of natural gas in support of engine and vehicle manufacturers making equipment
design and development decisions as well as related R&D initiatives on gas-fired reciprocating engine technology and vehicle refueling and
storage. The reported information can also be carried over to other areas of the gas industry and equipment types.
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Gas composition, gas quality, natural gas, physical properties, natural gas vehicle, peakshaving, propane-air, liquefied natural gas, hydrocarbon
condensation, fuel properties, high pressure gas storage
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement 19. Security Class (This Report) 21. No. of Pages
19t1-
20. Security Class (This Page) 22. Price
;:,ee P.I'~;:'J-L"~. 'OJ ~ee msrrucClons on neverse

OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
VARIABILITY OF NATURAL GAS COMPOSITION
IN SELECT MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES
FINAL REPORT
(AUGUST 1990 - FEBRUARY 1992)
BY
W. E. LISS, GAS RESEARCH INSTITUTE

W. H. THRASHER, AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION LABORATORIES
G. F. STEINMETZ, CONSULTANT
P. CHOWDIAH AND A. ATTARI, INSTITUTE OF GAS TECHNOLOGY
AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION LABORATORIES

8501 EAST PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD
CLEVELAND, OH 44131
1
I FOR
I GAS RESEARCH INSTITUTE
CONTRACT NO. 5091-293-2132

~I
1 GRI PROJECT MANAGER
WILLIAM E. LISS
1 PROJECT MANAGER, ENGINE TECHNOLOGY
MARCH, 1992
I ,a...,
GRI DISCLAIMER
LEGAL NOTICE This report was prepared by American Gas Association Laboratories as
an account of work sponsored by the Gas Research Institute (GRI). Neither GRI, members
of GRI, nor any person acting on behalf of either:
a. Makes any warranty or representation, express or implied, with respect to the

accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this
report, or that the use of any apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this
report may not infringe privately owned rights; or
b. Assumes any liability with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from
the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this
report.
1
J
J
I
I
I
1
RESEARCH SUMMARY
Title Variability of Natural Gas Composition in Select Major

Metropolitan Areas of the United States - Final Report
Contractor American Gas Association Laboratories

GRI Contract No. 5091-293-2132
Principal
Investigators W. E. Liss, W. H. Thrasher, G. F. Steinmetz, P. Chowdiah
and A. Attari
Report August 1990 - March 1992

Period Final Report
Objective The objectives of this report are to: quantify potential

regional and seasonal variations in the composition and
physical properties of natural gas in selected maj or
urban areas of the United States over a one-year time
period; document propane-air and liquefied natural gas
peakshaving practices in the U. S.; and, assess the extent
to which variations in gas composition can contribute to
the formation of condensates as a function of temperature
and pressure.
Technical
Perspective Natural gas is not just methane nor is it homogeneous in
its chemical and physical makeup. The specific
properties and composition of end-use natural gas are a
complex function of many factors, including: (1) resource
supply formation characteristics, (2) the level of gas
processing undertaken prior to interstate shipment, and
(3) the degree of commingling that occurs among the
various sources during transportation. Further, the end-
I use product may be modified by gases obtained from
underground storage fields, liquified natural gas tanks,
propane-air mixtures, and other gas substitu"tes on a
local level. All of these factors are further influenced
by economic factors, city location, and meteorological
conditions. Clearly, the "equation" that defines gas
composition is complex, with many factors and an infinite
number of solutions. The results of this study have the
goal of supporting the development of high-efficiency,
reliable and safe stationary and vehicular gas engines
I Results
and vehicle refueling technologies.
Over 6800 gas analyses were obtained from 26 cities
! located in 19 states and each of the major geographical

regions of the U.S.
indicate, not
Statistical analysis of these data
surprisingly, that natural gas is
principally methane, ethane, propane and inert gases with
relatively low levels of butane or heavier hydrocarbons.
The analysis included determining the mean, minimum,
maximum, 10th and 90th percentile for each cities' data
along with similar data on a weighted national basis.
The analysis indicated that several extreme values were
set by propane-air peakshaving gases. The consideration
of these peakshaving gases noticeably affected the
ml.nl.mum and maximum values; however, the mean and
percentile values showed little or no difference.
The study of peakshaving practices indicated that the

composition of send-out gases can be significantly
affected by the addition of propane-air mixtures or
vaporized liquefied natural gas. These mixtures can be
delivered to customers to a greater or lesser degree
depending on numerous variables such as the weather,
number and type of peakshaving plants, location of
customer from the plants, etc.
Gaseous fuels with higher concentrations of heavier

hydrocarbons (i.e. C3+) have a greater likelihood of
condensing those heavy hydrocarbons under certain
conditions of temperature and pressure as might be found
in the compressor system and fuel storage tanks of
natural gas vehicles.
Technical
Approach Maj or urban areas wi thin different regions of the country
were targeted for data collection based on their size,
potential for natural gas vehicle penetration, and the
city's status as a non-attainment region for ambient
emissions. The local utilities serving the target cities
were contacted to determine whether they maintained
analysis records on their gas composition. If such data
were not available, the pipeline companies delivering gas
to the target city were contacted for data. Gas
composition data was requested for a one-year time
period. The periodicity of these data range from samples
on a monthly or less often basis to daily and even an
hourly basis. In some cases, more than one "data set"
for a particular city was obtained. These data were
compiled into a computer database. Using the detailed
composition analysis, a number of physical properties
were calculated for each sample point (e. g., heating
value, specific gravity, Wobbe Number, methane number,
critical compression ratio, etc.). From these various
I chemical and physical properties sets, a number of
statistical and graphical analyses and presentations were
derived. For composite national values the data were
"weighted" based on the volume of natural gas delivered
by each individual city.
Propane-air and LNG peakshaving surveys conducted in

recent years by A.G.A. , along with follow-up
communications and surveys with utilities, were the basis
for the peakshaving studies. This information was
i·a
reviewed and analyzed and many different interesting
results were obtained. Dew point and condensate
formation was studied for 32 gas compositions
representative of three categories of fuel gases:
'normal' natural gas; air blended high ethane natural
gas; and, natural gas propane-air mixtures. The data
developed included basic fuel properties, hydrocarbon dew
point curves and expected condensate volumes at different
temperatures and pressures.
Proj ect
Implications There are two maj or motivating forces for the data
included in this report: (1) the growing concerns over
environmental impact from fossil fuel usage--including
natural gas and (2) desire of the gas industry and gas
equipment manufacturers to ensure compatibility of
equipment and fuel. In particular, this effort was
initiated to quantify the potential regional and seasonal
variations in natural gas composition as they might
impact stationary engines and natural gas vehicles.
This report provides a comprehensive source of

information to the reader on the nature of natural gas
composition encountered in end-use markets of the U.S.
and provides a fundamental basis for understanding the
extent of natural gas variability. In addition, for
those outside of the gas industry it may help shed light
on the way in which natural gas is produced, processed,
transported and delivered to end users. It is hoped that
this information base will be utilized by researchers,
manufacturers and the gas industry as part of the ongoing
effort to improve the products and services offered to
natural gas consumers.
William E. Liss
Gas Research Institute
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROLOGUE 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 8
1.1 Objective 8
1.2 Background 8
1.3 Methodology 9
2.0 NATIONAL OVERVIEW 12
2.1 Summary National Statistics 12

2.2 Water and Sulfur Content Overviews 15
3.0 REGION AND CITY OVERVIEW 21
3.1 Northeast Region 21

3.1.1 New York 21
3.1.2 New Jersey 21
3.1.3 Pennsylvania 21
3.1.4 Connecticut 21
3.1.5 Massachusetts 22
3.1.6 Rhode Island 22
3.2 Southeast Region 22
3.2.1 Maryland 22
3.2.2 Georgia 23
3.2.3 Virginia 23
3.3 North Central Region 23

3.3.1 Illinois 23
3.3.2 Ohio 23
3.3.3 Michigan 24
3.3.4 Wisconsin
3.4 South Central Region 24

3.4.1 Texas 24
3.4.2 Oklahoma 24
3.4.3 Louisiana 25
3.5 Mountain Region 25

3.5.1 Colorado 25
3.6 Pacific Region 25

3.6.1 California 25
3.6.2 Washington 26
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
4.0 PEAKSHAVING PRACTICES 121
4.1 Propane-Air Peakshaving 121

4.1.1 Background of Propane-Air Peakshaving 122
4.1. 2 Storage 122
4.1.3 Regional Location 122
4.1.4 Facilities 123
4.1.5 Age of Propane-Air Plants 128
4.1.6 Propane-Air Plant Operation 128
4.1.7 Effect of Propane-Air Peakshaving 132
on Send-Out Gas Composition
4.1.7.1 The Worst Case Situation 133
4.1.7.2 The Normal or Typical Winter 136
4.1.8 Propane Composition 138
4.2 Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) 118

4.2.1 Imported LNG 139
4.2.2 LNG Peakshaving Survey 140
4.2.2.1 Storage Capacity 142
4.2.2.2 Regional Location 142
4.2.2.3 Facilities 145
4.2.2.4 Operation 145
4.2.3 Effect of LNG Peakshaving on Send- 145
Out Gas Composition
4.3 Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG) 149
4.4 Summary 150
4.5 Acknowledgements 152
5.0 High Pressure Gas Storage Hydrocarbon Condensation 153
5.1 Summary 153

5.2 Introduction 153
5.3 Basic Fuel Properties 155
5.4 Hydrocarbon Dew Points 155
5.5 Effect of Heavy Hydrocarbons 158
5.5.1 Dew Point Prediction 158
5.5.2 Condensate Volume 158
5.6 Estimated Volume of Condensate 162
5.7 Implications of Condensation 162
5.8 Suggestions for Additional Study 162
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
ii
LIST OF TABLES
1-1 Natural Gas Composition Reported by British Columbia 9

Research in the Mid-1980's
l-II Typical Contract Limits for Custody Transfer of 10

Natural Gases
2-1 Weighted National Statistics for Natural Gas in 26 Urban 14

Areas of the U.S. With and Without Propane/Air Peakshaving
2- II Water Holding Capacity of Natural Gas 18
3-1 Summary Level Statistics for New York 27
3-II Summary Level Statistics for New Jersey 29
3- III Summary Level Statistics for Pennsylvania - Company #1, 31

Station A
3-IV Summary Level Statistics for Pennsylvania - Company #1, 34

Station B
3-V Summary Level Statistics for Pennsylvania - Company #2, 35

Station A
3-VI Summary Level Statistics for Pennsylvania - Company #2, 36

Station B
3-VII Summary Level Statistics for Connecticut 39
3 -VIII Summary Level Statistics for Massachusetts - City #1 42
3-IX Summary Level Statistics for Massachusetts - City #2 43
3-X Summary Level Statistics for Rhode Island 46
3-XI Summary Level Statistics for Maryland - Gas Supplier A 49

3-XI(a) Summary Level Statistics for Maryland - Propane/Air 50
Peakshaving Gases
3-XII Summary Level Statistics for Maryland at Daily Maximum 54

Heating Value - Gas Supplier B
3 -XIII Summary Level Statistics for Maryland at Daily Minimum 55

Heating Value - Gas Supplier B
3-XIV Summary Level Statistics for Maryland at Daily Minimum 56

Heating Value - Gas Supplier C
iii
3-XV Summary Level Statistics for Maryland at Daily Maximum 57
Heating Value - Gas Supplier C
3-XVI Summary Level Statistics for Georgia 58
3-XVII Summary Level Statistics for Virginia - Station A 61
3-XVIII Summary Level Statistics for Virginia - Station B 62
3-XIX Summary Level Statistics for Illinois - Gate Station A 65

3-XX Summary Level Statistics for Illinois - Gate Station B 66
3-XXI Summary Level Statistics for Ohio 69
3 -XXII Summary Level Statistics for Michigan 72
3 -XXIII Summary Level Statistics for Wisconsin 75
3-XXIV Summary Level Statistics for Texas City #1 78
3-XXV Summary Level Statistics for Texas City #2 81
3-XXVI Summary Level Statistics for Texas City #3 84
3-XXVII Summary Level Statistics for Oklahoma 87
3-XXVIII Summary Level Statistics for Louisiana
90
3-XXIX Summary Level Statistics for Colorado - Station A
93
3-XXX Summary Level Statistics for Colorado - Station B
96
3 -XXXI Summary Level Statistics for Colorado - Station C
97
3-XXXII Summary Level Statistics for California City #1 -
Gate Station A 98
3-XXXIII Summary Level Statistics for California City #1 - 101

Gate Station B
3-XXXIV Summary Level Statistics for California City #1 - 102

Gate Station C
3-XXXV Summary Level Statistics for California City #1 - 103

Gate Station D
3-XXXVI Summary Level Statistics for California City #1 - 104

Gate Station E
3-XXXVII Summary Level Statistics for California City #2 - 105

Gate Station A
iv
3-XXXVIII Summary Level Statistics for California City #2 - 108
Gate Station B
3-XXXIX Summary Level Statistics for California City #3 109
3-XL Summary Level Statistics for California City #4 112
3-XLI Summary Level Statistics for California City #5 115
3-XLII Summary Level Statistics for Washington 118
4-1 Propane-Air Peakshaving Company Overview 123
4-II Regional Propane-Air Peakshaving Activity in the U. S. 127

1984-89
4-II1 Propane-Air Peakshaving Plants Per Company Overview 128
4-IV Propane Air Peakshaving Companies by Days of Operation 132
4-V Propane-Air Peak Shaving Company Send-Out Mixtures 133
4-VI Propane-Air Sendout Mixtures Under Worst Case Scenario 136
4-VII Propane-Air Sendout Mixtures Under Typical Winter Scenario 136
4-VIII Peakshaving Company Propane Specifications 138
4-IX Algerian LNG Compositions 140
4-X LNG Peakshaving Company Overview 142
4-XI Regional LNG Peakshaving Activity in the U.S. 1984-89 144
4-XII LNG Plant Design Feed Gas Composition Limits 148
4-XIII LNG Analysis From a Southeast Region Utility 149

~
. •...... '
j 4-XIV Composition of Typical Synthetic Natural Gas 150
4-XV Storage Capacity of 18 Companies with Both Propane- 151

Air and LNG Facilities
5-1 List of Gas Compositions Used in the Study 154

5- II Fuel Properties 15fi
5- III Effect of Extended Analysis Input on Predicted 159

Condensate Volumes
5-IV Estimated Amount of Condensate for Different Gases at 159

800 psia
v
LIST OF FIGURES
P-l Underground Storage System with Wet and Dry Cavern 3

Comparison
P-2 Schematic of LNG Peakshaving Facility 3
P-3 Flow Diagram of Typical Propane-Air Plant 5
P-4 Generalized Relationship Between Methane Number and 5

Motor Octane Number
P-5 Generalized Relationship Between Methane Number and 5

Critical Compression Ratio
2-1 Regional Distribution of Gas Composition Survey Areas 13
2-2 Non-Methane Constituents in Natural Gas 13
2-3 National Weighted Distributions 16
2-4 Total Sulfur Distribution in Five States 19
2-5 Sulfur Time Lines for Four States 19
2-6 Total Sulfur in Natural Gas from Hyrogen Sulfide and 20

Odorant
2-7 Hydrogen Sulfide in Natural Gas Supply 20
2-8 Water Data from Two States 20
3-1 New York Frequency Distribution Histograms 28
3-2 New York Components and Calculated Value Time Series 30
3-3 New Jersey Frequency Distribution Histograms 32
3-4 New Jersey Component and Calculated Value Time 33

Series
3-5 Pennsylvania Frequency Distribution Histograms for 37

One Station
3-6 Pennsylvania Component and Calculated Value Time Series 38

for One Station
3-7 Connecticut Frequency Distribution Histograms 40
vi
3-8 Connecticut Component and Calculated Value Time Series 41
3-9 Massachusetts City #1 Frequency Distribution Histograms 44
3-10 Massachusetts City #1 Component and Calculated Value 45

Time Series
3-11 Rhode Island Frequency Distribution Histograms 47
3-12 Rhode Island Component and Calculated Value Time Series 48
3-13 Maryland Supplier A Frequency Distribution Histograms 51
3-14 Maryland Supplier A Component and Calculated Value 52

Time Series
3-l4(a) Maryland Supplier A Time Series with Propane-Air 53

Peakshaving
3-15 Georgia Frequency Distribution Histograms 59
3-16 Georgia Component and Calculated Value Time Series 60

3-17 Virginia Station A Frequency Distribution Histogram 63
3-18 Virginia Station A Component and Calculated Value 64
Time Series
3-19 Illinois Gate Station B Frequency Distribution Histograms 67

3-20 Illinois Gate Station B Component and Calculated Value 68
Time Series
3-21 Ohio Frequency Distribution Histograms 70
3-22 Ohio Component and Calculated Value Time Series 71
3-23 Michigan Frequency Distribution Histogram 73
3-24 Michigan Component and Calculated Value Time Series 74
3-25 Wisconsin Frequency Distribution Histograms 76
3-26 Wisconsin Component and Calculated Value Time Series 77
3-27 Texas City #1 Frequency Distribution Histograms 79
3-28 Texas City #1 Component and Calculated Value Time Series 80
3-30 Texas City #2 Component and Calculated Value Time 83

Series
vii
3-32 Texas City #3 Component and Calculated Value Time 86

Series
3-33 Oklahoma Frequency Distribution Histograms 88
3-34 Oklahoma Component and Calculated Value Time Series 89
3-35 Louisiana Frequency Distribution Histograms 91
3-36 Louisiana Component and Calculated Value Time Series 92
3-37 Colorado Station A Frequency Distribution Histograms 94

3-38 Colorado Station A Component and Calculated Value 95
Time Series
3-39 California City #1, Gate Station A Frequency 99

Distribution Histograms
3-40 California City #1, Gate Station A Component and 100

Calculated Value Time Series
3-41 California City #2, Gate Station A Frequency Distribution 106

Histograms
3-42 California City #2, Gate Station A Component and Calculated 107
Value Time Series
3-43 California City #3 Frequency Distribution Histograms 110
3-44 California City #3 Component and Calculated Value Time Series 111
3-49 Washington Frequency Distribution Histograms 119

3-50 Washington Component and Calculated Value Time Series 120
4-1 Interchangeability of Propane-Air-Natural Gas Mixes 124
4-2 A.G.A. Propane-Air Peakshaving Information Survey 125
4-3 Propane Storage Capacity 126
4-4 Regional Distribution of Propane-Air Survey Areas 126
viii
4-5 Number of Propane-Air Peakshaving Plants per Company 129
4-6 Completion Dates of Propane-Air Plants 129
4-7 Completion Dates of Propane-Air Peakshaving Plants 129
4-8 Propane-Air Plant Usage 130
4-9 Propane-Air Plant Days of Use per Heating Season 130
4-10 Company Average Plant Days Annual Use 131
4-11 Send Out Volumes Heating Season Output 131
4-12 A.G.A. Propane-Air Peakshaving Information Survey 134

Follow-Up
4-13 Follow-Up Propane-Air Survey Results 135
4-14 Propane-Air Peakshaving Worst Case Situation 137
4-15 Propane-Air Peakshaving Normal or Typical Winter Situation 137
4-16 LNG Plant Facilities Database Questionnaire 141
4-17 LNG Storage Capacity 143
4-18 Regional Distribution of LNG Survey Areas 143
4-19 LNG Storage, Liquification, and Vaporization Facilities 146
4-20 Companies Reporting LNG Plant Usage During 1984-1989 146
4-21 Plant Days of LNG Peakshaving Use per Heating Season 146
4-22 Company Plant Days of LNG Peakshaving Use per Heating Season 147
- Five Year Average
4-23 Send Out Volumes of Peakshave LNG Heating Season Output 147
4-24 Peakshaving Priorities from Propane-Air Survey 147
5-1 Comparative Dewpoint Plots for Two Conventional Gases 157
5-2 Effect of Heavy Hydrocarbons in Input Gas Composition on 157
Predicted Dewpoints - Gas 4


ix
5-6 Effect of Propane Content and Pressure on Condensate 161

Formation
x
VARIABILITY OF NATURAL GAS COMPOSITION
IN SELECT MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES
PROLOGUE
The natural gas industry maintains a valuable infrastructure in the United

States- -billions of dollars invested in thousands of production wells and
thousands of miles of pipelines that crisscross the country. However, the U.S.
gas 'industry' is not a monolithic organization nor, as is often found in other
countries, a government-owned corporation. Instead, it is comprised of three
sectors--each with unique functions and characteristics--containing hundreds of
private, investor-owned, and publicly held companies that collectively provide
the services required to produce and deliver an end-use product capable of
meeting the diverse needs of its customers. These segments and a synopsis of
their roles are:
Production
This sector is comprised of major producers (multinational oil and gas

companies) and smaller independent producers. Natural gas is mainly found in the
major oil producing regions of the country--about three-fourths of present
production from wells in the South Central region (Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana,
Gulf of Mexico). From the ground, natural gas is often 'sour' (laden with
hydrogen sulfide) and 'wet' (having heavier hydrocarbons) and requires processing
to meet limits on hydrogen sulfide, water, condensibles, energy content, and
inert gases (e.g., carbon dioxide and nitrogen) as set forth in contract terms
with transmission companies. Natural gas processing plants, the refineries of
the gas industry, extract varying portions of non-methane constituents (e.g.,
ethane, propane, butane. etc.) for subsequent sale in the natural gas liquids and
liquified petroleum gas markets.
Transmission
Natural gas is shipped from producing areas through a high-pressure (over

500 psi) pipeline system. The pipeline (or transmission) companies provide gas
sales and transportation service that falls under the regulatory jurisdiction of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Pipeline companies ensure that natural
gas delivered to the retail gas companies adheres to contract terms and industry
norms related to safety, energy content, and physical properties such as heating
value and specific gravity. They may provide added services such as gas storage.
Pipeline companies are also required to transport gas purchased directly by end-
users from third parties. This gas carriage issue is becoming an increasingly
larger factor in gas operations.
Distribution
The final leg of the gas industry are local distribution companies (LDC)
and municipalities- -retailers directly interfacing with end users. These
companies operate as public utilities, with rates set by a governing body such
as a state commission. They provide local service to meet the energy needs of
their customers. Local distribution companies plan and manage--often in concert
1
with pipeline companies--regional gas supply, storage and demand balancing to
maintain uninterrupted service throughout the year.
Peakshaving
There is reference in this report to the term 'peakshaving.' In short, an

LDC can receive a finite amount of gas from pipeline suppliers. During periods
of peak use (e.g., extreme cold spells), this volume may not be sufficient to
meet temporarily high demand. To ensure prompt response to local demand,
distribution and pipeline companies work on strategies to store natural gas (or
substitutes) closer to the large demand centers- -that is, maj or urban areas. The
most common peakshaving methods are underground storage of pipeline natural gas,
liquified natural gas (LNG) storage, and propane-air injection.
Underground Storage
Underground storage entails storing gas into porous rock formations such
as former (or partially depleted) oil and gas wells and aquifers. Gas can also
be stored in mined caverns, mined salt fields and other such formations that have
the integrity to hold natural gas at elevated pressures (normally 1000-2000 psi).
The greatest concentration of these are in the Midwest and Middle Atlantic
states. Underground storage essentially transfers natural gas from its natural
cavern, say in Texas, and places it into an 'artificial' cavern, say in Illinois,
where natural gas is not normally found but is in high demand. Figure P-l
presents a sketch that compares wet and dry cavern operating techniques for
underground storage systems 1 .
Liguified Natural Gas Plants
Liquified natural gas plants condense natural gas from its normal gaseous
state to a liquid phase at approximately -260 F (allowing higher storage density)
and subsequently revaporize the gas to meet peak demand requirements. An LNG
plant--including liquefaction, storage, and vaporization equipment--represents
a significant capital investment and is normally complementary to underground
storage. LNG may be a primary source of peakshaving gas for regions of the
country where underground storage is geologically infeasible. The greatest
concentration of LNG plants are located along the East Coast, the Midwest, and
South Central regions of the country. Underground storage and LNG are
replenished during the summer months when gas demand is low, resulting in
operational benefits and cost savings for gas consumers. Figure P-2 presents a
sketch of a typical LNG plant.
Propane-Air Plants
Propane-air plants are used to meet 'needle' peaks that occur at periods
of greatest demand--usually the coldest days of winter. A propane-air plant
introduces propane (and air which can contain small levels of ethane, ethylene,
propylene, butanes, butylenes) with the main gas stream while maintaining
acceptable values for heating value (energy content) and specific gravity.
Propane and air are nominally injected in a proximate 50/50 mixture (i.e., 50
percent propane and 50 percent air) and mixed with pipeline gas to give an
overall composition that is dependent on the relative proportions of the gases
used and their individual compositions. Utilities with propane/air plants use
2
"!, .~
L;,,~ .i-~,,~j ~,. ~j ('..-:J :&.'.~";:~ I",.'-'~ • - .;j "
J J
"'So~
GAS INJECT ION

fAUL IT IES
r-----..,
GAS PIPEl! NE
: I
1 --"- - 1
I I
IL ...II
Distribution Main
Vaporizer
w
Flash Gas
Compressor
Fuel
vaporizers
Purification I I Series of: refrigerants
~ compressors
coolers
Flash LNG LNG

Drum Storage Pump
Source: American Air Uquid. Inc.
LEGEND
~ SALT
Le'4 BRINE
_ GAS
GAS BRINE
EXPANSION oI SPLACE~ENT
TECHN IOUE TECHN IOUE
Figure P-l Figure P-2

Underground Storage System with Wet and Dry Cavern Schematic of LNG Peakshaving Facility
Comparison
Source: American Gas Association, 1990

it sparingly, but reserve the right to inj ect significant amounts during
emergencies. Typical practice is up to 20 percent of the overall volume at peak
use; however, this may rise to 50 percent during extreme periods for a select
number of utilities. Figure P-3 presents a sketch of a typical propane-air
plant.
The following table illustrates the dimensions of the natural gas industry
and the role of gas storage and supplemental sources in meeting its total gas
deliveries. These values are from 1988 statistics in billions of cubic feet of
gas (one bcf of gas is equivalent to about one trillion Btus of energy).
Total Natural Gas Deliveries: 18,595 100.00%

Subtotal - Underground Storage 1,959 10.50%
Subtotal - LNG Plants 26 0.14%
Subtotal - Propane/Air Plants 5 0.03%
Source: American Gas Association, Issue Brief 1990-9
End-Use Considerations
With this background it is clear that natural gas is not just methane. The
properties and composition of end-use natural gas are a function of many factors,
including: (1) resource supply formation characteristics, (2) the level of gas
processing undertaken prior to interstate shipment, and (3) the degree of
commingling that occurs among the various sources during transportation.
Further, the end-use product may, as previously noted, be modified by gases
obtained from underground storage fields, LNG tanks, propane-air mixtures, and
other gas substitutes. All of these factors are further influenced by economic
factors, city location, and meteorological conditions.
There are no definitive measures for what natural gas should be nor would
it be economically or technologically practical to adhere to such an 'ideal'
specification. A pragmatic approach is establishment of recommended limits or
ranges on key measures. Over the years, gas companies and their trade and R&D
representatives have worked with equipment manufacturers (e.g., residential and
commercial appliances) to define prudent ranges and limits on gas properties and
composition for safe and reliable equipment performance. This effort has
resulted in well-documented characterization of the ' interchangeability' of
various gaseous fuels and definition of minimum criteria needed to prevent burner
yellow tipping, lifting, and flashback.
Internal-combustion reciprocating engines are similar to other gas-using

appliances, with fueling taking place through an orifice. In contrast, though,
reciprocating engines have a compression and ignition cycle wherein the gas is
exposed to high temperatures and pressures which can result in a fast-burning
autoignition process commonly referred to as 'knock.' Natural gas is resistant
to knock at conventional compression ratios used in gasoline engines--in fact,
the Octane Number of methane exceeds 120. This means that natural gas can
operate in a reciprocating engine at higher compression ratios--yielding
increases in power and fuel efficiency. The homologous series of alkanes
(methane, ethane, propane, etc.) present in natural gas exhibit decreasing knock
resistance with increasing chain length, a fact illustrated in work done by
Lovel1 2 showing the Critical Compression Ratio (CCR) of various hydrocarbons in
a Cooperative Fuels Research single-cylinder engine. Figures P-4 and P-5 show
4
Natural Gas
,-----------1 Pumps
Propane
Regulating
Station
. ;.~
Propane-Air
Mixed Gas I
I
I
I
Air I
Compressor I
I
I
TI
.
Source: Alabama Gas Corp.
Distribution Main )
,',.:h
Figure P-3
Flow Diagram of Typical Propane-Air Plant
GENERALIZED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENERALIZED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN METHANE

METHANE NUMBER AND MOTOR OCTANE NUMBER NUMBER AND CRITICAL COMPRESSION RATIO
METHANE NUMBER (MN) METHANE NUMBER (MN)

100,-------------------;;t'/ 110.--------------------,
90 100
80 90
70 80
60
50 60
401£-----'-----~-----'------' 50 L........_-'-_ _.l...-_----'-_ _-'--_--L._ _..J.-_---J

100 110 120 130 140 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0
MOTOR OCTANE NUMBER (MON) CRITICAL COMPRESSION RATIO (CCR)
Figure P-4 Figure P-5
5
test data relating two methods of 'rating' natural gas knock resistance. These
results are from unpublished data performed by Southwest Research Institute and
sponsored by GRI and the Southern California Gas Company. These two methods used
to evaluate gaseous fuel knock rating are described in 3 and 4.
Beyond knock, there are a number of issues that arise in consideration of

how gas composition changes impact stationary and mobile natural gas engines,
including air-fuel (A/F) ratio and equivalence ratio (this being the inverse
ratio of actual A/F ratio divided by the chemically correct ratio for
stoichiometric operation). Gaseous fuel constituents have significant
differences in specific gravity (or relative density to air), carbon-to-hydrogen
(C:H) ratio, and air requirements for complete combustion. Further, the presence
of inert gases (and sometimes oxygen) in natural gas significantly impact the
mass of air required for combustion.
From a combustion standpoint, changes in equivalence ratio have an impact

on performance, efficiency and emissions--generally a more significant effect
than comparably minor changes in gas constituents will have (this excludes
discussion of knock and recognizes that changes in gas composition cause changes
in A/F ratio). In an open-loop, uncontrolled engine, gas composition variations
with time may be an issue for some applications (i.e., because they influence
equivalence ratio). For a properly configured and optimized gaseous closed-loop
fuel control system such as those used on engines and vehicles equipped with
three-way stoichiometric catalysts, these changes in gas composition as they
impact A/F and equivalence ratio can be effectively negated because the control
technology drives the equivalence ratio to its setpoint value around
stoichiometry (equivalence ratio=l.O). These issues are discussed in various
sources, including references S ,6,7. Modifications to control concepts used on
gasoline engines are needed to effectively achieve this goal.
Lean-burn homogeneous and stratified-charge combustion concepts are widely

employed in existing natural gas engines to achieve low levels of NO x emissions
and high fuel economy. These engines operate with a high level of excess air,
often at equivalence ratios less than 0.6 (air to fuel ratios of 25-30:1). For
these engines, a key consideration (beyond knock) is lean misfire limit--the
point beyond which combustion either cannot be initiated or sustained. Lean
flammability is impacted by gas composition changes and significant shifts in A/F
ratio caused by changes in the chemical makeup of natural gas (especially the
presence of oxygen in the gas stream) can potentially lead to misfire in an
uncontrolled lean-burn engine. The use of sensors, particularly wide range
exhaust oxygen sensors, may effectively permit closed-loop fuel control for lean-
burn engines and mitigate the potential impact of gas composition changes.
The primary motivation for this topical report is to understand seasonal

and regional gas composition variations in major U.S. cities. These data are
intended to assist R&D related to stationary and mobile gas engine applications
(e.g., cogeneration and natural gas vehicles), but are generally applicable to
all areas of natural gas utilization--including appliances, meters, compressors,
industrial heat treating, etc. The data and analyses presented herein also
reflects current conditions; however, it must be kept in mind that gas supplies
can and do change. There are a number of phenomena that could result in changes
to gas compositions on a local or wider basis. Some of these phenomena are:
imported LNG, shifting supplies from other regions as new pipelines are laid, the
6
emergence of supplies such as from landfill and coal seam gas, and future supply
sources from gasification of coal.
This prologue is meant to provide the reader a framework for understanding

the U.S. natural gas industry and factors related to gas composition as it
impacts natural gas engines. Such cursory treatment of the gas industry and
selected reporting of gas composition in various metropolitan areas does not do
full justice to the complexity and subtleness of the subject matter. It is
essentially impossible to make a definitive statement about the exact nature of
natural gas, but the data contained in this report should prove beneficial in
answering the question: What is Natural Gas?
.J
7
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Obj ective
The work reported in this document has several major objectives. The first
obj ective of this work was to quantify potential regional and seasonal variations
in the composition and physical properties of natural gas in selected maj or urban
areas of the United States over a one-year time period. Major urban areas were
chosen because they represent a large segment of existing gas consumers and are
envisioned to be a key market area for natural gas vehicles. This report lists
the results of statistical analyses of gas composition in 26 U.S. nonattainment
cities for either ozone or carbon monoxide levels.
The second objective of the work was to document peakshaving practices in

the United States (primarily those of propane-air and liquified natural gas)
since those practices effect and vary the composition of the send-out gases
provided by local distribution companies. Peakshaving gases can pose some unique
issues when applied to natural gas vehicles.
The third and final objective of this work was to assess the extent to
which variability of gas composition can contribute to the formation of
condensates as a function of pressure and temperature of compressed natural gas
in natural gas vehicles.
1.2 Background
This report follows past efforts conducted by American Gas Association

Laboratories (A.G.A.L.)8 which addressed natural gas composition in ten U.S.
nonattainment cities. Over 3600 gas analyses were obtained from the ten cities
located in a wide range of geographical regions. Statistical analyses of these
data indicated, not surprisingly, that natural gas is principally methane,
ethane, propane and inert gases with relatively low levels of butane and heavier
hydrocarbons. The analysis included determining the mean, minimum, maximum, 10th
and 90th percentile for each cities' data along with similar data on a weighted
national basis. The analysis indicated that several extreme values were set by
propane-air peakshaving gases. The consideration of these peakshaving gases
noticeably affected the minimum and maximum values; however, the mean and
percentile values showed little or no difference. This report expands the total
number of major metropolitan areas considered from 10 to 26.
A complementary study performed in the mid-1980s for British Columbia

Research by Clapham Common Services, IBI Group 9 provides a summary of natural
gas composition in Canada, see Table 1-1.
8
TABLE 1-1
NATURAL GAS COMPOSITION REPORTED BY BRITISH COLUMBIA

RESEARCH IN THE MID-1980'S
CONCENTRATION, MOLE %
COMPONENT/MEASURE MEAN VALUE MINIMUM VALUE MAXIMUM VALUE

Methane 92.7 82.2 97.8
:"-~ Ethane 4.1 0.9 10.5

Propane 1.0 0.0 3.5
Butanes 0.3 0.0 1.5
Pentanes 0.1 0.0 0.5
Hexanes+ 0.1 0.0 0.4
Carbon Dioxide 0.5 0.0 2.6
..~
;., Nitrogen 1.3 0.2 3.7

Heating Value, 1020 965 1106
(BTU/ft3 )
Specific Gravity 0.601 0.560 0.680
Source: Gialham
p Common ~erv~ces
The data of Table 1-11 can be used as a guideline on typical terms and
conditions that are entered into between two parties, such as a transmission
company and an LDC, for the purchase and custody transfer of natural gas (note
that these are not universal). The data in Table 1- II were obtained from
references 10 and 11
1.3 Methodology
The regions outlined in this report were selected to achieve comprehensive

.~ coverage of various sectors of the U.S. Within these regions, individual major
j urban areas were targeted for data collection based on their size, potential for
natural gas vehicle penetration, and the city's status as a non-attainment region
for ambient emissions--primarily ozone.
The local utilities serving the target cities were contacted to determine
whether they maintained analysis records on their gas composition. If such data
were not available, the pipeline companies delivering gas to the target city were
contacted for data. When a positive response was found, data was requested over
a one-year time period for hydrocarbon constituents from Cl through C6+
(including isomers), inert gases, water, and sulfur. These are the primary
constituents in natural gas. The periodicity of these available data range from
samples on a monthly or less often basis to daily and even an hourly basis. In
some cases, more than one 'data set' for a particular city was obtained--i.e.,
different sample points. In many cases these represent different city-gates
where transfer of gas between the LDC and its pipeline supplier(s) occur. The
9
TABLE 1-II
TYPICAL CONTRACT LIMITS FOR CUSTODY

TRANSFER OF NATURAL GASES
COMPONENT TYPICAL CONTRACT LIMITS (1 )

Hydrogen Sulfide .25-1.0 grains/100 ft 3
Mercaptans (Odorants) 1. 0-10.0 grains/100 ft 3 (2)
Total Sulfur 10-20 grains/100 ft 3 (3)
Carbon Dioxide 2 percent by vo1ume(4)
Oxygen 0.2 percent by volume
Nitrogen 3 percent by volume
Total Inert Gases 4 percent by vo1ume(4)
Hydrogen 400 parts per million
Carbon Monoxide None
Halogens None
Unsaturated Hydrocarbons None
Water 7 1bs./million cubic feet
Hydrogen Dewpoint 45 F @ 400 psig
Heating Value 975 Btu/ft3 (HHV) , minimum
Source: A.G.A., 1971 and New York Mercantile Exchange, 1984

