National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for reservoir storage capacity

  1. Storage capacity in hot dry rock reservoirs

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Brown, D.W.

    1997-11-11

    A method is described for extracting thermal energy, in a cyclic manner, from geologic strata which may be termed hot dry rock. A reservoir comprised of hot fractured rock is established and water or other liquid is passed through the reservoir. The water is heated by the hot rock, recovered from the reservoir, cooled by extraction of heat by means of heat exchange apparatus on the surface, and then re-injected into the reservoir to be heated again. Water is added to the reservoir by means of an injection well and recovered from the reservoir by means of a production well. Water is continuously provided to the reservoir and continuously withdrawn from the reservoir at two different flow rates, a base rate and a peak rate. Increasing water flow from the base rate to the peak rate is accomplished by rapidly decreasing backpressure at the outlet of the production well in order to meet periodic needs for amounts of thermal energy greater than a baseload amount, such as to generate additional electric power to meet peak demands. The rate of flow of water provided to the hot dry rock reservoir is maintained at a value effective to prevent depletion of the liquid inventory of the reservoir. 4 figs.

  2. Storage capacity in hot dry rock reservoirs

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Brown, Donald W. (Los Alamos, NM)

    1997-01-01

    A method of extracting thermal energy, in a cyclic manner, from geologic strata which may be termed hot dry rock. A reservoir comprised of hot fractured rock is established and water or other liquid is passed through the reservoir. The water is heated by the hot rock, recovered from the reservoir, cooled by extraction of heat by means of heat exchange apparatus on the surface, and then re-injected into the reservoir to be heated again. Water is added to the reservoir by means of an injection well and recovered from the reservoir by means of a production well. Water is continuously provided to the reservoir and continuously withdrawn from the reservoir at two different flow rates, a base rate and a peak rate. Increasing water flow from the base rate to the peak rate is accomplished by rapidly decreasing backpressure at the outlet of the production well in order to meet periodic needs for amounts of thermal energy greater than a baseload amount, such as to generate additional electric power to meet peak demands. The rate of flow of water provided to the hot dry rock reservoir is maintained at a value effective to prevent depletion of the liquid

  3. FAQs about Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    about Storage Capacity How do I determine if my tanks are in operation or idle or ... Do I have to report storage capacity every month? No, only report storage capacity with ...

  4. Maximizing Storage Rate and Capacity and Insuring the Environmental Integrity of Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Geological Reservoirs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    L.A. Davis; A.L. Graham; H.W. Parker; J.R. Abbott; M.S. Ingber; A.A. Mammoli; L.A. Mondy; Quanxin Guo; Ahmed Abou-Sayed

    2005-12-07

    Maximizing Storage Rate and Capacity and Insuring the Environmental Integrity of Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Geological Formations The U.S. and other countries may enter into an agreement that will require a significant reduction in CO2 emissions in the medium to long term. In order to achieve such goals without drastic reductions in fossil fuel usage, CO2 must be removed from the atmosphere and be stored in acceptable reservoirs. The research outlined in this proposal deals with developing a methodology to determine the suitability of a particular geologic formation for the long-term storage of CO2 and technologies for the economical transfer and storage of CO2 in these formations. A novel well-logging technique using nuclear-magnetic resonance (NMR) will be developed to characterize the geologic formation including the integrity and quality of the reservoir seal (cap rock). Well-logging using NMR does not require coring, and hence, can be performed much more quickly and efficiently. The key element in the economical transfer and storage of the CO2 is hydraulic fracturing the formation to achieve greater lateral spreads and higher throughputs of CO2. Transport, compression, and drilling represent the main costs in CO2 sequestration. The combination of well-logging and hydraulic fracturing has the potential of minimizing these costs. It is possible through hydraulic fracturing to reduce the number of injection wells by an order of magnitude. Many issues will be addressed as part of the proposed research to maximize the storage rate and capacity and insure the environmental integrity of CO2 sequestration in geological formations. First, correlations between formation properties and NMR relaxation times will be firmly established. A detailed experimental program will be conducted to determine these correlations. Second, improved hydraulic fracturing models will be developed which are suitable for CO2 sequestration as opposed to enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Although models that simulate the fracturing process exist, they can be significantly improved by extending the models to account for nonsymmetric, nonplanar fractures, coupling the models to more realistic reservoir simulators, and implementing advanced multiphase flow models for the transport of proppant. Third, it may be possible to deviate from current hydraulic fracturing technology by using different proppants (possibly waste materials that need to be disposed of, e.g., asbestos) combined with different hydraulic fracturing carrier fluids (possibly supercritical CO2 itself). Because current technology is mainly aimed at enhanced oil recovery, it may not be ideally suited for the injection and storage of CO2. Finally, advanced concepts such as increasing the injectivity of the fractured geologic formations through acidization with carbonated water will be investigated. Saline formations are located through most of the continental United States. Generally, where saline formations are scarce, oil and gas reservoirs and coal beds abound. By developing the technology outlined here, it will be possible to remove CO2 at the source (power plants, industry) and inject it directly into nearby geological formations, without releasing it into the atmosphere. The goal of the proposed research is to develop a technology capable of sequestering CO2 in geologic formations at a cost of US $10 per ton.

  5. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Salt Cavern Storage Reservoir...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Salt Cavern Underground Natural Gas Storage Reservoir Configuration Salt Cavern Underground Natural Gas Storage Reservoir Configuration Source: PB Energy Storage Services Inc.

  6. California Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) California Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  7. Washington Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Washington Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  8. Mississippi Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  9. Pennsylvania Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May...

  10. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity With Data for September 2015 | Release ... Containing storage capacity data for crude oil, petroleum products, and selected biofuels. ...

  11. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Depleted Reservoir Storage

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Configuration Depleted Reservoir Storage Configuration About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates Depleted Production Reservoir Underground Natural Gas Storage Well Configuration Depleted Production Reservoir Storage

  12. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Depleted Reservoir Storage...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas based on data through 20072008 with selected updates Depleted Production Reservoir Underground Natural Gas Storage Well Configuration Depleted Production Reservoir Storage

  13. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Salt Caverns Storage Capacity Aquifers Storage Capacity Depleted Fields Storage Capacity Total Working Gas Capacity Working Gas Capacity of Salt Caverns Working Gas Capacity of Aquifers Working Gas Capacity of Depleted Fields Total Number of Existing Fields Number of Existing Salt Caverns Number of Existing Aquifers Number of Depleted Fields Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data

  14. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Salt Caverns Storage Capacity Aquifers Storage Capacity Depleted Fields Storage Capacity Total Working Gas Capacity Working Gas Capacity of Salt Caverns Working Gas Capacity of Aquifers Working Gas Capacity of Depleted Fields Total Number of Existing Fields Number of Existing Salt Caverns Number of Existing Aquifers Number of Depleted Fields Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data

  15. Underground natural gas storage reservoir management

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ortiz, I.; Anthony, R.

