Hydrocarbon Industrial Complex Map In Detail
Below is a brand new map from our team that contains multiple data layers that speak to the myriad players and facilities involved in the North American hydrocarbon network – from upstream processing facilities to transporters and export terminals. This map helps us to demonstrate the complexity of the hydrocarbon industry, because we often assume that hydraulic fracturing or related extractive techniques are local issues. However, there is actually a tremendous – and growing – interconnectivity between production, transport, processing, usage, storage, and export.
To see a fullscreen version of this map, along with a legend and description, click on the arrows in the upper right hand corner of the map.
Data Descriptions
EIA Sources: Peak Shavers, Underground Natural Gas Storage, Compressor Station, Natural Gas HUBs, and Pipeline Data
Peak Shavers are:
…used for storing surplus natural gas that is to be used to meet the requirements of peak consumption later during winter or summer. Each peak-shaving facility has a regasification unit attached but may or may not have a liquefaction unit…[they] depend upon tank trucks to bring LNG from other nearby sources to them. Of the approximate 113 active LNG facilities in the United States, 57 are peak-shaving facilities. The other LNG facilities include marine terminals, storage facilities, and operations involved in niche markets such as LNG vehicular fuel. Learn more
The data included in this map include 109 Peak Shavers vs. the aforementioned 57.
- Regional distribution: 7 Central US, 12 Midwest, 53 Northwest, 24 Southeast, 5 Southwest, 8 Western
- 106 of which are active and 3 under construction
The Underground Natural Gas Storage Facilities (UNGSF) layer is an EIA-defined collection of 413 facilities1, a definition that includes “pipelines, local distribution companies, producers, and pipeline shippers with an inventory management tool, seasonal supply backup, and access to natural gas needed to avoid imbalances between receipts and deliveries on a pipeline network.” (For a more detailed description of UNGSF, see the EIA’s description)
Compressor Stations are designed to ensure:
…that the natural gas flowing through any one pipeline remains pressurized, compression of this natural gas is required periodically along the pipe…usually placed at 40 to 100 mile intervals along the pipeline. The natural gas enters the compressor station, where it is compressed by either a turbine, motor, or engine…[they] gain their energy by using up a small proportion of the natural gas that they compress.
For a more detailed discussion of the importance and design of compressor stations, refer to NaturalGas.org’s The Transportation of Natural Gas.
- This layer includes: 1,756 compressor stations with the following regional distribution: 207 Canadian, 344 Central US, 14 Gulf Coast, 169 Midwest, 249 Northeast, 191 Southeast, 450 Southwest, and 132 Western stations
- The mean and total horsepower across 1,417 of these facilities is 10,411 and 18,282,484, respectively, with average and total throughput of 660 and 1,159 Billion Cubic Feet (BCF)2.
Natural Gas HUBs are broken down by operator type with 26 “Market Center”, 31 “Market Hub”, 3 “Production Hub”, and 3 “Storage Hub” facilities included.
- Regional distribution: 9 in Canada, 7 across the Central US, 4 in the Midwest, 8 in the Northeast, 4 in the Southeast, 24 in the Southwest, and 7 in the Western US.
- All facilities were activated between 1994 and 1998
- Status: 5 Canceled, 13 Inactive, 36 Operational, and 9 Proposed HUBs
Pipeline segments are parsed by type: a) 69 sections totaling 1,627 miles described as “Gathering” at an average diameter of 17 inches, b) 18,905 segments totaling 127,049 miles as “Interstate” with an average diameter of 15 inches, and c) 15,152 “Intrastate” segments totaling 66,939 miles and an average diameter of 2.8 inches.
Select states statistics:
- 7,450 segments were located in Texas with a total length of 44,600 miles,
- 1,313 segments were located in California with a total length of 6,370 miles,
- 2,738 segments in Louisiana with a total length of 15,330,
- New York and New Jersey are home to a combined 2,315 pipeline segments with a total length of 4,015 miles,
- 859 segments and 5,935 miles in Ohio,
- Great Lakes bordering states contain 6,841 pipeline segments totaling 33,457 miles,
- Pacific Northwest states including Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana contain 1,765 segments totaling 6,121 miles,
- Gulf Coast states sans Texas contain 3,886 pipeline segments totaling 25,775 miles.
The above datasets were compiled by Ted Auch and Daniel Berghoff of the FracTracker Alliance or sourced from the US Energy Information Administration via their Natural Gas data portal and their analysts Tu Tran and Robert King.