(1)
The presented values are typical of those noted in typical contracts;
however, contracts seldom list all the components shown and the limits vary
considerably.
(2) Mercaptan odorants generally require a level of only about 0.2 to 0.3
grains/100 ft 3 for satisfactory odorization. Thiophane odorant, which is
used by some LDC's can be used at a level of about 0.1 grains/100 ft 3 .
(3)
Cornmon industry practice is generally much lower than this upper limit. for
example, one LDC in this study limits total sulfur to 0.75 grains/100 ft 3 .
(4) One utility accepts the guidelines specified in ASTM/ISO 1986 draft
proposed standard "Detailed Requirements for End-Use Quality Natural Gas"
for these components: CO 2 (max. 3%); total inerts (max. 18%); and, oxygen
as low as practicable - a revised standard addresses air blending for
heating value stabilization.
10
identification of the individual cities and the names of the companies serving
those cities is being held confidential to accommodate the sensitivities of the
individual companies.
The data contained in this report are primarily based on gas chromatograph
analysis for hydrocarbon species as well as inert gases such as nitrogen and
carbon dioxide. The analysis of hydrocarbons captures principally compounds from
Cl through C6 (and higher) and does delineate between isomeric compounds 12.
Heating values are reported on a dry basis, corrected for compressability, at
14.73 PSIA and 60 F. Sulfur bearing compounds are mainly hydrogen sulfide (from
the source gas) and odorants (mercaptans) which are determined primarily using
the Barton Electrolytic Analyzer method 13 • Water is determined primarily using
the dewpoint temperature method 14 . Methane number and critical compression ratio
were calculated using the methods described in Reference 7.
These data were compiled into a computer database. Using the detailed
composition analysis, a number of physical properties were calculated for each
sample point (e.g., heating value, specific gravity, Wobbe Number, methane
number, critical compression ratio, etc.). From these various chemical and
physical properties sets, a number of statistical and graphical analyses and
presentations were derived. For composite national data contained in the
following section, the data were 'weighted' based on the volume of natural gas
delivered by each individual company. The results of this effort forms the basis
of this report.
It is noteworthy that gas composition and most physical properties of

natural gas rarely conform to a normal or Gaussian distribution. The physical
properties that most nearly approach a classical distribution are heating value
and Wobbe Number. Not coincidentally, these are the primary figures of merit
used for monitoring the ' quality' and economic value of natural gas. Such
scrutiny is not placed on individual species, such as methane, thus its
'"
distribution is more random and nonnormal. For this reason, the analysis in this
report relies on measures such as the mean, minimum, maximum, percentile values,
frequency distribution, and variation with time. It should be noted that these
data are based on results of tests performed on different equipment at different
laboratories. While these gas analysis laboratories likely adhere to ASTM
guidelines and recalibrate equipment periodically, the absolute accuracy of these
results cannot be determined or verified.
11
2.0 NATIONAL OVERVIEW
Natural gas composition to end-use customers in the U.S. is a complex

issue, with no particularly 'correct' answer. There are certainly differences
in the chemical constituents present in natural gas as well as in the key indices
used to measure natural gas' quality' and value- -heating value, specific gravity,
and Wobbe Number. [The Wobbe Number is a term defined as the heating value of
a gas divided by the square root of the specific gravity. This number is
proportional to heat input at constant pressure.] Existing gas industry practices
acquired over the years provide a measure of self-regulating control and are
complemented by contract terms for gas sales, regulatory oversight, desire for
product quality, and the pragmatic need to account for gas volumes and their
economic value. These and other factors tend to bring the key measures of
natural gas to a common level.
The overwhelming maj ority of natural gas delivered in this country is

nondescript; that is, there are no distinguishing features in these gases that
would raise a concern. However, there are instances where gas utilities deliver
a composition of natural gas that is different from the norm. This occurs most
often for short periods at a select number of utilities (e.g., high demand points
in the winter) or, in one instance, is characteristic of the daily deliveries by
a gas utility. The key factor in these cases is whether such compositions
represent a significant variation from the norm for a particular application.
This report is intended to address this issue for natural gas vehicle and
stationary engine applications. A concerted effort has been made to include in
this database cities that represent the industry 'norm' as well as extremes.
Twenty-six target cities in 19 states were identified for collection of

data on gas composition. The cities represent the following regions and states:
Region States
Northeast: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Massachusetts,
Connecticut
Southeast: Maryland, Georgia, Virginia
North Central: Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin
South Central: Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana
Mountain: Colorado
Pacific: California, Washington
Figure 2-1 graphically shows the distribution of these target areas

throughout the U.S.
2.1 Summary National Statistics
The methodology used to collect these data was described in the previous
section, including the issue of weighting based on volumetric gas deliveries for
the target cities. Table 2- I illustrates summary-level weighted national
statistics for all of the 26 cities. In total, these data constitute over 6,800
gas analyses. The Mean column shows typical composition and physical property
data for end-use delivered natural gas. The Minimum and Maximum columns
illustrate the absolute extremes identified in the data, while the 10th and 90th
percentile columns show relative extremes.
12
Regional Distribution of Gas
Composition Survey Areas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Georgia
- illinois
- louisiana
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- New Jersey
- New York
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
."~
- Texas
, - Virginia
- Washington
- Wisconsin
Figure 2-1
NON-METHANE CONSTITUENTS IN NATURAL GAS

20 NON-METHANE CONSTITUENTS (MOLE %)
I~
Ethane El Propane [[]] Butanes +
Inerts Oxygen m
15- - -
---- ._. __ _-,- '''-----,._----_ -----

10 ------ .. .. _---~--_ .. _-_.-
==
~~
;=
i ~~ ~
5- = = :=
~ -
- -mml-
o-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
~
CITY
Figure 2-2
13
TABLE 2-1
Weighted National statistics For Natural Gas In

26 Major Urban Areas Of The U.s. With and Without Propane/Air Peaks having
Minimum Minimum Maximum Maximum 10 th 90 th

Mean With PIA W/O PIA With PIA W/O PIA %-He %-He
Methane (Mole %) 93.9 55.8 74.5 98.1 98.1 89.6 96.5
Ethane (Mole %) 3.2 .5 .5 13.3 13.3 1.5 4.8
Propane (Mole %) .7 .0 .0 23.7 2.6 .2 1.2
C 4 + (Mole %) .4 .0 .0 2.1 2.1 .1 .6
C02 + N2 (Mole %) 2.6 .0 .0 15.1 10.0 1.0 4.3
Heating Value (MJ/m A 3) 38.46 36.14 36.14 45.00 41.97 37.48 39.03
Heating Value (BTU/scf) 1033 970 970 1208 1127 1006 1048
Specific Gravity .598 .563 .563 .883 .698 .576 .623
Wobbe Number (MJ/m A 3) 49.79 44.76 44.76 52.85 52.85 49.59 50.55
Wobbe Number (BTU/scf) 1336 1201 1201 1418 1418 1331 1357
Air/Fuel Ratio (Mass) 16.4 12.7 13.7 17.1 17.1 15.9 16.8
Air/Fuel Ratio (Volume) 9.7 9.1 9.1 11.4 10.6 9.4 9.9
Molecular Weight 17.3 16.4 16.4 25.5 20.2 16.7 18.0
Critical Compression Ratio 13.8 9.7 12.5 14.2 14.2 13.4 14.0
Methane Number 90.0 34.1 73.1 96.2 96.2 84.9 93.5
Lower Flammability Limit, % 5.00 4.30 4.56 5.25 5.25 4.84 5.07
Hydrogen:Carbon Ratio 3.92 3.24 3.68 3.97 3.97 3.82 3.95
14
Table 2-1 also indicates that the principle components of natural gas are
methane, ethane, propane, and inert gases - -wi th relatively trace levels of butane
or heavier hydrocarbons. This fact is clearly illustrated in Figure 2-2, showing
average percent levels of non-methane constituents found in natural gas for each
of the 26 cities (in mole percent or essentially equivalent volume percent). The
values in Table 2-1 also note several extreme values that were set by propane-air
peakshaving gas compositions.
The consideration of peakshaving gases in three cities noticeably affects

the maximum and minimum national values, as previously noted. The mean and
percentile values, however, show little or no difference compared to when the
propane-air peakshaving gases are not considered.
The following graphs illustrate the weighted frequency distribution for key
components and parameters of natural gas for all 26 cities. These figures give
an essence of the nominal and limit behavior of end-use delivered natural gas
constituents and physical properties. The reader should bear in mind when
looking at the frequency distribution graphs that the behavior of the parameters
do not follow a normal distribution.
Figure 2 - 3 presents average national weighted distributions for the

organics of methane, ethane, propane and butanes, inerts (C0 2 + N2 ) and the
calculated heating value. The continuation of Figure 2-3 presents the national
weighted distribution for the calculated values of specific gravity, air/fuel
ratio (mass), lower flammability limit, molecular weight, H:C ratio and critical
compressions ratio.
Section 3.0, Region and City Overview, outlines the data obtained for the
individual cities compiled in this database.
2.2 Water and Sulfur Content Overview
Sulfur and water data was obtained from relatively few cities out of the
26. Because this data is obviously limited the overall averages and ranges of
values reported herein could be different from that with a larger sample.
From the wellhead, sulfur is present mainly as H2S, but is largely removed
due to its toxicity. A more significant source of sulfur is odorants
intentionally added to natural gas. Typical contract terms and industry practice
limit total sulfur to 0.25-1.0 grains per 100 scf (or approximately 8 - 30 ppm
on a mass basis).
Time based sulfur data was obtained from five cities representing five
states. This data was obtained from LDC's in four of the cities and from a
pipeline company for the other city. Results of over 2300 analyses indicate:
1) The average total sulfur content in the gases supplied by a pipeline

supplier to an LDC in a major city was 0.12 gr/100 scf,
2) The average total sulfur content in the gases provided by four LDC's was
0.39 gr/100 scf, and
3) The average total sulfur content for all samples was 0.34 gr/100 scf.
15
FREQUENCY Dl8TRlBUTION: aoETHAtE FREOlENCY D18TRIlUTION: ETHAtE
.. WEIQHTED NATIONAL PERCENT OF SAMPLES ,. WEIQHTEI) NATIONAL PERCENT OF SAMPlES
M
11 1- ··············111 I
11 1- ..................
~
• 1- ·fllfl I
•
I 1--.................................................................................................................................................................... Iln!·
e
o
IVl ,fl
2 3 4 a I 7 • • ~ fl ~ ~ M
ETHAIE, PERCENT
FREQUENCY DI8TRI8UTION: PROPANE FREQUENCY D18TRIlUTION: INERTS

22 WEIQHTED NATIONAL PERCENT OF SAMPLES . . WEIQHTED NATIONAL PERCENT OF SAMPLES
10 ,.
,.
.. 14 l-
12
14
..........................
~
11
~
• I-
• ............
• 1- ....
I
e 1-.....
~l
IPI In
4
jn
2
2
o m' , 0 m o IU J~~rJnl jH~~

012.4ae7 •• ~fl1l~M • • ~ •• IO~22U~ 134 e. 7 •• ~1I111314 ....
PROPANE, PERCENT IERTI (CO2 + N2~ PERCENT
FREQUENCY D18TR1lUTION: C 4 + FREQUENCY DI8TRIlUTION: I£AT-.G VALUE

10 WEIQHTED NATIONAL PERCENT OF SAMPLES ~ WEIQHTEI) NATIONAL PERCENT OF SAMPLES
• .....................
II
.
11 _ . . .
10 1- V }........................................................................................................ I
•
~
•
• n
-
o nn~f1_~~~f ~flD_n
o ~ A A A 1 U U U U 2 U ~ 110 1000 ~IO 1040 1010 1010 flOG flIO MO 1110 1110 1200
C 4 +, PERCENT IEADIG VALUE, BTU/8CF
Figure 2-3
National Weighted Distributions

16
FREQUENCY DlSTRBUTlON: SPECIFIC BRAVITY FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION: ""'FUEL RATIO (MASSI
,. WEIQIlTED NATIONAL PERCENT OF SAMPLES 10 WEIGHTED NATIONAL PERCENT OF 8AAFI.ES
11 ,. I····················
12
12
•
•
•
4
b
NL
I
!--
I"l
:...~
~r1~
-~ I~
0 o
,. rT
JII .I .u .14 .llI .llI .7 .72 .74 ,71 ,71 .. .12 .14 .II .II 13.1 .... .....1 11 1IJI 11 f1
IPECFIC QIIAVlTY AIRJFUEL RATIO (NAU,
FREQUENCY DlSTRBUTION: WOBBE NUMBER FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION: MOLECtLAR WEIGHT

10 WEIGIfTB) NATIONAL PERCENT OF 8AIFI.EI 14 WEIQIlTED NATIONAL PERCENT OF 8AMPLES
12
,.
;~
\
.
j 12
• I-
• •
4
~L&
2
o 1200 _~r1l/ln.
_ _ 1271
_~H
lIOO
nD..
_
1A1
rlWllA1
_
n[1,.,
1171 14GO
o
1IJIf1~.1IJI.1IJI1O~~~n~n~u~
MOLECULAR WEIGHT
WOIIlIE NUMIIEA
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION: ItC RATIO FREQUENCY DlSTRBUTIOtt CRITICAL COMPRE88ION RATIO

10 WEIQKTm NATIONAL PERCENT OF 8AIFI.EI 1M WEIQIlTED NATIONAL PERCENT OF SAMPLES
~
10
~
1/ 1
•
40
.~
]
11
II
V, 12 f
~
17
~I • I······
r,
20
1/
.. po-
1/ V
1/
1/
S
V V ~rJ nR~
o
1.21 8.a lI.II a.4 a.4I
HYDROGEN:CARBON RATIO
ITl 1/
u a.lll a.1 3.ll1 a.7 3.71 a.a 3.11 3.' 3.11 4
o
.. 10.1 11 11JI 12 12JI
CRITICAL COW'RE88lON RATIO
11 .... 'Y
Figure 2-3 (cant.)

National Weighted Distributions
17
Figure 2-4 presents the frequency distributions for total sulfur in
grains/100 scf for cities in the five states of Ohio, Illinois, New York,
Pennsylvania and California. Figure 2-5 presents time based data for 4 states.
Figure 2 - 5 (a) presents time lines for H2 S and total sulfur for one typical
sampling location in California. Figure 2-5(b) presents total sulfur time data
for a pipeline company serving an Illinois city. Figure 2-5(c) shows total
sulfur for two gate stations serving the same Pennsylvania city. Figure 2-5(d)
shows the range of annual total sulfur values for 11 sources providing gas to an
Ohio city. Figure 2-6 presents the H2 S, odorant and total sulfur in supplied
natural gases for a recent 3 year period in a city in the Southeastern U.S.
Figure 2-7 presents the 1990 monthly averages for H2S for that same Southeastern
U. S. city.
Water is absorbed in natural gas much as it is present in the atmosphere

and is controlled by the gas industry to prevent condensate from promoting
corrosion of transmission piping and to prevent formation of solid hydrates.
Data obtained from two cities, over 1500 analyses, indicated the bulk of those
gases contain 3-7 pounds of water per million cubic feet (lbs/MMcf) of gas with
a low value of about 0.5 lbs/MMcf and a high value of about 10 lbs/MMcf. A value
of 4-5 lbs/MMcf translates to approximately 85-105 ppm of water on a volume
basis. Water data obtained from two states, California and Illinois, is
presented in Figure 2-8. Values exceeding these levels can occur.
Table 2-11 outlines the maximum amount of water that can remain absorbed
in natural gas at particular ambient (or gas) temperatures and pressures. The
obvious trends are that increasing pressure and decreasing temperature lowers the
water holding capacity of natural gas. These are calibrated to a baseline
condition of atmospheric pressure (14.7 psia) and 60 F. For example, at these
test conditions a gas could contain at most 0.4 lbs H20/MMcf to completely
prevent the formation of condensate at -20 F and 3000 psia.
TABLE 2-11
WATER HOLDING CAPACITY OF NATURAL GAS

(LBS H20/MILLION CUBIC FEET)
PRESSURE LEVEL (PSIA)
TEMPERATURE 14.7 100 1000 3000

(oF)
-20 27 4.4 0.9 0.4
0 72 11 2.0 1.0
20 176 27 4.4 2.3
40 396 61 9.1 5.0
60 834 128 18 9.0
18
o~,~ Iht:.~.~ rt:~Joj O!}i.: __ -;~ L-~ __ -~) ~
~ ~'l ~~ ~~
OHIO
I .8 ~n"",SlI'YU Slyr u__ TOTAL SULFUR

~~ _ ~ _~ _~_ _ ~_~o ~_~
:~ iiAM~S--
.4 !-oo c,-,_' _,,_0 0_00 ,,,~,-, 0 ~_0-',0 , 00 00_0_0 _ _ 0 1
o P(J~?=P I I I I I I I
j 2 ~ A ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ 1 U U U U U .2 I-C:__ ,~o__ 00 __ 0 0_ _ 00 0 - _0_0 ', _o-+_~ oo__ ooooo oo +H
TOTAL SULFUR. GRAINSI100 CU.FT.
O . J
ILLINOIS JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
(a)
~[lSAM~S ... ...1 ILLINOIS
o I 1 I I I I I I I I I I
o j 2 ~ A ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ 1 U U U U U
TOTAL SULFUR, GRAINS/100 CU.FT.
NEW YORK
.i o
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
_ 00000000 00000000000000000000000000_0_0 0000_000000000000000_ 00000000_000
~g40rENT ~LES . ... . - . _..1
30 _ _ _- -- 00_0000_00_ 00000000000000_ 0000 _ _ 00000000000000000000000000000000
(b)
...... 20 __ - -- - - _0_0_ 00_00 __ 0_____ 0_00000_0 __ 0
\.0 10 _ - - - ...- - - - ---------

o I I I I I I I '""I
.~ rzraP:P1
j 2 3
A
I1 TU
o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U U U U .8 !OTAL SULFUR, GRAINSr~~~~rl VANIA
TOTAL SULFUR, GRAINS/100 CU.FT. STATION A -STATION B
.8 I- _ _ oo_ _ ~ ,- - : - + - - 0 _ , _ 0 0 +,+- ----,_o _+_
PENNSYLVANIA
.4 H--;,'1f\f"t'-'!~~~_'4i'l'\P~=--=:llj
:: f<:EN~OFS~MPL~S ~
40·----·------· ,. . -
__ . _.__ . .
---- . d..
_]
-
2 1 . . 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '
20 0 _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 000
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
o I I I"""T"V(! I I I I I I I I (c)
j 2
o ~ A ~
f?1,3
~ 1 U ~ ~ U U U U
TOTAL SULFUR, GRAINS/100 CU.FT.
.8 TOTAL SULFUR, GRAINSI100 sg~IO

CALIFORNIA THIGH ~ LOW x AVERAGE
T
40 PERCENT OF SAMPLES .6
.4 t
t I T T
.2
I
1 t t ! t t f
o
o j 2 ~ A ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ 1 U U U U U A B C D E F G H J K
;i[ a~?", TOTAL SULFUR, GRAINS/100 CU.FT.
"" ~~I (d)
Figure 2.,..4
Total Sulfur Distribution in Five States Figure 2-5
Sulfur Time Lines for Two States
TOTAL SULFUR IN NATURAL GAS
FROM HYROGEN SULFIDE & ODORANT
CALIFORNIA
GRAINS OF SULnIR/100SCP'
0.31 I
·.-,.-----.-------.---==
0.25~~·
~~M~~
10
-~---------
~
5 - --------------
0.2 I .,.. T-
o '7' r;p up Ff If1 E{J j'" T T l i
~1~2~3U4U5~8U7~8U9Um
0.15
WATER. LBS/MM CU.FT.
0.1 ~----------------
0.05 t-- . . ------;:, ~ ------·---:;::::---~---------_:_--l
0' I , , r I I I ! , I , ! ! , 1 IT==*" , ! I ! I I ! ! , '7 I I I ! I
JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND
1966-1990
-. '. -- --- - -- -" . - •fA
. 'I' ""'-,,,
---u
:~
.~~
- - Hydrogen SuiCide -+-- Odorant - - Total Sulfur
Figure 2-6
:c ,/ " j
.u. AUG SEPOCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
N
o
ILUNOIS
HYDROGEN SULFIDE IN NATURAL GAS SUPPLY 15 -

~rEN~OF~ - I -- -- - -- - - - --- .
':
GRAINS/I Doser
0. 05 1 I
~I~9~-ti~,;?-~ 7-~~' ~,-~~~
.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
WATER. LBS/MM CU.FT.
0.04
0.03 ILLINOIS
0.02
0.01
:~.CUFT .. _lf~ ~
o
Jon Feb Mor Apr Moy Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
MONTHLY AVERAGES FOR 1990
:=~IIWW~
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Figure 2.,..7
Figure 2-8
Water Data from Two States
3.0 REGION AND CITY OVERVIEW
This section outlines the results of regional and time-based analysis of

gas composition in the U.S. Regions are broken down on the basis of states;
however, it should be noted that reference to a specific set of data as
representative of a state (e. g. "Illinois" gas) or region is an
oversimplification. These data do not necessarily quantitatively describe
individual states or regions of the country.
3.1 Northeast Region
Six major urban areas were surveyed for gas composition data to represent
the northeastern sector of the country. These six cities are representative of
markets where natural gas vehicles have an opportunity to assist in meeting
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone. These cities are located in
New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.
The following tables and graphs illustrate the results of the survey of this
segment of the country.
3.1.1 New York
Table 3-1 presents tabulated summary level statistics for New York. Data
from four inlet points (noted Stations A, B, C and D) into the gas utilities'
service territory are presented. Figure 3-1 presents frequency distribution
histograms for the maj or organic components and calculated values of the New York
gas. Figure 3-2 presents time series data for selected components and calculated
values.
3.1.2 New Jersey
Table 3-11 presents tabulated summary level statistics for New Jersey.
Figure 3 - 3 presents frequency distribution histograms for the maj or organic
components and calculated values of the New Jersey gas. Figure 3-4 presents time
series data for selected components and calculated values.
I 3.1.3 Pennsylvania
I Data was obtained from two local distributing companies in Pennsylvania.

Table 3-111 and 3-IV present tabulated summary level statistics for two sampling
stations (A & B) for Company #1. Tables 3-V and 3-VI present tabulated summary
level statistics for two sampling stations (A & B) for Company #2. Figure 3-5
presents frequency distribution histograms for the major organic components and
calculated values for one of the four stations. Figure 3-6 presents time series
data for selected components and calculated values for the same station.
3.1.4 Connecticut
Table 3-VII presents tabulated summary level statistics for Connecticut.

Figure 3-7 presents frequency distribution histogram for the major organic
components and calculated values. Figure 3 - 8 presents time series data for
selected components and calculated values.
21
3.1.5 Massachusetts
Data was obtained from two local distributing companies in two separate
cities in Massachusetts. Tables 3-VIII and 3-IX present tabulated summary level
statistics for City #1 and City #2 respectively. Figure 3-9 presents frequency
distribution histograms for the major organic components and calculated values
for City #1. Figure 3-10 presents time series data for selected components and
calculated values for City #1. Frequency distribution histograms for the major
organic components and calculated values and time series data for selected
components and calculated values for City #2 are not presented since insufficient
data was available for meaningful graphs.
3.1.6 Rhode Island
Table 3-X presents tabulated summary level statistics for Connecticut.

Figure 3-11 presents frequency distribution histograms for the major organic
components and calculated values. Figure 3-12 presents time series data for
3.2 Southeast Region
Three maj or urban areas were surveyed for gas composition data to represent
the southeastern sector of the country. These three cities are representative
of markets where natural gas vehicles have an opportunity to assist in meeting
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone. The first city is located in
Maryland, the second in Georgia, and the third in Virginia. The following
tables and graphs illustrate the results of the survey of this segment of the
country.
The data for Maryland noted in the Interim Report included the impact of
propane-air peakshaving used during a cold period during the month of December,
1989. The propane-air plants were not used at any other period during the year
covered in this survey. It should be noted that the gas compositions for this
period were based on a composite value obtained from analysis of gas entering the
city gate and records of hourly propane-air use kept by the utility. This data
has not been reproduced again in this report but it was included in the
calculated national average values presented earlier in Table 2-1.
3.2.1 Maryland
Tables 3-XI, 3-XII, 3-XIII, 3-XIV and 3-XV present tabulated summary level
statistics for Maryland representing three gas suppliers and the gas compositions
corresponding to the daily maximum and minimum heating value from two of those
suppliers. Only very small differences are noted in the measured and calculated
values for the daily maximum and minimum heating values for those two stations.
Table 3-XI(a) data presents propane-air mixtures injected into the gas stream of
a major gate line designed to provide this peakshaving option. The level of
propane-air injected into a suburban section of this city represents an extreme
example of propane-air usage because it occurred during the very cold December
of 1989 which was 38% colder than normal. Typical practice would be considerably
lower than this extreme. These data include gas compositions calculated using
propane-air peakshaving records during that cold period. The gas compositions
for this period are based on a composite value obtained from analysis of gas
entering the city gate and records of hourly propane-air use kept by the utility.
22
The table data also includes chromatograph analyses of distribution gases after
mixture of the pipeline and peakshaving plant streams during the subsequent
heating season. Also note that the data presented in this table is based on a
peak daily propane-air use basis and that only one propane-air peakshaving
facility exists in this gas supply system. Figure 3-13 presents frequency
distribution histograms for the major organic components and calculated values
for gas supplier A. Figure 3-14 presents time series data for selected
components and calculated values, also for gas supplier A. Figure 3-l4(a) shows
the same data as Figure 3-14; however, consideration of propane-air peakshaving
gases off one gate line is also included.
3.2.2 Georgia
Table 3-XVI presents tabulated summary level statistics for Georgia. Due
to the small amount of data available the table presents only the maximum,
minimum and average values for each considered component and calculated physical
property. Figure 3-15 presents frequency distribution histograms for the major
organic components and calculated values. Figure 3-16 presents time series data
for selected components and calculated values.
J 3.2.3 Virginia
Tables 3-XVII and 3-XVIII present tabulated summary level statistics for
two gate stations serving the same city in Virginia. Figure 3-17 presents
frequency distribution histograms for the maj or organic components and calculated
values for Station A. Figure 3-18 presents time series data for selected
components and calculated values for Station A.
3.3 North Central Region
Four major urban areas were surveyed for gas composition data to represent
the north central (Midwest) sector of the country. These four cities are
representative of markets where natural gas vehicles have an opportunity to
assist in meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone. The first
city is located in Illinois, the second in Ohio, the third in Michigan and the
fourth in Wisconsin. The following tables and graphs illustrate the results of
I the survey of this segment of the country.
3.3.1 Illinois
Tables 3-XIX and 3-XX present tabulated summary level statistics for two
gate stations in Illinois representing two different pipeline suppliers. Figure
3-19 presents frequency distribution histograms for the major components and
calculated values for Gate Station B. Figure 3-20 presents time series data for
selected components and calculated values for Gate Station B also.
3.3.2 Ohio
Table 3-XXI presents tabulated summary level statistics for Ohio. Figure
3-21 presents frequency distribution histograms for the major components and
calculated values. Figure 3-22 presents time series data for selected components
and calculated values.
23
3.3.3 Michigan
Table 3-XXII presents tabulated summary level statistics for Michigan.

This data represents three sample locations within an LDC's series territory.
Figure 3-23 presents frequency distribution histograms for the major components
and calculated values. Figure 3-24 presents time series data for selected
components and calculated values.
3.3.4 Wisconsin
Table 3-XXIII presents tabulated summary level statistics for Wisconsin.

3.4 South Central Region
Five major urban areas were surveyed for gas composition data to represent
the south central sector of the country--a major gas producing region. These
cities are representative of a market where natural gas vehicles have an
opportunity to assist in meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
ozone. Three of the cities are located in Texas, one city is in Oklahoma and the
other city is located in Louisiana. The following tables and graphs illustrate
the results of the survey of this segment of the country.
3.4.1 Texas
Table 3-XXIV presents tabulated summary level statistics for Texas City #1.
This data was collected from four user sites at different locations within that
city. Figure 3-27 presents frequency distribution histograms for the major
components and calculated values for Texas City #1. Figure 3-28 presents time
series data for selected components and calculated values for Texas City #1.
Table 3-XXV presents tabulated summary level statistics for Texas City #2.
and calculated values for Texas City #2. Figure 3-30 presents time series data
for selected components and calculated values for Texas City #2.
Table 3-XXVI presents tabulated summary level statistics for Texas City #3.
This data represents monthly data taken at three representative locations for a
one year period. Figure 3-31 presents frequency distribution histograms for the
major components and calculated values for Texas City #3. Figure 3-32 presents
time series data for selected components and calculated values for Texas City #3.
3.4.2 Oklahoma
Table 3-XXVII presents tabulated summary level statistics for Oklahoma.

24
3.4.3 Louisiana
Table 3-XXVIII presents tabulated summary level statistics for Louisiana.

Figure 3-35 presents frequency distribution histogram for the major components
and calculated values. Figure 3-36 presents time series data for !;lelected
3.5 Mountain Region
One maj or urban area was surveyed for gas composition data to represent the
Rocky Mountain sector of the country--a growing gas producing region. This city
is representative of a market where natural gas vehicles have an opportunity to
assist in meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards for carbon monoxide.
This city, because of regional and historical factors falls into unique category.
This city is located in Colorado. This city is unique because of its high ethane
levels, low heating value (compared to industry norms), and high levels of
nitrogen and oxygen (i.e., air) in the gas stream. The following tables and
graphs illustrate the results of the survey of this segment of the country. One
cannot conclude that these data apply to any other areas except for this specific
city- - i. e., it is not necessarily representative of other mountain region cities.
The data in this section updates the Colorado data presented in the Interim
Report.
3.5.1 Colorado
Tables 3-XXIX, 3-XXX and 3-XXXI present tabulated summary level statistics
for three different stations serving this Colorado city. These locations are
labeled Station A, Station B and Station C respectively. Station A is at a
central location that receives a mix of gases from different supplying pipeline
companies. Station B and Station C are two separate gate stations served by the
same pipeline company. Figure 3-37 presents frequency distribution histograms
·, ; for the maj or components and calculated values for gas at Station A. Figure 3 - 38
I
, '
presents time series data for selected components and calculated values at
Station A.
3.6 Pacific Region

I Six major urban areas were surveyed for gas composition data to represent
the Pacific coast sector of the country. These six cities are representative of
markets where natural gas vehicles have an opportunity to assist in meeting
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone. Five cities are located in
California and one is in Washington. The following tables and graphs illustrate
the results of the survey of this segment of the country.
]
3.6.1 California
I The five cities in California are in the service territories of three

separate utilities. Tables 3-XXXII, 3-XXXIII, 3-XXXIV, 3-XXXV and 3-XXXVI
present tabulated summary level statistics for five gate stations serving
California City #1. These stations are labeled Gate Station A, Gate Station B,
Gate Station C, Gate Station D and Gate Station E respectively. Figure 3-39
present frequency distribution histograms for the major components and calculated
25
values for City #1, Gate Station A. Figure 3-40 presents time series data for
selected components and calculated values for City #1, Gate Station A.
Tables 3-XXXVII and 3-XXXVIII present tabulated summary level statistics

for two gate stations, labeled Gate Station A and Gate Station B, serving
California City #2. California City #2 is served by a separate utility than City
#1. Figure 3-41 present frequency distribution histograms for the major
components and calculated values for City #2, Gate Station A. Figure 3-42
presents time series data for selected components and calculated values also for
City #2, Gate Station A.
Table 3-XXXIX presents tabulated summary level statistics for California

City #3. Figure 3-43 presents frequency distribution histograms for the major
components and calculated values for City #3. Figure 3-44 presents time series
data for selected component and calculated values for City #3.
Table 3-XL presents tabulated summary level statistics for California City
#4. Figure 3 -45 presents frequency distribution histograms for the maj or
Table 3-XLI presents tabulated summary level statistics for California City
#5. Figure 3-47 presents frequency distribution histograms for the major
3.6.2 Washington
Table 3-XLII presents tabulated summary level statistics for Washington.

26
TABLE 3-1
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR NEW YORK

~;-
)
111 ANALYSES OVER 12 MONTHS

10% 90%
MEAN MINIMUM MAXIMUM -ILE -ILE
CONSTITUENTS, VOLUME PERCENT
METHANE 96.2 95.1 96.8 95.7 96.5
ETHANE 2.0 1.7 2.2 1.8 2.2
PROPANE .4 .3 .7 .3 .5
BUTANES .2 .1 .3 .1 .3
PENTANES .1 .0 .1 .1 .1
HEXANE + .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 1.2 .6 2.0 1.0 1.4

TOTAL 100.0 TOTALS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THESE COLUMNS
INCLUDED ABOVE
CARBON DIOXIDE .8 .3 1.0 .6 .9
NITROGEN .4 .3 1.1 .4 .6
C3 + .7 .5 1.2 .5 .8
C4 + .3 .2 .5 .2 .3
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
HEATING VALUE, BTU/SCF (GROSS, DRY) 1029.6 1017.5 1039.4 1025.3 1033.8
J SPECIFIC GRAVITY
HEATING VALUE, STOICHIOMETRIC
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
.580
96.5
.570
96.3
.590
96.6
.576
96.4
.586
96.6
WOBBE NUMBER 1352.2 1336.1 1370.9 1346.9 1357.4

AIR FUEL RATIO, MASS 16.7 16.5 17.0 16.6 16.8
AIR FUEL RATIO, VOLUME 9.7 9.6 9.8 9.6 9.7
LOWER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT, PERCENT 4.9 4.9 5.0 4.9 5.0
"
..
MOLECULAR WEIGHT 16.82 16.65 17.09 16.74 16.91
J HYDROGEN/CARBON RATIO 3.93 3.90 3.94 3.92 3.94
METHANE NUMBER 92.4 91.4 93.2 91.8 92.9
CRITICAL COMPRESSION RATIO 13.9 13.8 14.0 13.9 13.9
27
~,,,. _I ".. . . . ~ 50 PERCENT OF SAMPLES
70 .- ..r...
60
40
50
40 30
30 20
Dl
20
l:1 10
10
o .Vi 111 o
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
METHANE. PERCENT
80 PERCENT OF SAMPLES 50 ~RCENT OF SAMPLE

70
40 I I::-t--I- - - - - - - 1
60
'/
50 30 I 1:11-------1
40
30 20 I VH1r-------j
~
20 ;:
V 10 I 11l1tl I
10
V
o o1I I I Itt I [I I [ I I I 9ttryJ~t;t7'7'r:p I I I I i I
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
N ETHANE, PERCENT
CO
80
. _.. .".
__ _. -'""' ..... _- 60 PERCENT OF SAMPLES
---
7
~ 50
60 V
40
~
% V
40 30
~ V t;:
% r7l
20
20 V V
10
v:: ~ t;:Vl~
o o
~ ~1
o ~ A ~ ~ 1 U U U U 2 UU ~ ~ 3
PROPANE. PERCENT
100 ~E_FtCJ;f:IT_OL~AM.e.I"E_L 70 F>FRCENT OF SAMf/.-ES
60 7
80 %
50
60
~ %
40
7:
40 ~ 30
:/
20
% %
20 ~ ~ %
10
o ~~ % ~
o
o 2 A ~ ~ 1 U U U U 2 U U 12.6 12.8 13 13.2 13.4 13.6 13.8 14 14.2
C 4 +. PERCENT CRITICAL COMPRESSION RATIO
Figure 3-1 - New York Frequency Distribution Histograms

TABLE 3-11
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR NEW JERSEY

10% 90%
METHANE 96.0 95.1 96.7 95.5 96.4
ETHANE 2.1 1.8 2.5 1.9 2.2
PROPANE .4 .2 .7 .3 .5
BUTANES .2 .1 .4 .2 .3
PENTANES .1 .0 .2 .1 .1
HEXANE + .0 .0 .2 .0 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 1.2 1.0 1.7 1.1 1.4
INCLUDED ABOVE
NITROGEN .4 .2 .8 .3 .5
C3 + .7 .3 1.5 .6 .9
C4 + .3 .1 .8 .3 .5
I PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
HEATING VALUE, BTU/SCF (GROSS, DRY) 1030.4 1021. 0 1048.0 1027.0 1035.0
SPECIFIC GRAVITY .583 .575 .597 .579 .587
I HEATING VALUE, STOICHIOMETRIC
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
96.3 95.9 96.5 96.2 96.3
WOBBE NUMBER 1349.1 1329.2 1360.9 1345.4 1353.0

HYDROGEN/CARBON RATIO 3.92 3.88 3.95 3.91 3.93
METHANE NUMBER 92.1 91.0 92.9 91.6 92.7
29
100 METHANE. PERCENT a 'NERTS. PERCENT 14.0 CRITICAL COMPRESSION RATIO
E 1- STA. A· ..• STA. B STA. C ·.. STA. D I [ -STA. A ·"·STA. B STA. C··· STA. D 13.11
......
12
13.a
95 ~' m · .. n , ••, - ..... " •• , ••• , , ; .
r .... ... I 8 I I 13.7
- 110
13.8 aa
4 I I 13.5
13.4 as
90 ! I 13.3 a4
13.2
,
2l - '-: .. ::.:. -- ... -... ...... -... I 13.1
a2
STA. A ····STA. B STA. C .... STA. D
85 F i i i , i i i j I i i 0-1 I I I Ii, i i i I i I 13.0 aD
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
a ETHANE. PERCENT 10ao HEATING VALUE BTU/SCF

[ I-STA. A ...·STA. B - STA. C," STA. D r =I=ST:::A::.::A==
.•=
••::S::T::A.:::B="=-:::S::T::A::.:::C:::"="=S::T::A::.:::D==l 17
1080 f-
8 I I 18.5 r - -- ...::::::.. - ....:.:;;.. I
1040 ••••• "." .... '.',","=~. __..__ "'.:.,.~''''~
4 I I 18 I I
1020
2 I .::. '"' I 1000 f------------------------J
I I , I I I I i I I I , I
980 1---~-_,_-~___,c__.,..-~-..,_-,...___,-__r-~--1
oI I i ' i ' I
15~: ~ JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
w
o ~:u)~r.I~If"': r.n:::a.&. VITV lIa STOICHIOMETRIC MIXTURE HEATING VALUE. BTU/CU.FT.
3 PROPANE. PERCENT
I I-STA.A .... STA.B --STA.C --STA.D
I 1- STA. A···· STA. B _., STA. C ·.. STA. D
r -===S=TA::.::A==
. .=••:::S::T::A.::::B=-=S::T:::A:::.:::C='=
...=S::T::A::.:::D===1
.83 t-
97 I I
2 I I "-":.:..L"~..... _
.81 1-----------------------1 .....,=-----
~; ....",..".., ,',... ';R; '~ " .' 98 I I
_ -:. ::-.~~':.~ ••,······;1"'__ ..:: I.n
95I i i i i i i I
oI i i , , I I .55 , JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
25 C 4 +, PERCENT OBBE 5 5 LOWER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT, PERCENT

1390 NUMBE~ . .-- I-STA. A ·•.. STA. B STA. C ... STA. D
1 3 7 0 - STA . A ""STA.B STA.C • .. STA.D
~: ! I-STA. A ·· .. STA. B STA. C . STA. D I r I
1350 ~ =eo" - =.... ,c;-:".<:;...-.. >:::--= I 5 I ...... I
4.5 I I
~~"; ....:..... _~" .. ! ••••- . .-.
.5o ~
j I , 'T ...........
t I i i
, I 4 I
I
JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN :1 """'''' I JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
Figure 3-2 -New York Component and Calculated Value Time Series
TABLE 3-III
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR PENNSYLVANIA - COMPANY #1, STATION A

10'; 90';
METHANE 96.1 95.1 96.7 95.8 96.5
ETHANE 2.2 1.9 2.6 2.,0 2.3
PROPANE .3 .2 .5 .2 .4
BUTANES .2 .1 .3 .1 .2
PENTANES .1 .0 .1 .0 .1
HEXANE + .1 .0 .2 .1 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 1.1 .8 1.6 1.0 1.2
INCLUDED ABOVE
NITROGEN .4 .1 .6 .3 .5
C3 + .6 .3 1.0 .5 .7
C4 + .3 .1 .5 .2 .4
] PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
J SPECI FlC GRAVITY

.581
96.3
.575
96.0
.588
96.7
.578
96.2
.585
96.4
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1350.8 1342.1 1358.6 1347.2 1354.2
" METHANE NUMBER 92.1 90.7 92.9 91.6 92.5
.'
31
~---~
50 eERCENr. Of. SAMPLES 60 PERCENT OF SAMPLES
40 50
40
30
30
20
20
10
10 I~
~ 1[:1 f71 IrJ~
0 o _L
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
METHANE. PERCENT
._.t_...... I _ " ..... ___

70 PERCENT. OF SAMPLES
80
70 60
60 '7 50
50 '/ 40
'/ l7
40 30
~ '/
30 20
20 ~.
-/ ~ 10
10 f'J
~ V o
0 d6D d7D d8D d9D I:1DD 1310' ~lfB~gDN~~~~7f 1:16D 1:I7D 1:18D 1:190 10lDD ,,410
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
W ETHANE. PERCENT
I _It .... 11' _, .... ,., . . . . . . . . . _
N 60
1 ..... _ .... " ,
80 , """''''11''' ..........
50
~ V
60 40
~ V V
/; 30
40 r;V
~ 20
/; ~
V V
20 10
~ 171 V V
0 /:: ~rJ o
o ~ A ~ A 1 U U U U 2 UU ~ ~ 3
PROPANE. PERCENT
100 PERCJ;I~L.QLSAMPL~. 80 ~B~eNLQL$AMeLeS
70 /
80 60
V
?; 50
60 /:
:% 40
~ /
40 30
/:
20 /':
20 ~ /':
10 %
/:
o ~ ~~ o
o ~ A ~ A 1 U U U U 2 U U 12.6 12.8 13 13.2 13.4 13.6 13.8 14 14.2
C 4 ~ PERCENT CRITICAL COMPRESSION RATIO
Figure 3-3 - New Jersey Frequency Distribution Histograms

....t'~ ki!!l ~ ~ ti.~ - j
100 METHANE. PERCENT I INERTS.