    1995-06-01

    The objective of this study is to research technologies and methodologies that will reduce the costs associated with the operation and maintenance of underground natural gas storage. This effort will include a survey of public information to determine the amount of natural gas lost from underground storage fields, determine the causes of this lost gas, and develop strategies and remedial designs to reduce or stop the gas loss from selected fields. Phase I includes a detailed survey of US natural gas storage reservoirs to determine the actual amount of natural gas annually lost from underground storage fields. These reservoirs will be ranked, the resultant will include the amount of gas and revenue annually lost. The results will be analyzed in conjunction with the type (geologic) of storage reservoirs to determine the significance and impact of the gas loss. A report of the work accomplished will be prepared. The report will include: (1) a summary list by geologic type of US gas storage reservoirs and their annual underground gas storage losses in ft{sup 3}; (2) a rank by geologic classifications as to the amount of gas lost and the resultant lost revenue; and (3) show the level of significance and impact of the losses by geologic type. Concurrently, the amount of storage activity has increased in conjunction with the net increase of natural gas imports as shown on Figure No. 3. Storage is playing an ever increasing importance in supplying the domestic energy requirements.

  16. Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity - Methodology

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    ... changed to active. References Methodology Related Links Storage Basics Field Level Annual Capacity Data Map of Storage Facilities Natural Gas Data Tables Short-Term Energy Outlook

  17. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Capacity Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity Released: September 3, 2010 for data as of April 2010 Next Release: August 2011 References Methodology Definitions...

  18. California: Conducting Polymer Binder Boosts Storage Capacity...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Conducting Polymer Binder Boosts Storage Capacity, Wins R&D 100 Award California: Conducting Polymer Binder Boosts Storage Capacity, Wins R&D 100 Award August 19, 2013 - 10:17am ...

  19. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Salt Cavern Storage Reservoir

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Configuration Salt Cavern Storage Reservoir Configuration About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates Salt Cavern Underground Natural Gas Storage Reservoir Configuration Salt Cavern Underground Natural Gas Storage Reservoir Configuration Source: PB Energy Storage Services Inc.

  20. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Aquifer Storage Reservoir

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Configuration Aquifer Storage Reservoir Configuration About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates Aquifer Underground Natural Gas Storage Reservoir Configuration Aquifer Underground Natural Gas Well

  1. ,"Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release...

  2. ,"Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9...

  3. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Previous Articles Previous Articles Estimates of Peak Underground Working Gas Storage Capacity in the United States, 2009 Update (Released, 8312009) Estimates of Peak Underground...

  4. ,"Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity "

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ...orcapaepg0sacmmcfm.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ... 1: Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity " "Sourcekey","N5290US2","NGMEP...

  5. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2015-01-01

    Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity is the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) report containing storage capacity data for crude oil, petroleum products, and selected biofuels. The report includes tables detailing working and net available shell storage capacity by type of facility, product, and Petroleum Administration for Defense District (PAD District). Net available shell storage capacity is broken down further to show the percent for exclusive use by facility operators and the percent leased to others. Crude oil storage capacity data are also provided for Cushing, Oklahoma, an important crude oil market center. Data are released twice each year near the end of May (data for March 31) and near the end of November (data for September 30).

  6. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Aquifer Storage Reservoir...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 20072008 with selected updates Aquifer Underground Natural Gas Storage Reservoir Configuration Aquifer Underground Natural Gas Well

  7. Montana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  8. New Mexico Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  9. Kansas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  10. West Virginia Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May...

  11. Indiana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  12. Oregon Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  13. Arkansas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  14. Alaska Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  15. Oklahoma Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  16. Nebraska Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  17. Michigan Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  18. Minnesota Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  19. Utah Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  20. Missouri Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  1. Virginia Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Virginia Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  2. Maryland Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  3. Wyoming Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  4. Ohio Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  5. Illinois Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  6. Iowa Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Iowa Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  7. Kentucky Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  8. Texas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  9. Louisiana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  10. Alabama Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  11. New York Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) New York Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  12. Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2013 2014 View History Total Storage Capacity 83,592 83,592 2013-2014 Depleted Fields 83,592 83,592 2013-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 67,915 67,915 2013-2014 Depleted Fields 67,915 67,915 2013-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 5 5 2013-2014 Depleted Fields 5 5 2013

  13. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Citygate Price Residential Price Commercial Price Industrial Price Electric Power Price Gross Withdrawals Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Oil Wells Gross Withdrawals From Shale Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Coalbed Wells Repressuring Nonhydrocarbon Gases Removed Vented and Flared Marketed Production NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Dry Production Imports By Pipeline LNG Imports Exports Exports By Pipeline LNG Exports Underground Storage Capacity Gas in Underground

  14. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity as of September...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    and also allows for tracking seasonal shifts in petroleum product usage of tanks and underground storage. Using the new storage capacity data, it will be possible to calculate...

  15. Pre-injection brine production for managing pressure in compartmentalized CO₂ storage reservoirs

    DOE Public Access Gateway for Energy & Science Beta (PAGES Beta)

    Buscheck, Thomas A.; White, Joshua A.; Chen, Mingjie; Sun, Yunwei; Hao, Yue; Aines, Roger D.; Bourcier, William L.; Bielicki, Jeffrey M.

    2014-12-31

    We present a reservoir management approach for geologic CO₂ storage that combines CO₂ injection with brine extraction. In our approach,dual-mode wells are initially used to extract formation brine and subsequently used to inject CO₂. These wells can also be used to monitor the subsurface during pre-injection brine extraction so that key data is acquired and analyzed prior to CO₂ injection. The relationship between pressure drawdown during pre-injection brine extraction and pressure buildup during CO₂ injection directly informs reservoir managers about CO₂ storage capacity. These data facilitate proactive reservoir management, and thus reduce costs and risks. The brine may be usedmore » directly as make-up brine for nearby reservoir operations; it can also be desalinated and/or treated for a variety of beneficial uses.« less

  16. Pre-injection brine production for managing pressure in compartmentalized CO? storage reservoirs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Buscheck, Thomas A.; White, Joshua A.; Chen, Mingjie; Sun, Yunwei; Hao, Yue; Aines, Roger D.; Bourcier, William L.; Bielicki, Jeffrey M.

