Environmental and economic benefits could accrue from a safe, above-ground, natural-gas storage process allowing electric power plants to utilize natural gas for peak load demands; numerous other applications of a gas storage process exist. A laboratory study conducted in 1999 to determine the feasibility of a gas-hydrates storage process looked promising. The subsequent scale-up of the process was designed to preserve important features of the laboratory apparatus: (1) symmetry of hydrate accumulation, (2) favorable surface area to volume ratio, (3) heat exchanger surfaces serving as hydrate adsorption surfaces, (4) refrigeration system to remove heat liberated from bulk hydrate formation, (5) rapid hydrate formation in a non-stirred system, (6) hydrate self-packing, and (7) heat-exchanger/adsorption plates serving dual purposes to add or extract energy for hydrate formation or decomposition. The hydrate formation/storage/decomposition Proof-of-Concept (POC) pressure vessel and supporting equipment were designed, constructed, and tested. This final report details the design of the scaled POC gas-hydrate storage process, some comments on its fabrication and installation, checkout of the equipment, procedures for conducting the experimental tests, and the test results. The design, construction, and installation of the equipment were on budget target, as was the tests that were subsequently conducted. The budget proposed wasmore » met. The primary goal of storing 5000-scf of natural gas in the gas hydrates was exceeded in the final test, as 5289-scf of gas storage was achieved in 54.33 hours. After this 54.33-hour period, as pressure in the formation vessel declined, additional gas went into the hydrates until equilibrium pressure/temperature was reached, so that ultimately more than the 5289-scf storage was achieved. The time required to store the 5000-scf (48.1 hours of operating time) was longer than designed. The lower gas hydrate formation rate is attributed to a lower heat transfer rate in the internal heat exchanger than was designed. It is believed that the fins on the heat-exchanger tubes did not make proper contact with the tubes transporting the chilled glycol, and pairs of fins were too close for interior areas of fins to serve as hydrate collection sites. A correction of the fabrication fault in the heat exchanger fin attachments could be easily made to provide faster formation rates. The storage success with the POC process provides valuable information for making the process an economically viable process for safe, aboveground natural-gas storage.« less