Natural gas storage design capacity falls for second year in a row and demonstrated peak capacity increases for the first time in three years
The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) two metrics for assessing 2019 underground working natural gas storage capacity in the Lower 48 states compared with the previous year show mixed results: one metric reported a small increase and the other a small decrease. EIA measures working natural gas storage capacity in two ways: design capacity and demonstrated peak capacity.
- Design capacity: Design capacity, sometimes referred to as nameplate capacity, is based on the physical characteristics of the reservoir, installed equipment, and operating procedures on the site, which often must be certified by federal or state regulators. EIA calculates design capacity as the sum of the reported working natural gas capacities of the 379 active storage fields in the Lower 48 states as reported on Form EIA-191, Monthly Underground Natural Gas Storage Report, as of November 2019. There are 22 inactive fields in the Lower 48 states that are excluded from the total. The design capacity metric is a theoretical limit on the total amount of natural gas that can be stored underground and withdrawn for use.
- Demonstrated peak capacity: Demonstrated peak capacity, or total demonstrated maximum working natural gas capacity, represents the sum of the largest volume of working natural gas reported for each individual storage field during the most recent five-year period, regardless of when the individual peaks occurred. In this report, the most recent demonstrated peak covers December 2014 through November 2019. Demonstrated peak capacity is based on survey data from Form EIA-191 and is typically less than design capacity because it relates to actual facility usage, rather than potential use based on the design of the facility.
Natural gas design capacity was down in 2019, driven by reductions in the Mountain region and South Central region. Design capacity of underground natural gas storage facilities in the Lower 48 states declined by 19 billion cubic feet (Bcf), or 0.4%, in the period ending November 2019 compared with the period ending November 2018. Declines occurred in all regions except for the Pacific region and East region, where, in keeping with the trend since 2014, working natural gas capacity expansions were small.
- In the Mountain region, Spire Inc. acquired Ryckman Creek Resources and Clear Creek Storage in 2018 in Wyoming. Both facilities are now owned by Spire Storage West, which reduced working natural gas capacity at the Belle Butte (formerly Ryckman Creek) field by 16 Bcf from 35 Bcf to 19 Bcf in 2019. This reduction was the single-largest change in working natural gas design capacity reported in 2019.
- Working natural gas design capacity declined by 8 Bcf in the South Central region. Some notable reductions in design capacity in the region include a 1.6 Bcf reduction at the New Home Dome storage field by Leaf River Energy Center and a 2.4 Bcf reduction at the Egan Storage Dome by Egan Hub Partners. In addition, Fort Concho Gas Storage, Inc., declared the Pecan Station as inactive, a reduction of 1.6 Bcf.
- In the Pacific region, the Northwest Natural Gas Company completed the North Mist capacity expansion project in Oregon, increasing working natural gas capacity by 2.5 Bcf. The North Mist expansion project was the only new natural gas storage reservoir to come online in 2019.
- In the East region, in 2019, the Cranberry Pipeline Corporation brought back online the Heizer A-1/Big Lime field, which had been inactive, increasing working natural gas capacity in the natural gas producing area of West Virginia by 2.7 Bcf more than the previous year.
Demonstrated peak capacity increased in the East region and Pacific region, more than offsetting declines in the other regions. Demonstrated peak capacity remained nearly flat, increasing 3 Bcf, or 0.1%, for the Lower 48 states as of the November 2019 report period (from December 2014 through November 2019) compared with the November 2018 report period (from December 2013 through November 2018). The November 2019 report period is the first time that the demonstrated peak capacity metric posted a year-over-year increase since the November 2016 report period. The East region provided the largest increase during this period, climbing 5 Bcf, or 0.5%. The Pacific region increased 3 Bcf, or 0.8%, and the South Central Nonsalt region increased by 1 Bcf from the previous year.
In recent years, several offsetting trends have affected the industry’s decisions about changes to underground storage capacity levels. Recent trends that may have reduced the need for investment in additional underground storage include the following:
- Overall higher levels of natural gas production compared with levels a few years ago may have reduced reliance on storage services for some customers to meet their natural gas needs. Production growth was driven by increased output in the Appalachian Basin, the Permian Basin, and the Haynesville shale formation.
- Natural gas prices and price volatility have fallen in recent years.
- The seasonal spread between summer and winter natural gas prices has become increasingly compressed, reducing economic incentives to inject natural gas into reservoir and aquifer storage.
- Midstream infrastructure buildout (such as pipelines and compressor stations) has enhanced grid interconnectedness and flexibility, allowing natural gas to more easily reach end users.
On the other hand, several other factors could increase the need for additional storage:
- The growing trend for more natural gas-fired electricity generation would generally encourage more storage capacity. This trend continued in 2019, and August 2019 held the record for the most natural gas consumed in the electric power sector in a single month. Both electric-sector natural gas consumption and total natural gas consumption reached their highest-ever annual levels in 2019. Natural gas remains an important fuel to support growing renewable energy-sourced operations such as wind and solar power.
- Increasing exports of natural gas also could create a need for additional natural gas storage capacity in the Gulf Coast region to support pipeline exports of natural gas to Mexico and liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, despite reductions in design capacity in the South Central region in 2019.