    2014-12-31

    We present a reservoir management approach for geologic CO? storage that combines CO? injection with brine extraction. In our approach,dual-mode wells are initially used to extract formation brine and subsequently used to inject CO?. These wells can also be used to monitor the subsurface during pre-injection brine extraction so that key data is acquired and analyzed prior to CO? injection. The relationship between pressure drawdown during pre-injection brine extraction and pressure buildup during CO? injection directly informs reservoir managers about CO? storage capacity. These data facilitate proactive reservoir management, and thus reduce costs and risks. The brine may be used directly as make-up brine for nearby reservoir operations; it can also be desalinated and/or treated for a variety of beneficial uses.

  17. Underground natural gas storage reservoir management: Phase 2. Final report, June 1, 1995--March 30, 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ortiz, I.; Anthony, R.V.

    1996-12-31

    Gas storage operators are facing increased and more complex responsibilities for managing storage operations under Order 636 which requires unbundling of storage from other pipeline services. Low cost methods that improve the accuracy of inventory verification are needed to optimally manage this stored natural gas. Migration of injected gas out of the storage reservoir has not been well documented by industry. The first portion of this study addressed the scope of unaccounted for gas which may have been due to migration. The volume range was estimated from available databases and reported on an aggregate basis. Information on working gas, base gas, operating capacity, injection and withdrawal volumes, current and non-current revenues, gas losses, storage field demographics and reservoir types is contained among the FERC Form 2, EIA Form 191, AGA and FERC Jurisdictional databases. The key elements of this study show that gas migration can result if reservoir limits have not been properly identified, gas migration can occur in formation with extremely low permeability (0.001 md), horizontal wellbores can reduce gas migration losses and over-pressuring (unintentionally) storage reservoirs by reinjecting working gas over a shorter time period may increase gas migration effects.

  18. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    of capacity that may understate the amount that can actually be stored. Working Gas Design Capacity: This measure estimates a natural gas facility's working gas capacity, as...

  19. On Leakage from Geologic Storage Reservoirs of CO2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pruess, Karsten

    2006-02-14

    Large amounts of CO2 would need to be injected underground to achieve a significant reduction of atmospheric emissions. The large areal extent expected for CO2 plumes makes it likely that caprock imperfections will be encountered, such as fault zones or fractures, which may allow some CO2 to escape from the primary storage reservoir. Leakage of CO2 could also occur along wellbores. Concerns with escape of CO2 from a primary geologic storage reservoir include (1) acidification of groundwater resources, (2) asphyxiation hazard when leaking CO2 is discharged at the land surface, (3) increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2, and (4) damage from a high-energy, eruptive discharge (if such discharge is physically possible). In order to gain public acceptance for geologic storage as a viable technology for reducing atmospheric emissions of CO2, it is necessary to address these issues and demonstrate that CO2 can be injected and stored safely in geologic formations.

  20. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9...

  1. Optimization of Storage vs. Compression Capacity | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Optimization of Storage vs. Compression Capacity Optimization of Storage vs. Compression Capacity This presentation by Amgad Elgowainy of Argonne National Laboratory was given at the DOE Hydrogen Compression, Storage, and Dispensing Workshop in March 2013. PDF icon csd_workshop_11_elgowainy.pdf More Documents & Publications Hydrogen Delivery Analysis Models Overview of Station Analysis Tools Developed in Support of H2USA Webinar Overview of Station Analysis Tools Developed in Support of

  2. CO{sub 2} Injectivity, Storage Capacity, Plume Size, and Reservoir and Seal Integrity of the Ordovician St. Peter Sandstone and the Cambrian Potosi Formation in the Illnois Basin

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hannes Leetaru; Alan Brown; Donald Lee; Ozgur Senel; Marcia Coueslan

    2012-05-01

    The Cambro-Ordovician strata of the Illinois and Michigan Basins underlie most of the states of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Michigan. This interval also extends through much of the Midwest of the United States and, for some areas, may be the only available target for geological sequestration of CO{sub 2}. We evaluated the Cambro-Ordovician strata above the basal Mt. Simon Sandstone reservoir for sequestration potential. The two targets were the Cambrian carbonate intervals in the Knox and the Ordovician St. Peter Sandstone. The evaluation of these two formations was accomplished using wireline data, core data, pressure data, and seismic data from the USDOE-funded Illinois Basin ?? Decatur Project being conducted by the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium in Macon County, Illinois. Interpretations were completed using log analysis software, a reservoir flow simulator, and a finite element solver that determines rock stress and strain changes resulting from the pressure increase associated with CO{sub 2} injection. Results of this research suggest that both the St. Peter Sandstone and the Potosi Dolomite (a formation of the Knox) reservoirs may be capable of storing up to 2 million tonnes of CO{sub 2} per year for a 20-year period. Reservoir simulation results for the St. Peter indicate good injectivity and a relatively small CO{sub 2} plume. While a single St. Peter well is not likely to achieve the targeted injection rate of 2 million tonnes/year, results of this study indicate that development with three or four appropriately spaced wells may be sufficient. Reservoir simulation of the Potosi suggest that much of the CO{sub 2} flows into and through relatively thin, high permeability intervals, resulting in a large plume diameter compared with the St. Peter.

  3. Sensitivity study of CO2 storage capacity in brine aquifers withclosed boundaries: Dependence on hydrogeologic properties

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zhou, Q.; Birkholzer, J.; Rutqvist, J.; Tsang, C-F.

    2007-02-07

    In large-scale geologic storage projects, the injected volumes of CO{sub 2} will displace huge volumes of native brine. If the designated storage formation is a closed system, e.g., a geologic unit that is compartmentalized by (almost) impermeable sealing units and/or sealing faults, the native brine cannot (easily) escape from the target reservoir. Thus the amount of supercritical CO{sub 2} that can be stored in such a system depends ultimately on how much pore space can be made available for the added fluid owing to the compressibility of the pore structure and the fluids. To evaluate storage capacity in such closed systems, we have conducted a modeling study simulating CO{sub 2} injection into idealized deep saline aquifers that have no (or limited) interaction with overlying, underlying, and/or adjacent units. Our focus is to evaluate the storage capacity of closed systems as a function of various reservoir parameters, hydraulic properties, compressibilities, depth, boundaries, etc. Accounting for multi-phase flow effects including dissolution of CO{sub 2} in numerical simulations, the goal is to develop simple analytical expressions that provide estimates for storage capacity and pressure buildup in such closed systems.