US River and Coastal Export/Import Ports
US inland (i.e., Mississippi River) and coastal ports are the singular ways in which all manner of hydrocarbons are transported to downstream processing facilities and subsequently used domestically or exported. The data contained herein include 12 Mississippi, 7 Ohio and Tennessee River, and 11 Columbia river ports along with 16 Great Lakes/St. Lawrence river ports (Table 1).
Table 1. Number of inland and coastal US and territories ports as of December 2013.
State |
Number of Ports |
State |
Number of Ports |
AK |
40 |
MO |
2 |
AL |
7 |
MS |
3 |
AR |
2 |
NC |
2 |
CA |
9 |
NJ |
2 |
CT |
3 |
NY |
6 |
DE, VA, MD, & DC |
6 |
OH |
2 |
FL |
17 |
OK |
2 |
GA |
2 |
OR |
13 |
HI |
7 |
PA |
2 |
IA |
1 |
PR |
1 |
ID |
1 |
RI |
1 |
IL |
4 |
SC |
1 |
KY |
2 |
TN |
4 |
LA |
13 |
TX |
11 |
MA |
3 |
VI |
1 |
ME |
2 |
WA |
6 |
MI |
6 |
WI |
4 |
MN |
4 |
WV |
2 |
US Coal Plants & Emissions
We were pointed to this data by Source Watch’s “Coal Swarm” project’s Director Ted Nace and researcher Joshua Frank. Learn more. The layer includes coal used, emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), methane (CH4), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and mercury (Hg). Also included are the number of deaths across a variety of categories and emergency room visits attributed to each coal plant, along with estimates of the valuation of each of these. The raw data are available from the the US EPA’s Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) comprehensive data portal with the “Version 1.0” ZIP file containing: “spreadsheet files, state import-export files, Technical Support Document, file structure document, Summary Tables, GHG output emission rates, the EUEC2010 paper, and graphical representations of eGRID subregion and NERC region maps. Data in this file encompasses years 2009, 2007, 2005 and 2004.” The data were most recently updated on May 10, 2012 in order to include 2009 data.
Transload Facilities Directory
Directory Description:
Rail-to-truck transload facilities where cargo is transferred between tank trucks and water or rail transportation…These bulk material handling companies also provide information such as products handled, services and equipment available, and methods for dry bulk product transfer…These intermodal locations are owned or operated by trucking companies, railroads, or independent bulk terminal operators. Unless the prohibition is stated, these businesses have indicated they allow outside carriers to load products at their facilities. Learn more
Services Key:
- Products handled: a. Acids, b. Chemicals (liquid), c. Chemicals (dry), d. Asphalt, e. Foods (liquid), f. Foods (dry), g. Plastics (dry), h. Petroleum products
- Services/equipment available: a. Air compressor, b. Scale, c. Blending meters, d. Sampling service, e. Hot water heating, f. Steam heating, g. Tank trailer cleaning, h. Liquid storage tanks, i. Liquid pumps
- Dry bulk product transfer by: a. Vacuum trailer, b. Auger, c. Blower, d. Gravity (trestle), e. Portable vacuum/air conveyor, f. Bulk conveyor
Intermodal Tank Containers
Those facilities “that have actual storage depot operations. The operators specialize in both the handling and storage of ISO containers.” Learn more
Intermodal tanks are:
… intermodal container[s] for the transport of liquids, gases and powders as bulk cargo…built to the [International Organization for Standardization] Standard, making it suitable for different modes of transportation. Both hazardous and non-hazardous products can be transported in tank containers. A tank container is a vessel of stainless steel surrounded by an insulation and protective layer of usually Polyurethane and aluminum. The vessel is in the middle of a steel frame. The frame is made according to ISO standards and is 19.8556 feet (6.05 meters) long, 7.874 feet (2.40 meters) wide and 7.874 feet (2.40 meters) or 8.374 feet (2.55 meters) high. The contents of the tank ranges from 27,000 to 40,000 liters (5,900 to 8,800 imp gal; 7,100 to 11,000 U.S. gal). There are both smaller and larger tank containers, which usually have a size different from the ISO standard sizes. The trade organization @TCO estimates that at the end of 2012 the global fleet of tank containers is between 340,000 and 380,000. (Wikipedia definition)
Services Key: a. Storage, b. Cleaning, c. Container shuttle service, d. Container drayage, e. Steam/electric heat, f. Rail siding, g. Repair/refurbishing, h. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) certification, i. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) certification, j. ISO 9000 certification, k. 2.5- and 5-year ABS testing, l. Reefer tank repairs, m. Parts supply
Abbreviations: SC=straddle carrier, TLSL=top-lifting side-loader, D/D=drop-deck
MarkWest Facilities
Facility locational data gathered from the company’s operations website.