Working natural gas in storage levels recovered in 2019: Increased natural gas production contributed to rising working natural gas levels in 2019 despite increased electric power and export demand for natural gas. As a result of increased injection activity, 66 natural gas storage fields (including four formerly inactive fields that returned to service in 2019 and the new North Mist field that began operations in 2019) established new demonstrated peak capacities in 2019. These new demonstrated peaks established in 2019 more than offset the 69 fields that set their previous peak levels during the December 2013–November 2014 period (a period no longer included in the five-year range).
| Demonstrated peak capacity1 | Design capacity2 | Demonstrated peak capacity share of design capacity3 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | (Dec 2013 - Nov 2018) | (Dec 2014 - Nov 2019) | percent change |
Nov 2018 | Nov 2019 | percent change |
Nov 2018 | Nov 2019 | |
| East | 983 | 988 | 0.5% | 1,062 | 1,065 | 0.2% | 93% | 93% | |
| Midwest | 1,181 | 1,179 | -0.2% | 1,222 | 1,221 | -0.2% | 97% | 97% | |
| Mountain | 261 | 261 | 0.1% | 471 | 456 | -3.2% | 55% | 57% | |
| Pacific4 | 401 | 404 | 0.8% | 414 | 417 | 0.8% | 97% | 97% | |
| South Central | 1,432 R | 1,429 | -0.2% | 1,543 | 1,535 | -0.50% | 93% | 93% | |
| Nonsalt | 1,008 R | 1,009 | 0.1% | 1,062 | 1,059 | -0.2% | 95% | 95% | |
| Salt | 424 | 420 | -1.0% | 481 | 476 | -1.1% | 88% | 88% | |
| Lower 48 | 4,258 R | 4,261 | 0.1% | 4,712 | 4,693 | -0.4% | 90% | 91% | |
|
Source: Form EIA-191, Monthly Natural Gas Underground Storage Report Note: Design capacity information for all underground storage facilities, including inactive fields, is available in the Natural Gas Annual Respondent Query System. Totals and calculations may not equal the sum of the components because of independent rounding. Information about storage regions is available in The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage. Mentions of specific companies in this report include only information that is publicly available on EIA’s website or on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) dockets. R indicates that figures have been revised since the previous year’s Peak Capacity Report. 1 Demonstrated peak capacity, otherwise known as the maximum demonstrated working natural gas volume, is the sum of the highest storage inventory levels of working natural gas observed in each distinct storage reservoir during the previous five-year period as reported by the operator on Form EIA-191, Monthly Underground Natural Gas Storage Report. The timing of the peaks for different facilities do not need to coincide. IInactive fields are not included in estimates of working gas capacity. 2 Design capacity is an estimate of a natural gas facility's physical working natural gas capacity as reported by the operator on Form EIA-191, Monthly Underground Natural Gas Storage Report. It represents the sum of all fields' capacities at a point in time. It is a measure based on the physical characteristics of the reservoir, installed equipment, and operating procedures particular to the site that is often certified by federal or state regulators. Inactive fields are not included in estimates of working gas capacity. 3 Demonstrated peak capacity in some cases exceeds 100% of design capacity because design capacity limits may differ from actual capacity limits in storage fields, as determined by the facility operator and local regulations. 4 The design capacity of Southern California Gas Company’s Aliso Canyon field was included in this report and in the Pacific region totals at 86.2 billion cubic feet, as publicly reported on Form EIA-191. The authorized working natural gas capacity of this facility may be lower because of ongoing operational constraints. |
|||||||||
| Demonstrated peak capacity1 | Design capacity2 | Demonstrated peak share of design capacity3 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | State | (Dec 2013 - Nov 2018) | (Dec 2014 - Nov 2019) | Change | Nov 2018 | Nov 2019 | Change | Nov 2018 | Nov 2019 |
| East | PA | 402 | 403 | 1 | 418 | 418 | 0 | 96% | 96% |
| WV | 232 | 234 | 2 | 239 | 243 | 3 | 97% | 96% | |
| MD | 17 | 16 | -1 | 18 | 18 | 0 | 95% | 90% | |
| VA | 5 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 98% | 107% | |
| OH | 209 | 210 | 1 | 253 | 253 | 0 | 82% | 83% | |
| NY | 118 | 119 | 1 | 127 | 127 | 0 | 93% | 94% | |
| Total | 983 | 988 | 5 | 1,062 | 1,065 | 3 | 93% | 93% | |
| Midwest | IL | 277 | 272 | -5 | 301 | 301 | 0 | 92% | 90% |
| IA | 81 | 82 | 0 | 90 | 90 | 0 | 90% | 91% | |
| MN | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 107% | 107% | |
| TN | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 84% | 84% | |
| IN | 29 | 30 | 1 | 32 | 30 | -2 | 92% | 100% | |
| MO | 7 | 7 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 188% | 188% | |
| KY | 108 | 108 | 0 | 108 | 108 | 0 | 100% | 100% | |