  4. High Capacity Hydrogen Storage Nanocomposite - Energy Innovation Portal

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Energy Storage Energy Storage Advanced Materials Advanced Materials Find More Like This Return to Search High Capacity Hydrogen Storage Nanocomposite Processes to add metal hydrideds to nanocarbon structures to yield high capacity hydrogen storage materials Savannah River National Laboratory Contact SRNL About This Technology Plot of Number of hydrogen atoms per lithium atom vs the Mol ratio of C<sub>60</sub>:Li.&nbsp; An ratio of 1:6

  5. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Pipeline and Distribution Use Price Citygate Price Residential Price Commercial Price Industrial Price Vehicle Fuel Price Electric Power Price Proved Reserves as of 12/31 Reserves Adjustments Reserves Revision Increases Reserves Revision Decreases Reserves Sales Reserves Acquisitions Reserves Extensions Reserves New Field Discoveries New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields Estimated Production Number of Producing Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From

  6. High capacity hydrogen storage nanocomposite materials

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Zidan, Ragaiy; Wellons, Matthew S

    2015-02-03

    A novel hydrogen absorption material is provided comprising a mixture of a lithium hydride with a fullerene. The subsequent reaction product provides for a hydrogen storage material which reversibly stores and releases hydrogen at temperatures of about 270.degree. C.

  7. High capacity stabilized complex hydrides for hydrogen storage

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Zidan, Ragaiy; Mohtadi, Rana F; Fewox, Christopher; Sivasubramanian, Premkumar

    2014-11-11

    Complex hydrides based on Al(BH.sub.4).sub.3 are stabilized by the presence of one or more additional metal elements or organic adducts to provide high capacity hydrogen storage material.

  8. ,"U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    012015 7:00:34 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity" "Sourcekey","N5290US2","NA1393NUS2","NA1392NUS2","NA1391NUS2","NGAEP...

  9. ,"U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    012015 7:00:34 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity" "Sourcekey","N5290US2","NGAEPG0SACW0NUSMMCF","NA1394NUS8"...

  10. Alabama Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 33,150 33,150 33,150 33,150 33,150 33,150 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2

  11. Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2013-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 67,915 67,915 67,915 67,915 67,915 67,915 2013-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 5 5 5 5 5 5

  12. Washington Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    39,210 41,309 43,673 46,900 46,900 46,900 1988-2014 Aquifers 39,210 41,309 43,673 46,900 46,900 46,900 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 0 0 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 23,514...

  13. Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  14. Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    1,079,462 1,070,462 1,070,462 1,071,630 1,071,630 1,071,630 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 682,569 682,569 682,569 685,726 685,726 685,726 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 44 44 44 44 44 44

  15. Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2

  16. Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    31,301 331,301 331,301 331,812 331,812 331,812 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 200,903 200,903 200,903 201,388 201,388 201,388 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 12 12 12 12 12 12

  17. Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6

  18. Montana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    76,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 5 5 5 5 5 5

  19. New York Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    245,779 245,779 245,779 245,779 245,779 245,779 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 126,871 126,871 126,871 126,871 126,871 126,871 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 26 26 26 26 26 26

  20. Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    575,794 575,794 575,794 575,794 575,794 575,794 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 230,828 230,828 230,828 230,828 230,828 230,828 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 24 24 24 24 24 24

  1. Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    376,435 376,435 374,735 375,135 375,135 375,143 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 190,955 190,955 189,255 189,455 189,455 191,455 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 13 13 13 13 13 13

  2. Oregon Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    29,565 29,565 29,565 29,565 29,565 29,565 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,935 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 7 7 7 7 7 7

  3. Pennsylvania Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    771,422 771,422 771,422 771,422 771,422 771,422 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 429,796 429,796 429,796 429,796 429,796 429,796 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 49 49 49 49 49 49

  4. Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    832,644 832,644 832,644 832,644 832,644 834,965 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 528,445 528,335 528,335 528,335 528,335 528,335 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 36 36 36 36 36 36

  5. Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    124,518 124,518 124,509 124,509 124,509 124,509 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 54,942 54,942 54,942 54,942 54,942 54,942 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 3 3 3 3 3 3

  6. Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2

  7. California Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    603,012 603,012 603,012 601,808 601,808 601,808 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 376,996 376,996 376,996 375,496 375,496 375,496 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 14 14 14 14 14 14

  8. Colorado Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    130,186 130,186 130,186 130,186 130,186 130,186 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 63,774 63,774 63,774 63,774 63,774 63,774 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 10 10 10 10 10 10

  9. Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ,004,598 1,004,598 1,003,899 1,004,100 1,004,100 1,004,100 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 304,312 304,312 303,613 303,613 303,613 303,613 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 28 28 28 28 28 28

  10. Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    10,749 110,749 110,749 110,749 111,581 111,581 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 32,760 32,760 32,760 32,760 33,592 33,592 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 21 21 21 21 21 21

  11. Iowa Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    288,210 288,210 288,210 288,210 288,210 288,210 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 90,313 90,313 90,313 90,313 90,313 90,313 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 4 4 4 4 4 4

  12. Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    82,984 282,984 282,984 282,984 282,984 282,984 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 122,980 122,980 122,980 122,980 122,980 122,980 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 17 17 17 17 17 17

  13. Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    21,723 221,723 221,723 221,722 221,722 221,722 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 107,600 107,600 107,572 107,571 107,571 107,571 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 23 23 23 23 23 23

  14. Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    742,627 742,627 749,867 749,867 749,867 749,867 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 452,359 452,359 457,530 457,530 457,530 457,530 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 19 19 19 19 19 19

  15. West Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    528,637 528,637 528,637 528,637 528,637 528,637 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 259,324 259,324 259,324 259,321 259,321 259,315 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 30 30 30 30 30 30

  16. Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    157,985 157,985 157,985 157,985 157,985 157,985 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 73,705 73,705 73,705 73,705 73,705 73,705 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 9 9 9 9 9 9

  17. Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 1988-2014 Aquifers 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2008-2014...

  18. Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    10,889 11,502 13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 1988-2014 Aquifers 10,889 11,502 13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 3,040 3,656 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000...

  19. Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    1,200 0 NA NA 1998-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 1,200 0 0 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 860 0 0 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 860 0 0 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1 1998-2014 Depleted Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  20. Pennsylvania Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    776,964 776,822 776,845 774,309 774,309 774,309 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 776,964 776,822 776,845 774,309 774,309 774,309 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 431,137 431,086 433,110 434,179 433,214 433,214 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 942 938 938 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 431,137 431,086 433,110 433,236 432,276 432,276 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 51 51 51 51 51 51 1989-2014 Aquifers 1 1 1 2012-2014 Depleted Fields

  1. Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    766,768 783,579 812,394 831,190 842,072 834,124 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 182,725 196,140 224,955 246,310 253,220 254,136 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 584,042 587,439 587,439 584,881 588,852 579,988 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 504,524 509,961 532,336 533,336 541,161 528,485 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 123,664 130,621 152,102 164,439 168,143 167,546 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 380,859 379,340 380,234 368,897 373,018 360,938 2008-2014 Total Number of