---- PERCENT 14 ~BLnCAl...J<QMffi~&.SlQti..BAIlO
r-"
I ' MAXIMUM ' MINIMUM ' AVERAGE I , MAXIMUM • MINIMUM ' AVERAGE 13.9 i i a i I a--:
h-- 1 I • I
13.1
. i I J ; I i I 8
. i . . 13.7
95 13.8
4 13.5
13.4
90 13.3
2 13.2
! i , • I iI I • , 1 i ! 13.1 , MAXIMUM L MINIMUM ' AVERAGE
15 o 13 r----r-r
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
I ETHANE, PERCENT 1010 HEATING VALUE. BTUlSCF 17.5 AIR/FUEL RATIO. MASS
.----- I ,MAXIMUM • MINIMUM 'AVERAGE I , MAXIMUM L MINIMUM • AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
T, • MINIMUM , AVERAGE
1080 17
8 I I I i i ! i • • . I f
T
•
18.5
4
1040 T
I I
·
I I 1 I J J i i I t l
1020
~ 18
2 f----L-I • ' ; • I .....-.-1 • ; •
1000 15.5
oI I i I I I I I i i I I I I 910 15
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
w
W 3 PROPANE. PERCENT 91 STOICHIOMETRIC
----
MIXTURE HEATING VALUE. BTUlCU.FT
AD""I'"'' na"VITY
I ,MAXIMl.JM ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE ,MAXIMUM I ,MAXIMUM • MINIMUM , AVERAGE
I ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE
.84
2 97
.82
I ; I f i 1 I
.8 98
• • . I I
~ ! I T I . ! I I
i i I I I I I I 1 I •51 L • L 1
•
o
. I 95
.58
2.5 C 4 +. PERCENT WORRI=' NlIURI=A 5.5 LOWER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT. PERCENT

1390 "~MAXIMUM ' MINIMUM ' AVERAGE
I ,MAXIMUM • MINIMUM ' AVERAGE I ,MAXIMUM • MINIMUM ' AVERAGE
2 1370
, , T I T 5 , ! , ,
\5 1350 ~.
. . . • J • .
I . .. I I I ·
1330
r 4.5
. . I
.5 1
1310
i I , I i I i I •
i • 1290 4
o JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
Figure 3-4 - New Jersey Component and Calculated V~lue Time Series
TABLE 3.,..TV
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR PENNSYLVANIA.,.. COMPANY #1, STATION B

10% 90%
----------------------------
METHANE 95.7 94.8 96.7 95.2 96.2
ETHANE 2.4 2.0 2.9 2.1 2.6
PROPANE .3 .2 .5 .3 .4
BUTANES .2 .1 .2 .1 .2
PENTANES .1 .0 .1 .0 .1
HEXANE + .1 .0 .1 .1 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 1.3 .7 1.8 1.1 1.6
----_._--.--
INCLUDEO ABOVE
-------- ... -------------------
CARBON OIOXIOE .8 .5 1.1 .7 1.0
NITROGEN .5 .2 .9 .4 .6
C3 + .6 .4 1.0 .5 .8
C4 + .3 .2 .4 .2 .3
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
----------------------------
HEATING VALUE, STOICHIOMETRIC 96.3 95.7 96.5 96.2 96.4
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1347.1 1337.3 1356.5 1341.1 1351.4
METHANE NUMBER 91.5 90.1 92.4 90.8 92.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34
TABLE 3-V
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR PENNSYLVANIA - COMPANY #2, STATION A

---------~-----------------------------------_.------- ------
10" 90"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
METHANE 96.0 94.3 96.6 95.6 96.4
ETHANE 2.0 1.7 2.6 1.8 2.2
PROPANE .4 .2 .6 .3 .4
BUTANES .2 .1 .3 .1 .2
PENTANES .1 .0 .1 .1 .1
HEXANE + .1 .0 .2 .1 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 1.3 1.0 2.1 1.1 1.5
...... _----_ .... -
INCLUDED ABOVE
----------------------------
CARBON DIOXIDE .9 .7 1.5 .7 1.0
NITROGEN .5 .3 1.3 .4 .6
C3 + .7 .5 1.0 .6 .8
C4 + .3 .2 .5 .3 .3
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
----------------------------
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
IIOBBE NUMBER 1348.2 1334.3 1357.4 1343.1 1352.2
METHANE NUMBER 92.2 90.2 93.1 91.6 92.6
35
TABLE 3-VI
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR PENNSYLVANIA ~. CO}WANY #2, STATION B

10% 90%
----------------------------
METHANE 95.5 81.7 96.6 95.1 96.2
ETHANE 2.1 1.8 2.8 1.9 2.4
PROPANE .5 .3 7.1 .4 .5
BUTANES .2 .0 .3 .1 .2
PENTANES .1 .0 .1 .0 .1
HEXANE + .1 .0 .2 .0 .1
OXYGEN .9 .1 1.7 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 1.6 1.1 9.2 1.2 1.8
------------
INCLUDED ABOVE
----------------------------
NITROGEN .6 .4 6.8 .4 .7
C3 + .8 .5 7.4 .6 .8
C4 + .3 .1 .6 .2 .3
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
.---------------------------
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1344.4 1269.5 1353.4 1340.7 1349.3
METHANE NUMBER 91.3 63.2 92.8 90.9 92.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~:'("jj 'ilIl ~~l ...1
50
.- .....__.". _. _ro..... __ 60 PERCENT OF SAMPLES
40 50
40
30
30
20
20
10 fl 10
n~ 1[7] o P1 I~
0
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
METHANE. PERCENT
r ~n ~I' I ""r "",............. \oJ' 50 ~RCENT
60
/'
50 40 I ~ I
40
;;
30 f/ ~ ~I n I
V /' 20 I ~ I
20
10 ~ ;; 10 I vlYH1 I
V /'1'71 r
0 oI I I I I I I I I I r T I I TE? e1YLr17 I I I I I Iii I I
2 345 6 7 8 9
W
ETHANE. PERCENT
-.....J ....,. -,., w_........._
80 40 ~
60 301 l~ I
40 201 ~c----j
20 10 I ~
0
1
~
o! L I [ I I I I I I I I I I ~J k(J Lf ~J 7 I i I I
o 234 5 6 7
PROPANE. PERCENT
. _ro.... __ !!'" .-- 1 ••
100 . _.. _.". 60
70
80
~ 60
:;:
Z 50
60
40
40 ~ 30
20
20 ~ 1-1
10
~ ~ n IV]
o o
o ~ A ~ ~ 1 U U U U 2 ~ U 12 12~ 12.4cR~IbAl2.~otJ~RE~loN1~6. T18.6 13.8 14 14.2
C 4 +. PERCENT
Figure 3-5 - Pennsylvania Frequency Distribution Histograms for One Station

WO ~ETHANE, PERCENT 10 INERTS. PERCENT ULCALQ.QMfBES.-SIQtLBM10 METIWlE....HUMIlJ
13.9 12
13.7
8 13.5
13.3
••••
13.1
~='=\I n
::t=~. o~no'j 8 12.9 '0
71
85 [ H I
4
2
I
~
12.7
12.5
12.3
12.1
gr= U
7.
.
II
11.9
11.7 12
80 t I o 11.5 II
JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
17 AIR/FUEL RATIO, MASS

8 ETHANE. PERCENT 1080 HEATING VALUE. BTU/SCF
~
18.5
1080 II
8 18
I ,
1040 15.5
4
..... -1\J~ ~">J.
1020 .""". 15
f\. ...
2 " "'" 1000 14.5
1180 14
o JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
w !lPFCIFIC GRAVITY 118 ,STOICHIOMETRIC MIXTURE HEATING VALUE, BTU/CU.FT.

00 8 PROPANE, PERCENT .811
I
.87
8 I II I .85 97 I I
.83
.81
I 118 I I
.511 n II
'--"
.57
- 95 I I
JUl
1 . I AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
-I JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
\Y.Q1l1l~I.lMRFR 5.5 ~OWER FLAMMABILITY lIMIT, PERCENT

1370
I 1350 .~
~ V"
::r,,"'RCEHT 1330
l~ ~
I 5 b=- w-r- I
1310
1290 4.5 I I
1270
.: 1250 4 I I
JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
Figure 3-6 - Pennsylvania Component and Calculated Value Time Series for One Station
TABLE 3-VII
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR CONNECTICUT
10" 90"
METHANE 96.0 95.5 96.7 95.8 96.3
ETHANE 2.0 1.8 2.1 1.9 2.0
PROPANE .4 .2 .7 .3 .4
BUTANES .2 .1 .3 .2 .2
PENTANES .1 .0 .2 .1 .1
HEXANE + .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 1.3 1.0 1.4 1.2 1.3
INCLUDED ABOVE
1",I-i
CARBON DIOXIDE .8 .7 .9 .7 .8
.i;
NITROGEN .5 .4 .6 .4 .5
C3 + .7 .4 1.1 .6 .8
C4 + .3 .2 .5 .3 .4
I PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
SPECI FIC GRAVITY .578 .572 .584 .577 .580
I HEATING VALUE, STOICHIOMETRIC

MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
96.1 96.0 96.1 96.0 96.1
I WOBBE NUMBER
AIR FUEL RATIO, MASS
1350.9
16.7
1344.6
16.7
1357.5
16.8
1349.3
16.7
1352.8
16.7
I LOWER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT, PERCENT 4.9 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.9
I HYDROGEN/CARBON RATIO
METHANE NUMBER
3.92
92.3
3.91
91.4
3.94
92.9
3.91
92.1
3.93
92.6
39
60 PERCENT OF SAMPLES 80 .- ... .--._-,,, . . ""''"',..........
50 70
60
40 50
30 40
20 30
20
10 10
o o ~ t1
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 ,~o '80 880 I 1000 1010' ~~i}..~ il~icf\9A1lYE~'lfT~~~~'0 .J,O 1100 rl10 tko 1130
METHANE, PERCENT
I -.., ___.11. _. ...,..,.... __ . ..
_ _..... .u .... __
80 70
70 60
60 50
50
40
40
'/ 30
30
'/ 20
20 y l;/
10 10
'/
0 o -
2 345 6 7 8 9 1280 1270' 1280 1:1'0 d001~1O ~b\7£°tJb~gi W 80' tl7o' 1380' 1380' 1400-1r1O
.j::-- ETHANE, PERCENT
0 ,_1.__',"'
80 ..,"' .....- .... 70 . ... '--'''II' ....,. ................ __
60
v::
60 50
V V
v:; 40
40 V
30
V V
20
v:; V
V 20
V
10
~ [;;
r--:: VV
0 o
0 1 2 3
PROPANE. PERCENT
PE;RCENT __Of' __SAMI'LES_________________________
100 eEI'\(;ENt_QL~tM!f'I..-~S 60
-:T; 50 V
80
~ 40
r; 17
60 ~
30
~ r;:
~/
~
40 ~ ~
20
20 ~ 10
r;:: ~
~ B?l V ~
o o
o 2 A ~ ~ 1 ~ U ~ U 2 ~ U 12.6 12.6 13 132 13.4 13.6 13.8 14 14.2
C 4 +, PERCENT CRITICAL COMPRESSION RATIO
Figure 3-7 - Connecticut Frequency Distribution Histograms

- :~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~\A~'::'-.:!j iZ;_"::--,,·;";~j Ie --_-" .'
.:'.
~"""
8 lNERTS, PERCENT 14 FBllICALC_Q"'~~SlQtLB""IIO MEIHME..1WMPEE

13.8 - == V
81 I 13.8
13.7
13.8
41 I 13.5
13.4
21 I 13.3
13.2
13.1
0' I
JAN FEB MAR
13
APR
APR JAN FEB MAR APR
1080 HEATING VALUE BTUlSCF 17.5 AIR/FUEL RATIO, MASS

1080 17
1040 18.5
A A
1020 18
1000 15.5
880 15
APR JAN FEB MAR APR JAN FEB MAR APR
.87 SPECIFIC ORAVITY 98 ,STOICHIOMETRIC MIXTURE HEATING VALUE, BTU/CU.FT•
.85
.83 97 I 1
.81
.59 -
-'\
"' ~
.57 oaa. ._-
JAN -
FEB MAR APR 85 I JAN FEB MAR APR I
~
1380 )'lO.IIDEJjUMm;R 5.5 ~_OWER FLAMMAJRlJll.J"·-"IM!!!!.!IT-L'-!:P~E!!R~C~EN~T,-- ---,
1370
1350 t=== ~--_/\ III I

1330
4.5 I I
1310
1280 4 I JAN FEB MAR APR I

APR JAN FEB MAR APR
Figure 3-8 - Connecticut Component and Calculated Value Time Series

TABLE 3-VIII
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR MASSACHUSETTS ~ CITY #1

10% 90%
----------------------------
METHANE 91.0 58.8 97.3 76.8 96.5
ETHANE 4.5 1.6 9.2 1.9 8.7
PROPANE 2.0 .2 18.8 .3 8.7
BUTANES .2 .0 .9 .0 .2
PENTANES .0 .0 .1 .0 .1
HEXANE + .0 .0 .1 .0 .1
OXYGEN .3 .0 3.4 .0 1.4
INERTS (C02 + N2) 2.2 .0 16.3 .2 6.9
--_ ........ __ .......
INCLUDED ABOVE
----------------------------
NITROGEN 1.5 .0 12.8 .2 5.6
C3 + 2.3 .3 19.2 .5 8.7
C4 + .2 .0 .9 .0 .4
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
----------------------------
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1357.9 1292.0 1418.5 1337.8 1396.5
METHANE NUMBER 83.7 37.6 93.1 55.0 92.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------- .. --------------------------
TABLE 3-IX
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR MASSACHUSETTS - CITY #2
10" 90"
CONSTITUENTS, VOLUME PERCENT INSUFFICIENT DATA
TO BE MEANINGFUL
. , METHANE 95.4 95.2 95.8
ETHANE 2.4 2.2 2.6
PROPANE .4 .4 .4
BUTANES .2 .2 .2
PENTANES .1 .1 .1
HEXANE + .1 .1 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 1.4 1.3 1.5
------.-----
INCLUDED ABOVE
CARBON DIOXIDE .7 .6 .8
NITROGEN .7 .7 .8
C3 + .8 .7 .8
C4 + .4 .3 .4
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
HEATING VALUE, BTU/SCF (GROSS, DRY) 1034.6 1032.4 1036.4
J SPECIFIC GRAVITY
.587
96.5
.584
96.5
.589
96.6
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
1 WOBBE NUMBER
AIR FUEL RATIO, MASS
1350.1
16.6
1348.9
16.6
1351.0
16.7
I AIR FUEL RATIO, VOLUME

LOWER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT, PERCENT
9.7
4.9
9.7
4.9
9.7
4.9
MOLECULAR WEIGHT 16.97 16.88 17.01
HYDROGEN/CARBON RATIO 3.91 3.91 3.92
METHANE NUMBER 91.3 90.9 92.0
CRITICAL COMPRESSION RATIO 13.8 13.8 13.9
43
50 rERCENT 50~
40 I 1 40 1-1 ---------~-----___I
30 I I 30 I ~ I
20 I " I 20 I ~ I
101 ~ 10 I _r+t:1 I
o 'IIIYYIIIIIII)IIY IYIIIIIIIIIII' IVYII YIYI' 1IIIIIIIYIIIIIIYIYIIII17IVWY'1tY7YVY
~oo~~~ro~n~~~~~oo~~~ o ~J1J~3~t15~4R1TJ~~i;aJJ1taJa1tdm~o
METHANE. PERCENT
"' _... , . ...,." ...... _..
60 ,
50 40 I I
40
30 I I
'7
30
/' ~I ~ I
20
f1:::: 10 I VI+1 fl I
10
t:1 /~ r/lr71r'1P:l[7]Vl8:J171
0 oII I I i I I I'? i i i ' ,9?7~J[f'fkflf:j'l7,If?7~J[flf? , I
~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
~ ETHANE. PERCENT
, ,,,. , 1"\ ....... - .....
50 . ... 40 rERCENT
40
30 I I
30
20 I aD I
20
10 10 I IAi1J1I1n-j
0
m
o~, 11)1, 1911111'l''f1'i''i'11 I 111'?1'I',9,'?, I~
o 1 234 5 6 7 B 9 W ft n u ~ ~ ~ v ~ W
PROPANE, PERCENT
'_" __ ''1' I """,.w.. _ ..
100
80
30 I If---j
60
20 I 11-----1
40 ~
20 ~~ 10 I ~\ 111+-1
0 ~ [7'71
0 o IQ I I 'i''i', I I I ~'i' , 'i', I I ,'i' I I ii' , , , ii' ,'l'QQt;J9'?'i', ff~t;J i I I
o ~ A ~ ~ 1 U U ~ U 2 U U 10 10.5 u.s 14
C 4 +. PERCENT 11CRlTl d),t COtR>RESSW,~ RA l'J~
Figure 3-9 - Massachusetts City #1 Frequency Distribution Histo~rams

III!!!!!JI!lI ~ ~«"ii!I ~-,("dIII r';", -"'AI ~':.' . d ")
.. L,""'iiI .. ..... -- ... ..
100 METHANE. PERCENT 18 INERTS. PERCENT 1..... CRITICAl I RATIO

[ 16 • MAXIMUM ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE 13.9
· · E I
90 14 13." .
1 I 12.9
12
80 12.4 c
10
11.9 -
70 8 11.4
6 10.9
80 .. . 10." I
2 9.9
I • MAXIMUM • MINIMUM • AVERAGE . \ ! T MAXIMUM • MINIMUM • AVERAGE
50
STATION A STATION B STATION C STATION 0
o
STATION A STATION B
.
STATION C STATION 0
9.4
STATION A STATION B STATION C STATION 0
AIR/FUEL RATIO. MASS

17.5
10 ETHANE. PERCENT
17 .
I • MAXIMUM • MINIMUM • AVERAGE 1180 T MAXIMUM • MINIMUM • AVERAGE I . ..
18.5
8 1160 I
11..0 16 I
1200
1120 15.5
6 i
1100
IH_E<A"T'IN_GIV"A.L"UEIB'T~U_/.S.C!Fiiilllilllliil 15 I
1080 1".5
.. 1060 I
14
2 13.5 ~ ,I • MINIMUM
·· ·· := '. • MAXIMUM • AVERAGE
1000 13
o , 980 STATION A STATION B STATION C STATION 0
STATION A STATION B STATION C STATION 0 STATION A STATION B STATION C STATION 0
-I:'-
98 STOICHIOMETRIC MIXTURE HEATING VALUE. BTU/CU.FT
VI 20 PROPANE. PERCENT
"''''''''''''' nRAVITV I T MAXIMUM ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE
I • MAXIMUM ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE I . MAXIMUM • MINIMUM • AVERAGE L
16 .81 i
97
.76
12 I
.71
I
i l 1 1
8 96 I
. .66
.. .61 T
! . . 1 95
r
o .56 STATION A STATION B STATION C STATION 0
STATION A STATION B STATION C STATION 0 STATION A STATION B STATION C STATION 0
2.5 C .. +. PERCENT 5.5 LOWER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT. PERCENT

• MINIMUM 1430 >Y-Qe~UMA"A
I • MAXIMUM • AVERAGE I • MAXIMUM ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE
1410 T
2
1390 I
5 r
1.5 1370 1 . i
1350 . I [ I
1 I ".5
[ T 1330
.5
: i 1310
I I I • MAXIMUM ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE
o 1290 4 ~
STATION A STATION B STATION C STATION 0 STAT ON A STATION B STATioN C STATION 0 STATION A STATION B STATION C STATION 0
Figure 3-10 - Massachusetts City #1 Component and Calculated Value Time Series
TABLE 3-X
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR RHODE ISLAND
10" 90"
----------------------------
METHANE 96.2 95.2 96.9 95.7 96.7
ETHANE 1.9 1.6 2.3 1.6 2.2
PROPANE .4 .3 .4 .3 .4
BUTANES .2 .1 .2 .1 .2
PENTANES .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
HEXANE + .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 1.2 .9 1.8 1.0 1.4
------------
INCLUDED ABOVE
----------------------------
NITROGEN .5 .4 .7 .4 .6
C3 + .7 .5 .8 .6 .8
C4 + .3 .2 .4 .2 .3
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
----------------------------
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1349.7 1340.6 1356.0 1346.9 1352.8
METHANE NUMBER 92.5 91.3 93.4 91.7 93.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46
.' -,'c.l1 ~ ~ ~~ .~ h-~ I;;",:;j \lI;:;~,,,~ ~",,/:$ L _._ .., J
r~ .... ,,,. 80 PER

50 "I''''' ......
70 l -
40 60 L V]
30 50 1 -
40
20 30
20 IV! -
10
[;:l I :
0 T. 1
~I ~
85 88 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
METHANE, PERCENT
r ...n . r nmr ...... \OlI 50 rcn\tc... I ur ;;)I\MrL,C;;)
80 I
70
60 40 I ~j I
50 '/
'/ ~I ~ I
40
30 '/ 20 I VH1 I
~ '/
20
v: 10 I P.Itl I
10 V, /'
0 oI I Iii I I , iii iii iii I I ~ If' kfJ t; I I Iii iii I I I I
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
ETHANE, PERCENT
~
'-J 1 .......... _ ...
100 ...... --
..,..
80
301 !~ I
60
%/'
%
'/:: 201 I~ I
40
20 ~ 101 1~1 I
0 t% ~ oI I I I I I I I I I Iii i riA I [(' Gd "';' iii j I
o 1 2 3
PROPANE, PERCENT
OF' a ....D. <::a
100 PERCENT 0 F ~ AMPlES 70
~
-:% 80
80 %
~ 50
60
-:% /.:
40
7 ..;
40 ~ 30
20
-;,/.:
20 ~ /: %
10
0 ~ o % ~
o ~ A ~ ~ 1 U U U U 2 U U 12.8 12.' 13 13~ 13.4 13.8 13.8 14 14~
Figure 3-11 - Rhode Island Frequency Distribution Histograms

~ METHANE. PERCENT a INERTS. PERCENT CRITICAL RATln
14.1
I T MAXIMUM • MINIMUM • AVERAGE I T MAXIMUM • MINIMUM • AVERAGE
7 14 T
8 13.8
f 13.1
1
85 5 13.7
4 13.8
3 13.5
80
2 13.4
I 13.3
1
13.2 T MAXIMUM ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE
a5 o 13.1
a ETHANE. PERCENT 1010 HEATING VALUE. BTU/SCF 17.5 AIR/FUEL RATIO. MASS
I T MAXIMUM • MINIMUM • AVERAGE I T MAXMJM • MINIMUM • AVERAGE T MAXIMUM • AVERAGE
I ' MINIMUM
1080 17
8
1040 Y
18.5
4 1
1020 18
2 · ~o
15.5
o
· 810 15
+:-- lllP1='r.:IJ='I~ na .... VfTv

co 3 PROPANE. PERCENT .87 87 S~Q!CHIOMETRIC MIXTURE HEATING VALUE. BTU/CU.FT.
I T MAXIMUM • AVERAGE
I T MAXIMUM • MINIMUM • AVERAGE • ~IMUM I T MAXIMUM 'MINIMUM • AVERAGE
.85
88.5
2 .83
88
.81
.58 85.5
o • .57 85
*
2.5 C 4 +. PERCENT WnAll1= WllUftl=A -_ .. __

. . ........,. ....
1380 5.5
T T T
I MAXIMUM • AVERAGE I MAXIMUM ' r.tNIMUM I
. ---_.".• MINIMUM
MAXNUM • AVERAGE
• MINIMUM • AVERAGE
2 1370
T 5
\5 1350 .
1
1330
4.5
.5 1310
il
o 1280 4
Figure 3-12 - Rhode Island Component and Calculated Value Time Series
TABLE 3-XI
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR MARYLAND - GAS SUPPLIER A
363 AN~LYSES OVER 13 MONTHS

10%' 90%
MEAN MINIMUM MAXIMUM -ILE - I1.E
,
1'~.~
' CONSTITUENTS, VOLUME PERCENT
METHANE 95.9 94.9 96.4 95.6 96.2
ETHANE 2.0 1.8 2.4 1.9 2.1
PROPANE .4 .3 .7 .3 .4
BUTANES .2 .1 .3 .2 .2
PENTANES .1 .0 .2 .1 .1
HEXANE + .1 .0 .2 .1 .2
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 1.3 1.1 1.7 1.2 1.4
INCLUDED ABOVE
NITROGEN .4 .3 .5 .3 .4
C3 + .8 .5 1.3 .7 .9
C4 + .4 .3 .7 .3 .4
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
•
'i"
WOBBE NUMBER 1349.5 1339.8 1366.9 1346.8 1352.5
I AIR FUEL RATIO, VOLUME

LOWER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT, PERCENT
9.7
4.9
9.6
4.9
9.8
5.0
9.7
4.9
9.7
4.9
METHANE NUMBER 92.1 91.0 92.7 91.8 92.4
49
TABLE 3-XI(a)
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR MARYLAND - PROPANE-AIR

PEAKSHAVING GASES
26 SAMPLES OVER 26 MONTHS

10% 90%
----------------------------
METHANE 73.0 55.8 88.6 61.7 87.6
ETHANE 1.7 1.3 2.4 1.4 2.1
PROPANE 12.6 3.6 23.7 4.1 20.9
BUTANES .2 .1 .3 .1 .2
PENTANES .0 .0 .1 .0 .1
HEXANE + .1 .0 .1 .0 .1
OXYGEN 2.4 .8 3.8 1.0 3.3
INERTS (C02 + N2) 9.9 4.2 15.1 4.8 13.4
------------
INCLUDED ABOVE
----------------------------
NITROGEN 9.3 3.4 14.6 4.0 12.8
C3 + 12.9 3.9 23.9 4.5 21.1
C4 + .3 .2 .4 .2 .4
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
----------------------------
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1274.9 1210.4 1346.2 1235.3 1304.7
METHANE NUMBER 53.6 34.1 82.2 38.0 76.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50
I , ,hi
~,j,"i4l b.'o'.eJ! t.::..-.•;."j; ~.\:~;:'...t.:,j.~ii .11 . -~~,
~>C'~~:~ ~ ~ ifi'~ ~ .. ~i.ii
rl-IT'........ , .... "",.. ,.-- ...1- ....

50
40 ~I ~ I
30 ~I ~ I
20 20 f- r:H1--------l
10 10 I ffi:ltl=1/1----------l
o .n~ o I_u L I LI .LI .LiLI ,'fep~YIf.7'f. , ] , ] I] I J I I I ) I )
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
METHANE, PERCENT
60 PERCENT OF SAMPLES 50 FERCENT OF SAMPLE
50 40 I rt-]- - - - - 1
40
~
~I M I
30
r;; /': 20 I 00 I
20
r::: ;;18 10 I f111YlI-------..-.1
10
r~ ;;~F;l r
o o '.LI.1--1 . L I L I ] I 11 ] I ] I ] T fYf?7r.: I 1 I ] I III
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9
ETHANE, PERCENT
V1 ....-l-nV. ." 1 _.- """1'1 • ......
80 . _.. _...... -, ""'",..,..- ...... 80
......
70
60 80
50
40
~ 40
t% ~ 30
V I,""",
20 ~ 20
10
11/1
t% ~ /1 V:J
o t% % ~ o
o .2 .4 .6 .8 1 t2 1.4 t8 t8 2 2.2 2.4 2.8 2.8 3
PROPANE, PERCENT
I 'PLl..'!!'_.. !-~~OJ!.'U.....k!
100 - .... -~" ....... - 60
r;-: 50
80
~ 40
60
/'::
30
40 :3 20
20 :3 10 IR
o ~ ~ o I I I I I I I I II II I
r:l I~
o 2 A ~ ~ 1 U 1.4 U t8 2 U U 10 10.5 13.5 14
C 4 +, PERCENT
dAITICA1(5COM~ESSI&P RATiB
Figure 3-13 - Maryland Supplier A Frequency Distribution Histograms

100 ~ETHANE, PERCENT • !HERTS. PERCENT 14 ""'T'I" A , I"QMfBESSION RATIO METHANE NUMBEf
i
13.11 "V V' ..r-.
13.1
:="
I I I
1I5~~ ~ ~ :
~
~
4' I
"~
1IO I I ~
13.3 "
14
2b ...A- :J ~ ~
15 ' I I
o' w~ "~
JlA. AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUt. AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
• FTHANE, PERCENT 17 5 AIR/FUEL RATIO, MASS

1010 HEATING VALUE. BTU/SCF
I I I 1010
;7 f I
A
1040 "....
.....,...J ~
4' I
1020
21 • eo o.A • .---- I
1000 =
o I ,
JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN 1110
~c JUL
::J
AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
.--n-...--nl' ..- ..,"''''''..., .

V1 3 ~PFCIFIC GRAVITY 118 STOiCHIOMETRIC MIXTURE HEATING VALUE, BTU/CU.FT
N .17
.15
2 117
•13 IJI• I
•
.11 III
•
n ... I
.111 "
o 115
JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN .57
JUt. AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
2.1 C 4 +. PERCENT 5.5 ~FLAMMABn.ITY LIMIT, PERCENT

1370 1'fimeE..1MdIlEl\.",
U~ ~ n.
2 ,
1330
\I 5F ~ I
UlO
12110 4.5 I I
A.
.5 " ...... 1270
4 I ,
o 1250
JUl. AUG SEPOCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG. SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
Figure 3-14 - Maryland Supplier A Component and Calculated Value Time Series
',)P, L<;,~ ~~ ~,'.i1i ~~ b~ ~.,
I YOTAL ..... , . .
I YOTAL ....11&1 I
METHANE. PERCENT _NeJI#I .-c:r - ~ ClAn 1M I tERTI, PERCENT I ::="~TEI'RCT _~~,;n;;;~ -MOflAMJ#It IPNCT ~~~~ ~
~I Iw I 11 uJ I
.u. AUCI IEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEll MAR APR MAY .u.l .u. AUG 8EP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEll MAR APR MAY .u.l
HEAT1NCJ VALUE, BTU/SCF
~1_AA~~Sffi I
~r--. ---
.u. AUG IEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEll MAR APR MAY .u.l
] ~l .u. AUG
221
8EP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEll MAR APR MAY .u.l
j
lJt .u. AUG 8EP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEll MAR APR MAY ol.N
w
~I-- m
.u. AUG 8EP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEll MAR APR MAY .u.l
ill ~I-~ Jt . I ~r~~~~~·~~· .]
.u. AUCI 8EP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEll MAR APR MAY .u.l
.u. AUCI 8EP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEll MAR APR MAY .u.l
I
AIJCI IEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEll MAR APR MAY .u.l
.u.
1E~JV~ - J ~I-?]f .u. AUG 8EP OCT NOV DEC JAN
,
FEll MAR APR MAY .u.l
~I~;; I
.u. AUG IEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEll MAR APR MAY .u.l
Figure 3-14(a) - Maryland Supplier A Time Series with Propane-Air Peakshaving

TABLE 3-XII
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR MARYLAND AT DAILY MAXI}IDM

HEATING VALUE - GAS SUPPLIER B

10% 90%
----------------------------
METHANE 96.0 95.2 96.6 95.8 96.2
ETHANE 2.0 1.8 2.6 1.9 2.2
PROPANE .4 .3 .5 .4 .5
BUTANES .2 .1 .3 .2 .2
PENTANES .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
HEXANE + .1 .0 .1 .1 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 1.2 1.0 1.5 1.2 1.3
----_ ....... _---
INCLUDED ABOVE
----------------------------
NITROGEN .5 .4 .8 .4 .6
C3 + .7 .6 1.0 .6 .8
C4 + .3 .2 .5 .3 .4
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
----------------------------
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1351.0 1339.8 1358.6 1348.3 1353.4
METHANE NUMBER 92.1 90.7 92.9 91.7 92.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ... --------------------
54
TABLE 3.,..XIII
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR MARYLAND AT DAILY MINIMUM

HEATING VALUE - GAS SUPPLIER B
10" 90"
METHANE 96.1 95.1 96.6 95.9 96.3
ETHANE 2.0 1.8 2.5 1.9 2.1
PROPANE .4 .3 .5 .3 .4
BUTANES .2 .1 .2 .1 .2
PENTANES .1 .0 .1 .1 .1
HEXANE + .1 .0 .1 .1 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 1.3 1.0 1.9 1.2 1.4
INCLUDED ABOVE
NITROGEN .5 .4 1.2 .4 .6
C3 + .7 .5 .9 .6 .7
C4 + .3 .2 .4 .3 .3
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1350.1 1340.0 1373.1 1347.5 1352.0
!: AIR FUEL RATIO, VOLUME 9.7 9.6 9.8 9.7 9.7
~.
• LOWER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT, PERCENT 4.9 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.9
METHANE NUMBER 92.2 90.9 92.9 91.8 92.5
55
TABLE 3-XIV
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR }1ARYLAND AT DAILY MINIMUM

HEATING VALUE - GAS SUPPLIER C

10% 90%
----------------------------
METHANE 95.4 94.0 96.0 94.8 95.8
ETHANE 2.6 2.0 3.5 2.2 3.0
PROPANE .5 .4 .9 .4 .6
BUTANES .2 .1 .3 .1 .2
PENTANES .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
HEXANE + .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.2 1.3
---------- ... -
INCLUDED ABOVE
----------------------------
NITROGEN .4 .3 .7 .3 .4
C3 + .8 .6 1.5 .7 1.0
C4 + .3 .2 .6 .3 .4
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
----------------------------
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1352.6 1347.1 1364.2 1349.4 1357.3
METHANE NUMBER 90.7 88.7 92.1 89.8 91.5
-------------------------------------,-----------------,----------------------------------------------
56
TABLE 3-XV
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR MARYLAND AT DAILY MAXIMUM

HEATING VALUE - GAS SUPPLIER C

10% 90%
METHANE 95.0 93.8 95.8 94.5 95.5
ETHANE 2.8 2.3 3.7 2.5 3.3
PROPANE .5 .4 1.0 .4 .7
BUTANES .2 .1 .4 .2 .3
PENTANES .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
HEXANE + .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 1.3 1.1 1.8 1.2 1.3
INCLUDED ABOVE
NITROGEN .4 .3 .9 .4 .5
C3 + .9 .6 1.6 .7 1.2
C4 + .3 .3 .6 .3 .5
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1355.0 1348.8 1369.7 1351.6 1359.7
METHANE NUMBER 90.1 88.1 91.5 89.0 90.9
57
TABLE 3~XVI
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR GEORGIA

10% 90%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONST ITUENTS, VOLUME PERCENT
----------------------------
METHANE 96.8 95.0 97.8 95.6 97.6
ETHANE 1.5 1.2 2.0 1.2 1.9
PROPANE .2 .1 .6 .1 .4
BUTANES .1 .0 .3 .1 .2
PENTANES .0 .0 .1 .0 .1
HEXANE + .1 .0 .2 .1 .2
OXYGEN .0 N/A N/A .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 1.1 .8 2.1 .8 1.9
------_ .. ----
INCLUDED ABOVE
----------------------------
NITROGEN .6 .3 1.5 .3 1.2
C3 + .5 .2 1.2 .3 .9
C4 + .3 .1 .6 .1 .5
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
----------------------------
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1350.3 1329.0 1366.1 1340.5 1356.5
METHANE NUMBER 93.6 92.1 94.6 92.5 94.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
58
hi,)~ b;~ ,,~,..;z '-.':;;.,.,~~,,~,#;,'
.. ...: ~;-;}~ ~t",~ . -"
· _ .• __.". ...... y~."",,-
50 50 fERCENT OF
40 401 !ALA 1
30 30 I IAt-I I
20 20 1 ~t I
~~
10 .l1/tvl------1 10 I VH-1 I
f1 r:J ~l
o oI f I I 1 I I I I I (11 I ! f l f " f I I [.1 I 1 , I 1 I I I t I I I I t I I
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
METHANE, PERCENT
~. _1"lr ... ~~ 50 ~RCENT OF SAMPLES
80 ·...,. "'1'"
70
40 1 ~t 1
60
'/
50
40 '/
'/ I
30 '/
:: f ~iA
20 V
10 I H--n-t:-I I
10
/: V 11
o o1I I 1 I I I I I I I Iii kf' I £1 (' I kf',' I '(' I I i I I , I I
2 345 8 7 8 9
ETHANE, PERCENT
\J1
1.0 80 fERCENT OF SAMPLES 60 PERCENT nF SAMPLES
50
60 I I 40
30
20
10 '" I f::1
o r:1f/1 VI ir:::l
o ~ A ~ ~ 1 U U U U 2 U U~ ~ 3 .2
::tJt""""", PROPANE, PERCENT
,I
-~." ....... SAMP~S
100 · _.. _.". _. 60 PERCENT OF
80 50 '"""'
40
t;
60 ~
30 ~
40 C? /: :/
20
20 F7]~ 10 ~ <
o ra ~ t%1 o Pl ~ (:
o ~ A ~ ~ 1 U U U U 2 U U 12.6 12.8 13 13.2 13.4 13.6 13.8 14 14.2
Figure 3-15 - Georgia Frequency Distribution Histograms

100 METHANE. PERCENT a INERTS.
---
PERCENT
1•.2 ~I~~JQHJ\AIIO
I ,MAXIMUM ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE I ' MAXIMUM ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE 14.1
1. T
f 8
95 13.11
13.a
• 13.7
90 13.8
2 13.5
j 13.•
13.3 , MAXIMUM
a5 o ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE
13.2 I
15 DATA POINTS FROM 3" SITES OVER 15 MONTHS 15 DATA POINTS FROM 3" SITES OVER 15 MONTHS
15 DATA POINTS FROM 3 SITES OVER 15 MONTHS
a ETHANE. TIME 10ao HEATING VALUE. BTUlSCF 17.5 AIR/FUEL RATIO. MASS
I ,MAXIMUM ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE I , MAXIMUM ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE I ,MAXIMUM ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE
8 1080 17
T
10.0 18.5 f
• 1020 ~
! 18
2 1000
f 15.5
o 9ao 15
15 DATA POINTS FROM 3' SITES OVER 15 MONTHS 15 DATA POINTS FROM 3 SITES OVER 15 MONTHS 15 DATA POINTS FROM 3 SITES OVER 15 MONTHS
0\
o
3 PROPANE. PERCENT a SPECIFIC GRAVITY 117 STOICHIOMETRIC MIXTURE HEATING VALUE. BTU/CU.FT
I , MAXIMUM ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE I ,MAXIMUM ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE I , MAXIMUM ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE
8 98.5 I
2 !
• 98
2
115.5
o I o . 115
15 DATA POINTS FROM 3' SITES OVER 15 MONTHS 15 DATA POINTS FROM 3' SITES OVER 15 MONTHS 15 DATA POINTS FROM 3 SITES OVER 15 MONTHS
2.5 C • +. PERCENT 1390 WOBBE NUMBER 5.5 LOWER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT. PERCENT
---------.
I , MAXIMUM ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE I ,MAXIMUM ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE I ,MAxIMUM ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE
2 1370
r 5
\5 1350 I
1330
I
•.5
.5 1310
o I 1290
15 DATA POINTS FROM 3 SITES OVER 15 MONTHS 15 DATA POINTS FROM 3' SITES OVER 15 MONTHS • 15 DATA POINTS FROM 3" SITES OVER 15 MONTHS
Figure 3-16 - Georgia Component and Calculated Value Time Series

TABLE 3-XVII
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR VIRGINIA - STATION A

10% 90%
----------------------------
METHANE 94.6 90.0 95.9 92.8 95.6
ETHANE 3.4 2.2 8.1 2.4 5.2
PROPANE .5 .4 1.2 .4 .7
BUTANES .2 .1 .3 .2 .2
PENTANES .1 .0 .1 .0 .1
HEXANE + .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) .8 1.3
... _--_ ........... 1.2
---
1.4 1.0
INCLUDED ABOVE
----------------------------
NITROGEN .4 .3 .7 .4 .5
-
< C3 + .8 .6 1.6 .7 1.0
C4 + .3 .2 .5 .2 .4
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
-------- ... -------------------
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
IJOBBE NUMBER 1358.5 1344.5 1392.4 1351.1 1373.3
METHANE NUMBER 89.2 81.8 91.6 85.7 91.1
-----------------------------------------------_ ... ----- ... -------_ ... -----_ ... - ... -------------------- ... --_ ... --
61
TABLE 3-XVIII
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR VIRGINIA STATION B
10" 90"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
METHANE 95.1 90.0 95.9 94.7 95.7
ETHANE 2.9 2.2 8.1 2.4 3.4
PROPANE .5 .4 .9 .4 .6
BUTANES .2 .1 .3 .2 .2
PENTANES .1 .0 .1 .0 .1
HEXANE + .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 1.2 .8 2.2 1.1 1.3
---_ ............. _--
INCLUDED ABOVE
----------------------------
NITROGEN .4 .3 1.5 .3 .4
C3 + .8 .6 1.3 .7 1.0
C4 + .3 .2 .5 .3 .4
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
----------------------------
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1355.0 1337.4 1392.4 1351.2 1359.2
METHANE NUMBER 90.2 81.8 91.6 89.2 91.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
62
~9 ti<,-z'~ tL~ '~ ,.-.... <K,;,i ~.::,,~ ~
...... I, .;; :-~. ~
l~~~o-,'l! ~ ~ ~~
• ~n "", ..-- ......