Cargo Tank Repair Directory
“Bulk Transporter’s Cargo Tank Trailer Repair Directory…the most comprehensive listing of repair facilities that service tank trucks and tank trailers. Additionally, many of these facilities offer custom fabrication. Most listings include services offered, but tank truck operators are encouraged to contact the facilities directly for more information…The first six items listed on the “Services Key” are the DOT tests and inspections required by federal law. Companies listing “R” or “U” stamps were asked to provide Bulk Transporter with a record of their accreditation. The federal CT registration number also was requested for the tank repair shops in the directory.” Learn more
Repair Services Key:
1. External visual inspection, 2. Internal visual inspection, 3. Lining inspection, 4. Leakage test, 5. Pressure retesting, 6. Thickness testing, 7. MC330/331 retesting, 8. Vapor recovery testing, 9. Bottom-loading conversion, 10. Major barrel repair, 11. Tank passivation, 12. Sandblasting/painting, 13. Tank changeouts, 14. Tank degassing, 15. Tank cleaning (for repair only), 16. Custom fabrication, 17. Purchase wrecked trailers, 18. Pick-up & delivery, 19. Lining repair, 20. ASME “U” stamp, 21. National Board “R” stamp
Soon To Be Added Data:
Tank Cleaning Directory
The Commercial Tank Cleaning Directory…information…was supplied by the operators of commercial and carrier-owned tank wash facilities that provide cargo tank interior cleaning. Directory listings may include product limitations such as “food grade only” or “no hazmat.” Learn more
Footnotes
[1] 407 active and 6 inactive facilities; Region –
- 259 “Consuming East” primarily within depleted reservoirs providing supplemental backup and/or peak period supply,
- 49 “Consuming West” primarily for domestic US and Alberta gas to flow at constant rates, and
- 105 “Producing” facilities which are primarily responsible for hydrocarbon basin export connectivity, transmission, and distribution and allow for the storage of currently redundant natural gas supply; Field Type Affiliation – 43 aquifers, 331 depleted fields, and 39 salt domes. Learn more
[2] These total horsepower and throughput figures are up from 13.4 million and 743 BCF in 1996.
I noticed an error and an omission:
Canaport LNG import terminal east of Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada, that began operating in 2009, is omitted. Also, in November 2013 it was approved to re-export LNG.
Canaport LNG given permission to export via tankers
Neptune LNG deepwater port offshore from Glouster, Massachusetts, has suspended operations for 5 years. MARAD approved suspension in July 2013.
Thank you very much Mr. Godfrey I will make sure to incorporate this caveat and data point into the map asap. Most likely I will have this done by the end of the week.
A lot of the pipeline maps I see nowadays are highly generalized schematics, and I think there are legitimate reasons for that: After 9/11, industry and the regulatory establishment made a concerted effort to withdraw detailed mapping of sensitive potential targets, such as what you appear to be showing here.
I can’t say for sure whether your maps are intended to be truly accurate at an on-the-ground scale, but — if so — have you considered, before posting, that there might be an inherent conflict between the public’s right to know, and the public’s interest in discouraging vandals or worse from finding weak points at which to attack these things?
For what it’s worth, here’s what Wikipedia (currently) says on this topic (beneath a similar U.S. pipeline map which doesn’t show much detail when enlarged): “Many Americans have no idea where or whether a natural gas pipeline runs under their home or office, and since 9/11, for national security purposes, detailed maps of gas pipelines are not available to the general public.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_pipeline_system_in_the_United_States
I hadn’t heard that there had been any relaxation in these guidelines (or whatever they are), but it looks to me as though you’ve taken matters into your own hands. Beforehand, I think these questions are worth thinking about.
Andy,
Thank you for your comments. The pipeline data mapped here contains estimated locations, that were provided upon request from the Energy Information Administration.
The FracTracker Alliance takes national security issues seriously, and we would not release data of this sort that we were not cleared to publish. That said, there are also concerns with not knowing where the pipelines are located. According to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), there were 146 fatalities and 505 injuries from significant pipeline incidents between 1993 and 2012 caused by excavation events, where more accurate information on pipeline locations could have potentially saved lives.
Given the sober nature of your warnings, your offhand tweet seems curious:
Matt Kelso
Manager of Data and Technology
FracTracker Alliance