  2. Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    20,368 221,751 221,751 221,751 221,723 221,723 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 9,567 9,567 9,567 9,567 9,567 6,567 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 210,801 212,184 212,184 212,184 212,156 215,156 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 103,484 107,600 107,600 107,600 107,600 107,600 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 6,629 6,629 6,629 6,629 6,629 4,619 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 96,855 100,971 100,971 100,971 100,971 102,981 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 23 23 23 23 23

  3. Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    51,968 670,880 690,295 699,646 733,939 745,029 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 123,341 142,253 161,668 297,020 213,039 224,129 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 528,626 528,626 528,626 402,626 520,900 520,900 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 369,031 384,864 397,627 412,482 446,713 454,140 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 84,487 100,320 111,849 200,702 154,333 161,260 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 284,544 284,544 285,779 211,780 292,380 292,880 2008-2014 Total Number of

  4. Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    4,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  5. Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    210,128 235,638 240,241 289,416 303,522 331,469 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 62,301 82,411 90,452 139,627 153,733 181,810 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 147,827 153,227 149,789 149,789 149,789 149,659 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 108,978 127,248 131,091 168,602 180,654 201,250 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 43,758 56,928 62,932 100,443 109,495 130,333 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 65,220 70,320 68,159 68,159 71,159 70,917 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields

  6. Montana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    76,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 197,508 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 197,508 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 5 5 5 5 5 5 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 5 5 5 5 5 5

  7. Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    129,480 129,480 124,465 124,465 124,465 124,465 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 11,980 11,980 4,265 4,265 4,265 4,265 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 117,500 117,500 120,200 120,200 120,200 120,200 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 52,198 52,189 54,889 54,898 54,898 54,898 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 948 939 939 948 948 948 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 51,250 51,250 53,950 53,950 53,950 53,950 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 3 3 3 3 3 3 1989-2014 Aquifers 2 2

  8. Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    111,120 111,120 106,764 124,937 157,985 157,985 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 10,000 10,000 6,733 6,705 6,705 6,705 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 101,120 101,120 100,030 118,232 151,280 151,280 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 42,140 42,134 41,284 48,705 73,705 73,705 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 836 830 830 836 836 836 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 41,304 41,304 40,454 47,869 72,869 72,869 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 8 8 8 9 9 9 1989-2014 Aquifers 1 1

  9. Nebraska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    4,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 13,619 14,819 14,819 14,819 14,819 14,819 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 13,619 14,819 14,819 14,819 14,819 14,819 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  10. New Mexico Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    80,000 84,300 84,300 89,100 89,100 89,100 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 80,000 84,300 84,300 89,100 89,100 89,100 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 55,300 59,000 59,000 63,300 59,738 59,738 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 55,300 59,000 59,000 63,300 59,738 59,738 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2 1989-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2

  11. New York Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    245,579 245,579 245,579 245,579 245,779 245,779 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 2,340 2,340 2,340 0 2,340 2,340 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 243,239 243,239 243,239 245,579 243,439 243,439 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 128,976 128,976 128,976 129,026 129,551 129,551 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 1,450 1,450 1,450 0 1,450 1,450 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 127,526 127,526 127,526 129,026 128,101 128,101 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 26 26 26 26 26 26

  12. Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    580,380 580,380 580,380 577,944 577,944 577,944 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 580,380 580,380 580,380 577,944 577,944 577,944 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 225,154 228,350 230,350 230,350 230,828 230,828 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 225,154 228,350 230,350 230,350 230,828 230,828 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 24 24 24 24 24 24 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 24 24 24 24 24 24

  13. Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    371,338 371,338 372,838 370,838 370,535 375,935 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 170 170 170 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 371,338 371,338 372,838 370,668 370,365 375,765 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 176,868 179,858 183,358 180,858 181,055 188,455 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 31 31 31 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 176,868 179,858 183,358 180,828 181,025 188,425 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 13 13 13 13 13 13 1989-2014 Aquifers 1 1 1 2012-2014 Depleted

  14. Oregon Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    29,565 29,565 29,565 28,750 29,565 29,565 1989-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 29,565 29,565 29,565 28,750 29,565 29,565 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,510 15,935 15,935 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,510 15,935 15,935 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 7 7 7 7 7 7 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 7 7 7 7 7 7

  15. California Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    513,005 542,511 570,511 592,411 599,711 599,711 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 12,000 12,000 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 513,005 542,511 570,511 592,411 587,711 587,711 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 296,096 311,096 335,396 349,296 374,296 374,296 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 10,000 10,000 2009-2014 Depleted Fields 296,096 311,096 335,396 349,296 364,296 364,296 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 13 13 13 14 14 14 1989-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0

  16. Colorado Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    105,768 105,768 105,858 124,253 122,086 130,186 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 105,768 105,768 105,858 124,253 122,086 130,186 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 48,129 49,119 48,709 60,582 60,582 63,774 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 48,129 49,119 48,709 60,582 60,582 63,774 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 9 9 9 10 10 10 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 9 9 9 10 10 10

  17. Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    989,454 990,487 997,364 999,931 1,000,281 1,004,547 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 885,848 772,381 777,294 779,862 974,362 978,624 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 103,606 218,106 220,070 220,070 25,920 25,923 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 303,761 303,500 302,385 302,962 303,312 304,312 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 252,344 216,132 215,017 215,594 291,544 292,544 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 51,418 87,368 87,368 87,368 11,768 11,768 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing

  18. Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    114,274 111,271 111,313 110,749 110,749 110,749 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 81,328 81,268 81,310 80,746 80,746 80,746 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 32,946 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 32,157 32,982 33,024 33,024 33,024 33,024 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 19,367 19,437 19,479 19,215 19,215 19,215 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 12,791 13,545 13,545 13,809 13,809 13,809 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 22 22 22 22 22 22

  19. Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    82,300 284,821 284,731 284,905 283,974 282,984 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 931 931 931 931 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 281,370 283,891 283,800 283,974 283,974 282,984 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 119,339 123,190 123,225 123,343 122,970 122,980 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 375 375 375 375 0 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 118,964 122,814 122,850 122,968 122,970 122,980 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 19 19 19 19 18 17 1989-2014 Salt Caverns 1 1 1 1 0

  20. Arkansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    1,760 21,760 21,359 21,853 21,853 21,853 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 21,760 21,760 21,359 21,853 21,853 21,853 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 13,898 13,898 12,036 12,178 12,178 12,178 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 13,898 13,898 12,036 12,178 12,178 12,178 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2

  1. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Total Working Gas Capacity Total Number of Existing Fields Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 View History U.S. 9,228,173 9,219,173 9,224,005 9,225,079 9,225,911 9,228,240 1989-2015 Alaska 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2013-2015 Lower 48 States 9,144,581 9,135,581 9,140,412 9,141,486 9,142,319 9,144,648