| MI | 675 | 676 | 2 | 684 | 684 | 0 | 99% | 99% | |
| Total | 1,181 | 1,179 | -2 | 1,222 | 1,221 | -2 | 97% | 97% | |
| Mountain | MT | 39 | 39 | 0 | 197 | 197 | 0 | 20% | 20% |
| NE | 14 | 14 | 0 | 13 | 13 | 0 | 109% | 109% | |
| UT | 53 | 53 | 0 | 55 | 55 | 0 | 96% | 96% | |
| NM | 49 | 50 | 0 | 60 | 60 | 0 | 83% | 83% | |
| CO | 61 | 61 | 0 | 72 | 73 | 1 | 84% | 83% | |
| WY | 45 | 45 | 0 | 74 | 58 | -16 | 61% | 78% | |
| Total | 261 | 261 | 0 | 471 | 456 | -15 | 55% | 57% | |
| Pacific | WA | 24 | 24 | 0 | 25 | 25 | 0 | 96% | 96% |
| OR | 19 | 22 | 3 | 16 | 18 | 3 | 118% | 120% | |
| CA4 | 358 | 358 | 0 | 373 | 374 | 1 | 96% | 96% | |
| Total4 | 401 | 404 | 3 | 414 | 417 | 3 | 97% | 97% | |
| South Central | MS | 171 | 165 | -6 | 204 | 202 | -2 | 84% | 81% |
| AR | 5 | 5 | 0 | 9 | 9 | 0 | 57% | 57% | |
| KS | 118 | 118 | 0 | 123 | 123 | 0 | 96% | 96% | |
| AL | 27 | 27 | 0 | 33 | 33 | 0 | 80% | 80% | |
| LA | 420 R | 423 | 3 | 449 | 447 | -3 | 93% | 95% | |
| OK | 187 | 186 | 0 | 196 | 196 | 0 | 95% | 95% | |
| TX | 505 | 505 | -1 | 529 | 526 | -3 | 96% | 96% | |
| Total | 1,432 R | 1,429 | -3 | 1,543 | 1,535 | -8 | 93% | 93% | |
| Lower 48 | 4,258 R | 4,261 | 3 | 4,712 | 4,693 | -19 | 90% | 91% | |
|
Source: Form EIA-191, Monthly Natural Gas Underground Storage Report Note:: Design capacity information for all facilities, including inactive fields, is available in the Natural Gas Annual Respondent Query System. Totals and calculations may not equal the sum of the components because of independent rounding. Information about storage regions is available in The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage. Mentions of specific companies in this report include only information that is publicly available in EIA’s query system. 1 Demonstrated peak capacity, otherwise known as the maximum demonstrated working natural gas volume, is the sum of the highest storage inventory levels of working natural gas observed in each distinct storage reservoir during the previous five-year period as reported by the operator on the Form EIA-191, Monthly Underground Natural Gas Storage Report. The timing of the peaks for different facilities do not need to coincide. Inactive fields are not included in estimates of working gas capacity. 2 Design capacity is an estimate of a natural gas facility's physical working natural gas capacity as reported by the operator on the Form EIA-191, Monthly Underground Natural Gas Storage Report. It represents the sum of all fields' capacities at a point in time. It is a measure based on the physical characteristics of the reservoir, installed equipment, and operating procedures particular to the site that are often certified by federal or state regulators. Inactive fields are not included in estimates of working gas capacity. 3 Peak capacity in some cases exceeds 100% of design capacity because design capacity limits may differ from actual capacity limits in storage fields, as determined by the facility operator and local regulations. Demonstrated maximum working natural gas volume more commonly exceeds design capacity in states with a smaller number of facilities and smaller total storage volumes. In instances where storage fields reduce working natural gas capacity, demonstrated peak capacity may exceed design capacity. 4 The design capacity of Southern California Gas Company’s Aliso Canyon field was included in this report and in the Pacific region totals at 86.2 billion cubic feet, as publicly reported on Form EIA-191. The authorized working natural gas capacity of this facility may be lower because of ongoing operational constraints. |
|||||||||
State-level reductions in design capacity occurred primarily in the South Central region. Design capacity reductions were reported in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Capacity reductions of 3 Bcf occurred in Texas where several facilities had reductions in capacity in addition to the deactivated field at Pecan Station. Louisiana also reported declines in capacity of 3 Bcf, all at salt dome facilities. In Indiana, several facilities reported reductions in design capacity totaling 2 Bcf. As mentioned earlier, working capacity at the Belle Butte facility in Wyoming fell by 16 Bcf—the largest reduction in working capacity at any facility in the Lower 48 states.
State-level gains in demonstrated capacity occurred primarily as a result of new capacity additions at the new field in Oregon and the newly activated field in West Virginia. However, a number of states including Louisiana and Michigan also reported gains in demonstrated capacity as a result of new peaks established in 2019. In Illinois, several fields had reductions in demonstrated peak capacity as old peaks established in 2013–14 were no longer included in the five-year range. The decline in demonstrated capacity in Mississippi was driven by a newly inactive field, as well as old previous peaks that are no longer included in the five-year range in 2019.