50 ...."
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
~ IA 171 P'1 j7~ I
o 0
85 88 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 8'10' 8aO' no' ~ lel1o' mo~'Mc1'\9~tt1E~~~~~~~o' 1d80' 1100' fho' ti2o' 1130
METHANE. PERCENT
1_., ..... __ 70 PERCENT
60 " ....- ...""'"
60
50
~ 50
40
40
30 ~
30
20
V
20
10 ~ ~ 10
/: /:r::::!I71I71I71,....., 0
o 10
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(J"I ETHANE. PERCENT
w .. .... " ....
80 P 80 , ,
70
1/
60 60
50
1/
1/
40 40
30
1/
1/, ,.,....,
20 20
10 1/ II/i
o 1/ II/i
0
0 1 2 3
PROPANE, PERCENT
.~~ . . . ! x. yO' •• n . . . 60 OF SAMELES
100
"7
80 ~ 60
/:
~ 40
60 /:
30
40 ~ ~ ~
20
20 83 10
/. ~
o ~ 1771 o ~ r'/H71 B1 % ~
o ~ A ~ J 1 U U U U 2 U U 12.8 12.8 13 13~ 13.4 13.8 13.1 14 1U
Figure 3-17 - Virginia Station A Frequency Distribution Histogram

100 ~ETHANE, PERCENT 8 /NERTS, PERCENT RATIO UO:TIU...., MJUBEF
14 CRITICAL
13
13.11 t2
13.8 II
8 I I '-. _.N-' "V' If \. ~ 10
85 r r ( ~cJ '=-c""= b ee=:"t1~=,="",==, cOr A i<:X I 13.7 .A II
13.8 \! n", II
4 I I 13.5 17
II
13.4 IS
90 f II VII
I 13.3 14
13.2 III
2~ ~ 12
13.1 11
85 ' I o! I 13 10
JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JON JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
1100 HEATING VALUE. BTU/SCF 17.5 AIR/FUEL RATIO MASS
1080 171--------------------i
8 I "H I~ IVII I ,I "AJ ~ /VII I ~
1080
18.5 ~::.:::=:::::::::=====::::=:======:::=::::====~
4 AFrJlIIYI II 1040
" 'I I I "NVVV'vJ
~
I - 'I I I
21 r V--vrv<'Y~·' V'I 1020
181------------------j
1000 15.5 I----------------------j
oI I 15~--------------------'
1180
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JON JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
0\
+:-- •87 ~""''''''''..1oW.o..<JLL.L --,
3 PROPANE. PERCENT liS STOICHIOMETRIC MIXTURE HEATING VALUE, BTU/CUET•
.851--------------------1
2
.831--------------------1
.81 t---..:-;----rr----------------~ :~xu- '-'- ~
.... n .,.,N-
.'VlVJ\ ..., .511 r---\::>o.J.--t?""t:>tO<lC<:;7........O:::::;;I:It::===-<:=~~:.....:.::~~
o 115 ! ! !
JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JON AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
2.5 C 4 +, PERCENT 5.5 ~OWER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT, PERCENT

13110 PJM~o..p~f'O--------------___,
2 f I 1370 P-::+"'1fft--j+-------------..,...~rnH'l
\5 I I 1350 \-_-=.:::....J~!=!::::...~::.......M.""""""""--........l:::.--~ 15,~ -

1330 f----------------------i 4.5 I I
.5 131O/----------------------i
1290 L.-- --l
oF~-'---- J 4 I I
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JON JlA. AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JON JlA. AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JON
Figure 3-18 - Virginia Station A Component and Calculated Value Time Series
TABLE 3-XIX
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR ILLINOIS - GATE STATION A
10" 90"
METHANE 96.4 92.3 97.6 95.3 97.2
ETHANE 1.8 1.2 3.1 1.5 2.2
PROPANE .3 .1 1.0 .2 .5
BUTANES .1 .0 1.0 .1 .2
PENTANES .1 .0 .5 .0 .1
HEXANE + .1 .0 .2 .0 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .5 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 1.2 .7 3.6 .8 1.8
INCLUDED ABOVE
NITROGEN .6 .2 2.8 .3 1.2
C3 + .6 .1 2.7 .3 .8
C4 + .2 .1 1.7 .1 .3
' .... PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

~.

MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1351.0 1316.0 1382.9 1343.9 1357.1
METHANE NUMBER 92.7 88.7 94.3 91.6 93.7
65
TABLE 3-XX
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR ILLINOIS - GATE STATION B

10% 90%
----------------------------
METHANE 92.6 87.4 96.1 90.2 95.1
ETHANE 3.4 2.0 5.6 2.4 4.5
PROPANE .6 .5 1.1 .5 .8
BUTANES .2 .1 .3 .1 .3
PENTANES .1 .0 .6 .1 .3
HEXANE + .1 .0 .2 .0 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 2.9 1.1 6.0 1.5 4.2
------------
INCLUDED ABOVE
----------------------------
NITROGEN 2.2 .3 5.5 .6 3.6
C3 + 1.0 .8 1.6 .9 1.1
C4 + .4 .2 .7 .3 .4
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
----------------------------
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1330.9 1287.9 1356.3 1312.8 1353.7
METHANE NUMBER 88.5 83.8 91.8 86.2 90.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
66
;
L,:. .,_.. £i ~.i;,:~ '''':';'''-i''''';'''' ",,;i; "-. --'
....i"'~ ~k:tJ b.'d~
50 . _.. _-... -- " .... --- 50 rERCENT OF SAMPLES
40 40 I Q I
30 30 I t1 I
20 20 I ,",~jrl I
10 JL 10 I VlYH1f1r---------I1
.171 .rJf/jf']f':::lr:::Jr1
"On It'" l.-1vlf'
o o [I I I 1 I I I I I I 7~~~~~'j i i ' T T l I I I I I I I I I
85 88 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
METHANE. PERCENT
r . n " ,.., .. , r ~I"\ '" ........ 50 rERCENT OF SAMPLES
60
50 40 1 I
40
30 I 1
30
:/ 20 1 1-1 I
20
~B1...." ~ 10 I F"tl1t::l ~ 1
10
o P/l :/ 181 8:1 r:~ t:1 rll7] ~ o t, i [ iii I I I 'i"70~~t;1QF;l~~~~ I 1"T ] TJ I I i [I
2 3 456 7 8 9
(J\ ETHANE. PERCENT
......
80 rERCENT OF SAMPLE 40~
60 I 1 30 I I
40 1 I 201 I/l I
20 I---------Vl-VA--V'./l I 10 I ~ I
oI I I/;J v(l [(I ViA '=7'"'T" I I Iii i , i I I o 1 i i [ 1 I "P Cf t;J '{l rrJ t;J ,''-, If rid kfll.p rid kfJl{1 I I I '
o .2 .4 .8 .8 1 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.8 2.8 3
PROPANE. PERCENT
30 ,:-Efl..c_eIT.-O..LS}'_""f..l~S,-- ~
r!!!r"......... ' y..-- !'i':_IVU ......
100
80
r-?"
~I ~ I
60
40
::::
~
10 I V~A-r/l--V}-j
20 ~
~ ~ ~ o 1 I I I Iii I [(I I<J V;J 'SA r(, [(I i{J V;J 1 1
o
o 2 A ~ ~ 1 U 1.4 U 1.8 2 U U 12.8 12.8 13 13.2 13.4 13.8 13.8 14 14.2
Figure 3-19 - Illinois Gate Station B Frequency Distribution Histograms

100 ~ETHANE, PERCENT 1 ,NERTS, PERCENT "AITI""" "QMf8E.SS1oti.BATIO M"'T........, Nt IUA'"
14
13.8 n 82
13.8 II I.;U'II 1'1 .11 1'11111 M,
8 I I I 13.1 80
811 r~ bob AI. Inn !'t uft J\lhl. Pih ..I / VII 1\ 1\ lin III 1"Ir III\. ,.I M ,U .f 111ft
13.8 III I lin III
• lIV I !IV r 81
'v' J'V'''111/ --'
13.5 '11111
41 h. 1I'ilIlInln\~~ /ti I. j IIIAld\JiJMKi~ 13.4 '" II
80 I 'II '~ij I If . , .. 0 r "',J~P . I V
d-tl~\U PJ YV 111111 ~VI}P .• 'II " I UlJ1 ' lJl 13.3 I.
13.2
13.1 12
13 10
85J\IL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
1 ~E, PERCENT 1010 HEATING VAWE BTU/SCF 11.5 AIR FUEL RATIO, MASS
81 I 1080 I----------------------l
1040 l:i7I~rI1i]W1~~::w~;:;;;;;;;ilVIi\l1;:_:J~;_:::;r:T~V(";;tU 18: t A AI! Ii II tit. iAn ~. wA ,NI ~I I AA ...I
41\\",- 11"/~hiIVt j I\IA lVii, .1'\liI;;v'V\t\/t>11 ~ 11~un 1020 1-=-.::.-..:....!l,.!..-~~___L...:...:..
_ _...:u~.L...:._I._....:.:!.~-.lL-_=_I
2 I " It ~ \ 1\ I r ··v ,.,', I ,,: ~-\\jr¥-I+'IV'---
•..i:-~..L!.ll-'\lI,3l!.\,~~ 'V"1
1000 1------------------ --1
OJUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN 980JI,IL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN ll1J1Jl. AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
U\
00
3 PROPANE, PERCENT ~ I v,,,, tlVfYI ... ,n,..., pt,,,, I .." U .. , ... " III~"" IIJ " ...... ... 0.1, ......., I.
88
2 97
rv.. ~
0" .-v"\"" ·w ~
98
MI" .11r".rvt!'- Jl
~ ~
OJIA. AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
~~~~TFW AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN 95J1Jl. AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
2.11 C 4 +, PERCENT 5.5 ~OWER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT. PERCENT
2 1370
II ~A.r---JW -"V ~
1.5
""~
4.5 I I
I
.5
OJUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
If'- - .......
:; ~
AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN 4.M. AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
Figure 3-20 - Illinois Gate Station B Component and Calculated Value Time Series
TABLE 3~XXI
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR OHIO
10% 90%
METHANE 89.7 86.1 95.2 87.6 92.8
ETHANE 4.5 2.5 6.9 3.5 5.3
PROPANE 1.3 .5 2.1 .8 1.6
BUTANES .4 .2 .9 .3 .6
PENTANES .1 .1 .3 .1 .2
HEXANE + .1 .1 .2 .1 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 3.9 1.4 7.1 1.9 5.6
---- ... ------ ..
INCLUDED ABOVE
NITROGEN 3.3 .6 6.5 1.4 5.0
C3 + 1.9 .9 3.4 1.3 2.4
C4 + .6 .4 1.4 .5 .9
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1327.8 1273.4 1374.1 1298.0 1359.0
METHANE NUMBER 85.6 82.2 90.9 83.9 88.2
69
50 rERCENT OF SAMPLES 50~
40 1 I 40 I I
30 I I 30 I I
20 1 I 20 I I
10 I fli:1i1t:1 Y"1 I 10 I Elt1t11/1,., n_ I
ot t 'i"[iJlf',<t'1lt"'i'V;trtJlr',<lYil!tdt(l,?Y''1''~'? t t
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
METHANE. PERCENT
AMPLES 50 fERCENT OF SAMPLES
50 t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i
40 1-----------------------..1
30 t - - - - - - - - - - - - { / J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i ::~-----
20 1 - 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
20 I - - - - - - - - - - f ' / H f /A - - - - - - - - - - I
10 1 - - - - - - - - - - D ' 1 - I 10 I '"" ~
0L-...,-,-,-----,-"'T"--'Lru-'i--'-'4'-...,...u::,..d....k:,.-Ll;.&-...,....-"T"---,-,.---r---,-J o I, , I TT"i"Ttfltf~~t;Jt(ltf~~k;lrfltf~I~t;J'P'f' I , , i , , ,
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
'"-l ETHANE, PERCENT
o
40 fERCENT OF SAMPLE
60 f-I -----------------------j 30 I I
40 f-I ---------=,------------ 20 I I
20 I • YI 1/- - 1 f - = : = - - - - - - - - - - -
10 I V11-_--=CArn"',..--------------
o 1 I i '"T"' I~d vl/l f{' '<'fA VIA [(I -r ~ I I i '
O'T7'{Irrkf J ,«,rt1YjJ'''iI[r1Yj JL'i' Jr f r,dkf'''P, , , , t ,
o ~ A ~ ~ 1 U U ~ ~ 2 UU~U 3
PROPANE. PERCENT
100 rERCENT OF SAMPLES 50 P
80 1-1 -------------------1 40
60 f-I ----------------------1 30
40 I 1"/]1-----------------1 20
20 1 r 10
1
oI I I""" r (I V (I 1/ 1/ rzrn I I I I I I I
0
o ~ A ~ ~ 1 U U ~ U 2 U U 12.6 12.8 13 13~ 13.4 13.6 13.8 14 14~
C4~~R~~ CRITICAL COMPRESSION RATIO
Figure 3-21 - Ohio Frequency Distribution Histograms

.2. I;"fi':>~ ,,~,';.I ~""'~.:lii b,'cA ~-'i,· _ ·.I--~·A A
100 ~ETHANE, PERCENT 8 iNERTS, PERCENT

~~ ~
8 I ." i l ,,11. I ~ ~
95 I Ii
4 U" 1.1 1M I illY ' I I I I' In"" I lilt ~ d1HA 13.8 I' 10
90U\fl.J./c, pi' Y j\d,1l ,f hKM" M" ,ld!'1 LUl.l ~ ~ "
2 I I '1-c rx:; PI' 'I "I v I ' I 13.3 88
~ U
o I , 13.0 82
AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL 80
8 ~THANE, PERCENT 1100 ~EA TING VALUE, BTU/SCF 17.5 fiR/FUEL RATIO, MASS
8 I ~ I i I 17 I I
4 VIti • I ' II \ III 1\ I 1'1.' '1 .. ["Ja"'" VlfY V I 'Y'AI 1
18;8 t!~LO
2 I I r~lrY4..l " ~
~IVL,~\.~
15.5 ,-..,kn
o' I
~~~\~4fi¥j
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
"..... 3 PROPANE PERCENT 98 STOICHIOMETRIC MIXTURE HeATING VALUE, BTU/CU.FT