  2. Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    1,069,405 1,069,898 1,075,472 1,078,979 1,079,424 1,079,462 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 3,821 3,834 3,834 3,834 3,834 3,834 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 1,065,583 1,066,064 1,071,638 1,075,145 1,075,590 1,075,629 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 666,636 667,065 672,632 673,200 674,967 675,003 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 2,150 2,159 2,159 2,159 2,159 2,159 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 664,486 664,906 670,473 671,041 672,808 672,844 2008-2014 Total Number of

  3. Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 1998-2014 Salt Caverns 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 2009-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2 1998-2014 Salt Caverns 1 1 1 1 1 1

  4. Alabama Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6,900 32,900 35,400 35,400 35,400 43,600 1995-2014 Salt Caverns 15,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 30,100 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 11,000 11,000 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 20,900 25,150 27,350 27,350 27,350 33,150 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 11,900 16,150 16,150 16,150 16,150 21,950 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 9,000 9,000 11,200 11,200 11,200 11,200 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2 1995-2014 Salt

  5. Mountain Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 904,787 904,787 904,787 904,787 904,787 904,787 909,887 912,887 912,887...

  6. Mountain Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 461,243 461,243 461,243 461,243 461,243 461,243 461,243 464,435 464,435...

  7. Pacific Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176...

  8. Pacific Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage Capacity...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 414,831 414,831 414,831 414,831 414,831 414,831 414,831 414,831 414,831...

  9. AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 4,737,921 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,446 4,727,446 4,727,446 4,727,509 1995 4,730,109 4,647,791 4,647,791 4,647,791 4,647,791 4,647,791 4,593,948 4,593,948 4,593,948 4,593,948 4,593,948 4,593,948 1996 4,593,948

  10. AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 2,026,828 2,068,220 2,068,220 2,068,428 2,068,428 2,068,428 2,074,428 2,082,928 2,082,928 2,082,928 2,082,928 2,082,928 1995 2,082,928 2,096,611 2,096,611 2,096,176 2,096,176 2,096,176 2,090,331 2,090,331 2,090,331 2,090,331 2,090,331 2,090,331 1996 2,095,131 2,106,116

  11. Midwest Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Midwest Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,723,336 2,725,497 2,725,535 2015 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,716,587 2,715,888 2,717,255 2,718,087 2,718,087 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable;

  12. South Central Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) South Central Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 2,578,946 2,577,866 2,578,498 2,578,547 2,590,575 2,599,184 2,611,335 2,616,178 2,612,570 2,613,746 2,635,148 2,634,993 2015 2,631,717 2,630,903 2,631,616 2,631,673 2,631,673 2,631,444 2,631,444 2,631,444 2,636,984 2,637,895 2,637,895 2,640,224 - = No Data Reported; -- =

  13. Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 8,842,950 8,854,720 8,854,720 8,882,728 8,905,843 8,919,139 8,922,097 8,940,010 8,979,317 8,991,571 8,990,535 8,992,535 2013 8,965,468 8,971,280 8,986,201 8,988,916 9,020,589 9,027,650 9,033,704 9,048,658 9,087,425 9,093,741 9,090,861 9,089,358 2014 9,081,309 9,080,229 9,080,862 9,080,910

  14. Basin-Scale Hydrologic Impacts of CO2 Storage: Regulatory and Capacity Implications

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Birkholzer, J.T.; Zhou, Q.

    2009-04-02

    Industrial-scale injection of CO{sub 2} into saline sedimentary basins will cause large-scale fluid pressurization and migration of native brines, which may affect valuable groundwater resources overlying the deep sequestration reservoirs. In this paper, we discuss how such basin-scale hydrologic impacts can (1) affect regulation of CO{sub 2} storage projects and (2) may reduce current storage capacity estimates. Our assessment arises from a hypothetical future carbon sequestration scenario in the Illinois Basin, which involves twenty individual CO{sub 2} storage projects in a core injection area suitable for long-term storage. Each project is assumed to inject five million tonnes of CO{sub 2} per year for 50 years. A regional-scale three-dimensional simulation model was developed for the Illinois Basin that captures both the local-scale CO{sub 2}-brine flow processes and the large-scale groundwater flow patterns in response to CO{sub 2} storage. The far-field pressure buildup predicted for this selected sequestration scenario suggests that (1) the area that needs to be characterized in a permitting process may comprise a very large region within the basin if reservoir pressurization is considered, and (2) permits cannot be granted on a single-site basis alone because the near- and far-field hydrologic response may be affected by interference between individual sites. Our results also support recent studies in that environmental concerns related to near-field and far-field pressure buildup may be a limiting factor on CO{sub 2} storage capacity. In other words, estimates of storage capacity, if solely based on the effective pore volume available for safe trapping of CO{sub 2}, may have to be revised based on assessments of pressure perturbations and their potential impact on caprock integrity and groundwater resources, respectively. We finally discuss some of the challenges in making reliable predictions of large-scale hydrologic impacts related to CO{sub 2} sequestration projects.

  15. Integrated Geothermal-CO2 Storage Reservoirs: FY1 Final Report

    DOE Data Explorer [Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)]

    Buscheck, Thomas A.

    2012-01-01

    The purpose of phase 1 is to determine the feasibility of integrating geologic CO2 storage (GCS) with geothermal energy production. Phase 1 includes reservoir analyses to determine injector/producer well schemes that balance the generation of economically useful flow rates at the producers with the need to manage reservoir overpressure to reduce the risks associated with overpressure, such as induced seismicity and CO2 leakage to overlying aquifers. This submittal contains input and output files of the reservoir model analyses. A reservoir-model "index-html" file was sent in a previous submittal to organize the reservoir-model input and output files according to sections of the FY1 Final Report to which they pertain. The recipient should save the file: Reservoir-models-inputs-outputs-index.html in the same directory that the files: Section2.1.*.tar.gz files are saved in.

  16. Active Management of Integrated Geothermal-CO2 Storage Reservoirs in Sedimentary Formations

    DOE Data Explorer [Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)]

    Buscheck, Thomas A.

    2012-01-01

    The purpose of phase 1 is to determine the feasibility of integrating geologic CO2 storage (GCS) with geothermal energy production. Phase 1 includes reservoir analyses to determine injector/producer well schemes that balance the generation of economically useful flow rates at the producers with the need to manage reservoir overpressure to reduce the risks associated with overpressure, such as induced seismicity and CO2 leakage to overlying aquifers. This submittal contains input and output files of the reservoir model analyses. A reservoir-model "index-html" file was sent in a previous submittal to organize the reservoir-model input and output files according to sections of the FY1 Final Report to which they pertain. The recipient should save the file: Reservoir-models-inputs-outputs-index.html in the same directory that the files: Section2.1.*.tar.gz files are saved in.

