Oil & Gas Storage & Transportation Data Provider · Head-to-head
HIFLD Petroleum Terminals (POL Terminals) vs TGS US Pipelines ArcGIS Feature Layer
Which oil & gas storage & transportation data provider data fits your job: HIFLD Petroleum Terminals, or TGS US Pipelines ArcGIS Feature Layer. API, files, or your warehouse. Daily, weekly, or hourly.
HIFLD Petroleum Terminals (POL Terminals)
TGS US Pipelines ArcGIS Feature Layer
Coverage, side by side
| HIFLD Petroleum Terminals | TGS US Pipelines ArcGIS Feature Layer | |
|---|---|---|
| Geographic | 50 states plus U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam and Northern Mariana Islands | Continental United States including Alaska |
| Temporal | Snapshot editions; latest revalidated 658 records, added 10, removed 47 | Continuously maintained; record-level modification stamps observed December 2022 |
What each contains
Pick by fit, not by loyalty.
| HIFLD Petroleum Terminals | TGS US Pipelines ArcGIS Feature Layer | |
|---|---|---|
| Publisher | GeoPlatform.gov / HIFLD, produced for DHS by Oak Ridge National Laboratory | TGS |
| Subject | Operable U.S. bulk petroleum terminals: location, ownership, capacity, commodity and modal access | U.S. oil, natural gas and refined-product pipeline segments: operator, diameter, capacity, status and system |
| Feature type | Terminal points and polygons | Polyline segments |
| Record scale | 2,302 terminals nationwide in the latest edition | 731,388 segments (server count, 2026-08-21) |
| Geographic coverage | 50 states plus U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam and Northern Mariana Islands | Continental United States including Alaska |
| Temporal character | Snapshot editions; latest revalidated 658 records, added 10, removed 47 | Continuously maintained; record-level modification stamps observed December 2022 |
| Field dictionary | ~50 verified attributes per terminal, definitions verified | ~44 verified attributes per segment plus geometry |
| Formats | Shapefile; hosted GIS service copies where available | ArcGIS JSON, GeoJSON, PBF |
| Best for | Facility intelligence: who owns a terminal, what it stores, how it receives and ships | Network intelligence: which lines connect basins to markets, at what diameter and capacity |
Or take both in one feed
Yes - as destinations and arteries, which is the pairing midstream analysis actually wants.
Model the network from TGS: 731,388 segments classified by commodity, sized by diameter and capacity, grouped into systems. Then hang the demand and supply nodes off it from HIFLD: 2,302 terminals, each with barrel capacity, commodity handling and modal access. Route product from Gulf Coast refining centers to inland terminals and the two layers finally make sense as one picture.
Reconcile them on place and ownership. Both carry state and county geography, so county-level aggregation joins cleanly; owner and operator strings overlap imperfectly (PETROLEUM PRODUCTS CORP-style entity names versus LASER MIDSTREAM COMPANY, LLC.-style operators), so expect to normalize legal-entity suffixes before matching. Watch three seams: HIFLD capacities are static survey snapshots while TGS capacities are nameplate flow rates - never sum them into one number; HIFLD includes Alaska, Hawaii and the island territories while the TGS extent is continental; and TGS keeps abandoned lines in the file, so filter STATUS before computing any live-network mileage.
Or take both in one feed.
API, files, or your warehouse. Daily, weekly, or hourly.
Fair questions
Is HIFLD Petroleum Terminals better than TGS US Pipelines?
Different objects, so better depends on the question. For storage and transfer points, HIFLD wins: 2,302 operable terminals with barrel capacity, commodity flags and modal access. For the network between them, TGS wins: 731,388 segments with diameter, capacity and operator. Both score 7 out of 10 on the Datadory rubric against this slice's 7.1 average; sample both, pick by fit.
Do HIFLD POL Terminals and TGS US Pipelines contain the same kind of data?
Both are geospatial U.S. energy infrastructure with verified field dictionaries, but one describes point facilities and the other line segments. They share operator, status, commodity and county-level geography fields. HIFLD adds addresses, NAICS coding and 26 access and product-handling flags; TGS adds diameter, Mbbl/d and MMcf/d capacities, flow direction, system hierarchy and lifecycle dates.
Which dataset covers more of the United States?
HIFLD reaches further politically - the 50 states plus Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands - though some mirrors clip to the contiguous 48. TGS spans the continental extent including Alaska, roughly 158 degrees west to 67 degrees west. Neither covers Canada or Mexico; for cross-border throughput there are dedicated datasets in this catalog.
How current are these two layers?
HIFLD publishes snapshot editions; the latest release revalidated 658 records and totals 2,302 terminals, with individual record source dates running roughly 2015 to 2019. TGS maintains its layer continuously with per-record modification timestamps observed clustering in late 2022. Datadory delivers whichever vintage you sample, refreshed daily, weekly, or hourly - your call.
Can I get both HIFLD Petroleum Terminals and TGS US Pipelines from Datadory?
Yes - sample both and pick by fit, or take both in one feed. Datadory normalizes each to its documented dictionary (about 50 terminal attributes, about 44 segment attributes plus geometry), attaches sample rows for validation, and ships them next to the other 10 primary oil and gas storage and transportation records, delivered daily, weekly, or hourly - your call.