2.5 f-------
21--:----------------------i 97
1.5 f1t~_:F"'r-_1lFi:i':~-:;:_~;;:;:;_:_:I;:;;;::::IAff_;"N\.if\1 '"\""lv"'~/I... ~ ~.~
11-+--"---\,"h'\rrFt-HHI-....:J,~r:__:.--..lU....:--_l~--.:..4 98 \I
.59
.5 f-----.....::r....;.-----------------i
~~~~~~ ,
0'-----------------------' 95
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
2.5 C 4 +, PERCENT 1380 ~'IlIlJo.J]' 5.5 LOWER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT. PERCENT
2 1380 f7-"..,.,--f!<'l",.J-r-,C'T-----------j"t-----1
1340 ~Hll\I-l!W---It+..I-I-l_-_AA---_..,r__-__H 5
1.5 ........ ·vv~""~
1320 ~_+.L-..:.J..--..yI\lhll__J._+..._...,_-_1YH_,_...r_I_I ~J'.,...J"N'~'(
1300 f-------:.1IjlJr+-l--..lflc:~~1tM_llf_~!::.!!t.---:..~L.-_1 4.5
YV~~A A (\ ."\t". ftJ'fI
.5 1280 f-------------4-:.:...--------J
o 1280 '------------------------1 4
JUI. AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUI. AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
Figure 3-22 - Ohio Component and Calculated Value Time Series

TABLE 3..,.XXII
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR MICHIGAN

10% 90%
----------------------------
METHANE 93.4 86.1 97.0 87.6 96.3
ETHANE 3.0 1.5 5.9 1.9 5.1
PROPANE .7 .3 1.7 .4 1.3
BUTANES .2 .1 .5 .1 .3
PENTANES .1 .0 .2 .0 .1
HEXANE + .0 .0 .1 .0 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 2.5 .7 6.7 1.1 5.5
-_ ... -------- ...
INCLUDED ABOVE
---------------------- ... -----
NITROGEN 1.9 .2 6.3 .4 4.9
C3 + 1.1 .5 2.5 .7 1.7
C4 + .3 .1 .8 .2 .5
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
----------------------------
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1329.0 1269.2 1356.8 1291. 7 1347.4
METHANE NUMBER 89.4 82.3 93.5 83.3 92.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
72
, ,
L",.4li ~.~ ~ ~'l!'1 ~~,]\1 b""'.tll .. L""t.=::-,,,,,d,S] t. ~L .J
50 FERCENT OF SAMPLE 50 FERCENT OF SAMPLES
40 I I 40 I rl I
30 \ I 30 I t:-l I
20 I I 20 I Vlfir----------.JI
10 I ~ rn+Vl I 10 ,I- - - - - - - - _V1+1+1r----------.-J
1- I
o Ii' ,cpr;;, frJ, tyJ, cp, , , , , ,l;1t;Jt;Jf.0~ltyJr:,H;1, , , ,I o t, , i , , i , i ,E;J9~~~~~ i , , , , , , i , , , i , i , , ,J
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
METHANE. PERCENT
",
80
1_.1 _"'1" _. ......-.... 50~
50 40 I I
40
30 I I
30
~ /' 20 l7IF1
I-rl----------i7Jf:r--------JI
20
t;;:: ;; 10 I <?> r;+VtYj I
10
V /: 81 r71 f/l Bl f7I BL.-,
o o [, ,9 I , i
,f:;Jt;Jfj3t;J, , , ~r;Jf:;Jt;J'i1t;JE?, i" "" I
....... 23458 7 8 9
w ETHANE. PERCENT
80 rERCENT OF SAMPLES , 40 FERCENT OF
801 P/1 I 301 ~ I
40 I r01 I 20 I v:J I
201 r01 I 101 ~ ~ I
0', I v("f"'l" I '(llf) , r(l, I I I i I I O'.L"i'.r[('v[J!i"'f., L i ,"T' [r,Akf"fr~kfJl"", I 1 '

o ~ A ~ ~ 1 U U U U 2 UUUU 3
PROPANE. PERCENT
. . . . . 1 _ _ ... , _. _ ...,.- . . . .' " ENT OF SAMfI...
..,.."-- --"
100 50
80 40 rl - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C P/l I
80
P:7:
E;8
40 ~ :: f ~ I
20 P3
o rn~r;a~ :t, I , I I i ~~V?~mm, ,I
o 2 A ~ ~ 1 U U U U 2 U U 12.8 12.8 13 132 13.4 13.8 13.8 14 14:2
Figure 3-23 - Michigan Frequency Distribution Histogram

100 METHANE. PERCENT 8 INERTS. PERCENT ~RITI~AI N RATIO NUURF~
14
13.11
...---', 13.8
6
13.7
95
I~
, ........... / 13.8
/"-
4
" 1-----------." 13.5
,', ,
/' "-
l~
13.4 ,
.-
110 /'
2
'''/ 13.3 _/ II
-----./-- "'" / 13.2
13.1
85 oJuiI." 13 , If
.u:.. ~.. eei... ~IO "";'10 AjW·1O "';'10 001·10 No"10 ' .....1 AjW·.l Auct-II Oct-.. J."..IO ... ,.g,o AQr·...o Ma)'-eo OCI-eo Nov-eo Feb-It Api·.t
.u-a. "'uo-" OCI.., "....10 ....'·10 Apr·1O ....'-10 OCt·1O No.·ao '.'1 Apr·'1
ETHANE.
8 F- ---- PERCENT 1080 HEATING VALUE. BTU/SCF 17.5 AIR/FUEL RATIO. MASS
6 1060 17
1040 -"-
.............. 18.5
4 ~ /- ~. /'",
~ /',
- 1020 ~---~ 18
--- -----/
2 ./ "\ .---- ...-/
1000 15.5
~
o ~. .. . .. '"
.u:.. ",_. eei... ~IO "";,10 ......·10 "';.10 OCHO No.·10 ' .....1 ........1 98~:.. "'uct-" 0./... """10 ...;.10 "po:'l0 "';'10 0./·10 No.·10 ' .....1 ........1 ....... Aug.I. Oct·.. Jan-tO MII,·IO .-10 .... )'·10 Oct.. to Nov·to ' ....., Apr-I'
-....J
.j>.
3 PROPANE. PERCENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY 98 STOICHIOMETRIC MIXTURE HEATING VALUE. BTU/CU.FT
.67
.85
2 .83 97
-"", /-
, ~- .81
-----/ 98
-, "'------
.59
""'/
n. . . . . . . . . . ,
----- -
JuII." Aug." OC..... ~tO Ma,-80 Aor-tQ Mey-eo Oct-to Nov-tO Feb-I' Apf-I' ...,.10 ...po:.10 .... '-10 0./-10 No.·10
~.. "'uct-" eei-a. "";"10 ""'10 Apr'1O "';'10 001·10 No'·10 ' .....1 ......... 9~;,. "'uct-" eei... ~IO '.11 ........1
2.5 C 4 +, PERCENT WOBBE NUMBER 5.5 ~ FLAMMABILITY LIMIT, PERCENT

1390
2 1370
1.5 1350 5 r --=-- -===::;= - ~ i

1330
•
4.5 f--I
------------------1
./ //-",
~ \
.5 1310 /
~/ \ --/
1290 4 I i i I i i , i I I I
o
.u:.. ...~.. eel... ~IO ...,·10
-
AjW.1O "';'10 OCi·1O No'·10 ' .....1 ......·.1 ..klI~" Auci-" OCt·" ~IO ....;·eo Apt-to
-- "'Y.. 10 oci.. 10 No";-80 'eb-It
",
Ap;-t, ~.. Aug-at Oct.... Jan..to .... '·10 Apr-to ... ,.-10 Oc,-tO Nov-tO ' ...., ApI·lt
Figure 3-24 - Michigan Component and Calculated Value Time Series

TABLE 3-XXIII
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR WISCONSIN

10% 90%
----------------------------
METHANE 94.0 89.1 96.4 91.5 96.0
ETHANE 2.4 1.3 3.9 1.6 3.2
PROPANE .3 .1 .7 .1 .5
BUTANES .1 .0 .3 .0 .2
PENTANES .0 .0 .1 .0 .0
." HEXANE + .0 .0 .1 .0 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 3.3 1.6 6.8 2.2 4.7
------------
INCLUDED ABOVE
----------------------------
NITROGEN 2.6 .9 6.2 1.6 4.0
C3 + .3 .1 1.1 .1 .8
C4 + .1 .0 .4 .0 .3
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
----------------------------
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1312.4 1257.3 1353.4 1292.9 1326.1
METHANE NUMBER 91.1 87.2 93.9 88.8 93.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
75
50~ 50 rERCENT OF SAMPLES
40 I I 40 I " I
30 I I 30 I ~11 I
20 I t::1 I 20 I I /I i l l r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JI
10 I 17I t j 171 ~·t r j I 10 I rj[~t7I I
0' I I iii I I I "f' I 'T'!('kfIYj ll(1 1(,."r.ll('kf 1r,ll(jl(l i I o t, I I ,.,.Q~~~~~9'7 lit [ [ I I lit I I I I I I
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
METHANE, PERCENT
._.. - .. _. ,"",'Wlf ... ~ ....
60 50 rERCENT OF SAMPLES
50
40 I I
40
r7 30 I I
30
V ~
20 20 I V1 ,
10
:::::17] ~r:8
r7I V 181 V~r:7l
o 1: [ i ttl i tit I t I I tit I
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
~i "f'T'7'?~7
ETHANE. PERCENT
.......
(j\
80 PERCENLOFSAMPLE
60 30 I V1 I
40 20 I VJ I
20 10/ vi P1 V1 /
1 V dL
0 0 I TT'T'v,J!.yllrd , 'T,,('ri'4 1 !(lr(t';' I I I Iii i I
0 1 2 3 .2
PROPANE. PERCENT
100 ~"UY..-"· _. ..~''''-- ..- 40 PEIlCJ;NLQ.fJAMeL.ES
80 ~
30
60 - ~ ;%
,.....,P': ~
20
40
~
~ V,
V
~ f; ~
'/
10
20 ~
~ V ~
f:/l :/: V, 1% ~ /~
o ~~ o
o 2 A ~ ~ 1 U U ~ U 2 U U 12.8 12.8 13 13.2 13.4 13.8 13.8 14 14.2
Figure 3-25 - Wisconsin Frequency Distribution Histograms

,/.~ .' . . I
'; ...~.,.;:;
! .' ,
,*,,:;,~ ~.A ~.'$i ~:(~ L~;..",3 I/i.. p ~J t~ .- ~'.;~' , .... j ,,-J
-" "
100 ~ET~!I~RCENT I I ~LfERCENT I BLlICAL...J<QMeRI;SSJ.QtU\A.TIO Me.IH~IiUMBI;

14.1
14
8 I I j I 13.8
85 1or::f:'::':r"Y::~4u" i I. J .~ 13.1
13.7
4 1 dM~~l\ff.\tk I 13.8
13.5
80 I . PI I I 13.4
2 r-.. ~d:' 'r ~''1 13.3
13.2
13.1
15 I I o I ! 13
JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
I ~THANEr PERCENT 1010 HEATING VALUE. BTU/SCF
1080 f------------------------l
8 I I ";~~A"O'M'" ~
1040 f------l:--------------------l
41 I .. 1
1020 1---r----II-:------I1t+,--,,::---------4--1
2 ~ I
, Jvvvv,])tJV"'~!WII' u . 1" An.
n"J"\IV'~1"r 1 fro "0' r
1000 pc~b>e~~>dJ.lA...l\__~CL!..-1.~Al-V_Y_ld~~~~:1 15.5
'~:
910 '-- '-- -:... .J
o'
,
= '1kit'· -¥N'-'"'
.......
.......
3 rROPANE, PERCENT .87 88 STOICHIOMETRIC MIXTURE HEATING VALUE. BTU/CU.FT
2I I 87
A. "
98
o ~'---JIjV''''' VI W V ' ~
~l "~~A' AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
,I 95
2.5 C 4 +. PERCENT 1370 5.5 ~OWER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT, PERCENT
2
5 1=- r~
. '~'-..b.~
t5
~51 I
.5
::F ~
o " 1.IM.~AnI\ 1 .. ' I
~f:;=~~
Figure 3-26 - Wisconsin Component and Calculated Value Time Series
TABLE 3-XXIV
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR TEXAS CITY 1/1

10% 90%
METHANE 90.5 87.5 93.6 88.5 91.5
ETHANE 4.6 3.3 5.5 3.9 5.2
PROPANE 1.6 .9 2.6 1.1 2.4
BUTANES .7 .3 1.1 .3 1.1
PENTANES .3 .1 .5 .1 .4
HEXANE + .2 .1 .5 .1 .3
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 2.1 1.0 3.0 1.1 2.7
INCLUDED ABOVE
CARBON DIOXIDE 1.5 .7 2.2 .8 2.0
NITROGEN .6 .3 .9 .3 .8
C3 + 2.9 1.5 4.6 1.7 4.2
C4 + 1.2 .5 2.1 .6 1.9
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1359.4 1329.0 1402.1 1331.1 1390.2
METHANE NUMBER 85.3 82.0 88.7 82.7 86.9
78
'.~. ~~;ij.'j ~il ~_:-.;!..d ~,;.:AJ ....'•..;<'" &. '. -.0 l~ :>i".",~,d ~.i'>-,-"-... -,_%j k .. -..~,':..iiIi ;~~ .
l" "~"
50 ~
40 I I
~I ~ I :: f I
~I ~ I 20 I I
10 I rA17tV1+1 I 10 I t::1 I
o I, I , , I ,r.,J~t;;J'Y'l;1r;Jt(Jr.,J~,?, i 9, , , , , , , I , ,I o t, ii' , , I , , I , , , , ,'?~~~IfI~Cf1 i ~t;JE;J'0~~~~~91
85 88 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 98 97 98 99
METHANE. PERCENT
,....,-. ~
80 ..... ""'1' .. ...

50
40 I I
40
/: 30 I I
30
V /:
20
r-:>I ~ :/rd
10 :r _~ ~ I
o t:l ~ ~88~
oI I I I I I I I I I I , I , I kfIf]J~J[~'fkfl I 9Y'fkflf]J9Y't'kf1 i I
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9
ETHANE. PERCENT
-..J
'!)
80
80 30
40 20
20 10
0 0
0 .2 .4 .8 .8 1 t2 1.4 t8 t8 2 2.2 2.4 2.8 2.8 3 15.2. 15.4 15.8 15.8•._ 1.tI••_. 1t~ _.18.1 .. 18..8 18.8 ' 17 . 17.2
PROPANE. PERCENT
..n ... r '" ..... 50
100
80 40
80 30
40 20
20 10
0 0
0 .2 .4 .8 .8 1 1.2 t4 t8 t8 2 2.2 2.4 12.8 12.8 13 13.2 13.4 13.8 13.8 14 ·14.2
Figure 3-27 - Texas City #1 Frequency Distribution Histogram

100 METHANE, PERCENT 8 !NERTS, PERCENT 13.8 ~RITIr.AI RA TIn
~ I- NORTH •.• SOUTH - EAST - WEST I I-NORTH •.. SOUTH -EAST -WEST 13.7 NORTH •••. SOUTH EAST WEST
8 I I
95 I I E~ '-:~:~:: . :.. - ~ . .--,_.-.- _>.. : : : : : : <.....
4 I I
f::::::::::'-=m~~ ~: 13:3
13.2 '" /
-_ _ '--.. ----
90 ~ _~ ________
~---.-,
2[ )<-·....··....5~:~ I 13.1 I--------------------~
131-------------------~
815 I ! I ! I I I I ! I ! I ! o' I ! I I I I I I ! I I !
12.11 L--L_.L--J.._..L..-..L_..L.-.l_..L----I_-L.--JL-.-L--J
JlA. AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY .uI JlA. AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY ~
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY .uI
8 ETHANE, PERCENT 17 5 AIR/FUEL RATIO, MASS

I I- NORTH .... SOUTH - EAST -WEST ~ f NORTH I- ... SOUTH - EAST -WEST
I __-:::::::::::t=.;::::::~?t'~.;:u:n~.:n=-:.:.:":v:u='
n=:-=E:A:S=T===WE=S:T==~
1120 r
1100
:t ~-. 2 18.5 ~'~ ~~~ ,,?'"S:S I
1080 18 ,. •.••
c =.:.: : : :;. . ......?
2 I I 1080 t--t~--::-==-\rf'-:""~,,-'-;:"--~,..,.----
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0' .M.. A~G SEp OCT N6v DEc JlN .is MiR M.R Miy..w I
1040 L.--;';;'-'-;~~:;;-:;:;:!:::-:-:~-=±-=-:-!-:-:-;::I~-.L_l--.l:':'-'-..L_ 15~ ~ JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY .uI
C':l
o
3 PROPANE, PERCENT
!llDI:r..II:Ir.: na.&. VITV 98 STOICHIOMETRIC MIXT\JRE !'lEATlNG VALUE, BTU/CU.FT.
I I- NORTH .... SOUTH - EAST - WEST
[ NORTH-· SOUTH -EAST
I- -WEST
r --':==N:::O::R=TH==
•••=S::O::UTH==-::::EA=ST===W:::ES::T:::::j
.87 t-
,.~-- ,85 ---- _ "-----.

M_.__ ·-···:~'._ ._ ~_ ._ . • • • • • • • • • • • • • _ •••••• :t • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
/~~'~~ I L
.83 _ n~ ""-~
: ~ : - ~, • __ M
,81 .....
-= . ::tS:~1
o I I I I I I I I I I I ! 1 ,
JUL. AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY .uI .511 JlA.. AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY ~ D5 I ~. A~G sEP oCr N6v D~C JlN FEB MiR M.R Miv ..w
2.5 C " +, PERCENT 1410 pupa;. NUMtU;" I 5 5 LOWER FLAMMABR.lTY LIMIT, PERCENT
.I NORTH ••• SOUTH
I- - EAST - WEST
'I '. -wm 13110 1-~-+---+------~---....,.,..-:._~--1
u .. -p--...:. ~ _0- ....~:.,....,....:-,
§tom'. mSO~ -~, III I
1370 1--4-----\--.,--r<:""...,..:"-,?---¥::::...----::'"'---l
l-.-. \··'../'x"~7 .>< 4.51 s:c.._ ~ =
1350 I---f-...:--==~'l-+_-:-"'.....:-
........'--::-~-----l
1330 •••.•
~ t ~~~,. . . -~. . .: . . . ·~:· :·····::······I····~······ I ~ I
s: . .
o JlA. AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY .uI 1310 JUL. AUG SEP ~~O:~ D~~S~~F~ ~~TAPR~:;S~ 4 I .in. A~G sEP OCT N6v DEc JlN FEB MiR M.R Mi y..w I
Figure 3-28 - Texas City #1 Component and Calculated Value Time Series
TABLE 3-XXV
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR TEXAS CITY #2

10X 90X
METHANE 94.6 92.0 96.3 92.6 96.1
ETHANE 2.5 1.6 4.2 1.6 3.7
PROPANE .5 .3 .7 .3 .6
BUTANES .1 .1 .2 .1 .2
PENTANES .1 .0 .1 .1 .1
HEXANE + .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 2.2 1.4 3.2 1.8 2.9
INCLUDED ABOVE
NITROGEN 1.5 .7 2.9 .7 2.6
. C3 + .7 .5 1.0 .6 .8
,"" C4 + .2 .2 .3 .2 .3
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1334.6 1324.0 1344.7 1324.6 1337.8
METHANE NUMBER 91.0 87.2 92.9 88.6 92.9
81
. . . . . ""' ...... , I _ .........
50 50 P
40 40
30 30
20 20
10
r 1 r 10
Ff1
1.0'1
o I
~ f IB 0
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 8'70'
METHANE. PERCENT
1 ... 11 .... '11 I ..,,, ........
70 PER
60
60
50
50
~
40
40
30 ~ 30
V 'T
20 20
10
~ ~ fl 10
V:: /: 81BlBl 0
o ti80' 1270' ti8O' ti8O' 1300' 1310' -»b\~~O'~Btif' 1380' 1370' dao' 1380' 10400' 10410
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
OJ ETHANE. PERCENT
N 40 PE_RCEN
80
60 30
40 20
20 10
0 0 ...... _. _L , ..
.2 .4 .6 .8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 .2
0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3
PROPANE, PERCENT
OF jIlAUP' ICjIl
100 ...,. -''1 ", .......... 50
~ 40
80
::8
~ 30
~
60
v:: /' ~
40 ~ 20
~
V' ~ ~
20 ~ 10
~ ~ o r:l ~ ~ :;
o
o .2 A ~ A 1 U 1.4 U 1.8 2 U U 12.6 12.8 13 13.2 13.4 13.6 13.8 14 14.2

~f<'J!l ~:~~:,;~'d ~. ".,.,4 \i,:. ,~-, .,..;.•--:;t.<,..' ~:-"'~~"--~ l" :-...-l>l
L:~o'" ""'~~ ~''';,~
100 ~ETHANE, PERCENT I INERTS, PERCENT R.... no

14 CRITICAL
13.8
13.1 "-
I
13.7 "- -.....
13.1
85 ~ -=-- '""-====J 4 13.5
13•• -----
80 I I
2 .--- 13.3
~ 13.2
--- 13.1
i j I I I I I I I j o 13
-.el ~
85_to
I _to 0Ct-t0 No_ _ ......... ,..., ....... Ap.., ...,.., I..
"":to s.p..o oci·to No';·to DeC-to Jui... ' ....11 uN·.l Ali·......;..1 ~ .»-.. .u:to ..o-to oci-to No~·to DoC-to ~.. ''''1 _.., AlIt'" ....,... ~ _
I ETHAN~ PERCENT 1010 HEATING VALUE. BTU/SCF 17.5 AIR/FUel R....TIO, MASS
I
I I I 1010 17
1040 16.5 -
.... ~
:---...---
.~ /~b1 1020 ~ 11 ---
2 .7
1000 15.5
I i I I I I i I I i i I 810 15
Apr'" ...,... -.el ~ ..
o_to _to OCt-tO No.-to _ ....... ,..., ....... "":to .....to oci·to NoY-tO DoO-to Jui... ,...... .,.;... Ap;." ....,... ~ .»-.. "":to IoO-to oci-to NoY-tO DoO-to ....... ,...... ..... Ali'" ....,... ~ .»-..
<Xl
W
3 PROPANE, PERCENT •17 !lP"~IFI~ AAAVITY 87 ~TOICHlOMETRIC MIXTURE HEATING VAL~ BTU/CUJ'T•
I
.15
98.5 l==::::=- co::::::>" ,.......,. -4
2 I I .13
91 I I
.11
95.5 I I
~8 --
o_ I ~
I I
OCt-tO i
No...to _ I I
....... I
,..., I
...,... _ I i -.el
...,... i '.. ~
..57 , i I I i I I i i i I I
~to ~to OCt-tO _-to _ ....... ,..., ...,... Ap'" ....,... -.el ~ .. 9~ ~ ocI-to NoJ..o o.J..o ...:... ,~ ~.. ,J.., ....~ .u:... J ..
--
1380 WOBBI' MJUBFA 5.5 ~OWER FlAMMABILITY LIMIT. PERCENT
' ffi,,", I 1370
~ r., 1350
....... IF ~ ~
1330 ......... ....... --- 4.5 I I

1310
~to ..J..o oJ-to Noi.o ...:... ...;...

~ ,~ ~.., ~ ..-.;...3.. 12~to .... ... s.p.to oci-to NoY-tO DoO-to ....... , ...... uN·.. Ali·" ....,... ~ .»-.. ~to ..t1O ocI.to NoJ..o o.J..o ...:... ,~ ~.. ,J.., ....~I ..-.;... J ..
TABLE 3~XXVI
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR TEXAS CITY #3
10" 90"
METHANE 94.5 88.9 97.3 92.6 96.9
ETHANE 2.5 .9 4.4 1.1 3.7
PROPANE 1.0 .3 2.5 .4 1.5
BUTANES .5 .1 1.2 .1 .9
PENTANES .2 .0 .4 .1 .3
HEXANE + .2 .1 .4 .1 .3
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 1.0 .6 2.4 .6 1.6
INCLUDED ABOVE
NITROGEN .4 .2 1.1 .3 .6
C3 + 2.0 .5 4.3 .7 3.0

C4 + .9 .2 1.8 .3 1.5
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1366.3 1333.8 1389.2 1341. 7 1385.4
METHANE NUMBER 90.8 83.6 95.2 87.9 94.8
84
~ ... , .!_"_r.~ 111\<',,'';:1 l.;,.4 1,(, "xi ;>';
,
'-<:'1 t"\;<. ._,'j,
~"'~;1J 'Y.~
1_.1 _'''11 _. .,.,.'

50 . .. _- 50 P
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 ~ 10
n P'l f7I 1171 P'l n
'1t1vIPl
o I 0
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 8
METHANE, PERCENT
60 PER 50 PER
50 40
40 30
30
20
20
10
10
0 0
tl80'
1 2 3 4 8 5 7 '8 9
CO
U1 ETHANE. PERCENT
40 PER
80 PER
30
60
20
40
10
20
0
0 15.2' 15.4' 15.6' 15.8' 18 ' 16.2' 16.4' 16.6' 16.8' i7 • 17.2
0 1 2 3 AIR FUEL RATIO. MASS
__...__...____ ....._1 __ PROPANE. PERCENT _ _ _ _ _ ..._ _ _ ........._. _A
100 20
80
80
10 I 1'/1-1/H/l--VA-Y/i----j
40
20
0 0' I i i i I I 1[(' j '''''~..1v(,rprf'J'''''''lAVIA'

0 2 :4 :8 .8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 12.8 12.8 13 13.2 13.4 13.8 13.8 14 14.2

100 METHANE. PERCENT 8 !NERTS, PERCENT
i '-STATION A ·-·STAnON B --STATION C [ I-STATION A ···STAnON B -STATION C 88
_II 1 III ---
~ ~
-------- til I ~ ~
85 ~ ----- - ""=-
................................... ,..- t
... -_ __ ... ~~--,,~,,~._ .... _....•.. ~ ~
4 I I
A
80r ·······- .... I ~ "
.... 2~ •. ~ .••••• ~ 13,3
~ "84
13.2
13J -STATION A -o-STATION B --STATION C :
85 l it [ I [ I I i I i I
JI.A. Y JON ?iffiN 1111111111111111111111
o;it··:tp '~;":i~" ~~~i~ F~ M JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DeC JAN FEB MAR APR LCA y .DI
8 ETHANE. PERCENT 1120 ~EAT!NG VALUE. BTU/SCF 17.5 AIR/FUEL RATIO MASS
I '-STATION A -·STAnONB -STATIONC -STATION A '-'STATION B -STATION C
1100 .' ...
1080 _.;f,.. - : . _ _ _ ._ _. _ __ _................ .. .. 17 1--===-00=
til I .._-- ........ -.. . ....==.---_..
. ,...... --- 18.5 ~_ ..__ .
4~ •• ..... _ . = ~ ~ ~ lOtiO /" -........ _><. .>--./ 1t1 1----------------------1
1040 .---.........--- ...........-. .- r .-./' ~
2 lC II
---- n : 1020 r---r===:::=§.~=:===:==:=:=~=~~:::::=:~
1 5 . 5 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -4
1000 I-STATION A _. STAnON B - STAnON C
o~ _L_ 1 __ l I I I I I f I , 15f---,-....,.---,---,--,----,--.,--,--..----,.--4
YJUN JI.A. JI.A.
00
0'
PROPA PERCc>ENT"".. _ 87 ,STOICHIOMETRIC MIXTURE HEATING VALUE, BTU/CU.FT.
3r-- ,tl7 -I-STATION A ._. STATION B -STAnON C
-STATION A '-'STATION B -STATION C
88.5 1 _ _•..- .._ --~ ~........... """':::"T
2 I .....•...... • I
::: _ _..... ./." .......•..... -: . -><. ----:;;::...
"--=::::...=-.- -. =:..,............ I
.................................... _ "'" 8t1
- ~,-~--_._. ~ t==-->,
.tll . ·9
.58 .... -----~ ~ .,../" • ~~I I
..... -" _...._./ 7 ....-----.../·-
85 I I ~w.n,~" n --w'nnw" u --w,n.~" W I
.57 -- JUL I i i I I i I I I I
JI.A. AUG JON
2.5 C 4 +, PERCENT 5.5 ~OWER FLAMM~BILITY LNrT, PERCENT

1380 ..•••_............. -.-.--~
..., -.~
... -STATION A ···STATION B -STATION C
1370 - ~"'" .,11'-" ..- -.
t: t.. _> I-STATION A .~:.:T~.::.~ ~~.STATION ...1 : • -" , ~ __:7.2:::::;\ /
1350 _...... _~ ~ 5~ ._"-
-- -.. - •...... _._ _ ::=- _~
- _.
13301-----------------.::------'
4.5 I I
1310 t----;:=.:::;:;::;:::==::;;::;;:::::;==::;;::;:;::::::;:=
1290 I-STATION A -··STAnON B -STAnON C
4 1 j I I I I I I I i
~g: :~:=: ''';?:C I JUL.. AUG JON
I
JUL..• AUG
I
TABLE 3-XXVII
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR OKLAHOMA

10% 90%
METHANE 93.3 86.5 96.6 90.4 95.5
ETHANE 3.0 1.3 6.1 1.8 4.2
PROPANE .7 .1 2.4 .3 1.3
BUTANES .2 .0 .7 .1 .5
PENTANES .1 .0 .3 .0 .2
HEXANE + .0 .0 .2 .0 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 2.6 2.0 3.9 2.2 3.1
INCLUDED ABOVE
NITROGEN 1.7 .6 3.4 .9 2.5
C3 + 1.0 .1 3.5 .4 2.0
C4 + .3 .0 1.1 .1 .8
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1308.0 1297.8 1328.6 1300.6 1316.3

METHANE NUMBER 89.3 80.9 94.6 85.7 92.4
87
50 50 p:!1I.iCN I ur ~AM"'L.C~
40 40 1-1 --------------------1
30 3011-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
20 20 1 l71Pi I
10 101 ~ I
0 o t, I I I Iii I ~~~~~Q~ Of;J~ I I I i I I 9 I I I I I iii I
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 o
METHANE. PERCENT
60 PERCENT
50 40 I I
40
~I ~ I
30
20 I P.H1l/l I
20
10 10 l P.l11tltffi'---------1
0 o '.J_-' .J_-' .LJ .1--' !f~)I~Hf.1 tp I ] I J I I I I I I iii Iii I
1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10
00 ETHANE. PERCENT
00
80 PER
60 40 I V1 I
40
20
0
0 .2 :4 .6 .8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
:1
o I Iii Iii i I
:l
kJ'1r(, t:,J tyJr(l r{t kj'J({1 iii iii
.2
I
I
3
PROPANE. PERCENT
f 'I ... ". n,y•..- 30 ~ENT OF SAMPLES ,
100 .
80
60
~I ~ I
40
10 I 10l-VA-VM./.I I
20 ~ ~
o ~ ~ 177IV'/lr7/! oIii iii k'(J i I r(l [{J Ie? k(d Vjd Y{1 t'{J k(J I I
o .2 A ~ ~ 1 U 1.4 U U 2 U U 12.8 12.8 13 13.2 13.4 13.8 13.8 14 14.2
Figure 3-33 - Oklahoma Frequency Distribution Histograms

-,.Ji
_.
~-~",'ili ~;,'c~ ~;:;..,~,iA li~~j'A~ '" ,"?,l -.;,;,.:-.,-."_,,:-Z,
~o METHANE. PERCENT 8 INERTS. PERCENT

I T MAXIt.IUM 'MINIMUM • AVERAGE I , MAXIt.IUM ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE , MAXIMUM 'MINIMUM • AVERAGE
7 U:
II
85 5
4
T
80 3
f
2
1
85 o I 44 ANALYSES FROM II LOCATIONS OVER 12 MONTHS
ETHANE, PERCENT 1~ HEATING VALUE. BTU/SCF fT.5 AIR/FUEL RATIO. MASS

8 I I T MAXIt.IUM 'MINIMUM • AVERAGE I T MAXIMUM ' MINIMUM
I , MAXIMUM 'MINIMUM • AVERAGE • AVERAGE
1080 fT
II I T I
1060 16.5
41 I I t
~40 111
2 I 1 1 15.5
~20
oI I 15
~OO
44 ANALYSES FROM II LobATlONS OVER 12 MONTHS
Xl
o ... I ...... _ ................ ~ N ... _ .. ~,. _
_ . _ . _ _ .. o.
~
3
... _. ... !lDt=~II=Ir.: nA.&.VITV 811
u_ . . .". _.._.'.. .
I T MAXIMUM ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE .117 I , MAXIMUM ' MlNIMUoA • AVERAGE
I , MAXIMUM ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE
.115 85.5
2
.113 85
T
.111 i
84.5
.5a
o 84
.57
44 ANALYSES FROM II LO ATIONS OVER 12 MONTHS 44 ANALYSES FROM II LO ATIONS OVER 12 MONTHS
2.5 C 4 +. PERCENT WnAAF' MIUAF'A 5.5 LOWER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT. PERCENT

1380 I , MAXIMUM ' MINIMUM
I ' MAXIMUM ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE I ' MAXIMUM ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE • AVERAGE
2 1370
5
1.5 1350
I
1330 4,5
.5 13~
I
I
o 12110 4
44 ANALYSES FROM II LO ATIONS OVER 12 MONTHS
Figure 3-34 - Oklahoma Component and Calculated Value Time Series

TABLE 3-XXVIII
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR LOUISIANA

10% 90%
----------------------------
METHANE 93.7 86.5 96.9 89.7 96.9
ETHANE 2.3 1.5 5.1 1.6 3.3
PROPANE .6 .2 1.5 .2 1.1
BUTANES .3 .1 .8 .1 .6
PENTANES .1 .0 .3 .0 .2
HEXANE + .1 .0 .2 .0 .2
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 2.9 1.0 6.1 1.1 5.7
----------- ..
INCLUDED ABOVE
----------------------------
NITROGEN 1.7 .4 4.3 .4 4.0
C3 + 1.1 .4 2.8 .4 2.1
C4 + .5 .2 1.3 .2 1.0
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
----------------------------
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1324.9 1266.8 1349.7 1278.1 1347.2
METHANE NUMBER 91.3 86.0 93.6 88.5 93.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
90
~--"j I~?:-,,-j k.",-.Jl-" L~:' ~"!'_'"" -4 t·.,~,", -.~J i.. ..
...... " ..... ~ ..

50
40 40 I I
30
20 :: f ~ I
10 10 I ~ vt+1~ ~ I
o o t, i
, , , , ,~OOE;l~~~, ,0, ~ i , , , Iii , i , I , , I I
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 98 97 98 99 ,0
METHANE. PERCENT
r~n ~., I .-- _nn.--- ....
60
50 40 I I
40
8: 30 I I
30
:/ ,....,. ~I ~ I
20
10 n 171
10 ~E:1~ I lnnVH1 I
f"/I :/~ 8:r7lr7l [7]
o o I i I J (' I .,.' '1' I I I"" I I iii t:j' [. J I (' I f j iii iii I I Iii I
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9
\D ETHANE. PERCENT
>-'
80
60 30
40 20
20 10
0 0
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 t2 1.4 t6 t8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 .2
PROPANE, PERCENT
Of a UDI CD
100 P RCENT Of SAMPL 50
80 40 'i
60 30 ~
40 20
~
~ l7.l
V ~ ~
20 10
0 0 F'7I ~ ~~ ~
0 .2 .4 .8 .8 1 U tot t6 t8 2 2.2 2.4 12.8 12.8 13 13.2 13.4 13.8 13.8 14 14.2
Figure 3-35 - Louisiana Frequency Distribution Histograms

100 METHANE. PERCENT 8 INERTS. PERCENT t"Amt"&. A&nn
I T MAXIMUM 'MINIMUM • AVERAGE I T MAXIMUM 'MINIMUM • AVERAGE 14.1 T MAXIMUM • MINIMUliI • AVERAGE
7
14
8 13.11
95 5 13.8
4 13.7
13.8
90 3 13.5
2 13.4
1 13.3
13.2
85 o 13.1
22 ANALYSES FROM 2 LOCATIONS OVER 12 MONTHS
8 ETHANE. PERCENT 10BO HEATING VALUE. BTU/SCF 17.5 AIR/FUEL RA no. MASS
I T MAXIMUM • MINIMUM • AVERAGE I T MAXIMUM 'MINIMUM • AVERAGE I ,MAXIMUM • MINlt.4U.4 • AVERAGE
8 1080 17
1040 18.5
4
1020 18
2
1000 15.5
o 9BO 15
\D
N
~
_. _._••• _,••_ ...._ ."................. '_F""'l' .. "...... ~~ _
3
... _.. ..
•87
<lao:t"IJ"t" ..a &VITY 117
_ ..
I T MAXIMUM • MINIMUM • AVERAGE I T MAXMJM • MINIMUM • AVERAGE
118.5
.85
2 1111
.83
IIS.5
.81 liS
.59 114.5
j T MAXJMIR,l .~ • AVERAGE
o .57 1I4
- ----- ---
25 C 4 +. PERCENT )o'lOBBfJllJMBo:a 5.5 LOWER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT. PERCENT

I ,MAXIMUM 'MINIMUM • AVERAGE 1380 , MAXI.IUM ' MINIMUM • AVERAGE j ,M"XIMlA4 • MINlt.tUM • AVERAGE
2
1340 T
5
\5 I
1320
1300 4.S
.5 12BO
o 1280 4
Figure 3-36 - Louisiana Component and Calculated Value Time Series

TABLE 3.,.XXIX
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR COLORADO .,. STATION A

10X 90X
MEAN MINIMUM MAX IMU/'I -ILE -ILE
METHANE 82.5 74.5 85.7 78.9 85.0
ETHANE 6.9 4.8 13.3 5.4 9.1
PROPANE 1.0 .6 2.5 .7 1.2
BUTANES .2 .1 .9 .1 .3
PENTANES .1 .0 .4 .0 .1
HEXANE + .0 .0 .1 .0 .1
OXYGEN 1.5 1.1 2.1 1.2 1.7
INERTS (C02 + N2) 7.9 6.2 10.0 6.9 8.9
---_ ....... -_ .. _-
INCLUDED ABOVE
CARBON DIOXIDE 1.7 1.0 2.9 1.2 2.3
NITROGEN 6.2 5.0 8.5 5.6 6.8
C3 + 1.3 .8 2.7 1.0 1.6
C4 + .3 .1 1.3 .2 .4
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1229.2 1201.4 1265.0 1211.3 1244.7
METHANE NUMBER 81.6 73.1 84.4 79.0 83.5
..~
I CRITICAL COMPRESSION RATIO 13.1 12.5 13.3 12.9 13.3
93
50 rERCENT OF SAMPLES 50 rERCENT OF SAMPLE
40 I I 40 1-1 --------------------j
30 I I 30 f-----n I
~I ~ I 20~ I
10 I V:1-Vl-r':1-V1 I 10 r---nB8f:ffi
o! I I I I I I "j'" T "j'" I 1 I "j'"'PV;lrrJV;JrrJV;lrrdV;'Cf!T' o [I ~~~~~~77 1 I I I i I I I I i I I I i I I j I I I I , i I
~ n n n n ~
METHANE. PERCENT
~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ M
==---==::I
. _.. __ .". -" r"IW," ...... ..., 50 rERCENT OF
60
50
/'
/' 40 I I
40
/' 30 I I
30
f: 20 1 P71 17 A I
20
V 10 I 1//1--{/"A-Y~ I
10
o W~~..-:1~~ oI [ 7 ' r{J V;d r{1 V;d r(l 14 d V(l 14 d 'T' 'T' iii
5 6 70
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
\0 ETHANE. PERCENT
~
80 rERCENT OF 40 FERCENT OF SAMPLES
60 1 1 30 I 1
40 I ~ 1
20 I p-;r-f/A-l0l 1
20 I I%t-J7:;1 1
101 VA-V~ 1
1 J
0 I I I I ''lJV(,r( 'lt i kl d til I I i I I
o 'ii T T [(I V;d r(1 '4 d r(l !4 d V(l [{J 'T'""T'" I I
o ~ A ~ ~ 1 U U ~ ~ 2 U U ~~ 3 5
PROPANE. PERCENT
100 PER!;!;lH_J~.E...S-AM~L_E~ 60 ~RCEI'IT....QLS"'MI'.LES ___
80 fZ 50
/':
~ 40
60
~ 30
/': V
40
r:;; ~ r:
20
20 ~ 10
V:: ~
rn ~ 1'71 81 ~ ~ ~
o o
o 2 A ~ ~ 1 U U ~ ~ 2 U U 12.8 12.8 13 13.2 13.4 13.8 13.8 14 14.2
Figure 3-37 - Colorado Station A Frequency Distribution Histograms

1\I1:;i~ it;vi!;i ;"t:~:,~"'Z;'i 0.....:. ."':#,J i.,:".::... _.,,,", ~; ,~;'
~'i"" ~::;'~ ~~~ ~'- .. J
PERCENT METHANE NUMBE~ IB

13.4
13.3 14
~'
13.2
13.1 .~' 12
j
10
- ....\..0. ~ "l I
"-'. 13
12.9 71
80 I'd 12.B
I 'I' ~(""
\, "- '- I' "1!Hl 12.7 7B
I 1'1,,'-7 'i ,.. r '1111(\d~,r'VVV'\,,- I', ~\,\' If '~ 12.8 74
t 12.5 72
12.4
75 r I ---70
12.3
JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
BJ~l JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
~
12 ETHANE. PERCENT 1060 HEATING VALUE. BTU/SCF 15.5 ,AIR FUEL RATIO, MASS
~ \ 1040
10
,i
1020 14~: ~ I I
\ ',j/VI" \ N• > J\
-' Qf
'-oq I,A ,J, dt X, K. I
tn ,i'' I N
rl , r-. t\ 14 ~\J y \1 \,1" f'J II I,pr 1/ I (, V¥PI
1000
I \ I'N\) \/V~ ~ ~
~fV
B I\JW \'" 11" ,J, ('V"·/...~) \JY-v.. y V \ i""'N\"P;
,'----' v 9BO ~5! I
t,,-v ".. 'V' '.--'\ "
~
4"Ul AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN 9BOJUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN 13JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
V1
'" 3 ,PROPANE, PERCENT .89 rPECIFIC GRAVITY I
~ r ~ I
67 ~
: F~~r: v,,~,:,":n ,. ,I
\ A.. /' c. c. .'B 5 "i
1
,'~, ~ \/ r--./' <:J\;ti 0 ' "'J ,-
~ ==cI\c ::::::=r'\)V""'\
".
i r~I LA% ~
.63
~ p..;''1,AF~il::~V ' k r."'~
94 r I
°JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN .6~Ul AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
2 5 C 4 +. PERCENT 1290 PUPRS; .... uMpcn 5.5 ~OWER FLAMMABiliTY liMIT, PERCENT
,
1270 1----------------------1
5r~ ~
1250 f--------------j-lr-~'7"V--4r_;""'-,,-----t
1230 hrl<:.,mrt--.-:-H.l.i'Cf\-fi--'--\,.L-....\lJ.---++---'o+----J\+.:'+~
': t L .~1I I 4.5 I I
5 I • 1210 f---...L..:£.:..i.-'.lJl~- +-_...:...-_~4.!..1..:j
. i:./'.,I..--....-J\~ ...v/'JCO::::::~ I'~

4 ! I
°JU'::-l--C":-:U"::G:-:S:':E:::P:-':O:-;C:::T:-:-N:':O"'V=-=DC::EC::C--=J':"AN"'-C::F=EB:-:'M:-:A:":R:-:":":P:::RC7.
M""A7.
Y--=JU'"'N,.,--J 1190JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
Figure 3-38 - Colorado Station A Component and Calculated Value Time Series
TABLE 3-XXX
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR COLORADO - STATION B

10% 90%
----------.------------------------------------------------_.---------------------------------------
----------------------------
METHANE 83.5 81.3 85.1 82.6 84.5
ETHANE 5.7 5.2 8.0 5.4 6.0
PROPANE 1.1 .8 2.3 .9 1.4
BUTANES .2 .1 .4 .2 .3
PENTANES .0 .0 .1 .0 .1
HEXANE + .0 .0 .1 .0 .0
OXYGEN 1.6 1.0 2.2 1.3 1.9
INERTS (C02 + N2) 7.8 6.2 8.9 7.1 8.5
--_ ... --------
INCLUOED ABOVE
----------------------------
CARBON DIOXIDE 1.4 .5 1.7 1.2 1.5
NITROGEN 6.4 5.1 7.5 5.7 7.2
C3 + 1.4 1.0 2.4 1.1 1.7
C4 + .3 .1 .5 .2 .4
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
----------------------------
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1218.9 1202.3 1255.7 1208.7 1229.1
METHANE NUMBER 82.5 76.2 84.0 81.4 83.4
------------------------------------------------.---------------------------------------------------
TABLE 3~XXXI
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR COLORADO ~ STATION C

10% 90%
METHANE 83.4 81.6 85.1 82.4 84.3
ETHANE 5.7 5.0 6.4 5.3 6.0
PROPANE 1.0 .8 1.5 .9 1.4
BUTANES .2 .1 .4 .2 .3
PENTANES .1 .0 .2 .0 .1
HEXANE + .0 .0 .1 .0 .0
OXYGEN 1.5 .9 1.9 1.3 1.7
INERTS (C02 + N2) 8.1 6.6 9.2 8.9 10.3
INCLUDED ABOVE
CARBON DIOXIDE 1.3 1.0 1.6 1.2 1.4
NITROGEN 6.7 5.3 8.0 6.1 7.5
C3 + 1.4 1.0 1.9 1.2 1.7
C4 + .3 .2 .6 .2 .4
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1224.0 1206.6 1263.7 1213.2 1234.0
METHANE NUMBER 82.6 80.5 84.2 81.5 83.5
97
TABLE 3-XXXII
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR CALIFORNIA CITY #1 - GATE STATION A

10% 90%
----------------------------
METHANE 92.3 91.3 93.8 91.7 92.9
ETHANE 4.3 3.4 5.2 3.9 4.8
PROPANE .8 .5 1.1 .7 1.0
BUTANES .2 .1 .4 .1 .2
PENTANES .1 .0 .2 .0 .1
HEXANE + .0 .0 .1 .0 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 2.3 1.8 3.1 2.0 2.7
--------_ .. _-
INCLUDED ABOVE
----------------------------
CARBON DIOXIDE 1.2 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.4
NITROGEN 1.1 .5 1.8 .8 1.5
C3 + 1.1 .6 1.8 .9 1.3
C4 + .3 .1 .7 .2 .3
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
----------------------------
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1340.5 1324.7 1351. 7 1331.1 1348.3
METHANE NUMBER 86.3 84.3 88.4 85.1 87.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
98
,~, ... ~., ::; ~:::;!j 1ft.'{;:},01 ~!Wlii b,,~~ 'ko,., '.J t..~>,";"'~ .'1 .-
~.,.."
'"
roo ... , . vr "'or-.-- ....

50
40 40 I I
30 30 I I
20 201 ~ I
10 W
.rA8 IV 1~ iii I i I I I I I i I I I I I I I i I I Iii I
o 1: t. 9.~
85 88 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 98 97 98 99
METHANE, PERCENT
80 r ...n ..." . r '" .r ...... 50~

50 40 I I
40
~I _~ I
30
r7 ~ 20 I I1t1 I
20
[;j t::r;;:j ~
10
o ~V;1 r;81 F:F;1 1: t, I I I , I , I , I I , 'T.'i' I I I I I I I I I I I I
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9
\0 ETHANE, PERCENT
\0
80
40 I r::l I
80
30 I ,...."Vi I
40
20 I V1V1 I
20
I I , I , I i I I I I I I
0
0 .2 .4 .8 .8 1 t2 1.4 t8 t8 2 2.2 2.4 2.8 2.8 3
:t, ,, ,FfIm .2
I
PROPANE, PERCENT
._I. _.". . ,-,."...... 30 rERCENT OF SAMPLES I
100
80
~ 20 I t/1-rA-V:l I
80
40
~
10 I ~.A-r/I I
20 ~
o ~ ~ 1//11771 oI I I I I I I I I r(l £{J V;:J Y;,d V(' T I I i I
o .2 A ~ ~ 1 U U U U 2 U U 12.8 12.8 13 13.2 13.4 13.8 13.8 14 14.2

C4~~R~m CRITICAL COMPRESSION RATIO
Figure 3-39 - California City #1, Gate Station A Frequency Distribution Histograms
~O METHANE. PERCENT 8 INERTS. PERCENT RATIO NIIURf'1l
14.0 CRITICAL
13.1 12
13.8
13.7 10
115 • 13.11 ,\I ,A
II
~ 4 '-
-'""r 13.5 "
13.4 III
" ~,
110
~ -A. ~ ...... ~ V
2 13.3 14
13.2
13.1
12
0JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY .ul 13.0 10
B5JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
8 ETHANE. PERCENT
lOBO "'~AIItfG VALUE. BTU/SCF 17.5 AIR/FUel RATIO. MASS
10110 17
II .A .~ f\ -'IJ' f"\.
• 'I\. "'" 1040
4 w 18.5
v v "-I "' ...... oJv1 .,. ~
~20 111
2
1000 15.5
OJUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN 15JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY .ul
IBOJUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
......
o . , ___ ro...
o ._.. __... ~P .. ClFIC ARAvrrv
.117 ~ I uu... nIUMc;. '"''''' MIA I un~ ....." 1"''iiI ... " ..'" "'VIVV"" I,
3 II
2.5 .115
2 17
.113
1.5
I J.
~ ~
r--
.111
1 "Y'vvv-r ",-' ~ -vi"-
~ 'V-V\,-J ~V 18
.5
J\;vI .51
OJUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN .57JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY .ul 15oU. AUG-SEP- OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY .ul
2.5 F 4 +, PERCENT 1380 wnllBr:: N1IURf'A 5.5 ~OWER FLAMMABn.ITY LIMIT. PERCENT
1370
I 1350 5 '"'\/'"-
V
~~ ~ \"-yv'~ )\ .,-..f'<
1330
4.5 I I
.5 I I 1310
OJUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN -- 1210JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN ".u. AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY .ul
Figure 3-40 - California City #1, Gate Station A Component and Calculated Value Time Series
TABLE XXXIII
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR CALIFORNIA CITY #1 - GATE STATION B

10% 90%
----------------------------
METHANE 93.6 91.6 94.9 92.8 94.2
ETHANE 3.0 2.3 4.6 2.7 3.4
PROPANE .6 .4 .8 .5 .7
BUTANES .2 .1 .3 .2 .2
PENTANES .1 .0 .9 .1 .1
HEXANE + .1 .0 .1 .0 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 2.5 2.0 3.1 2.2 2.8
------- .... - .. -
INCLUDED ABOVE
--------- .. ------------------
NITROGEN 1.7 1.3 2.6 1.4 2.2
C3 + .9 .7 1.8 .8 1.0
C4 + .3 .2 1.1 .3 .4
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
----------------------------
.~
j HEATING VALUE, STOICHIOMETRIC 96.5 96.4 96.8 96.4 96.5
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1334.6 1323.4 1354.4 1329.7 1338.0
METHANE NUMBER 89.5 86.6 91.2 88.6 90.2
---------------_ .. _-------------------------------------- .. ---------------------------- .. --------------
101
TABLE 3-XXXIV
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR CALIFORNIA CITY #1 - GATE STATION C

10% 90%
~---------------------------
METHANE 92.3 91.3 93.3 91.6 93.0
ETHANE 3.6 3.3 4.1 3.4 3.9
PROPANE .9 .7 1.0 .7 1.0
BUTANES .3 .2 .4 .3 .4
PENTANES .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
HEXANE + .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
OXYGEN .0 N/A N/A .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 2.8 2.2 3.3 2.5 3.1
........ -_ .......... _--
INCLUDED ABOVE
----------------------------
NITROGEN 1.9 1.1 2.6 1.4 2.4
C3 + 1.3 1.0 1.6 1.2 1.5
C4 + .5 .3 .6 .4 .6
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
----------------------------
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1335.4 1329.2 1344.6 1330.7 1340.7
METHANE NUMBER 87.7 86.8 88.6 87.1 88.4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ... -------------------------
102
TABLE 3-XXXV
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR CALIFORNIA CITY #1 - GATE STATION D
10" 90"
METHANE 93.5 92.6 94.4 92.8 94.1
ETHANE 3.1 2.6 3.6 2.7 3.4
PROPANE .6 .5 .7 .5 .7
BUTANES .2 .2 .2 .2 .2
PENTANES .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
HEXANE + .1 .0 .1 .1 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 2.6 2.3 3.1 2.3 2.8
INCLUDED ABOVE
NITROGEN 1.8 1.4 2.5 1.5 2.2

C3 + .9 .8 1.1 .8 1.0
C4 + .3 .3 .4 .3 .4
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
.~
, SPECIFIC GRAVITY .596 .591 .601 .593 .599
j HEATING VALUE, STOICHIOMETRIC 96.5 96.4 96.5 96.4 96.5
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1333.2 1325.2 1340.4 1328.0 1336.5
METHANE NUMBER 89.3 88.2 90.5 88.5 90.1
103
TABLE 3-XXXVI
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR CALIFORNIA CITY #1 - GATE STATION E

------------------------------------------------------------
10% 90%
---------------.----------------------------.--.----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
METHANE 91.2 90.3 92.6 90.5 92.0
ETHANE 4.1 3.8 4.5 3.9 4.4
PROPANE 1.1 .8 1.2 1.0 1.2
BUTANES .4 .2 .5 .3 .4
PENTANES .1 .1 .2 .1 .2
HEXANE + .1 .1 .2 .1 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 3.0 2.4 3.6 2.6 3.5
____ Me_Me_e.

INCLUOED ABOVE
----------------------------
NITROGEN 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.4 2.7
C3 + 1.7 1.1 2.0 1.5 1.9
C4 + .6 .3 .8 .5 .7
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
----------------------------
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1337.3 1326.1 1343.8 1332.6 1341.9
METHANE NUMBER 86.5 85.7 87.4 86.0 87.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
104
TABLE 3~XXXVII
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR CALIFORNIA CITY #2 ~. GATE STATION A
149 ANALYSES OVER 5 1/2 MONTHS

10% 90%
METHANE 93.1 91.4 94.2 92.4 93.8
ETHANE 3.2 2.5 3.7 2.8 3.4
PROPANE .8 .5 1.0 .7 .9
BUTANES .3 .1 .4 .2 .3
PENTANES .1 .1 .2 .1 .1
HEXANE + .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 2.5 1.9 3.4 2.0 3.0