  17. Active Management of Integrated Geothermal-CO2 Storage Reservoirs in Sedimentary Formations

    DOE Data Explorer [Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)]

    Buscheck, Thomas A.

    2000-01-01

    The purpose of phase 1 is to determine the feasibility of integrating geologic CO2 storage (GCS) with geothermal energy production. Phase 1 includes reservoir analyses to determine injector/producer well schemes that balance the generation of economically useful flow rates at the producers with the need to manage reservoir overpressure to reduce the risks associated with overpressure, such as induced seismicity and CO2 leakage to overlying aquifers. This submittal contains input and output files of the reservoir model analyses. A reservoir-model "index-html" file was sent in a previous submittal to organize the reservoir-model input and output files according to sections of the FY1 Final Report to which they pertain. The recipient should save the file: Reservoir-models-inputs-outputs-index.html in the same directory that the files: Section2.1.*.tar.gz files are saved in.

  18. Integrated Geothermal-CO2 Storage Reservoirs: FY1 Final Report

    DOE Data Explorer [Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)]

    Buscheck, Thomas A.

    The purpose of phase 1 is to determine the feasibility of integrating geologic CO2 storage (GCS) with geothermal energy production. Phase 1 includes reservoir analyses to determine injector/producer well schemes that balance the generation of economically useful flow rates at the producers with the need to manage reservoir overpressure to reduce the risks associated with overpressure, such as induced seismicity and CO2 leakage to overlying aquifers. This submittal contains input and output files of the reservoir model analyses. A reservoir-model "index-html" file was sent in a previous submittal to organize the reservoir-model input and output files according to sections of the FY1 Final Report to which they pertain. The recipient should save the file: Reservoir-models-inputs-outputs-index.html in the same directory that the files: Section2.1.*.tar.gz files are saved in.

  19. Active Management of Integrated Geothermal-CO2 Storage Reservoirs in Sedimentary Formations

    DOE Data Explorer [Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)]

    Buscheck, Thomas A.

    The purpose of phase 1 is to determine the feasibility of integrating geologic CO2 storage (GCS) with geothermal energy production. Phase 1 includes reservoir analyses to determine injector/producer well schemes that balance the generation of economically useful flow rates at the producers with the need to manage reservoir overpressure to reduce the risks associated with overpressure, such as induced seismicity and CO2 leakage to overlying aquifers. This submittal contains input and output files of the reservoir model analyses. A reservoir-model "index-html" file was sent in a previous submittal to organize the reservoir-model input and output files according to sections of the FY1 Final Report to which they pertain. The recipient should save the file: Reservoir-models-inputs-outputs-index.html in the same directory that the files: Section2.1.*.tar.gz files are saved in.

  20. High Methane Storage Capacity in Aluminum Metal-Organic Frameworks |

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Center for Gas SeparationsRelevant to Clean Energy Technologies | Blandine Jerome High Methane Storage Capacity in Aluminum Metal-Organic Frameworks Previous Next List Felipe Gándara, Hiroyasu Furukawa, Seungkyu Lee, and Omar M. Yaghi, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 136, 5271-5274 (2014) DOI: 10.1021/ja501606h Abstract Image Abstract: The use of porous materials to store natural gas in vehicles requires large amounts of methane per unit of volume. Here we report the synthesis, crystal structure and

  1. AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 1,226,103 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1995 1,232,392 1,233,637 1,233,637 1,233,637 1,233,637 1,243,137 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1996 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446

  2. Assessment of Factors Influencing Effective CO{sub 2} Storage Capacity and Injectivity in Eastern Gas Shales

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Godec, Michael

    2013-06-30

    Building upon advances in technology, production of natural gas from organic-rich shales is rapidly developing as a major hydrocarbon supply option in North America and around the world. The same technology advances that have facilitated this revolution - dense well spacing, horizontal drilling, and hydraulic fracturing - may help to facilitate enhanced gas recovery (EGR) and carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) storage in these formations. The potential storage of CO {sub 2} in shales is attracting increasing interest, especially in Appalachian Basin states that have extensive shale deposits, but limited CO{sub 2} storage capacity in conventional reservoirs. The goal of this cooperative research project was to build upon previous and on-going work to assess key factors that could influence effective EGR, CO{sub 2} storage capacity, and injectivity in selected Eastern gas shales, including the Devonian Marcellus Shale, the Devonian Ohio Shale, the Ordovician Utica and Point Pleasant shale and equivalent formations, and the late Devonian-age Antrim Shale. The project had the following objectives: (1) Analyze and synthesize geologic information and reservoir data through collaboration with selected State geological surveys, universities, and oil and gas operators; (2) improve reservoir models to perform reservoir simulations to better understand the shale characteristics that impact EGR, storage capacity and CO{sub 2} injectivity in the targeted shales; (3) Analyze results of a targeted, highly monitored, small-scale CO{sub 2} injection test and incorporate into ongoing characterization and simulation work; (4) Test and model a smart particle early warning concept that can potentially be used to inject water with uniquely labeled particles before the start of CO{sub 2} injection; (5) Identify and evaluate potential constraints to economic CO{sub 2} storage in gas shales, and propose development approaches that overcome these constraints; and (6) Complete new basin-level characterizations for the CO{sub 2} storage capacity and injectivity potential of the targeted eastern shales. In total, these Eastern gas shales cover an area of over 116 million acres, may contain an estimated 6,000 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas in place, and have a maximum theoretical storage capacity of over 600 million metric tons. Not all of this gas in-place will be recoverable, and economics will further limit how much will be economic to produce using EGR techniques with CO{sub 2} injection. Reservoir models were developed and simulations were conducted to characterize the potential for both CO{sub 2} storage and EGR for the target gas shale formations. Based on that, engineering costing and cash flow analyses were used to estimate economic potential based on future natural gas prices and possible financial incentives. The objective was to assume that EGR and CO{sub 2} storage activities would commence consistent with the historical development practices. Alternative CO{sub 2} injection/EGR scenarios were considered and compared to well production without CO{sub 2} injection. These simulations were conducted for specific, defined model areas in each shale gas play. The resulting outputs were estimated recovery per typical well (per 80 acres), and the estimated CO{sub 2} that would be injected and remain in the reservoir (i.e., not produced), and thus ultimately assumed to be stored. The application of this approach aggregated to the entire area of the four shale gas plays concluded that they contain nearly 1,300 Tcf of both primary production and EGR potential, of which an estimated 460 Tcf could be economic to produce with reasonable gas prices and/or modest incentives. This could facilitate the storage of nearly 50 Gt of CO{sub 2} in the Marcellus, Utica, Antrim, and Devonian Ohio shales.