INCLUDED ABOVE
NITROGEN 1.8 1.2 2.8 1.3 2.4

C3 + 1.3 .7 1.7 1.1 1.5
C4 + .5 .2 .7 .4 .6
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1340.8 1323.7 1350.1 1331.5 1348.3
METHANE NUMBER 88.9 87.6 90.2 88.3 89.6
105
f ""'1_"'", , "'."........
50
40 40 I I
30 30 I I
17
20 20 I rn-l" I
10
r1 10 I l/Illi:H1t1L ------1
o R8 r:J o t, i , i , [ iii , ,~~~~~~T [ [ Iii I I , , i I [ I I I I
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
METHANE. PERCENT
60 f"'''''' I' . 1"'\'." .......... 50 fERCENT
50 40 I I
7 [;
40
30 ~ r:
20
/': ~ :: t Jf; I
10
~ [;
/': VITJ
o 1:~, I [ , I I I I [ I I I I ?T I I I I iii I I I i I
23456 7 8 9
I-' ETHANE. PERCENT
o 80 PERCENT OF SAMPLES 50 fERCENT OF
0\
40 I 1-;1 I
60
30 I ~ I
40
~ 20 I t/}t:1 I
% ~
'i
20
10 I 1-;H1-VI I
~
/": ~
'/' J
o oI 1 I iii I Iii I tl k(1 f(' V)d I I i I I i I I I
0
fJ 1 2 3
PROPANE. PERCENT
100 PERCENT OF SAMPLES 60 ~etlLQL$~
50 ~
80
/":
40
60
30 ~ [;
40
t%rr::
20
~V :-; ~
20 ~~ /": :-;
10
rTl ~ /":
0 ~ ~ 0
0 .2 .4 .8 .8 1 1.2 1.4 t6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 12.6 12.8 13 13.2 13.4 13.6 13.8 14 14.2
Figure 3-41 - California City #2, Gate Station A Frequency Distribution Histograms
I .
Lt:·,.,. ~;i,,~ ~'c.i.:d L";,~ ~.,"~ ~.r ~
~'~"'''''
~RITI~AI :lnN RATln NtIUR"~

14
13.11 112
13.8
13.7 110
vv\. A.f\..../\ ~~.
13.8 II
13.5
13.4 88
I"''''C~ =~~g 13.3 14
13.2
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL 13.1 82
13 80
~~ FEB MAR APR MoN"Tt:lAY JUN JUL
1060 HEATING V AL~BTU/SCF
1°064'[°:, = ' "I "V ,

vv A. 01{
r""CJ 0', 'V-=- 9 g~,.ru".~
1020
'~
1000
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL 980
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL
~~ FEB
~~l-~ MAR APR MAY .PJN JUL
.....
o
.......
S1'ECIFIC GRAVITY
.59
.57
~h44444444
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL
FEB MAR APR MAY .PJN .M.
~~
C
2.: I 4 +, PERCENT I
1.5 f---------------------
1
~
=:""-'rtC C> 0 A 0
.5
o > x:::::::;e O<::::;::::J ...... =c=: V VZ:C:::::=OC=
~f?ZS~.jSS~1
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL FEB MAR APR MAY .PJN .M.
'~E0.'" '''''''U===:d
Figure 3-42 - California City #2, Gate Station A Component and Calculated Value Time Series
TABLE 3~XXXVIII
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR CALIFORNIA CITY #2 - GATE STATION B
155 ANALYSES OVER 5 1/2 MONTHS

10% 90%
----------------------------
METHANE 93.7 93.0 94.6 93.3 94.3
ETHANE 2.9 2.5 3.4 2.7 3.2
PROPANE .6 .5 .7 .5 .6
BUTANES .2 .1 .2 .1 .2
PENTANES .1 .0 .1 .1 .1
HEXANE + .1 .0 .1 .0 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 2.5 2.1 3.2 2.2 2.8
---------- .. -
INCLUDED ABOVE
----------------------------
NITROGEN 1.9 1.4 2.7 1.6 2.3
C3 + .9 .7 1.1 .7 1.0
C4 + .3 .2 .4 .3 .3
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
----------------------------
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1335.0 1322.8 1344.8 1329.1 1340.0
METHANE NUMBER 89.8 88.6 90.9 89.2 90.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .. ------
108
TABLE 3-XXXIX
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR CALIFORNIA CITY #3

10% 90%
METHANE 93.9 93.2 94.7 93.2 94.6
ETHANE 3.5 2.6 3.8 2.8 3.8
PROPANE .6 .6 .7 .6 .6
BUTANES .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
PENTANES .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
HEXANE + .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 1.8 1.0 2.3 1.3 2.2
INCLUDED ABOVE
NITROGEN .8 .4 1.0 .4 .9
C3 + .8 .7 .9 .8 .8
C4 + .2 .2 .2 .2 .2
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1339.6 1332.1 1357.9 1332.4 1350.5
METHANE NUMBER 88.3 87.6 90.0 87.6 89.5
109
~. .... .... 80 PERCE"" .. S,,"'PLI'~
50
40 50
40
30
30
20
20
10 10 rJ Ir::!
o
t:l o 11 F:lB
,0
85 88 87 88 89 90 81 92 93 94 95 98 97 98 99
METHANE, PERCENT
~AMPLE~
80 PERCENT OF
70
[7
80
50 V
40 V
cr- :/
30
20 '/ '/
'/ '/
10
o '/ '/
2 345 8 7 8 9
...... ETHANE. PERCENT
......
o 80 ren",e", y.. Q"Mt'L~>t I
80 I t:/:t I 30 I I-:A{--------ll
~I ~ I 20 I I~t---------.jl
201 ~ I 10 I \~AY:I I
o Iii i j I I Iii I I kf I I P rid k'f I I fl rid Iii iii
oI i I I r(l r.c;J I I I I i I I I I I I I
o .2 .4 .8 .8 1 t2 1.4 t6 t8 2 2.2 2.4 2.8 2.8 3
PROPANE, PERCENT
OF .... UD'"'..
100 PERCENT n .. QAUP' EQ 70
~ p:
:% 60
80 1 - - %
50
60
~ ::;:;
40
30
:/:
40 ~ % or-;
~ 20
20 :/: ~
10
o ~ o f/ t/. v::1
o 2 A A J 1 U 1.4 t8 t8 2 U U 12.8 12.8 13 132 13.4 13.8 13.8 14 142
Figure 3-43 - California City #3 Frequency Distribution Histograms

l"')A ~> L ... 4; 'J~'''''
~ ~ETHANE, PERCENT 8 1NERTS, PERCENT A .. Tln NlJUIIf'~

I 14 "AIT'"''
13,11
13,8
13.7 ./ ........ /"-.
. / "-
115E~1 13.1 . '>
:t I 13.5
13.4
110 I I .-=---- d 13.3
21 == ..... . <:: :> ....... I 13.2
13.1
85 Iii I I i i I I I I i I 01 i i I I i I i I I I i I 13
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAo Y "...
8 ETHANE, PERCENT 1080 HEATING VALUE, BTU/SCI' 17.5 AIR/FUEL RATIO MASS
I 1010 17
1040 1S.5 -- ~
4 .~ ....
18
2
1020 - -- 15.5
----
1000
0 1180 . ____ 1._ _ L ___ .1. ___ .1._ ______ .1. ___ _L.
15
I-'
I-'
I-' 118 ~TOlCHlOMETRIC MIXTURE HEATING VALUE, BTU/CUn,
3 PROPANE. PERCENT .87 'ito"~LIr'IL " " A VI;""
.55
2 117 I I
,83
.81 1111 ~/ .......- ,,/

."--
- "'I
.. .511 ...-....
oI i i i i i I i I I I i I .57 &S Ii' [ j I j 1_ (_ 1_ I _L. I
1380 wuttn~ NUMI'II"':H 5.5 ~OWER fl.AMMABILITY LIMIT, PERceNT

~ r., H R""T I 1370
~,
1350 -........ ~ "" 51 _' I
1330
4.5 I I
1310
; : Ii: : i I I I I ; l 12110 4 I i I Iii i I I i i i I I

JUL AUG
~~ JUL AUG
Figure 3-44 - California City #3 Component and Calculated Value Time Series
TABLE 3-XL
10" 90"
----------------------------
METHANE 95.7 92.7 96.9 94.1 96.9
ETHANE 2.0 1.4 3.2 1.4 2.7
PROPANE .3 .1 .9 .1 .6
BUTANES .1 .0 .4 .0 .2
PENTANES .0 .0 .1 .0 .0
HEXANE + .0 .0 .2 .0 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 2.0 1.4 2.9 1.5 2.8
---------_ .....
INCLUDED ABOVE
----------------------------
NITROGEN 1.5 .8 2.7 1.1 1.9
C3 + .5 .1 1.6 .1 .8
C4 + .2 .0 .7 .0 .3
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
----------------------------
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1334.2 1313.5 1344.4 1321.0 1343.1
METHANE NUMBER 92.4 89.1 94.2 90.2 94.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
112
l~,::i! 1l'J.L:..,j ~' bL~ l·.:., _,,_!
50 PERCENT OF SAMPLES
40 40 I I
30 WI n I
20 20 I t1-----Gl1-------------__1
10
f/1m 10 I ~r__----------__1
0
pj nFjB~W oII I I til ty~~~tt~'?~ i I I I , , I I I I I I , I I I I I
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
METHANE. PERCENT
r .. 0...,.1,;,1 .. I ur nfYIr ... l;.~
60
50
40 1-1 ----------------------1
40
7- 30 I n---t-t-I- - - - - - - - j
30
/ P 20 I !'}--{..-I I
20
10
;:;;~ r:l7:l 10 I _ t4+V1 I
0
/81 V~ B1 F/I
o Iii iii Iii iii r;J[;:JlfJ~f;1r;JQ i i i Iii iii i r iii
2 345 8 7 8 9
.....
..... ETHANE. PERCENT
W J .... _ ...... , __ ....,"1"'•.- ....
80 40 rERCEN
60 30 I r/lr------j
40 20 I vtI'A I
~
:/: ~~
20 10 I _ PA-=-r./l-V"-H-':l I
0 oI I i I I Iii iii r,dkl,,(,rfdKj"('[(' I i I I I I

;:~ ~fa~V'A
o ~ A ~ ~ 1 U U U U 2 ~UUU 3 .2
PROPANE. PERCENT
100 PER~~L9~MA-.e.I,E_~ 40
.BC.EMLOLSAMaE.6
.... ---"
80 30 I VA----+'"A ---1
60 ~
20 I VA----+'"A ---1
40
~
f--~
~ 10 I Vl-VA-VA-VA--l
20
I I I I I I I I I I i v(1 r (Jr(!I)"I'''lA I I
o ~ ~P"71 0'
o ~ A ~ ~ 1 U U U U 2 ~ U 12.8 12.8 13 13.2 13.4 13.8 13.8 14 14.2
Figure 3-45 - California City #4 Frequency Distribution Histograms

WO METHANE. PERCENT I ~ERTS, PERCE!"
i i _ S T A T I O N A ..··STATION B -STATION C -STATION A ····STATION B -STATION C
• I I 1 1.I
.......::
95 t ~ ......=:::::= I . ·· ··
:.~II·····
~:~ - - 90
.. I I ~ U
90 I I ~ U
2 I ,..~ ~$;C ? ' n--.. /~&:-. I ~~ ~
~.2
~.1 STATION A •.. STATION B STATION C 12
85 I i i i f iii iii i I oI I I I I I I I f I i i ' I ~ 10
Y ..... JUL AOO SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAy ......
8 ETHANE, PERCENT 1010 HEATING VALUE. BTU/SCF

• AIR/FUEL RATIO, MASS
i i _ S T A T I O N A •..·STATION B -STATION C 17
r =I::::ST::A:::TI::ON::::::A:::.=•.=.S=T::A:::TI::O=N=B=-=S=T::A:::T::IO=N=C=~
1010 I-
• I I ;f I
W40 _ ' ,.
.. I I ~! ~ I
1020 .••• --... ._._____~
1000 •••••..•__ --.....-- .••••
2f ==- z = = ~ I
o I f i i i f i i i iii 910 I--,--.--,-----r--,--,-----r--,--,--,--,-,--i 15 I
=:::-._.._..
I I
__ .. _.. 0..
i n -.-,,,,, n
__ A _... _
jOnOj_'-" -.
__A _.• _
1- .......1--· .. T I
l
......
......
..,.. 3 PROPANE PERCENT 91 ~TOICHIOMETRIC MIXTURE HEAnlG VALUE. BTU/CU.FT•
2.5 ~ ~I~~S~T~A;,;,TION~~A~'="=' S~T~A:;:TI~ON~B==-=S=T=A=TIO=N=C==l •87 I -STATION A ····STATION B -STATION C
.85
2~--------------------I .83 f----------------------1 87 I "" I
\5 I----------------------l 88 I :::::: ~ I' " v' •••.....•••.•
1 _____ .11 f---------------------i ......_- - _ .
~ ~.
---I
.n -------- ~
o =............ . =::-:::::= n . 85 I I _,~"_" ~ _.~ .._.. - _.~,_ .. - I
iJLA~ I I i I I I t I i
.JUL AUG
2.5 C .. +, PERCENT 1380 vvun.n~ NUM~~" 5.5 ~OWER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT, PERCENT
~ I-STATION A ·•.. STATION B -STATION C I 1370 f----------------------i
! ~50 I----------------------i
IS I ;;::;;,.. ._ :::= ;,;;;;;...... I
"-" ~"~'" ....--'
1330 ~ •••• -./ ~
4.51 --1
~ ~ ~- I 1310 t-----;::::::;::::::::::::==;:::;;::;:=:;:==::::::;:=1
1280 I-STATION A ····STATION B -STATION C 4 I _ o n • .-,,. n .... ,"'.,'1000,,, .... ~W11I"'."",n "" I
O I I , c;::: T-<··.. ·~· r •
::::::;:7 I I A AOo -1 -[ ~_1 I j - Iii I I
.u. AUG
TABLE 3-XLI

10X 90X
METHANE 94.3 92.4 96.0 93.1 95.2
ETHANE 1.3 .5 2.2 1.0 1.8
PROPANE .4 .1 .7 .2 .6
BUTANES .1 .0 .3 .1 .2
PENTANES .0 .0 .1 .0 .1
HEXANE + .1 .0 .1 .0 .1
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) 3.7 2.6 4.2 3.3 4.1
INCLUDED ABOVE
NITROGEN 3.6 2.3 4.0 3.2 4.0
C3 + .6 .2 1.1 .3 1.0
C4 + .2 .1 .4 .1 .4
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1300.9 1290.4 1325.2 1291.9 1311.6
METHANE NUMBER 93.8 91.4 96.2 92.5 94.8
us
50 PERCJ;liLOF S_AMPLES
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10 B 10 Q A
0
fl B~ iB R o 11 BUrl
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
METHANE, PERCENT
50 rERCENT OF SAMPLE
r~n,,~n I ""r ,""I"\.y,r ... ~~
80
50 ~I ~ I
40
r;: 30 I t::I---VJt-------------J
I I
V
30 20 I t1-V1 I
/: 7:
20
~ ~ 10 I t:h+:1~-n--------l
10
-r?1 ~ /: /:~ oI I I I j I I I r:t [yt~ I ~J I k(1. j I r I I I ii' l t I I I
0
2 345 6 7 8 9
f-'
f-' ETHANE. PERCENT
0'
30 I 11-V1r---------J
1 I
60 I ,....", I
~I 20 I r1VJr---------J
1 I
40 I I:0lL - - - -
'101 I~ I
20 I l/;JL----------- I
oI I I I I Ii' I 1<' r (' V;J t.y' I r. d I I i I I I I
oI , Vi J ~d r(1 '<fA I I I I I I I i i ' r I
o ~ A ~ ~ 1 U U U U 2 UU U U 3
PROPANE, PERCENT
100 PERCENT OF ~B..Cf!'fL.QLS.Mdf'.l.I;S
1-~ - - - SAMPLES
- 60
50
80
40
~
60 r7 ~
30
~
40 ~ ~ :/::
20
20 ~ ~ 10 ~ ~
~ ~/ ~ ~ ~E1
o o
o ~ A ~ ~ 1 U U U U 2 U U 12.8 12.8 13 13.2 13.4 13.8 13.8 14 14.2
Figure 3-47 -California City #5 Frequency Distribution Histograms

,.; I,.;"ri,'i. ii\f:, .'') t.;;..<~·y, 1':, .."",'l. ir,. ",,1 ~~l~""- •• .;.J '.-;.\ ,,~~
ik'·.'-'~
WO ~ETHANE. PERCENT I ~NERTS, PERCENT B1D~OMem;SSJQtLMIlO MEIJ:lANUMol8

I i 18
14.1
14 14
13.9 92
95 I y"c :::> ......--- I 13,8
----- 13.7 10
=::;:::::> ...........--- . 13.8 18
~ 13.5
90 I I ""'-,7 13.4 88
I 13.3 84
13.2 82
85 1 I i I i I i i I i i I I 1
:I
01 i i i i i i i I I I I I I
13.1
13
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JIJN
80
I ETHANE. PERCENT 1010 HEATING VALUE. BTUlSCF 17.5 AIR/FUEL RATIO. MASS
8 1080 17
1040 18.5
4 /~ .---
1020 18 --- -
2 /> ~......
1000 15.5
o _..
---
••• _ _ .1. _ _ 1._ .. .1 •• _.i_ • . __ .1 _ _ _ _ .
-----.i_
.. --'-- 910
..------.-.---/
_____ .1 _ _ 1._ •. i .. _l._ ••• _.1_ .... _ .. ..L_ ......
--.........---._.... 15 .... •.. _ _ J._ .-.1.._ •• J. ... _..L_ . . . _.L_ •• L_ • .1._ •• Lu _.,
......
...... 3 ~, PERCENT SPECIFIC GRAVITT
91 STOICHIOMETRIC MIXTURE HEATING VALUE. BTUlCU.fT
-....J .87
.85
2 I I 97
.83
.81 98
/---------.
----.,..-.._/
.59 _ ........... " ....../ -------.
95 _ .J-_ .. 0 __ -
.57 .J-_ • .1. ..l "l _l,
o I iA. AOG slp obr NOV olc JAN FlB MIR AbR MIy..o.. I
2.5 C 4 +. PERCENT 1390 WOBBE NUURI'R 5.5 ~OWER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT, PERCENT
2 1370
1.5 1350
II I . - i- - I
1330
~5 I I
.5 1310 /'"
o ••• _ _ .1. _ _ .L_ A'..L. •• _..L_

1290 ....--......... ~/...... "~
.... _~_ &~L_ • .L._ .a ... -_.
-- 4 I iA. AOG slp 06T NOV olc JAN FlB MIR AbR MIy..o.. I
--------
TABLE 3~XLII
SUMMARY LEVEL STATISTICS FOR WASHINGTON

10% 90%
METHANE 95.9 93.8 98.1 95.2 96.6
ETHANE 2.9 .7 4.3 2.5 3.3
PROPANE .4 .0 .9 .2 .6
BUTANES .1 .0 .3 .0 .2
PENTANES .0 .0 .1 .0 .0
HEXANE + .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
OXYGEN .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
INERTS (C02 + N2) .7 .1 1.2 .6 .8
-_ ..... _---_ ... _-
INCLUDED ABOVE
NITROGEN .5 .0 .8 .5 .6
C3 + .6 .1 1.2 .2 .9
C4 + .2 .0 .4 .1 .2
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
MIXTURE, BTU/SCF
WOBBE NUMBER 1365.3 1345.3 1379.2 1361.0 1370.2
METHANE NUMBER 91.0 87.5 95.9 89.9 92.2
118
l:,-,-..;j ii"'·...,j b~t;Az: t;'>e;'~ L·.,~ '0' i":
1 . .1 1 _.... " ""'", .............

50
40 40 1-1 -------------------1
30 30 I fl'l I
20 20 I kWl I
10 10 I 11-I1tl I
r:1l"71 G
o o I I I I I I I f I I 'i"T9[rJlfl?l-;H;Jr?T I I I I I I I I I I I I I
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
METHANE. PERCENT
60 PERCENlQfSAMPj.ES 50 FER CENT OF SAMPLES
50 40 I ~~ I
40
30 I f1t:1 I
30
20 I tltl I
20
10 I rtr1 I
10
o oIj 'I i I I I I I I iI' I [I ",?~lt;l~Jr~
E? I iii i I
2 3 456 7 8 9
t-' ETHANE. PERCENT
t-'
r 11-11"""'.' I .... ""'''''1V1t .....
\D 80 rERCENT OF SAMPLES 80
70
60
60 I I 50
40
~I ~ I 30
20
20 I V.l--V:-I I 10
o ~ 1/1 vl/j
0' I Ie; t V(1 [ (I V;! r I I i i I
o ~ A ~ ~ 1 U U U U 2 U U U U 3
PROPANE. PERCENT
100 ~E!lGERLOLS~M~LE~ PERCENLOLS"'MF!LES~ _______ ~ ____
50
/
80 40 ..
'/
60 - [%: 30
~' / ~
~ '~
/~
40 ~ 20
20 - ~ 10
~ ~
~
~; "..-,171 ~ ~ ~
o ~ o
o ~ A ~ ~ 1 U U U U 2 U U 12.8 12.8 13 13.2 13.4 13.8 13.8 14 14.2
C4~~R~m CRITICAL COMPRESSION RATIO
Figure 3-49 - Washington Frequency Distribution Histograms

100 r-tETHANE, PERCENT 8 INERT GASES, PERCENT
11
14~ ~
95 r\j'-"\.rrJ)..~-- 6 I I
0
''''-° "'1'1 ~
~
"~
4 I I
90 r I 6
~ "
18
2 I I 13.3 84
~ 14.1
85 r I o L'- - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JlJL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
13.0
~ 111111111111111111111111 "
80
8 ~THANE, PERCENT
:: """G .. w;:, 17.5 AIR/FUel
6 I I 17
4 I I. . " I I
10 '0
10:0 ~A
~'\nr VJYC' -I
"';0
'-.p.' A
~iV ""~"V~ ....
~
===
o;;;;c;r. ..........,..........-v== I
21"[ \i v· " : ' 1 , C ' " -. I
1::: t
I I
JlJL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
~[
>-'
N
o 3 rROPANE, PERCENT
118 STOICHIOMETRIC MIXTURE HEATING V ALU!!. BTU/CU.FT.
2 I I
87 I I
lie
.57 '" •
•55
115 I I
AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JlJl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
~b~·B~ JUL .AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
2.5 C 4 +. PERCENT 5.5 LOWER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT. PERCENT

1390:MU:~UUUt :J
2 •.• 1- rt
1370~ ~'{.~"""",'N"",,~ ..
1.5 1350 I--- \J II I 5 \:===J~ ~
4.5 I I
.5
JV\~ ...... ..II..~ ~
o I 4 I I
JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY .lUI
::l
Figure 3-50 - Washington Component and Calculated Value Time Series
4.0 PEAKSHAVING PRACTICES
Peakshaving is a practice used by a number of gas utilities in the U.S. to

meet periods in which gas demand exceeds the capability of the major pipelines
to deliver gas. Various measures are used, including withdrawal from underground
storage and LNG plants, natural gas from SNG plants, interruption of low-
priority, fuel-flexible customers, and propane-air peakshaving. This section
provides results of survey work on utility LNG and propane-air plant capacity and
use.
Most local distribution companies (LDCs) have one or more means to provide
gas send-out in addition to their base gas supplies. Such means are generally
of limited quantity to serve short term needs at times of extraordinary demands
such as extremely cold weather. The motivation is basically economic since the
cost of service to provide peak capacities from the transmission pipelines
exceeds the cost of providing the separate peaking supply. Also, it is a prudent
practice to have such a reserve in one's service area for emergencies and other
operating considerations.
Some types of peak shaving supplies, notably propane-air mixtures, as

opposed to LNG or SNG differ considerably from conventional natural gas
compositions. An over-riding consideration for peak shaving is the
interchangeability relationship of the send-out gases. Equipment must continue
to operate safely and satisfactorily at all times.
4.1 Propane-Air Peakshaving
Propane-air peakshaving plants are often an important component of the gas

de1iverabi1ity issue. These plants are typically employed only at times when gas
demand rises rapidly, for example, when temperatures drop very low. In many
cases, gas utilities possess propane-air plants as a contingency or measure of
security to ensure uninterrupted supply to priority customers. In many cases,
these plants are mandated by utility commissions to ensure the safety and well-
being of the general public.
Briefly, a propane-air plant takes a hydrocarbon fuel that is comprised

chiefly (90+ percent) of propane (with the balance smaller levels of ethane,
ethylene, propylene, butanes, buty1enes) that has a nominal heating value of
about 2500 Btu/ft3 . This fuel must be diluted with air to achieve an overall
heatinf value that is compatible with conventional gas levels of 1000 to 1100
Btu/ft. The vaporized and mixed propane-air stream is subsequently mixed with
proportions of pipeline natural gas and introduced into the distribution network.
The peakshaving capacity of utilities, particularly with regard to propane-

air peakshaving, does not always correlate with actual usage. Generally,
utilities have an order of preference as follows: pipeline deliveries,
underground storage, LNG storage, low-priority interruption, and propane-air
'~
, plants. Many gas utilities do not own propane-air plants. Collectively, the
1: top ten propane-air producing states, and 34 utilities within those states,
account for over 97 percent of the propane-air delivered during five recent
heating seasons. A conclusion could be drawn that the other 22 states with
propane-air facilities have them as a contingency or use them sparingly.
121
4.1.1 Background of Propane-Air Peakshaving
This form of peak shaving has been in use in the U. S. since the mid-1930's.
Mixtures of vaporized propane and air, generally in the range of 50% propane by
volume, are introduced into natural gas in volume percentages up to about 50%.
Figure 4-1 shows the relationship generally used. Note that the natural gas
composition itself is a factor and many companies have developed their own
operating practices based on the natural gas supplied to them. These would be
subject to change as their supply compositions change.
A.G.A. conducted a survey in May, 1989 to determine the magnitude of

propane-air peak shaving operations in the U. S. Some 90 companies replied
affirmatively by returning their questionnaires. These replies constitute the
data base for this study. A copy of the A.G.A. survey sheet is shown as Figure
4-2.
4.1. 2 Storage
Figure 4-3 presents propane-air peakshaving companies ranked in descending

order by size, i. e. by storage capacity of liquid propane in millions of gallons.
Commercial propane used in peak shaving is not a pure product, but often contains
small percentages of other liquid hydrocarbons such as butane, propylene, and
buty1ene. Many companies have developed specifications for their purposes, but
there are no generally accepted standards. Often grades such as HD5 or C150 are
called for. Propane, HD- 5, is a special grade of 1iquified petroleum gas composed
of a minimum of 90 percent liquid volume of propane and a maximum of 5 percent
liquid volume of propylene.
The ranking is maintained throughout the report and serves to identify

companies as various aspects of propane-air operations are discussed. Also, on
Figure 4-3 is the accumulated percentage of total propane storage. The twenty
largest storage companies account for about 85% of the stored propane. A.G.A.
uses an equivalence factor of 82 cubic feet (SCF) of natural gas from 1 gallon
of propane. Thus, the total stored liquid propane of 156,051,018 gallons
represents some 12,796 MM (million) cubic feet of natural gas equivalent. Based
on 1000 BTU/CF, this is 0.013 quads (10 15 ) of energy. Assuming 20 quads of
natural gas used annually, the stored propane is only 0.065%. All of the stored
propane is not used annually.
4.1.3 Regional Location
The location of propane-air peak shaving companies around the country by

geographic region shown in Figure 4-4. Geographically, the U.S. is divided into
6 regions. An overview of the top 20 companies and the total number of companies
by geographic region is presented in Table 4-1.
122
TABLE 4-1
PROPANE-AIR PEAKSHAVING COMPANY OVERVIEW

REGION TOP 20 COMPANIES, TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF
COMPANY NUMBER NUMBER OF NUMBER OF TOTAL
TOP 20 COMPANIES
COMPANIES
Northeast 11,14,18,20 4 19 21.1
Southeast 4,5,6,8,9,15 6 37 41. 2
North Central 2,3,7,10,12,13,16 7 30 33.3
South Central 0 0 0 0.0
Mountain 1,17 2 2 2.2
Pacific 19 1 2 2.2
TOTAL 20 90 100.0
Regional data is given on Table 4-11 to show storage and activity, i.e.
plant days of operation and send out. Note that with only 10.6% of total
storage,and 21.1% of the companies, the Northeast operates over 80% of the plant
days and sends out over 75% of the propane-air annually. A number of these
companies rely on re-supp1y of propane stocks during the winter rather than
having large storage capacity of their own.
4.1.4 Facilities
Many companies operate more than one propane-air peak shaving plant in
their service territories. Figure 4-5 gives the array of plants per company. The
distribution of the number of plants per company is presented in Table 4-111.
123
Interchangeability of
Propane - Air - Natural Gas Mixes
Heating Value of Propane - Air .. Prop. In P-A Mix., Prop •• 2660 BTU/SCF
1500 - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - 5 8 . 8
1400 .+ 7"""' ···-+.-:J4.9

Operating Range of
Peakshaving - Send Out
Mixtures
1300 -j-.................................................... . ·······"'··········ToRighfofCUrve 1.0
Limits of
Interchangeability
1200 -j- "' ····················.........................--\Jt7. 1
11 00 +.......................................................... 'x.......... +,43.1
1000 --'-----_--'-_------'_ _ . . L - - _ - L - _ - - ' -_ _ -'---_----'---_-----L_~3.9 .2

o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Percent Nat. Gas in Final Mix by Volume
124
AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION
PROPANE-AIR PEAKSHAVING INFORMATION SURVEY

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
COMPANY NAME:
PlANT LOCATION=-:--~C~l~'1~Y=-: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
COUNTY~ ...: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
STATE: _
PIANT CAPACITY DATA:

PROPANE STORAGE CAPACITY:--:-~---------
(Be sure to give units, ie.,gallons. barrels)
SENDOUT RATE:_ _~.......~~--------

(Natural gas equivalent, MCF per day)
FULL CAPACITY OPERATING TIME TO USE ALL

PROPANE:a.:.:.n..:.lh~ou~rs,.l;/,.)L..._ _
OPERATING mSTORY:
DATE OF PLANT COMPLETION:,_ _--..-_~___:_---__.......~-----
USAGE DATA: Heating Season Days Used Total Sendout
MCF Nat. Gas Equiv.
1988-1989
1987-1988
1986-1987
1985-1986
1984-1985
IS THE PLANT USED ANNUALLY?:
IS THE PLANT A VAll.ABLE FOR IM-ME-D---IA-TE ..........--U--S=E--?:----------
IF NO, HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE TO MAKE OPERATIONAL?: _
UST PEAKSHAVING METHODS USED IN YOUR SYSTEM IN ORDER OF

IMPORTANCE., --------
Would you be willing to participate in a1detailed survey of

propane-air operating and safety practices? _
PLEASE usr:NAME: _
TITLE:
A DDRE=S-S-;-----------------------
(City) (State) (ZIP)
TELEPHONE: ------------
PLEASE RETURN BY May 25, 1989 TO: Mr. John Erickson

Director, Engineering Services
American Gas Association
1515 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22209
(703) 841-8453
Please complete a separate form for each propane-air plant.
Figure 4-2
125
Propane Storage Capacity
Millions of Gallons Cumulative Percent
20 I---=-;;;;';;;;;;~~~~~l
15
10 - .
o L~~~~iMMtMtIllMMMM....~lMMMMJ
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Companies Ranked by Storage Capacity
.... Co. Storage + Cum. Percent
Figure 4-3
,
ii
Regional Distribution of il
Propane· Air Survey Areas II
II
1 I
,,,.-....., / I
'~
~I
/ North
East
I
@@ Ii
(6 -
\ @@ II
~ I
6 - Pacific \
(,9, ~ ,I
v .,
n
i '
3· North ! 4
Central So~th cen~ral
o ('':":\ I <----.J I 8 Denotes I II
~) ,~ i Location and
o @ \ Rank of 20 II
@@ ~ 2
South East
I...,
\)
\ I
I
largest
propane
I
I,
I
* . No longer uses P - A as of
10/91 per Follow-Up Survey Figure 4-4
V 000
00@
'J
I
storage
companies
I II
Ii
1 '"l£:
, . .,
.. cc~ ~ ~,,;;j ~~~ L.,,~>~ "'")~_.>-~_AJ k
TABLE 4-II
Regional Propane-Air Peakshaving Activity in the u.s. 1984-89
Heating Seasons - Years

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storage 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89
Capacity Plant Days Percent Plant Days Percent Plant Days Percent Plant Days Percent Plant Days Percent
Region (Gallons) Percent (MMcf) * (Percent) (MMcf) * (Percent) (MMcf) * (Percent) (MMcf) * (Percent) (MMet) * (Percent)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 - Northeast 16,486,803 10.6 774 80.8 994 86.9 803 91.9 893 83.5 568 84.0
(2,439) (74.9) (2,753) (87.9) (3,393) (93.3) (2,746) (65.3) (2,571) (87.0)
2 - Southeast 64,551,715 41.4 124 12.9 118 10.3 45 5.1 102 9.5 71 10.5
(718) (22.1) (338) (10.8) (228) (6.3) (1,331) (31.7) (308) (10.4)
3 - North Central 55,531,500 35.6 55 5.7 29 2.5 22 2.5 57 5.3 25 3.7

(95) (2.9) (37) (1.2) ( 13) (0.4) (111 ) (2.6) (22) (0.7)
I-'
N
--..J 4 - South Central 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
(0) (0.0) (0) (0.0) (0) (0.0) (0) (0.0) (0) (0.0)
5 - Mountain 17,581,000 11.3 3 0.3 1 0.1 2 0.2 15 1.4 3 0.4

(1) (0.0) (0.2) (0.0) (0.4) (0.0) (7) (0.2) (7) (0.2)
6 - Pacific 1,900,000 1.2 2 0.2 2.0 0.2 2 0.2 3 0.3 9 1.3

(3) (0.1 ) (3.0) (0.1) (3) (0.1) (7) (0.2) (47) (1.6)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 156,051,018 100.0 958 100.0 1,144 100.0 874 100.0 1,070 100.0 676 100.0
(3,256) (100.0) (3,131 ) (100.0) (3,637) (100.0) (4,202) (100.0) (2,955) (100.0)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: MMcf = Millions of cubic feet of nat. gas equivalent send out
TABLE 4-III
PROPANE-AIR PEAKSHAVING PLANTS PER COMPANY OVERVIEW

TOTAL PLANTS TOTAL COMPANIES TOP 20 COMPANIES TOP 20 PLANTS
(TOTAL)
1 59 5 5
2 10 4 8
3 7 2 6
4 6 3 12
5 2 - -
6 3 3 18
7 1 1 7
10 1 1 10
11 1 1 11
TOTAL 180 90 20 77
This is an important consideration because companies with multiple plants

are apt to have them dispersed so as to feed propane-air widely throughout their
service areas. Conversely, single plant companies are more apt to distribute
into a finite portion of their systems and a lesser percentage of their
customers. Note that 15 of the top twenty storage companies have more than one
plant.
4.1.5 Age of Propane-Air Plants
The completion dates of the 180 plants are plotted by decades in Figure
4.6. There is a pronounced drop in the construction of these facilities in the
1980 I S as compared to the prior three decades. Figure 4- 7 displays the
completion dates by capacity ranking and shows that only two companies in the top
twenty completed plants in the eighties. Actually, those two companies account
for 5 of the 15 plants built with one having constructed 4 plants. While
propane-air plant completions were down during the past 10 years, it seems that
mature systems are not adding facilities, but other companies still find propane-
air to be a viable alternative.
4.1.6 Propane-Air Plant Operation
Response to the question "is the plant used annually?" is plotted on Figure
4-8. Surprisingly, 42 said no and only 48 yes. This is borne out by Figure 4-9
which shows total plant days in use during the heating seasons 1984-1989. Many
companies show little or no use of their facilities during this time frame.
Figure 4-10 puts the data on an average plant day basis which factors out the
multiple plant effect and more nearly shows the daily usage during the heating
seasons. Finally, Figure 4-11 deals with equivalent natural gas volumes sent out
during these heating seasons. Again, minimal use is confirmed.
128
Number of Propane - Air
Peakshaving Plants per Company
Planta per Company
12 r - - - ' - - - . : . - - - ' - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
CompanlU ~
1 11
10~············ .1 t 10'
1 7
8~ II············ ~I.. v..... I
81-"········1.11 •
2
8
··7······
.
3
10 2
.. I-t:l, 11+11. t·t······································ l i t ................................9. .... ... L
90 180
o
o 20 ..0 80 80 100
Figure 4-5
Completion Dates of
Propane - Air Plants
70 r-Nu::.m~b~e=--rO::.:f-.:.p...:::la::.:n::.ts=---- ---,
80
50
..0
30
20
10
0
1930s 19..0s 1950s 1980a 1970s 1980a
Decades
12 Dates Unknown
180 Total Plants Figure 4~6
Completion Dates of Propane - Air

Peakshaving Plants
Year
90 r - - - - - - - - - . . , - - - - - - , - - - - - , - - - - - - - - ,
851-························ ', , . ,................... I··································· + , , I
80 1-·······················1··1.·························· 1;. +.............................................., :·······1
75~,···············11 T'······IIIIII .. · ,:+ + 1

1
:: '1~~ .[1
70 1-1111111
50
1
···········111·······················
. . . . . . .•.•. •. .•.•.•. .•. . .•. . . 1..•. . •.• . ·.• 1•.·
.........
I I ' .1 Jl1 +I.:.
•........................................................................................
I ·········ri
1
···1
Neweat
~~ II~
..of- II············ ················U··I;JIG41.. I
35 L-.L-..L---'----"-------L--'----'-----JC--.L-..L---'----"-------L--'----'-----JC--L......J
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 ..0 ..5 SO 55 80 85 70 75 80 85 90
Companiea Ranked by Storage Capacity
Figure q~7
129
Propane - Air Plant Usage
Yes - 48, No - 42
1
Yes
No
J
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Propane - Air Plant Days of Use

Per Heating Season
Plant Days
300
250
200
150
100
D I + .
50
o
-ii.£ ! r.1 j;Jff f" If. T t, ~~ _ t J '*
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
- 84 - 85 -+- 85 - 86 ----¥- 86 - 87 -e- 87 - 88 - - 88 - 89
Note: any use during a day Is counted

as a plant day.
Figure L~-9
130
Company Average Plant Days
Annual Use
Average Per Plant per Company
100
80
, ,
:1C 60
40
20
-~ .~ ~;~ frJ T ¥, _iIOI-l<.:; •.., r;l I,l m.,\ v ~ Ii r;l •

o
o 20 40 60 80 100
~ 84 - 85 -+- 85 - 86 -*- 86 - 87 -a- 87 - 88 - - 88 - 89
Figure 4-10
Send Out Volumes

;_.:~
Heating Season Output

MMcf Natural Gas Equivalent
2000
Note: The biggest send out heating season

1500 ......
···was1987-88with4,202MMof.
This represents 32.8% of the
stored capacity.
1000
f- ...
500
o ~ .m v. =rf~ . .tJ Q. .~ ...

o 20 40 60 80 100
~ 84 - 85 -+- 85 - 86 -*- 86 - 87 -a- 87 - 88 - - 88 - 89
Figure 4-11
131
Although a number of smaller companies reported many days of use, the
volumes of propane-air sent out were minimal. On the other hand, a few of the
larger companies sent out significant volumes of propane-air. Table 4-IV puts
this into perspective.
TABLE 4-IV
PROPANE AIR PEAKSHAVING COMPANIES BY DAYS OF OPERATION

NUMBER RANKING MAX. ANNUAL REGION MAX. HEATING
COMPANIES COMPANIES AVERAGE PLANT SEASON
DAYS USE OUTPUT MMCF
1 50 80+ NE <100
0 0 70-80 - -
1 61 60-70 NE <100
2 25,72 50-60 NE,NE 100-200,<100
3 11,18,72 40-50 NE,NE,NE 1700,600,50
2 55,52* 30-40 NE,SE <100, <5
3 24,29 20-30 NE,NE 100-200,100-
200
3 6,14,36,57 10-20 SE,NE,NE,NE 500-
600*,1400-
1500,>5,<5
32 ** 1-10 Too numerous To numerous
to list to list
42 - 0 Too numerous To numerous
to list to list
One comp any w~th one pllant ~n re g ~on L 0 p erated J6 day s and sent out 4.
MMCF
** One company, with 2 plants operated 9 days and sent out 600 MMCF
Obviously, the activity is concentrated in Region 1 - Northeast. The

average plant days per heating season is a useful index, but can be misleading
in that multiple plant companies may not use all of their plants equally. Some
plants are relied on more heavily than others in the data. Nevertheless,
sufficient information exists to provide an accurate picture of the effect that
propane-air peak shaving has on gas compositions, particularly propane content.
4.1.7 Effect of Propane-Air Peakshaving on Send-Out Gas Compositions
The Interim Report, GRI-9l/Olll gave data on natural gas compositions in

10 major metropolitan areas of the U.S. Continuing studies, of which this work
is a part, expands coverage to 26 cities. Propane-air peak shaving has the
effect of increasing propane, nitrogen, and oxygen volume percentages while the
normal constituents in the natural gas are reduced as a result of the blending.
132
In order to obtain actual operating data on Propane-Air send-out mixtures,
a "Follow-Up" survey, Figure 4-12, was sent out to the original survey companies
in October, 1991. Although only 19 replies were received, sufficient data was
accumulated to be representative. Figure 4-13 has plotted the Maximum, Typical
and Minimum percentages reported which are summarized in Table 4-V.
TABLE 4-V
PROPANE-AIR PEAKSHAVING COMPANY SEND-OUT MIXTURES

PROPANE PERCENTAGES USED IN PROPANE-AIR PERCENTAGES USED
THE PROPANE-AIR MIXES* IN MIXTURE WITH NATURAL GAS
RANGE AVERAGE RANGE AVERAGE
Maximum 62.0-40.0 56.8 54.0-20 34.8
Typical 60.0-39.0 51. 9 60.0-10 26.7
Minimum 60.0-36.0 48.9 30.0-1** 10.2
Notes:
As a result of the "Follow-Up" Survey, two companies, ranked Nos. 2 and 27

]
... ,'r-
stated that they no longer use propane-air.
One company reported 100% propane, 0% air, admixed from 2-5% in natural
* gas. This is not true propane-air peakshaving, but an enrichment, and was
not included in the above.
** Four companies reported 0 as the minimum PIA mix used. These were not
included in the tabulation.
Some companies clearly push propane-air peakshaving to the limits of

interchangeability. For the most part, however, operations fall well within the
curve shown on Figure 4-1. From these data, two scenarios were developed to show
the impact of propane-air peakshaving on gas composition. These are:
4.1.7.1 The Worst Case Situation
In this scenario, extremely cold weather would need to prevail for a

prolonged period for the worst case to develop. Actual data was used for
companies who reported, and in others, estimates were made based on usage
patterns. The gas compositions under these conditions given as percentages of
components are presented in Table 4-VI.
133
Propane-Air Peakshaving Information Survey
Follow-up, October, 1991
Note: Please complete this form as a general response for your propane-air operations. If you have multiple
plants, treat them as a combined response for the system. If that is not feasible, then use a separate form for
each propane-air plant.
Please list:
Company Name
Plant Location - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(If other than general)
Your Name. _
Title
~----------------------------
Telephone _
I. If you are familiar with the actached graph, please show your range of operations. In any event, describe
your operations regarding sendout mix as follows:
Range of PIA Mix Range of PIA - NG. Mix

Used (Volume %) Used (Volume %)
Propane Propane/Air Mix Natural Gas

Max.
Typ.
Min.
II. Show the number of days of heating season operation and the estimated percentage of your system
(customers) receiving the PIA - NG Mix under the following cases:
Num. of Days Use Ext. % of System Involved
Worst Case
Typical Winter
Minimum Use
III. List the specification, if any, under which your propane is purchased. In any event, give a typical
analysis:
Purchase specification
-----------------
Analysis:
Propane:
Propylene:
Others:
(Identify)
Please return by November 1, 1991 to:
Mr. Philip S. Runge

Manager, Utilization and Engineering Services
Arlington, VA 22209
(703)841-8451
FAX (703)841-8406
Figure 4-12
134
Percent Propane Used
in Propane- Air Mixes
Percent Propane
70% r------------------------~
60% -- ~- -*- -------------------------~- ---------~ t1- ----~~~!-~~-'!-~~~~~~-~ -~ -~~.-~~~

..__ ~ -l------~ ~ -------~- -----------------A'{~rC!O~ -Ty-pJ~~! _~ _?_1·~~~_ -*-
50% '"- -*----------------J;;J_ - - - -*---J=! - - - - - - - - - b-
-_----_--± ------------------------ J=! -
+ + Average Minimum - 48.87%
40% CD 5 f to. 0
o
30%
20%
10%
,
0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
, ,
... _.~
* Maximum + Typical o Minimum
Percent Propane-Air Used

In Propane-Air - Natural Gas Sendout
Percent Propane-Air
70% r------------------------~
60% *
+
* *
50% *f- * * +
40% + Avera7Je Maximum - 34.82%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30% f* * * 0 Averatle Typical - 26.69%
---------------------,----------------------*----------------------------------------
20% + ++
0 * * + 1iI *
+ + 0 Average Minimum- 10.20%
10% ------------ -n- - - - - - - - - 0- - -+- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - --
-~
0% 0
00
0
*
,0 , I I , ,
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Companies Ranked By Storage Capacity
* Maximum + Typical o Minimum
Figure 4-13
Follow-Up Propane-Air Survey Results

135
TABLE 4-VI
PROPANE-AIR SENDOUT MIXTURES UNDER WORST CAST SCENARIO

WORST PROPANE-AIR MIXTURE, SEND-OUT GAS MIXTURE, PERCENT
CASE PERCENT
RANGE
PROPANE NITROGEN OXYGEN PROPANE NITROGEN OXYGEN NATURAL
GAS
Top 62.0 30.0 8.0 33.5 16.2 4.3 46.0
Bottom 40.0 47.4 12.6 8.0 9.5 2.5 80.0
Avg. 56.8 34.1 9.1 19.8 11.9 3.1 65.2
Figure 4-14 shows the correlation of the maximum number of days and the
estimated percentage of customers affected. The maximum operating days are taken
from the five year reported experience unless otherwise reported on the "Follow-
Up" survey. Likewise, the percent of customers affected is estimated from the
number of plants, their usage history, and in some cases, discussion with company
representatives.
4.1.7.2 The Normal or Typical Winter
Based on the survey results, the typical operating range would result in
send-out gas composition percentages as presented in Table 4-VII.
TABLE 4-VII
PROPANE-AIR SENDOUT MIXTURES UNDER TYPICAL WINTER SCENARIO

NORMAL PROPANE-AIR MIXTURE,PERCENT SEND-OUT GAS MIXTURE, PERCENT
WINTER
RANGE
PROPANE NITROGEN OXYGEN PROPANE NITROGEN OXYGEN NATURAL
GAS
Top 60.0 31. 6 8.4 36.0 19.0 5.0 40.0
Bottom 39.0 48.2 12.8 3.9 4.8 1.3 90.0
Avg. 51. 9 38.0 10.1 13.9 10.1 2.7 73.3
Figure 4-15 correlates the average number of plant days per company over
the five year period and a reduced percentage of customers seeing the propane-
air-natural gas mixtures. Although at times the top propane-air mix might be
used, it is apt to be a brief peak lasting perhaps a few hours.
Operating procedures vary with different companies. The decision to begin

using propane-air is often put off until other alternatives are exhausted.
Propane-air may be a last resort, or for some companies, their only alternative.
This situation is reflected in the minimum usage data, which infers the point at
136
Propane - Air Peakshaving
Worst Case Situation
Max. Days of Use
120,.-----------------------,
1101-·················································· I
100 f- , 1
90 f- ; , + I
80 1-............... I················ I····················································· ··.································f··················............................................................................. I
70 f- If
601-··· ...·· · · · · · · · I ff····················································....................................... II························ I
50 I-f················ I I I·····················································....................................... fl f································· f··················· I
40 1-1················ f I I jl····················································....... fl········ I
30 f-h,············ I + 1··'1';+·············································· 11······· .
20 I T I f················ I I
1
I················
10 11+ '.." f, I,,,, I.,,,11.+,ll Ilf:l', " .•..... ," HI········· ·····1,·1·····.·· I·····················,.· L ' I·
.:.=I:.:::==:=:===::
, .
I
~g t+-+1-tH 1-H1~.+t.I...II.::lq=:I::i+I.I.....~.....·.~.~t-tt.'I:=~=·I~~::
I ,It-,
30
401-11 1111I I················································ 1 II 1···········11 f············ I I············ fl
501-"1 II···· I······· I···················································, fl + I III I .•............. +1
60 f-II +·1 1············'1·······································........ II'
70 1-11 II I II··········································· II I
80 1-···,1·············1· f······,L...............................................................•, II····················································..... I
1 gg
1:s ;~jOf~yl t~mAffepte"f
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Figure 4-14
Propane - Air Peakshaving

Normal or Typical Winter Situation
Avg. Days of Use
60,.-----------------------,
50 1- ··············0·······································....•...........................•........•••...........•.......•.....•. j
401-········· I·····················································........................ ·1···················································· j
30 1- , I · · · ·•·····•·················· I········· I································ I································· j
20 f-........... + I Ill,·········································· .······.····1 , f···························· j
10 1-.",+ + .,. 1 1111····························· ·1·············· .···,····1··;· +1 I·············· + +......................... 1

I II .1 I I I 1.1 I I
00 :1~1r-l1r::,It+I.. ~IH- 111t+t+lf--f+--.t-1t-+t-1................. 1'f-+t
1+-t1f4-f-J-tI ll H---+t---ttt---t--4--+t+J
I .
- r t ...........
20
1 f H +····························f 1
1
11......... I I .. ·····11 1
301-"11 fIL··1 f·················································· I I If···· I.·············I··IL............ III

40 1-11 fl I II·················································· I·············f Ill················,···························· II
50 1-1············· 1··· 1··· · f····················································· 1........••. 1..... I f····················································· fl
60 f-1·········f·····L.... II············· fl··················································· f I
70 f-11·········1·········· Ii···················································· Ill··························..·········..········ 1 I

80 f-11············1········· I'···················································· Ill·················································· 1 I
90
10 0
res
;ll(fofSystem~ffected
'--..L----'-----.L...L...----'----'~-'---'----'-----L______'._L----LL.JLL----'----'-_'---'---L-J
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Figure 4-15
137
which propane-air operations commence. This could be propane-air in natural gas
as low as 1.0% for some and up to 30% for others. The average of 10.2% indicates
the point at which many companies will kick in their propane-air operation based
on send-out need.
4.1.8 Propane Composition
Of the "Follow-up" Survey respondents, 8 cited HD-5 as the purchase

specification. Others gave commercial grade propane or simply quoted propane
levels in the order of 85.7 - 100%. One cited an analysis by weight, another by
volume, and the others giving an analysis did not say on what basis. Of those
citing HD-5, and giving an analysis, the results varied considerably. The array
of analyses is presented in Table 4-VIII.
TABLE 4-VIII
PEAKSHAVING COMPANY PROPANE SPECIFICATIONS

COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY
A B C D E F
Propane, % 98.84 98.7* 97.36 90-95** 98.0 90.0
(Min)
Propylene, 1.16 0.0 0.0 5.0-2.0 0.0 5.0
% (MAX)
Butane, % 0.5 2.24 3.0 1.0 3.0
(MAX)
Ethane, % 0.6 0.4 3.0 (Others) 5.0
(MAX)
Ethyl, 0.50
Mercaptan,
ppm
* By weight
** By volume
Table 4-VIII points up the lack of a comprehensive standard for the

purchase of propane for peak shaving purposes.
4.2 Liquified Natural Gas (LNG)
The volume ratio of natural gas to liquefied natural gas (LNG) at standard
conditions is approximately 600 to 1 and is the fundamental reason for LNG/s rise
in the natural gas industry. This reduction in volume leads to significant
economic advantages in storing and transporting natural gas. The technology to
produce, store, and re-vaporize liquified natural gas has matured over the past
two decades. Today, there is a world-wide trade in LNG (imported LNG), and many
LDCs have their own facilities to use LNG as a peak shaving means (domestic LNG).
138
At present, there are only four LNG import terminals in the U. S., and of
these only two are operative. The Distrigas terminal at Everett, Mass., and the
Panhandle Eastern Terminal at Lake Charles, LA, are presently in use. Columbia's
terminal at Cove Point, MD., and Southern Corp's Terminal at Elba Island, GA, are
not currently receiving LNG, but may be activated in the near term. Depending
upon the design of the liquefaction train at various export stations, the time
spent at sea in LNG ships, and other considerations, the gas composition of
imported LNG varies. It tends to have a higher heating value than domestic
natural gas.
Domestic LNG is typically produced by utilities during the summer months

and stored pending winter need. Liquefaction capacity is generally small, being
sized to produce a daily quantity that gradually fills storage tanks over a
period of many months. Re-vaporization capacity is generally large, sized to
produce volumes needed to supplement pipeline supplies on the very coldest winter
days. A commercial LNG industry per se does not exist in the U. S. The
emergence of such facilities is possible, particularly if LNG becomes accepted
for transportation use, but such plants would need high liquefaction capacities
and relatively low storage, just the opposite of the domestic peak shaving LNG
design. The composition of domestic peak shaving LNG is more uniform than
imported LNG due to the low vaporization rates and heavier tank insulation. In
fact, the composition of the gas going into peak shaving LNG liquefaction
facilities is a major concern to utilities and provides a measure of control over
gas quality.
4.2.1 Imported LNG
Ideally, imported LNG would serve as a base load gas supplement by being
blended into domestic gas pipeline supplies. The effect of its higher heating
value would then be mitigated. In reality, imported LNG has been seen as a new
base gas supply replacing existing supplies, and in at least two cases resulted
in litigation at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) due to concerns
that gas appliances and equipment might not safely utilize the imported LNG gas
compositions. Also, in the Northeast Region, imported LNG is used as a peak
shaving medium since it is available from Distrigas in liquid form and can be
transported to storage facilities. Utilities bear the responsibility to tailor
sendout gas compositions to maintain satisfactory performance of gas equipment
connected to their systems.
Much of the LNG imported to the East Coast of the U. S. comes from Algeria.
The early LNG trains (ARZEW I), contained relatively high percentages of propane
and ethane accounting for the higher heating value. More recent trains (ARZEW
II) have produced lower heating value gas due to more extensive extraction of
higher hydrocarbons. Arzew is the name of an LNG export terminal in Algeria.
Once the first trains are retired or improved, this situation may be resolved,
but at present the imported LNG gas compositions are generally as presented in
Table 4- IX.
139
TABLE 4-IX
ALGERIAN LNG COMPOSITIONS
MOL % -DRY, 60 0 F, 14.7 PSIA
COMPONENT ARZEW I ARZEW II CONTRACT LIMITS
Nitrogen 0.582 0.454 0.20 (MAX)
Methane 88.029 91.085 86.85 (MIN)
Ethane 8.432 8.171 8.50 (MAX)
Propane 2.149 0.290 3.00 (MAX)
Iso Butane 0.322 -- 0.52 (MAX)
N Butane 0.521 -- 0.70 (MAX)
Pentanes, Plus 0.019 -- 0.23 (MAX)
Heating Value 1120 BTU/SCF 1070 BTU/SCF 1152 BTU/SCF
(MAX)
A review of 16 analyses of LNG deliveries from Everett over a 5 month

period by one utility shows the following results:
HEATING VALUE SPECIFIC GRAVITY
MAXIMUM 1190.5 0.803

AVERAGE 1119.7 0.688
MINIMUM 1031.4 0.584
During the same time frame, the analyses of distribution gas from the same
utility were as follows:
HEATING VALUE SPECIFIC GRAVITY
MAXIMUM 1081. 8 0.603

AVERAGE 1077.3 0.601
MINIMUM 1035.8 0.586
Thus, it appears that the high end of imported LNG gas compositions are
kept from reaching customers directly. However, the possibility always exists
that such gas might get directly into a distribution system under extraordinary
circumstances. Fortunately, the condition exists in a very limited area in the
North East Region, and may be eliminated in time as Imported LNG gas compositions
corne more in line with domestic gas supplies.
4.2.2 LNG Peakshaving Survey
The American Gas Association made a survey of LNG Plant Facilities to

develop a data base in the Spring of 1990. A copy of the format used is shown
as Figure 4-16. A total of 47 companies responded having some 73 plants or
facilities altogether. Unfortunately, eleven companies did not report operating
140
Figure 4-1(;
LNG PLANT FACILITIES DATABASE

QUESTIONNAIRE
Company:
Contact:
Title:
Address:
City. State and Zip:
Contact Phone Number:
LNG Plant Name:
Location by County or city and state:
Tank Capacity:
Liquefaction Capacity: _ _ _ _ _ _t-':1MCFD
Vaporization Capacity: _ _ _ _ _.-I.MMCFD
Number of days at peak output:
Number of LNG tanks at this location:
Inner tank material:
Builder of storage tank:
Type of liquefier:
Builder of Liquefier:
Maximum C02 level of input gas: ----_%
Type of vaporizers:
Number of vaporizer trains:
Truck terminal facilities: Marine terminal facilities:
OPERATING HISTORY (Senaout)
Heating season 1988-89 1987-88 1986-87 1985-86 1984-85
Sendout MMCF
Days of sendout
Start-ups
LNG plant database record number 4
Please complete and return by May 4. 1990 to:

Philip s. Run~e. Manager
Engineering & Utilization Services
AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION
Arling~n. VA 22209
141
data due to non-availability or other reasons, so that data regarding sendout and
days of use are conservatively low.
4.2.2.1 Storage Capacity
Although LNG storage capacity is nominally reported in thousands of barrels

(MBBL), AGA uses a conversion factor of 4.32 MMCFIMBBL to obtain a more
recognizable industry equivalent. Figure 4-17 gives the ranking of companies by
descending order of storage capacity. Unlike Propane-Air peak shaving, where
about 11% of the companies accounted for 75% of storage; LNG peak shaving shows
the largest 46% of companies accrue 75% of storage. Obviously there are more
companies with comparably sized LNG capacity. It appears that about 6.6 times
more energy is in storage in the form of LNG relative to Propane.
4.2.2.2 Regional Location
Figure 4-18 shows the regional location of the 20 largest peaks having LNG
facilities. An overview of the top 20 companies and the total number of
companies by geographic region is presented in Table 4-X.
TABLE 4-X
LNG PEAKSHAVING COMPANY OVERVIEW

REGION TOP 20 TOTAL NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER PERCENT OF
COMPANIES, OF TOP 20 OF COMPANIES TOTAL
COMPANY COMPANIES
NUMBER
Northeast 3,4,6,9,12,14 9 15 32.0
15,17,19
Southeast 1,11,16,18,10 5 15 32.0
North Central 2,5,8,10 4 11 23.5
South Central -- 0 1 2.0
Mountain -- 0 1 2.0
Pacific 7,13 2 4 8.5
TOTAL 20 20 47 100.0
It is interesting to note that a higher percentage (32.0%) of LNG peak

shaving companies are located in the Northeast than is the case with Propane -
air peak shaving (21.1%). Both the Southeast and South Central show less
percentages of LNG than Propane-air companies. The Pacific region has a four
times greater percentage of companies than PIA.
Regional data is given on Table 4-XI. With 35.7 percent of the LNG storage
capacity, the Northeast has 53.0% of the plant days of operation and 48.6% of the'
sendout. Unfortunately, a major company in this area did not report operating
data so that these percentages are conservative.
142
LNG Storage Capacity
MBBl (MMcf) Cumulative Percent
2000 r--------------7"7"I:::r;+=l==!=T't+t'100%
(8640)
1500 ... ---. -_..... ----.... _.. ---.... ---..... ---... --.... --- 75%
(6480)
1000 . ---. - ... . -----.... ---. -. -..... ------.... --... -.... ---.. 50%
(4320)
500 _ -. --- --_ - - _- _ -- _.. -- ---- 25%

(2160)
OL.J....L.......
....L...L...Ju...L..J...L..I.....L...L...Ju...L..J...J...J_~...w..J...J...J_ .........l..J...L.J....L..l...I.-l.....L...L...J...w..~
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
- Co. Storage + Cum. Percent

Figure 4-17
Ii II
I' II
Regional Distribution of
II LNG Survey Areas I!
,I ·1
.~ 1 I
II North
1f6Y
1 )
I 1\ ~ !ast
I
II Ii/! ~@
G)@
I
Ii
! G)@
II ._~- 0@
I,
ii @ II
II
II 6 - Pacific '" II
II .r:;1
v
\
. !I 4
,IIi
I @ soJth Cent~al I
! .
,I 3 I8 Denotes i I
North
Central location and I III
II I Rank of 20 I
I largest lNG
II I,'
IIII
storage I III
companies I,
I! Figure
i
143
TABLE 4-XI
Regional LNG Peakshaving Activity in the u.s. 1984-89 **
Heating Seasons - Years

-----~------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storage 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 5 Year Average
Capacity Plant Days Percent Plant Days Percent Plant Days Percent Plant Days Percent Plant Days Percent Plant Days Percent
Region (MBBL) Percent (MMcf) (Percent) (MMcf) (Percent) (MMcf) (Percent) (MMcf) (Percent) (MMcf) (Percent) (MMcf) (Percent)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_.-
1 6,939 35.7 481 65.3 241 44.7 242 58.3 268 47.9 231 45.1 293 * 53.0
Northeast (7,289) (53.3) (5,167) (52.2) (3,788) (54.9) (6,373) (50.6) (6,466) (48.1) (5,187) (48.6)
2 5,490 28.3 210 28.5 221 41.0 134 32.3 192 34.3 161 31.4 184 33.2
Southeast (4,745) (34.7) (3,995) (40.4) (2,265) (32.8) (3,776) (30.0) (3,448) (25.6) (3,646) (34.1)
3 4,950 25.5 33 4.5 29 5.4 26 6.3 67 12.0 46 9.0 40 7.3

North Central (1,495) (10.9) (358) (3.6) (792) (11.5) (2,244) (17.8) (2,364) (17 .6) (1,451) (13.6)
~ 4 110 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

./:'- South Central 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
5 290 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.2 8 1.4 1 0.2 2 0.4

Mountain 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 52 0.4 25 0.2 15 0.1
6 1,636 8.4 13 1.8 48 8.9 12 2.9 24 4.3 73 14.3 34 6.2

Pacific (158) (1.2) (379.0) (3.8) (52) (0.7) (256) (2.0) (1,202) (8.9) (410) (3.8)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 19,415 100.0 737 100.0 539 100.0 415 100.0 559 100.0 512 100.0 552 100.0
(13,688) (100.0) (9,899) (100.0) (6,896) (100.0) (12,597) (100.0) (13,456) (100.0) (10,677) (100.0)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: BBL = 42 gallons LNG * One utility did not report sendout days of operation
gallon = 106,000 BTU or 102.9 cub. feet.
MBBL = 4.32 MMcf or 4,452 MMBTU **11 out of 47 companies did not report operating data as follows:
Region Companies # not reporting operating data
1 15 2
2 15 4
3 11 3
411
510
641
Total 47 11
4.2.2.3 Facilities
By and large, an LNG facility will consist of a liquefaction unit, a

vaporization unit, and a storage tank. Thirty-three of the forty-seven companies
in the survey have such an arrangement. However, there are variations on that
theme since some of the larger companies have multiple tanks served by ,common
vaporizers and liquefiers at the same site. Others have remote storage, served
by transport of LNG as liquid, thus requiring only a vaporizer unit. The purpose
of this study is not to explore the modes of operation of LNG facilities, but to
evaluate the effect on gas composition. As with propane-air, a number of
facilities spaced around a distribution system would serve to inject LNG into a
greater area. However, that tendency is not as pronounced with LNG as seen on
Figure 4-19. The practice of locating small LNG storage and vaporization units
at strategic points does exist, particularly in the North East region where LNG
is often transported as liquid.
4.2.2.4 Operation
The use of LNG facilities is weather dependent. Basically, they are

designed to be operated with tanks full at the onset of the heating season, and
empty or near empty by Spring. Many factors influence operation, however, and
as shown on Figure 4- 20, eleven of the companies reported no use of their
facilities during the 1984-89 time frame. Other alternatives to peak shaving are
available to utilities, and selections are made as to the sequence of use,
primarily on economic criteria.
Figure 4-21 deals with the plant days of use per company during the heating
.~
seasons 1984-85 to 1988-89. Only one operated as many as 200 days during one
heating season ('84-'85). About 100 days were achieved during three heating
seasons, while most activity was below 50 days per heating season. Figure 4-22
shows the five year average for the companies ranked by descending order of
capacity. Note that the largest storage companies do not have the highest
frequency of use. Only 10 companies average more than 20 days per year over the
five years. The average for all companies is 552 total plant days divided by 47
or 11.7 plant days per year.
Figure 4-23 shows the volumes of LNG peak shaving gas sent out by each
company during each of the heating seasons. Here a different pattern emerges,
in that the larger storage capacity companies tend to send out greater volumes
of gas for peak shaving. One might expect such a trend. Those companies are
set-up to utilize greater quantities of LNG, and have the vaporizing capacity to
complement the storage capacity.
4.2.3 Effect of LNG Peakshaving on Send-Out Gas Composition
As previously discussed, imported LNG can have an adverse effect on send-

out gas compositions if the high BTU gas is directly distributed for utilization.
This is due to higher concentration of ethane and propane than normally found.
At present, however, this is a regional condition in the North Eas t area.
Operation of other imported LNG terminals could spread this situation to other
areas, but there is also the expectation that new liquefaction facilities will
remove the higher hydrocarbons to preclude this condition.
145
LNG Storage, Liquifaction, and
Vaporization Facilities
Number of Facllltiea
6
o
5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~
Companies Ranked By Storage Capacity
~ L1qulfactlon [J] Vaporization ~ Storage Facilltlea
Figure 4-19
Companies Reporting LNG

Plant Usage During 1984 - 1989
Reporting - 36, Not Reporting - 11
1
Reporting
Not
Reporting
5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~

One OOlllpany In the northeaet raglon
did not report daye of operation Fi u re 4- 2 a
Plant Days of
LNG Peakshaving Use
Per Heating Season
Plant Daya
260r----.:------------------,
200f-························· I'··············· 1
160f-································1········..·· ..·····............... I
1001-································· l,····· ·························.. ···.. ·········· .
5 ro ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~
84 - 85 + 85 - 88 .. 88 - 87 a 87 - 88 x 88 - 811
Figure 4-21
146
Company Plant Days of
LNG Peakshaving Use Per Heating Season
Five Year Average
Plant Days
120 ,--~--------------------,
100f-······························· •.......................................................................................................................................... I
80 f- I····················································· I
80f-············ I·····················································............. " I
5 ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ u
Figure 4-22
Send Out Volumes of

Peakshave LNG
Heating Season Output
MMCf
2500,--------------------,
2000 \-,....................................................................... I
1500f-I+f···+············ j..................................................................................................................................... I
1000
,4
500 HI I¥ + T ···,"'·lll I .···'0················· I t····················································· d
o LU...l-L........&-J.-. . . . -4L~~......~. . . .~I>-L'--............................O-X->

o 5 ~ W~ e ~ ~ ~ u
84 - 85 + 85 - 88 .. 88 - 87 a 87 - 88 x 88 - 89
Figure 4-23
Peakshaving Priorities
From Propane - Air Survey
Percent of Companlee
35,-----'----------------,
30···
25
20
15
10
5
o
Propane LNG Interrupt 8tora". Exc... 8pot SNG
Air Contraot Marlrat
Peakshaving Methods
_ Firat Choice &\\\1 Second Choice EJ Third Choice
Figure 4-24
, I ..,
Domestic LNG is liquefied from domestic natural gas supplies and does not
contain the percentages of higher hydrocarbons seen in some imported LNG. The
American Gas Association Supplemental Gas Committee, Gas Quality Task Group, sent
a questionnaire to 25 domestic LNG peakshaving companies. This document ran to
7 pages and is not reproduced here. It covered many facets of LNG operations,
but did not call for data on re-vaporized LNG compositions. However, the design
feed gas compositions that the liquefaction plant was designed for was requested.
Results were made available through the courtesy of Roy F. Williams of the
Consolidated Edison Company of N. Y., Chairman of the Task Group. While a report
will be forthcoming from the Task Group, a review of questionnaire returns shows
that the design points for various components in volume percent are as presented
in Table 4-XII.
TABLE 4-XII
LNG PLANT DESIGN FEED GAS COMPOSITION LIMITS

COMPONENT MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Nitrogen, % 0.26 10.0
Oxygen, % 0.00 10 PPM
Carbon Dioxide, % 0.47 1. 50
Total Sulfur, lbs/MMCF 0.00 1.2
Methane, % 81. 3 97.5
Ethane, % 2.0 7.0
Propane, % 0.27 3.0
Iso-Butane, % 0.03 0.32
N-Butane, % 0.01 0.25
N-Pentane, % 0.01 0.90
Hexane, % 0.02 0.17
HHV,BTU/SCF 1000.0 1071.0
Specific Gravity 0.57 0.68
H2O, lbs/MMCF 3.5 20
Each plant has its individual design criteria, so it is understood that the
above values have no general application and averages would be meaningless. But
it is fair to say that domestic LNG plants exist to handle these extremes in
component variation. However, a plant designed for the minimum criteria could
have trouble handling greater component percentages, and no plant can handle all
the maximum design levels. What this points up is that pipeline gas quality is
a major consideration for utilities having LNG plants. Also, the send-out gas
compositions will generally be within the range of these design criteria.
Domestic LNG plants have insulation and re-cooling capability to avoid the
weathering problem experienced with LNG tankers whereby the light ends boil off
148
and the heating value and specific gravity tend to increase with time. Further,
peakshaving LNG operations can result in direct insertion into the distribution
system upon re-vaporization, but it is often mixed with the existing gas supply.
The following Table 4-XIII presents analyses taken from a Southeast Region
utility during the 1990-91 heating season are believed to be fairly typical of
re-vaporized domestic peakshaving LNG.
TABLE 4 -XI II
LNG ANALYSIS FROM A SOUTHEAST REGION UTILITY

COMPONENT MAX. (FEB.) VOLUME % MIN. (DEC.) VOLUME %
Methane 94.75 95.31
Ethane 4.55 4.09
Propane 0.53 0.43
" Iso-Butane 0.06 0.04
N-Butane 0.05 0.04
Iso-Pentane 0.02 0.01
N-Butane 0.01 0.01
C 6 + 0.03 0.05
'I Nitrogen 0.00 0.02
TOTAL 100.00 100.00
Dry H.V. (BTU/SCF) 1061.6 1055.8
Specific Gravity 0.585 0.582
Thus, the analysis of re-vaporized domestic LNG does not vary greatly over the
heating season, and does not adversely change the normal natural gas supply.
4.3 Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG)
SNG became an alternative gas supply source as a result of the natural gas
production shortage during the 1970' s and the economics that prevailed. Some ten
plants were built with the concept of being not only peakshaving sources, but
also partly base load facilities. Feedstock was basically naphtha. Today all
plants in the contiguous United States have been retired, and only the unit in
Hawaii remains in service. Changes in natural gas availability plus the
operating and mai~tenance cost of these facilities made the economics less
favorable.
SNG is included primarily to complete the peakshaving record, but is

recognized as not being a factor. The analyses of synthetic natural gas from a
Southeast Region utility during the 1988-89 heating season is presented in Table
4-XIV.
149
TABLE 4-XIV
COMPOSITION OF TYPICAL SYNTHETIC NATURAL GAS
COMPONENT VOLUME, %
DEC, JAN. FEB.
Hydrogen 1. 80 1.15 3.47
Methane 96.11 96.98 95.00
Carbon Monoxide 0.09 0.04 0.01
Carbon Dioxide 0.10 0.05 0.38
Propane 1. 90 1. 78 1.14
TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00
4.4 Summary
Respondents to the original AGA Propane-Air Peakshaving Survey listed

peakshaving methods used in their systems in order of importance. Figure 4-24
gives the methods employed, and their preference by first, second, and third
choice. Of all the first choices, propane-air was tops at 32 companies, followed
by LNG (18), Interruptible Customers (14), Storage Usage (12), Excess Contract
Supply (7) and the Spot Market (1). Propane-air was second choice of 33
companies followed by LNG (11), Interruptib1es (8), Storage (1), and Excess
Contract (2). Not all companies listed third choices, but propane-air was named
for 9 companies, Interruptib1es for 1, and SNG for 1. This points up the value
attached to Propane-air operations.
The "Follow-Up" Survey served to bring home the variable nature of propane-
air. Several replies listed low percentages of system affected i. e. in the order
of 1.0% or less. But, these companies had substantial storage facilities and
past experience of hard usage. Inquiries resulted in the understanding that
survey replies were in terms of present conditions, when gas supplies are
plentiful. Expectations were that hard usage would again occur in the future.
Propane-air is a means to foster load growth in that it permits commitment of
excess gas supply until additional supply sources can be obtained. Thus, it may
be viewed as cyclic in function as well as subject to severe winter weather
usage.
Another interesting aspect of this work is the appearance of the same

utilities on both the Propane-air and LNG surveys. The following tabulation
shows that 18 LNG companies also are on the Propane-Air list. Table 4-XV lists
those companies by storage capacity by region.
150
TABLE 4-XV
STORAGE CAPACITIES OF 18 COMPANIES WITH BOTH PROPANE-AIR

AND LNG FACILITIES
REGION RANK P-A STORAGE CAP./ RANK LNG STORAGE CAP./

EQUIVALENT EQUIVALENT
MMCF MMCF
Northeast 11 286.4 12 2251. 2
14 169.6 4 5188.3
23 95.3 15 1503.4
20 114.3 35 756.0
24 81. 2 19 1503.4
29 53.8 3 5352.5
28 57.6 17 1503.4
7 858.2 7 18058.2
Southeast 27 59.0 11 2268.0
5 1176.4 1 7732.8
6 1000.4 32 1248.5
30 51. 7 43 313.2
82 4.9 21 1252.8
31 51. 7 26 1252.8
66 11.8 45 252.7
7 2355.9 7 14320.8
North Central 10 316.5 33 1010.9
2 1258.9 8 2972.2
16 147.6 10 2505.6
3 1723.0 3 6488.7
South Central 0 0.0 0 0.0
Mountain 1 1312.0 24 1252.8
1 1312.0 1 1252.8
Pacific 0 0.0 0 0.0
TOTAL 18 6249.1 18 40120.5
Many companies have multiple peakshaving means as well as a number of

plants in each capability. When coupled with several pipeline suppliers, and
many gate station connections (at least one company in Region 1 has 25); it is
not difficult to understand that the gas composition in all parts of a system is
not known with assurance at anyone time. This is particularly true during
peakshaving operations since the movement of gas in a complex, interconnected
system is a function of many factors. But, it is apparent that the deviation
from normal pipeline gas compositions due to peakshaving are primarily from
propane-air operations, and to a lesser extent imported LNG on a more limited
geographic basis.
151
4.5 Acknowledgements
The section author wishes to thank the following people and organizations
for their help in developing this presentation:
For Technical Assistance
W. E. Liss - Gas Research Institute

W. H. Thrasher - American Gas Association Laboratories
P. S. Runge - American Gas Association
R. F. Williams - Consolidated Edison Company
For Computer Assistance
J. S. McDaniel - Baltimore Gas and Electric Company
152
5.0 HIGH PRESSURE GAS STORAGE HYDROCARBON CONDENSATION
5.1 Summary
The objective of this work was to assess the extent to which variability
of gas composition can contribute to the formation of condensates as a function
of pressure and temperature for compressed natural gas in natural gas vehicles.
Towards this end, a bypothetica1 data base of fuel properties was calculated and
developed for a series of gas compositions covering a range from pure methane to
a 50% blend of 50/50 propane/air mixture in a nominal gas. The data developed
include basic fuel properties (heating value, specific gravity and Wobbe index),
hydrocarbon dew point curves, and expected condensate volumes at different
temperatures and pressures.
The effect of heavy hydrocarbons on calculated hydrocarbon dew point was

studied from the perspective of investigating the usefulness of conducting an
extended analysis of the C6+ fraction to obtain a detailed breakdown of the heavy
alkanes. It was found that dew points predicted using extended analysis can be
as much as 20 F higher than those calculated assuming the heavies to consist of
only C6 . While this emphasizes the need for a detailed analysis of the heavy
alkanes in order to accurately predict the onset of condensation, these
components are generally present in small amount so that the influence on the
volume of condensate is small.
Calculations were also made to estimate the amount of condensate expected

~:
in compressed natural gas storage vessels at different pressures during
depletion, and at temperature down to -20 F. Gas compositions representative of
normally processed natural gas, as well as gas blended with propane/air were
used. The results show that the condensation in cold climates is a significant
factor to consider for gases containing large quantities of heavy hydrocarbons,
and in the case of gases blended with propane/air. The calculations showed that
as much as 20% of the gas may condense at -20 F for a blend of 50/50 propane/air
in natural gas. Condensation can occur in compressor intercoolers, and in the
j storage vessels. Besides the possibility of liquid build-up in storage vessels
and the need to properly handle the condensate at compression stations, the
variation of gas heating value due to condensation of the heavier components will
need to be considered for gases which are prone to significant condensation.
5.2 Introduction
The obj ective of this portion of the work was to assess the extent to which
variability of gas composition can contribute to the formation of condensates as
a function of pressure and temperature for compressed natural gas used in natural
gas vehicles. Towards this end, the immediate objective was to calculate and
develop a data base of fuel properties for a series of gas compositions
representative of those covered under Phase I of the Gas Quality Survey. The
starting point for this study was a list of 32 representative gas compositions
supplied by Mr. William Liss of GRI, as listed in Table 5-1. These gases cover
a range of compositions from pure methane to 50/50 propane/air mixture in a
nominal gas. The gas mixtures are representative of three categories of fuel
gases:
153
TABLE 5-1
List of Gas Compositions Used in the Study
CH4 C2H6 C3H8 N-C4 N-C5 N-C6 CO2 N2 AIR

Normally Processed, Delivered Natural Gas
1 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 97.50 0.90 0.50 0.14 0.04 0.02 0.30 0.60 0.00
3 95.00 2.50 1.00 0.30 0.07 0.03 0.35 0.75 0.00
4 92.50 3.50 1.20 0.60 0.08 0.05 0.50 1.57 0.00
5 90.00 4.00 1.40 0.65 0.10 0.07 0.60 3.18 0.00
6 87.50 5.00 1.80 0.65 0.11 0.08 0.70 4.16 0.00
7 85.00 5.50 2.60 1.00 0.25 0.10 0.85 4.70 0.00
8 82.50 6.50 3.00 1.30 0.30 0.15 1.00 5.25 0.00
9 80.00 7.00 3.40 1.40 0.35 0.20 1.20 6.45 0.00
High Ethane Natural Gas Air Blended

10 84.63 5.30 0.80 0.50 0.04 0.03 1.30 1.00 6.40
11 81.00 7.23 1.10 0.50 0.04 0.03 2.00 1.00 7.10
12 75.00 13.00 0.80 0.30 0.04 0.03 1.40 1.00 8.43
Propane/Air Mixtures in a Nominal Gas (2.5-50% Propane/Air)

13 90.68 3.02 2.13 0.39 0.15 0.10 0.78 1.51 1.25
14 88.35 2.95 3.36 0.38 0.14 0.10 0.76 1.47 2.50
15 86.03 2.87 4.58 0.37 0.14 0.09 0.74 1.43 3.75
16 83.70 2.79 5.81 0.36 0.14 0.09 0.72 1.40 5.00
17 81.38 2.71 7.04 0.35 0.13 0.09 0.70 1.36 6.25
18 79.05 2.64 8.27 0.34 0.13 0.09 0.68 1.32 7.50
19 76.73 2.56 9.49 0.33 0.12 0.08 0.66 1.28 8.75
20 74.40 2.48 10.82 0.32 0.12 0.08 0.64 1.24 9.90
21 72.08 2.40 12.17 0.31 0.12 0.08 0.62 1.20 11.03
22 69.75 2.33 13.55 0.30 0.11 0.08 0.60 1.16 12.13
23 67.43 2.25 14.95 0.29 0.11 0.07 0.58 1.12 13.20
24 65.10 2.17 16.38 0.28 0.11 0.07 0.56 1.09 14.25
25 62.78 2.09 17.83 0.27 0.10 0.07 0.54 1.05 15.28
26 60.45 2.02 19.31 0.26 0.10 0.07 0.52 1.01 16.28
27 58.13 1.94 20.81 0.25 0.09 0.06 0.50 0.97 17.25
28 55.80 1.86 22.34 0.24 0.09 0.06 0.48 0.93 18.20
29 53.48 1.78 23.89 0.23 0.09 0.06 0.46 0.89 19.13
30 51.15 1.71 25.47 0.22 0.08 0.06 0.44 0.85 20.03
31 48.83 1.63 27.07 0.21 0.08 0.05 0.42 0.81 20.90
32 46.50 1.55 28.70 0.20 0.08 0.05 0.40 0.78 21.75
154
normally processed and delivered natural gas,
high ethane natural gas air blended to reduce heating value to
traditional levels, and
natural gas containing a 50/50 mixture of propane/air blended in at
various proportions from 2.5 to 50%.
The data developed included basic fuel properties (heating value, specific
gravity, and Wobbe index), hydrocarbon dew point curves, and expected condensate
volumes at different temperatures and pressures. Detailed results of this study
are presented below.
,.,~.
5.3 Basic Fuel Properties
;
.
Table 5-11 lists the calculated specific gravity, heating value, and Wobbe
index for the 32 gas compositions under study. These properties were calculated
using ASTM D3588-89, "Standard Practice for Calculating Heat Value,
Compressibility Factor, and Relative Density of Gaseous Fuels". Also listed in
the table are values of the maximum dew point temperature and the corresponding
pressure for each gas composition. The procedure used for this calculation is
described in the next section. The maximum dew point temperature represents the
temperature above which the gas mixture will not form a condensate under any
pressure condition. Below this temperature, certain conditions of pressure will
result in the formation of condensate.
5.4 Hydrocarbon Dew Points
Hydrocarbon dew point curves for the gases in Table 5-1 were predicted by
a computer program which uses the Peng-Robinson equation of State for
Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium calculations. Previous experience at 1GT has shown that
dew point predictions are relatively insensitive to the equation of state used.
Predictions based on the Bennedict-Webb-Rubin-Starling, the Sauve-Redlich Kwong
and the Peng-Robinson equations, using a program available on 1GT's mainframe
computer, generally lie within a few degrees Fahrenheit of one another. The
program used in this study is personal-computer based, and was chosen primarily
for its convenience of use. For gases that contained air, the air content was
treated as nitrogen for calculation purposes. Data tables for each of the 32
gases, giving dew point temperature as a function of pressure are available in
Appendix A. Figure 5-1 shows the data plotted for 4 of these gases (numbers
4,9,18 and 32). For each gas the dew point curve defines a boundary in the
pressure-temperature plane, to the left of which the mixture exists as a
two-phase (gas/liquid) system, and to the right of which the mixture exists as
a single (gas) phase. Fuel 4 is a high methane content (92.5% methane) natural
gas that has a dew point temperature of - 20 F such that this gas will not
condense at temperatures above -20 F. Fuel 9 is a gas containing a large amount
of heavier hydrocarbons and only 80% methane that result in significant increase
in its dew point temperature to 42 F, as compared to that of leaner Fuel 4.
Fuels 18 and 32 are representative of propane/air peak shaving gases. Gas

18 is a 15% propane/air blend while Gas 32 is a 50% blend. The dramatic increase
in dew point temperatures with increasing propane content is evident in Figure
5-1. Note that none of the gases exhibit any condensation at pressures near
atmospheric, but on compression, condensation can occur at temperatures as high
as 80 F for Gas 32. The values of maximum dew point temperature listed in Table
5-11 for the 32 gas compositions correspond to the vertical tangents to the dew
155
TABLE 5-II
FUEL PROPERTIES
Gross
Maximum Dew Pt. Specific Heating Value Wobbe
Fuel ~ at psia Gravity* (Btu/SCF)** Index
1 0.555 1014 1362

2 -48.7 400 0.573 1025 1354
3 -30.6 500 0.590 1048 1364
4 -14.1 II
0.606 1056 1357
5 -5.2 II
0.620 1048 1332
6 0.0 600 0.634 1052 1321
7 18.9 II
0.657 1074 1325
8 32.5 700 0.676 1091 1327
9 41. 7 0.693 1092 1313
10 -27.1 500 0.640 993 1240

11 -23.5 600 0.662 998 1226
12 -24.4 0.684 1025 1240
13 2.5 500 0.620 1051 1335

14 6.3 600 0.636 1057 1325
15 8.8 0.652 1062 1315
16 13.4 700 0.668 1068 1306
17 17.7 0.685 1073 1297
18 22.4 800 0.701 1079 1289
19 25.7 II
0.717 1084 1280
20 30.9 II
0.734 1092 1275
21 36.4 900 0.750 1101 1271
22 41.5 0.767 1111 1268
23 45.9 0.784 1120 1265
24 51.1 0.802 1131 1263
25 55.8 0.819 1142 1262
26 60.7 0.837 1155 1262
27 64.7 0.854 1166 1262
28 69.5 0.872 1180 1263
29 74.1 0.890 1194 1265
30 78.5 0.909 1208 1268
31 82.6 0.927 1223 1271
32 87.0 0.945 1239 1274
*Referred to air=1.
**Reference conditions 14.73 psia and dry at 60 o F.
156
~~ ... ---:_-~ ,--~ 'j., --~ ,• .,.,... ~_iI
~cc.ii2 1.!C;~~ ~!i'ifi L~,~,2,j
1800 ~4
1800
1600
1600
1400
1400
1200
~as4 1200
1000
I
PRESSURE (?SIAl
1000
...... PRESSURE (PSIA)

U1 800
-...J
800
600
600
400
400
200 200
o 0
~ -«l ·20 02040 &0 10 100 ~ -«l ·20 0 20 «l &0 10 100

TEMPERAT\JRE IF) TEMPERATURE (F)
Figure 5-1 Figure 5-2

Comparative Dew Point plots for two conventional gases (filled data points) and twO Effect of heavy hydrocarbons in input gas composition on predicted dew points Igas
gases with propane/air added (open data points). 4). Solid data points are based on heavies as nC., Open data points are based on
analysis of heavies available up to nC.,
point curves. While Figure 5-1 illustrates the range of dew point curves that
can be expected, the values of maximum dew point temperature (Table 5-11) help
fix the approximate location of the dew point curve on the pressure-temperature
plane.
5.5 Effect of Heavy Hydrocarbons
5.5.1 Dew Point Prediction
The heavy hydrocarbons in natural gas are generally reported as a C6+

fraction from the routine chromatographic analysis. In the absence of a detailed
analysis of C6+ fraction, this value is assumed to be the concentration of only
nC6 and used to calculate the dew point. For a more accurate prediction of dew
point, however, it is much better to use an extended chromatographic analysis of
these heavy components. Since gas composition is the primary input in the
prediction of dew point temperatures, a study was done to check whether the use
of gas compositions from extended analysis would have a significant impact on
calculated dew point temperatures.
The four gases whose dew point curves are plotted in Figure 5-1 were used
in this study. For each of these gases a new set of dew point data was
calculated, assuming that the n-C6 concentration listed in Table 5-1 is actually
the sum of n-C6, n-C7 and n-C8 concentrations, and that these concentrations
decrease by a factor of approximately 2 from one alkane to the next higher.
Thus, the 0.05% n-C6 concentration for Gas 4 (Table 5-1) was assumed to consist
of 0.03% n-C6, 0.014% nC7 and 0.006% nC8. The dew point curves in Figures 5-2,
5-3, 5-4, and 5-5 show the results for Gases 4, 9, 18 and 32 respectively. In
each plot, the solid data points correspond to calculations based on the
compositions listed in Table 5-1, while the open data points are based on the
assumed "extended analysis". These figures show that, as expected, the use of
input data from extended analysis causes an increase in the predicted dew point
temperatures. The increase is most significant for Gases 4, 9 and 18, and very
small for Gas 32, which has a very high propane content.
5.5.2 Condensate Volume
Another meaningful parameter for studying the difference in results

obtained when using an extended analysis gas composition as opposed to inputting
only values down to C6 is the predicted volume of condensate within the two-phase
region. The vapor-liquid equilibrium program was used to calculate the volume of
condensate (in gallons) formed at 800 psia and temperatures of -10 F and 20 F
from 1000 standard cubic feet of each of the four gas compositions studied. The
estimated volume of condensate for each gas is presented in Table 5-111. The
results show that condensate volumes of several gallons per 1000 scf can be
expected when high levels of propane are present in the gas, as in the case of
Fuels 18 and 32. However, the difference between predicted volumes obtained by
inputting the heavy components as nC6 on the one hand, and using an extended
analysis on the other, is not significant except at conditions very close to the
dew point curves. This is because the absolute amounts of these heavy components
is very small.
The above results suggest that the use of 'extended analysis' data inputs
are unlikely to be of added value when condensate volumes are the parameter of
interest. However, if the temperature for the onset of condensation, or the
158
Table 5-III
Effect of Extended Analysis Input

on Predicted Condensate Volumes
Condensate, Gal/Msef at 800psia and

Gas
Composition Heavies Analysis Heavies Analysis
No. as Ce up to CB as Ce up to CB
4 o o o 0.01
9 0.33 0.37 1.02 1.02
18 0.04 0.11 1.04 1.05
32 7.08 7.08 8.18 8.18
Table 5-IV
Estimated Amount of Condensate for Different Gases at 800 psia
Gas No. Dew Point Temp. Mole % Q)ndensec:l "*

Volume Condensate
atSOOpsia (gaJsI1 000 sd)
(eF) 20 eF -10 eF _2O eF e
20 F -10 eF -2O-F
-I)
~~ 4 -20.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

9 41.2 1.2 4.4 0.3 1.0
15 7.0 0.0 0.8 1.6 0.0 0.2 0.4

18 22.4 0.' 4.5 6.8 0.0 1.0 '.5
22 40.7 4.6 13.3 16.1 1.1 2.9 3.6
.~
25 54.0 1'.3 20.5 2.8 4.2

,;; 83.7 28.4 35.7 7.1 8.2
32
1i
159
GAS 18
1800
1600
1«lO
1200
1000
PRESSURE (PSIA)
800
600
«Xl
200
-80 -«l -20 0 20 «l 60 80 100

TElo4PERATURE (F)

Effect of heavy hydrocarbons in input gas composition on predicted dew points (gas Effect of heavy hydrocarbons in input gas composition on predicted dew points (gas
91. Solid data points are based on heavies as nC._ Open data points are based on 181. Solid data points are based on heavies as nC._ Open data points are based on
analysis of heavies available up to nC._ analysis of heavies available up to nC._
·cA t~","_,* lIf>c,A '~: . . ;~ ~,~-_ ....i:"1 ~o;~> -0
GAS 32
1800
1600
1«Xl
1200
1000
I-'
0'\ 25
I-' PRESSURE (PSIA)
800
20
600
15
MOLE%UQUID
«Xl
10
200 5
0 o
o 200 «Xl 600 800 1000 1200 1«Xl 1600
-«l -'lO -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
PRESSURE (psia)
TEMPERATURE IF)

Effect of heavy hydrocarbons in input gas composition on predicted dew points (gas Effect of Propane Content and Pressure on Condensate Formation
32), Solid data points are based on heavies as nC., Open data points are based on
analysis of heavies available up to nC.,
phase compositions at conditions near the dew point are of prime importance, then
the use of extended analysis for the heavy components may significantly improve
the validity of predicted values.
5.6 Estimated Volume of Condensate
The objective of this part of the study was to develop data pertinent to
the formation of condensate within a high pressure storage tank as pressure
decreases. Referring to the dew point curves illustrated in Figure 5-1, it
becomes apparent that at ambient temperatures lower than the maximum dew point
temperature, decreasing the storage pressure from a high value, say 3000 psia,
will eventually bring the gas into the two-phase region. Such a scenario can be
expected as the tank is depleted by withdrawal of gas.
The vapor-liquid equilibrium program based on the Peng-Robinson equation

of state was used to estimate the quantity of condensate that would be formed at
different conditions of pressure and temperature within the two-phase region for
several of the gases listed in Table 5-1. The calculations were carried out at
temperatures of 20, -10 and -20 F, and at pressures down to 100 psia. Detailed
tables of predicted condensate volumes are available in Appendix B. The results
reported in this study are based on equilibrium "flash calculations". In other
words, the calculation at each pressure condition was based on the assumption
that the gas was brought to that condition by expansion, rather than by the
removal of vapor from a constant volume tank. This assumption simplifies the
calculations considerably, and was necessitated by time and money constraints.
However, the results are representative of what would be obtained by a more
rigorous approach, and are suitable for this preliminary investigation.
Table 5-IV compares the volume of condensate formed at 800 psia and
temperatures of 20, -10 and -20 F for Gases 4, 9, 15, 18, 22, 25 and 32. Gases
4 and 9 are representative of normally processed natural gases while the rest are
representative of gases blended with propane/air. The table lists mole % of the
original mixture condensed, along with the estimated volume of the condensate in
gallons per 1000 ccf of the original mixture. The results show the expected
increase in condensation with decreasing temperature, and also show that a large
amount of condensation can be expected when propane/air blends are used. The
detailed data tables of condensate volume as a function of pressure and
temperature for these gases are available in Appendix B.
Figure 5 - 6 is a plot showing the variation of mole % condensed as a

function of pressure at -20 F for three propane/air blends ranging from 7.5%
propane/air (Fuel 15) to 25% propane/air (Fuel 22) in a nominal natural gas. The
plot shows that the problem of condensation would be a major factor to consider
when working with propane/air blends at low temperatures. The data in Figure 5-6
also show that as pressure is dropped below 1000 psia, the condensed phase begins
to re-vaporize.
5.7 Implications of Condensation
The results presented above suggest strongly that condensation would be a

significant factor to consider in the use of compressed natural gas for vehicles
when the gas contains large quantities of heavy hydrocarbons, and in the case of
propane/air blends. Condensation is likely to occur in the compressor
intercoolers during compression in cold weather, and also in the storage vessels
162
themselves. One result of this would be changes in heating value of the fuel as
it passes through the various stages of compression due to removal of the
condensed phase. Further changes in heating value of the vapor phase in the
storage tanks could occur as the tank pressure drops. The magnitude of these
changes has not been quantified at this time, and would require a modeling of the
vehicle fueling operations, including the depletion of storage tanks by vapor
withdrawal. Another possible source of concern could be the build up of
condensate in storage tanks during repeated filling and depletion of storage
tanks in cold weather .
..~
163
REFERENCES
1. American Gas Association, Gas Engineering and Operating Practices, Volume

1 Supply, Book S-l Underground Storage, 1990.
2. Lovell, W., Engine Knock and Molecular Structure of Hydrocarbons, SAE

Quarterly Transactions, 2, 532 (1948).
3. Leiker, M., Christoph, K., Rankl, M., Cartellieri, W., and Pfeifer, U.,
"Evaluation of Antiknocking Property of Gaseous Fuels by Means of Methane
Number and its Practical Application to Gas Engines", American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Publication 72-DGP-4, 1972.
4. ASTM Method D2623-86, Standard Test Method for Knock Characteristics of

Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases by the Motor (LP) Method.
5. Liss, W.E. and Thrasher, W.H., "Natural Gas as a Stationary Engine and
Vehicular Fuel", SAE Technical Paper 912364, October, 1991.
6. King, S., "Impact of Natural Gas Composition on fuel metering and Engine
Operational Characteristics", Southwest Research Institute, Gas Research
Institute Report No. GRI-92/0593, February, 1992.
7. Ryan, T. W. and Callahan, T.J., "Effects of Gas Composition on Engine

Performance and Emissions", Southwest Research Institute, Gas Research
Institute Report No. GRI-92/0054, December, 1991.
8. Liss, W. E. and Thrasher, W.H., "Variability of Natural Gas Composition in

Select Maj or Metropolitan Areas of the United States, Interim Report",
American Gas Association Laboratories, Gas Research Institute Report No.
GRI-9l/0lll, March, 1991.
9. Clapham Common Services, IBI Group, Natural Gas Quality in Canada, Report
for British Columbia Research.
10. Natural Gas Contract Measurement and Quality Clauses, Gas Measurement
Committee Report No. 4A, American Gas Association, August, 1971.
11. New York Mercantile Exchange, 1984.
12. ASTM Method D1945-8l, Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas
Chromatography.
13. ASTM Method D1072-90, Standard Test Method for Total Sulfur in Gaseous
Fuels.
14. ASTM Method Dl142-86, Test Method for Water Vapor in Gaseous Fuels by
Measurement of Dewpoint Temperature.
164
Appendix A
Fuel Properties Data:

- Dew Point Temperatures
- Specific gravity
(referred to air=l)
- Gross heating value

(SCF at 14.73 psia, dry
at GOOF)
- Compressibility factor
- Wobbe index
A-I
gas 1 gas 2
GAS COMPOSITION GAS COMPOSITION

COMPONENT MOLE % COMPONENT MOLE %
Methane 100.0000 Methane 97.5000
Ethane 0.9000
Propane 0.5000
n-Butane 0.1400
DEW POINTS n-Pentane 0.0400
n-hexane 0.0200
Pressure. psis Temperature. deg F Nitrogen O.bOOO
100.0 -205.4 C02 0.3000
200.0 -178.2
300.0 -159.b
400.0 -145.0
SOO.O -133.0 DEW POINTS
bOO.O -122.7
Pressure. psia Temperature. deg F
100.0 -b4.7
200.0 -53.9
300.0 -49.7
400.0 -48.7
500.0 -50.1
&00.0 -53.4
700.0 -b2.3
800.0 -71.3
Specific Gravity: 0.572b5 at 14.73 psis/bO deg F

Gross Heating Value: 1024.87 Btu/cf at 14.73 psia/bO deg F
Compressibility factor: 0.99792 at 14.73 psia/bO deg F
Wobbe Inde., 1354.33
Specific Gravity: 0.55470 at 14.73 ps a/bO deg F

Gross Heating value: 1014.35 Btu/cf at 14.7 psia/bO deg F
Compressibility factor: 0.99802 at 14.73 PS a/bO deg F
Wobbe I nde., 13bl.94
gas 3 GAS 4
GAS COMPOSITION

Ethane 2.5000 Ethane 3.5000
Propane 1.0000 Propane 1.2000
n-Butane 0.3000 n-Butane O.bOOO
n-Pentane 0.0700 n-Pent.ane 0.0800
n-hexane 0.0300 n-hexane 0.0500
Nitrogen 0.7500 Nitrogen 1.5700
C02 0.3500 C02 0.5000
DEw POINTS DEw POINTS
Pressure, psia Temperature, de; F Pressure, psia Temperature, des F

100.0 -52.2 100.0 -40.4
200.0 -39.3 200.0 -25.9
300.0 -33 .4 300.0 -18.9
400.0 -30.9 400.0 -15.4
500.0 -30.b 500.0 -14.1
bOO.O -32.1 bOO.O -14.b
700.0 -35.4 700.0 -lb.b
800.0 -44.2 800.0 -20.2
900.0 -53.2 900.0 -29.1
1000.0 -b2.9 1000.0 -38.1
1100.0 -47.8
Specific Gravity: 0.589bO at 14.73 psia/bO deg F
Gross Heating value: 1047.bb Btu/cf at 14.73 psia/bO deg F Specific Gravity: 0.bOb34 at 14.73 psia/bO deg F
Compressibility factor: 0.99778 at 14.73 psia/bO deg F Gross Heating value: 105b.41 Btu/cf at 14.73 psia/bO deg F
Wobbe Index: 13b4.40 Compressibility factor: 0.997b9 at 14.73 psia/bO deg F
Wobbe I nde x: 135b.b8
A-2
gas 5 gas 6
GAS COM~OS:TION GAS COM~OSITION
COM~ONENT MOI.E % COM~ONENT MOI.E %

Me~"ane 90.0000 Me~"ane 87.5000
E~"ane 4.0000 Et"ane 5.0000
Pro~ane 1.4000 ~ro~ane 1.8000
n-Bu~ane 0.6500 n-Butane 0.6500
n-~en~ane 0.1000 n-Pent.ane 0.1100
n-he)!:ane 0.0700 n-hexane 0.0800
Ni~ro;en 3.1800 Ni~ro;en 4.1600
C02 0.6000 C02 0.7000
DEW ~OINTS DEW ~OINTS
Pressure, psia Tem~era~ure. des F Pressure. psia Tem~erature. de; F

100.0 -33.2 100.0 -29.8
200.0 -18.1 200.0 -14.2
300.0 .,.10.7 300.0 -6.4
400.0 -6.8 400.0 -2.2
500.0 -5.2 500.0 -0.2
600.0 -5.3 600.0 0.0
700.0 -6.9 700.0 -1.1
800.0 -9.9 800.0 -3.7
900.0 -18.7 900.0 -12.4
1000.0 -27.5 1000.0 -21.1
1100.0 -36.5 1100.0 -30.0
1200.0 -46.2 1200.0 -39.8
S~ecific Gravity: 0.6199S a~ 14.73 ~sia/60 de; F S~eeific Gravi~y: 0.63418 a~ 14.73 ~sia/60 de; F
Gross value: 1048.40 Btu/ef at 14.73 ~sia/60 deg F
Hea~ins Gross Heatin; value: 1051.87 8tu/cf at 14.73 ~sia/60 de; F
Com~ressibili~y fac~or: 0.99768 at 14.73 ~sia/60 deg F Com~ressibili~y fae~or: 0.99762 at 14.73 ~sia/60 de; F
Wobbe Index: 1331.53 WObbe Index: 1320.86
gas 7 gas 8
GAS COM~OSITION GAS COM~OSITION
COMPONENT MOI.E % COM~ONENT MOI.E %

Met"ane 8S.0000 Met"ane 82.5000
E~"ane 5.5000 Et"ane 6.5000
- 3.0000
Propane 2.6000 ~ro~ane
'~
n-Butane 1.0000 n-Butane 1.3000
"-Pentane 0.2500 n-~en~ane 0.3000
Ni~rogen 4.7000 Nitro;en 5.2500
C02 0.8500 C02 1.0000
DEW ~OINTS DEW ~OINTS
Pressure. psis Tem~erature. des F Pressure, psia Temperature. de; F

100.0 -18.1 100.0 -8.3
200.0 -0.4 200.0 10.4
300.0 8.9 300.0 20.5
400.0 14.4 400.0 26.6
500.0 17.5 500.0 30.2
600.0 18.9 600.0 32.1
700.0 18.8 700.0 32.5
800.0 17.5 800.0 31.7
900.0 15.0 900.0 29.8
1000.0 6.3 1000.0 23.5
1100.0 -2.5 1100.0 17.4
1200.0 -11.4 1200.0 8.6
1300.0 -20.8 1300.0 -0.3
1400.0 -10.0
S~eeific Gravi~y: 0.65646 a~ 14.73 ~s a/60 deg F
Gross Hea~ing
value: 1073.85 Btu/cf at 14.7 psia/60 deg F S~eeifie Gravity: 0.67556 at 14.73 psi./60 de; F
Com~ressibili~y fac~or: 0.99746 at 14.73 ~s a/60 deg F Gross Hea~ingValue: 1090.77 Btu/cf at 14.73 ~sia/60 deg F
Wobbe :ndex: 132S.39 Com~ressibility factor: 0.99732 a~ 14.73 ~Si./60 dell F
Wobbe Index: 1327.08
A-3
GAS 9 gas 10

n-Butane 1.4000 n-Butane 0.5~00
n-Pentane 0.3500 n-Pentane 0.0400
C02 1.2000 C02 1.3000
DEW POINTS DEW POINTS
Pressure. psia Temperature. de; F Pressure. psia Temperature, de; F

100.0 -1 .4 100.0 -51.9
200.0 18.0 200.0 -38.2
300.0 28.4 300.0 -31.6
400.0 34.9 400.0 -28.2
500.0 38.8 500.0 -27.1
600.0 41.0 600.0 -27.6
700.0 41.7 700.0 -29.5
800.0 41.2 800.0 -33.1
900.0 39.7 900.0 -42.0
1000.0 33.8 1000.0 -51.0
1100.0 28.1 1100.0 -/:>0.7
1200.0 21.8
1300.0 13.0 Specific Gravity: 0.64028 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F
1400.0 4.0 Gross Heating value: 992.50 Btu/cf at 14.73 psia/60 de; F
1500.0 -1.9 Compressibility factor: 0.99780 at 14.73 psia/60 de; F
Wobbe I nde x : 1240.35
5pecific Gravity: 0.69247 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F
Gross Heating value: 1092.16 Btu/cf at 14.73 psia/60 deg F
Compressibility factor: 0.99725 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F
wobbe Index: 1312.46
gas 11 gas 12

COMPONENT MOLE % COMPONENT MOLE "
PTopane 1.1000 Propane 0.8000
Tl-Pentane 0.0400 n-Pentane 0.0400
n-he)(ane 0.0300 n-hexane 0.0300
C02 2.0000 C02 1.4000

Pressure. psia Temperature. de; F Pressure. psia Temperature. deg F
100.0 -50.8 100.0 -52.5
200.0 -36.5 200.0 -38.3
300.0 -29.3 300.0 -31.0
400.0 -2S.4 400.0 -26.9
500.0 -23.6 500.0 -24.9
600.0 -23.S 600.0 -24.4
700.0 -24.8 700.0 -25.1
800.0 -27.5 600.0 -27.1
900.0 -36.3 900.0 -35.9
1000.0 -45.2 1000.0 -44.8
1100.0 -54.7 1100.0 -53.6
Specific Gravity: 0.66229 at 14.73 psia/60 de; F Specific Gravity: 0.68426 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F
Gross Heating value: 997.67 Btu/cf at 14.73 psia/60 de; F Gross Heating value: 1025.40 Btu/cf at 14.73 psia/60 deg F
Compressibility factor: 0.99769 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F Compressibility factor: 0.99753 at 14.73 psia/60 de; F
Wobbe I nde x: 1225.92 wobbe Index: 1239.59
A-4
gas 13 gas 14
GAS COMPOSITION GA5 COMPOS IrION

Met.hane 90.6800 Methane 66.3500
Et.hane 3.0200 Ethane 2.9500
n-Pentane o .lS00 ,,-Pent.ane 0.1400
C02 0.7700 C02 0.7500
Pressure, psia Temperature. deg F Pressure, psia Temperature, deg F

100.0 -26.0 100.0 -2S.0
200.0 -10.6 200.0 -9.0
300.0 -3.1 300.0 -0.9
400.0 0.9 400.0 3.6
SOO.O 2.5 SOO.O 5.7
600.0 2.4 600.0 6.3
700.0 0.9 700.0 5.4
600.0 -2.0 600.0 3.2
900.0 -10.7 900.0 -0.5
1000.0 -19.5 1000.0 -9.3
1100.0 -26.4 1100.0 -16.2
1200.0 -36.2 1200.0 -27.7
Specific Gravit.y: 0.62010 at 14.73 Ps a/60 deg F Specific Gravity: 0.63621 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F
Gross Heating value: 10Sl.27 Btu/cf at 14.7 psia/60 deg F Gross Heating Value: 1056.61 Btu/cf at 14.73 psia/60 deg F
Compressibilit.y fact.or: 0.99767 at. 14.73 PS a/60 deg F Compressibility factor: 0.99761 at. 14.73 psia/60 deg F
wobbe I nde x: 1335.01 Wobbe I nde x : 13:<4.94
gas 15 gas 16
GAS COMPOS I nON GA5 COMPOSITION

n-But.ane 0.3700 "-Butane 0.3600
"-Pentane 0.1400 "-Pentane 0.1400
C02 0.7400 C02 0.7100
Pressure, psia Temperature, deg F Pressure. psia Temperature. deg F

100.0 -25.4 100.0 -24.0
200.0 -6.8 200.0 -6.7
300.0 -0.1 300.0 2.6
400.0 5.0 400.0 8.2
500.0 7.7 500.0 l1.S
600.0 8.8 600.0 13.2
700.0 6.5 700.0 13.4
600.0 7.0 800.0 12.5
900.0 4.2 900.0 10.4
1000.0 -4.6 1000.0 3.B
1100.0 -13.4 1100.0 -2.9
1200.0 -22.3 1200.0 -11.8
1300.0 -32 .1 1300.0 -21.3
Specific Gravity: 0.65223 at 14.73 PS a/60 dell F Specific Gravity: 0.66644 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F
Gross Heating value: 1061.94 Btu/cf at 14.7 psia/60 deg F Gross Heating Value: 1067.71 Bt.u/cf at. 14.73 psia/60 deg F
Compressibility factor: 0.99755 at 14.73 PS a/60 deg F Compressibility factor: 0.99748 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F
Wobbe Index: 1314.93 Wobbe Index: 1305.94
A-5
gas 17 GAS 16
GAS COMPOS IT I ON GAS CO"'POSITION
COMPONENT MOLE '" COMPONENT MOLE %

Met.hane 81.3800 Met.hane 79.0342
Et.hane 2.7100 Et.hane 2.6395
Propane 7.0400 I=lropane 8.2663
n-Butane 0.3S00 n-8utane 0.3399
n-Pent.ane 0.1300 n-Pent.ane 0.1300
n-he)(ane 0.0900 n-hexane 0.0900
Nit.rogen 7.6100 Nitrogen 8.8182
C02 0.6900 C02 0.6799
Pressure. psia Temperat.ure, de; F Pressure. psia Temperat.ure. deg F

100.0 -23.0 100.0 -21.6
200.0 -S.O 200.0 -2.9
300.0 4.9 300.0 7.6
400.0 11.0 400.0 14.2
500.0 14.8 SOO.O 16.5
600.0 16.9 600.0 21.1
700.0 17.7 700.0 22.3
BOO.O 17.3 600.0 22.4
900.0 1S.8 900.0 21.5
1000.0 9.6 1000.0 15.6
1100.0 3.S 1100.0 10.0
1200.0 -5.3 1200.0 3.6
1300.0 -14.2 1300.0 -5.2
1400.0 -23.7 1400.0 -14.2
Specific Gravit.y: 0.684S1 at. 14.73 psia/60 deg F Specific Gravity: 0.70089 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F
Gross Heating Value: 1073.18 Bt.u/cf at 14.73 P5ia/60 deg F Gross Meating value: 1078.91 Bt.u/cf at 14.73 psia/60 des F
Compressibilit.y fact.or: 0.99742 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F Compressibilit.y factor: 0.99736 at 14.73 psia/60 des F
Wobbe Index: 1297.13 Wobbe Index: 1268.73
gas 19 gas 20
COMPONENT MOLE '" COMPONENT MOLE '"

Met.hane 76.7300 Methane 74.4000
Et.hane 2.5600 Et.hane 2.4800
Pro"ane 9.4900 Propane 10.6200
n-But.ane 0.3300 n-Butane 0.3200
n-Pent.ane 0.1200 n-Pentane 0.1200
Nit.rogen 10.0300 Nitrogen 11.1400
C02 0.6600 C02 0.6400
Pressure, psia Temperature. deg F Pressure, psia Temperat.ure, des F

100.0 -22.3 100.0 -20.7
200.0 -2.9 200.0 -0.6
300.0 8.2 300.0 11.1
400.0 1S .4 400.0 18.8
SOO.O 20.2 500.0 24.1
600.0 23.3 600.0 27.6
700.0 25.0 700.0 29.8
800.0 25.7 600.0 30.9
900.0 25.2 900.0 30.9
1000.0 19.6 1000.0 25.6
1100.0 14.5 1100.0 20.8
1200.0 6.7 1200.0 15.5
1300.0 -0.1 1300.0 9.1
1400.0 -9.0 1400.0 0.3
1500.0 -5.2
Specific Gravity: 0.71665 at. 14.73 psia/60 deg F
Gross Heating value: 1063.86 Btu/cf at 14.73 psia/60 deg F Specific Gravity: 0.73349 at. 14.73 psia/60 des F
Compressibilit.y fact.or: 0.99730 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F Gross Heating value: 1092.18 Bt.u/cf at 14.73 psia/60 deg F
Wobbe Index: 1280.32 Compressibility factor: 0.99722 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F
Wobbe Index: 1275.25
A-6
gas 21 gas 22
GAS COMPOSITION GAS COMPOS:nON

Propane 12.1700 Propane .3.SS00
n-Pent.ane 0.1200 "-Pentane 0.1100
n-hexa ne 0.0800 n-hexane 0.0800
C02 0.bl00 C02 0.5900
"
"
DEW POINTS
Pressure. psia Temperature, des F Pressure. psia -emgerature. deg F

100.0 -19.1 100.0 -17 .9
200.0 1.6 200.0 3.6
300.0 14.0 300.0 16.b
400.0 22.2 400.0 25.3
SOO.O 26.0 500.0 31.S
bOO.O 31.9 600.0 3S.9
700.0 34.b 700.0 36.9
800.0 36.0 600.0 40.7
900.0 36.4 900.0 41.5
1000.0 31.4 1000.0 3b.b
1100.0 26.9 1100.0 32.4
1200.0 22.0 1200.0 27.9
1300.0 16.1 1300.0 22.4
1400.0 7.3 1400.0 lS.7
1500.0 1.7 1500.0 9.6
1600.0 S.l
Specific Gravity: o .7503S at 14.73 psia/bO deg F
Gross Heating value: 1101.11 Btu/cf at 14.73 psia/bO deg F Specific Gravi ty: 0.7b733 at 14.73 psia/bO deg F
Compressibility factor: 0.99714 at 14.73 psia/bO deg F Gross Heating value: 1110.47 Btu/cf at 14.73 psia/bO deg F
"
Wobbe Index: 1271.15 Compressibi l i ty factor: 0.99705 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F
Wobbe Index: 12b7.70
gas 23 gas 24
GAS COMC>OSITION GAS COMPOS I TI ON

.,.~ COMPONENT MOLE % COMPONENT MOLE %
Methane b7.4300 Methane 65.1000
Ethane 2.2500 Et.hane 2.1700
-1 Propane
~
14.9500 Propane lb.3800
.j n-Pentane 0.1100 n-Pentane 0.1100
n-he}llane 0.0700 n-hexane 0.0700
Nitrogen 14.3200 NitT'ogen 15.3400
CO2 0.5800 CO2 O.SSOO
.~
'\
~
:~' Pressure. psia Temperature, deg F Pressure, psia Temperature. deg F

100.0 -17.9 100.0 -lb.l
200.0 4.7 200.0 7.1
~ 300.0 16.2 300.0 21.2
400.0 27.5 400.0 31.0
...,
.
500.0
bOO.O
34.2
39.1
500.0
600.0
38.1
43.3
,.,;, 700.0 42.5 700.0 47.0
;iIi 600.0 44.7 800.0 49.6
900.0 4S.9 900.0 51.1
1000.0 41.2 1000.0 46.5
1100.0 37.3 1100.0 42.9
~
,1 1200.0 33.0 1200.0 36.6
i' 1300.0 27.9 1300.0 34.0
~ 1400.0 21.6 1400.0 26.1
1500.0 15.b 1500.0 22.0
lbOO.O 10.7 lbOO.O 17.0
Specific Gravity: 0.76439 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F Specific Gravity: 0.60175 at 14.73 psia/bO deg F
Gross Heating value: 1120.20 Btu/cf at 14.73 psia/60 deg F Gross Heating Value: 1131.07 Btu/cf at 14.73 psia/bO deg F
Compressibilit.y factor: 0.99b96 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F Compressibility factor: 0.99667 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F
Wobbe Index: 1264.62 wobbe Index: 1263.19
A-7
"as '25 gas 26
GA5 COMP05ITION GAS COMPOSITION
COMPONENT MOLE % COMPONENT MOLE '"

Metha.ne 62.7800 Methane 60.4500
C02 0.5300 C02 0.5000
Pressure, psia Temperature. deg F Pressure, psia Temperature, deg F

100.0 -14.8 100.0 -13.0
200.0 9.2 200.0 11.7
300.0 23.8 300.0 2&.8
400.0 34.1 400.0 37.5
500.0 41.0 500.0 45.3
600.0 47.1 600.0 51.2
700.0 51.2 700.0 55.6
800.0 54.0 800.0 58.7
900.0 55.8 900.0 60.7
1000.0 51.4 1000.0 56.5
1100.0 47.9 1100.0 53.1
1200.0 44.1 1200.0 49.5
1300.0 39.5 1300.0 45.2
1400.0 33.8 1400.0 39.7
1500.0 29.5 1500.0 35.5
1600.0 24.4 1600.0 30.4
1700.0 17.9 1700.0 23.7
Specific Gravity: 0.81910 at 14.73 ps a/oO deg F Specific Gravity: 0.83676 at 14.73 psia/&O de" F
Gross Heating Value: 1142.15 Btu/cf at 14.7 psia/oO deg F Gross Heating Value: 1154.48 Btu/cf at 14.73 psia/&O deg F
Compressibility factor: 0.99677 at 14.73 ps a/60 deg F Compressibility factor: 0.996&6 at 14.73 psia/&O deg F
wobbe I nde x: 1201.99 Wobbe Index: 1262.07
"as 27 "as 28
GA5 COMPOSITION GAS COMP05ITION

Ethane 1.9400 Ethane 1.8&00
n-hexane 0.0&00 n-hexane 0.0600
Nitrogen 18.2200 Ni trogen 19.1300
C02 0.5000 C02 0.4800
DEW POINTS DEw POINTS
Pressure, psia Temperature, des F Pressure. psia Temperature. deg F

100.0 -13.1 100.0 -11.2
200.0 12.6 200.0 15.1
300.0 28.4 300.0 31.5
400.0 39.0 400.0 43.1
500.0 48.0 500.0 51.7
600.0 54.3 600.0 58.3
700.0 59.0 700.0 63.3
800.0 62.4 800.0 &7.0
900.0 64.7 900.0 b9.5
1000.0 60.5 1000.0 &5.4
1100.0 57.4 1100.0 62.3
1200.0 53.9 1200.0 59.0
1300.0 49.7 1300.0 54.9
1400.0 44.4 1400.0 49.8
1500.0 40.4
1600.0 35.2 Specific Gravity: 0.87231 at 14.73 psia/oO deg F
1700.0 28.4 Gross Heating value: 1179.79 Btu/cf at 14.73 psia/&O deg F
Compressibility factor: 0.99&45 at 14.73 psia/&O deg F
Specific Gravity: 0.85430 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F Wobbe Index: 12&3.19
Gross Heating Value: 1160.3& Btu/cf at 14.73 psia/&O deg F
Compressibility factor: 0.9965& at 14.73 psia/60 deg F
wobbe Index: 1261.90
A-8
gas 29 gas 30

COMPONENT MOl.E % COMPONENT MOl.E %
n-Pent.ane 0.0900 n-Pentane 0.0800
n-ne)(ane 0.0600 n-hexane 0.0600
C02 0.4500 C02 0.4300

Pressure, psia Temperature, de~ F PreSSUl"'e. psia Temperature, des F
100.0 -9.4 100.0 -7.8
200.0 17.7 200.0 19.9
300.0 34.5 300.0 37.2
400.0 46.4 400.0 49.5
500.0 55.4 500.0 58.8
600.0 62.3 600.0 66.0
700.0 67.5 700.0 71.4
800.0 71.4 800.0 75.6
900.0 74.1 900.0 78.5
1000.0 70.1 1000.0 74.6
1100.0 67.2 1100.0 71.7
1200.0 64.0 1200.0 68.5
1300.0 60.0 1300.0 64.6
1400.0 55.0 1400.0 59.7
1500.0 51.2 1500.0 56.0
1600.0 46.0 1600.0 50.9
1700.0 40.6
Specific Gravity: 0.90850 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F
Specific Gravity: 0.89034 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F Gross Heating Value: 1208.33 Btu/cf at 14.73 psia/60 deg F
Gross Heating Value: 1193.84 Btu/cf at 14.73 psia/60 deg F Compressibility factor: 0.99620 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F
Compressibility factor: 0.99633 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F wobbe Inde.: 1267.72
.J Wobbe Inde.: 1265.23
gas 31 GAS 32
COMPONENT MOl.E % COMPONENT HOLE ,

n-hexane 0.0500 n-hellane 0.0500
Nitrogen 21.7100 Ilitrogen 22.5277
C02 0.4200 C02 0.4000
DEw POINTS DEW POIIlTS
PreSSUT'e, psia Temperature, deg F Pressure. psia Temperature. deg F

100.0 -7.3 100.0 -5.4
200.0 21.4 200.0 23.9
300.0 39.3 300.0 42.3
400.0 52.1 400.0 55.4
500.0 61.B 500.0 65.4
600.0 69.3 600.0 73.1
700.0 75.0 700.0 79.1
800.0 79.4 800.0 83.7
900.0 82.6 900.0 87.0
1000.0 78.6 1000.0 83.1
1100.0 75.8 1100.0 80.3
1200.0 72.7 1200.0 77 .3
1300.0 68.9 1300.0 73.5
1400.0 64.0 1400.0 68.6
1500.0 60.4
Specific Gravity 0.94534 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F
Specific Gravity: 0.92673 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F Gross Heating Value 1239.07 Btu/cf at 14.73 psia/60 deg F
Gross Heating Value: 1223.19 Btu/cf at 14.73 psia/60 deg F Compressibility factor 0.99594 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F
Compressibility factor: 0.99607 at 14.73 psia/60 deg F Wobbe Indes 1274.39
Wobbe Inde.: 1270.62
A-9
"
Appendix B
Condensate Volume Data
B-1
Conclensale Volumes for Fuel 15
-20F
Dew Poinl Conclenwe Mole""
Pressure Temperature Volume Condensed
(psia) (F) (GallMsc:f)
1200 -22.3 0 0
1100 -13.4 0.23 1.02
1000 ~.6 0.33 1.47
900 4.2 0.37 1.63
800 7.0 0.37 1.61
700 8.5 0.34 1.45
600 8.8 0.29 1.21
500 7.7 0.23 0.92
400 5.0 0.16 0.62
300 ~.1 0.097 0.36
200 -8.8 0.042 0.14
100 -254 0 0
Condensate Volumes for Fuel 18
-10 DF 20"'
Dew Point Condensate Hole .. Condenaate Hole ..
Pr•• sure Temperature Volume Condensed Volume Condensed
Ipsial ( DFl (Gal/Meef> (Gal/Maet)
1400 -14.2 0 0
1300 -5.2 0.75 3.01 0
1200 3.6 1.07 4.48 0
1100 10.0 1.19 5.09 0
1000 15.6 1.20 5.18 0
900 21.5 1.15 4.96 0.03 0.11
800 22.4 1.04 4.52 0.04 0.15
700 22.3 0.91 3.90 0.03 0.11
600 21.1 0.74 3.13 0.01 0.04
500 18.5 0.54 2.23 0
400 14.2 0.33 1.31 0
300 7.6 0.15 0.56 0
200 -2.9 0.037 0.13 0
100 -21.6 0 0
Condensalll Volumes for Fuel 111
-20F
Pressure
Dew Poinl
Temperature
Condensate
Volume
Mole""
Condensed
(psia) (F) (GallMsc:f)
1400 -14.2 0.59 2.07

1300 52 1.54 6.2
1200 3.6 1.82 7.7
1100 10.0 1.86 8.09
1000 15.6 1.8 7.93
900 21.5 1.68 7.46
800 224 1.53 6.79
700 22.3 1.36 5.98
600 211 1.15 5.03
500 18.5 0.92 3.92
400 14.2 0.63 2.64
300 76 0.33 1.31
200 -2.9 0.11 0.39
100 -21.6 0 0
Conaensate Volumes tor Fuel 22
-lO·F 20"F
Dew Point Conaensate Kole , Conaen.ate Kale ,
Pressure Temperature Volume Conaensea Volume Conaensea
lpsia' ("Fl (Gal/Keetl (Gal/MeeO
1600 5.1 5.04 12.81 0

1500 9.8 31.23 87.50 0
1400 15.7 31.26 87.50 0
1300 22.4 4.39 18.73 1.43 5.34
1200 27.9 4.04 17.99 1.55 6.00
.; 1100 32.4 3.73 16.98
15.86
1.55
1.47
6.12
5.87
1000 36.6 3.46
900 41.5 3.20 14.63 1.33 5.35
800 40.7 2.93 13.33 1.14 4.59
700 38.9 2.66 11.91 0.90 3.60
600 35.9 2.36 10.35 0.61 2.43
500 31.5 1.99 8.55 0.31 1.21
400 25.3 1.51 6.33 0.084 0.32
300 16.6 0.84 3.43 0
200 3.8 0.16 0.63 0
100 -17.9 0 0
Condensatll Volumes lor Fuel 22
-2OF
o.wPoint Condensate Mole"
Pressure Temperalure Volume Condensed
(psia) (F) (GalIMsd)
1200 27.9 5.18 22.23

1100 32.4 4.73 20.74
1000 36.6 4.34 192
900 41.5 3.97 17.66
800 litH 3.63 16.1
700 38.9 328 14.51
600 35.9 2.93 12.84
500 31.5 2.54 11.01
400 25.3 2.07 8.84
300 16.6 1.43 6
200 3.8 0.5 2.03
100 -17.9 0.011 0.038
Conaensate Volumes tor Fuel 25
-10"F 20"[
Dew Point Conaensate Kale , Conaensate Kole ,
Pre.sure Temperature Volume Conaensea Volume Conaensea
Ipsial I "Fl IGal/MeeO IGal/K,cO
1000 51.4 4.79 24.0 3.46 13.8

900 55.8 4.49 22.2 3.15 12.7
800 54.0 4.19 20.5 2.80 11.3
700 51.2 3.90 18.6 2.41 9.71
600 47.1 3.59 16.7 1.95 7.79
500 41.6 3.24 14.5 1.36 5.42
400 34.1 2.76 11.9 0.65 2.53
300 23.8 2.00 8.29 0.074 0.28
200 9.2 0.68 2.71 0
100 -14.8 0 0
B-3

Variability of Natural Gas Composition in Select Major Metropolitan Areas of The United States

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Variability of Natural Gas Composition in Select Major Metropolitan Areas of The United States

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GRI-92/0123 PB92-224617

VARIABILITY OF NATURAL GAS

W. E. Liss, Gas , Research Institute

REPORT DOCUMENTATION 1. Report No. GRI-9210123 2. 3. PB92-224617

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. ProjecVTaskIWork Unit No.

American Gas Association Laboratories

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)

17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors

20. Security Class (This Page) 22. Price

;:,ee P.I'~;:'J-L"~. 'OJ ~ee msrrucClons on neverse

IN SELECT MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES

(AUGUST 1990 - FEBRUARY 1992)

W. E. LISS, GAS RESEARCH INSTITUTE

AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION LABORATORIES

I GAS RESEARCH INSTITUTE

CONTRACT NO. 5091-293-2132

1 GRI PROJECT MANAGER

a. Makes any warranty or representation, express or implied, with respect to the

Title Variability of Natural Gas Composition in Select Major

Contractor American Gas Association Laboratories

Report August 1990 - March 1992

Objective The objectives of this report are to: quantify potential

Over 6800 gas analyses were obtained from 26 cities

! located in 19 states and each of the major geographical

The study of peakshaving practices indicated that the

Gaseous fuels with higher concentrations of heavier

Propane-air and LNG peakshaving surveys conducted in

This report provides a comprehensive source of

2.0 NATIONAL OVERVIEW 12

2.1 Summary National Statistics 12

3.0 REGION AND CITY OVERVIEW 21

3.1 Northeast Region 21

3.3 North Central Region 23

3.4 South Central Region 24

3.5 Mountain Region 25

3.6 Pacific Region 25

4.0 PEAKSHAVING PRACTICES 121

4.1 Propane-Air Peakshaving 121

4.2 Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) 118

5.0 High Pressure Gas Storage Hydrocarbon Condensation 153

5.1 Summary 153

1-1 Natural Gas Composition Reported by British Columbia 9

l-II Typical Contract Limits for Custody Transfer of 10

2-1 Weighted National Statistics for Natural Gas in 26 Urban 14

2- II Water Holding Capacity of Natural Gas 18

3-1 Summary Level Statistics for New York 27

3-II Summary Level Statistics for New Jersey 29

3- III Summary Level Statistics for Pennsylvania - Company #1, 31

3-IV Summary Level Statistics for Pennsylvania - Company #1, 34

3-V Summary Level Statistics for Pennsylvania - Company #2, 35

3-VI Summary Level Statistics for Pennsylvania - Company #2, 36

3-VII Summary Level Statistics for Connecticut 39

3 -VIII Summary Level Statistics for Massachusetts - City #1 42

3-IX Summary Level Statistics for Massachusetts - City #2 43

3-X Summary Level Statistics for Rhode Island 46

3-XI Summary Level Statistics for Maryland - Gas Supplier A 49

3-XII Summary Level Statistics for Maryland at Daily Maximum 54

3 -XIII Summary Level Statistics for Maryland at Daily Minimum 55

3-XIV Summary Level Statistics for Maryland at Daily Minimum 56

3-XVI Summary Level Statistics for Georgia 58

3-XVII Summary Level Statistics for Virginia - Station A 61