  3. Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity - U.S. Energy Information

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Administration Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity With Data for November 2015 | Release Date: March 16, 2016 | Next Release Date: February 2017 Previous Issues Year: 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 prior issues Go Natural gas storage capacity nearly unchanged nationally, but regions vary U.S. natural gas working storage capacity (in terms of design capacity and demonstrated maximum working gas volumes) as of November 2015 was essentially flat compared to November 2014, with some

  4. Active Management of Integrated Geothermal-CO2 Storage Reservoirs in Sedimentary Formations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Buscheck, Thomas A.

    2012-01-01

    Active Management of Integrated GeothermalCO2 Storage Reservoirs in Sedimentary Formations: An Approach to Improve Energy Recovery and Mitigate Risk : FY1 Final Report The purpose of phase 1 is to determine the feasibility of integrating geologic CO2 storage (GCS) with geothermal energy production. Phase 1 includes reservoir analyses to determine injector/producer well schemes that balance the generation of economically useful flow rates at the producers with the need to manage reservoir overpressure to reduce the risks associated with overpressure, such as induced seismicity and CO2 leakage to overlying aquifers. This submittal contains input and output files of the reservoir model analyses. A reservoir-model "index-html" file was sent in a previous submittal to organize the reservoir-model input and output files according to sections of the FY1 Final Report to which they pertain. The recipient should save the file: Reservoir-models-inputs-outputs-index.html in the same directory that the files: Section2.1.*.tar.gz files are saved in.

  5. HybridPlan: A Capacity Planning Technique for Projecting Storage Requirements in Hybrid Storage Systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kim, Youngjae; Gupta, Aayush; Urgaonkar, Bhuvan; Piotr, Berman; Sivasubramaniam, Anand

    2014-01-01

    Economic forces, driven by the desire to introduce flash into the high-end storage market without changing existing software-base, have resulted in the emergence of solid-state drives (SSDs), flash packaged in HDD form factors and capable of working with device drivers and I/O buses designed for HDDs. Unlike the use of DRAM for caching or buffering, however, certain idiosyncrasies of NAND Flash-based solid-state drives (SSDs) make their integration into hard disk drive (HDD)-based storage systems nontrivial. Flash memory suffers from limits on its reliability, is an order of magnitude more expensive than the magnetic hard disk drives (HDDs), and can sometimes be as slow as the HDD (due to excessive garbage collection (GC) induced by high intensity of random writes). Given the complementary properties of HDDs and SSDs in terms of cost, performance, and lifetime, the current consensus among several storage experts is to view SSDs not as a replacement for HDD, but rather as a complementary device within the high-performance storage hierarchy. Thus, we design and evaluate such a hybrid storage system with HybridPlan that is an improved capacity planning technique to administrators with the overall goal of operating within cost-budgets. HybridPlan is able to find the most cost-effective hybrid storage configuration with different types of SSDs and HDDs

  6. Potential hazards of compressed air energy storage in depleted natural gas reservoirs.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cooper, Paul W.; Grubelich, Mark Charles; Bauer, Stephen J.

    2011-09-01

    This report is a preliminary assessment of the ignition and explosion potential in a depleted hydrocarbon reservoir from air cycling associated with compressed air energy storage (CAES) in geologic media. The study identifies issues associated with this phenomenon as well as possible mitigating measures that should be considered. Compressed air energy storage (CAES) in geologic media has been proposed to help supplement renewable energy sources (e.g., wind and solar) by providing a means to store energy when excess energy is available, and to provide an energy source during non-productive or low productivity renewable energy time periods. Presently, salt caverns represent the only proven underground storage used for CAES. Depleted natural gas reservoirs represent another potential underground storage vessel for CAES because they have demonstrated their container function and may have the requisite porosity and permeability; however reservoirs have yet to be demonstrated as a functional/operational storage media for compressed air. Specifically, air introduced into a depleted natural gas reservoir presents a situation where an ignition and explosion potential may exist. This report presents the results of an initial study identifying issues associated with this phenomena as well as possible mitigating measures that should be considered.

  7. High Methane Storage Capacity in Aluminum Metal-Organic Frameworks (MOFs)

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    | Center for Gas SeparationsRelevant to Clean Energy Technologies | Blandine Jerome High Methane Storage Capacity in Aluminum Metal-Organic Frameworks (MOFs)

  8. Estimate of Maximum Underground Working Gas Storage Capacity in the United States: 2007 Update

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2007-01-01

    This report provides an update to an estimate for U.S. aggregate natural gas storage capacity that was released in 2006.

  9. A method for quick assessment of CO2 storage capacity in closedand semi-closed saline formations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zhou, Q.; Birkholzer, J.; Tsang, C.F.; Rutqvist, J.

    2008-02-10

    Saline aquifers of high permeability bounded by overlying/underlying seals may be surrounded laterally by low-permeability zones, possibly caused by natural heterogeneity and/or faulting. Carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) injection into and storage in such 'closed' systems with impervious seals, or 'semi-closed' systems with nonideal (low-permeability) seals, is different from that in 'open' systems, from which the displaced brine can easily escape laterally. In closed or semi-closed systems, the pressure buildup caused by continuous industrial-scale CO{sub 2} injection may have a limiting effect on CO{sub 2} storage capacity, because geomechanical damage caused by overpressure needs to be avoided. In this research, a simple analytical method was developed for the quick assessment of the CO{sub 2} storage capacity in such closed and semi-closed systems. This quick-assessment method is based on the fact that native brine (of an equivalent volume) displaced by the cumulative injected CO{sub 2} occupies additional pore volume within the storage formation and the seals, provided by pore and brine compressibility in response to pressure buildup. With nonideal seals, brine may also leak through the seals into overlying/underlying formations. The quick-assessment method calculates these brine displacement contributions in response to an estimated average pressure buildup in the storage reservoir. The CO{sub 2} storage capacity and the transient domain-averaged pressure buildup estimated through the quick-assessment method were compared with the 'true' values obtained using detailed numerical simulations of CO{sub 2} and brine transport in a two-dimensional radial system. The good agreement indicates that the proposed method can produce reasonable approximations for storage-formation-seal systems of various geometric and hydrogeological properties.

  10. Active Management of Integrated Geothermal-CO2 Storage Reservoirs in Sedimentary Formations

    DOE Data Explorer [Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)]

    Buscheck, Thomas A.

    The purpose of phase 1 is to determine the feasibility of integrating geologic CO2 storage (GCS) with geothermal energy production. Phase 1 includes reservoir analyses to determine injector/producer well schemes that balance the generation of economically useful flow rates at the producers with the need to manage reservoir overpressure to reduce the risks associated with overpressure, such as induced seismicity and CO2 leakage to overlying aquifers. Based on a range of well schemes, techno-economic analyses of the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) are conducted to determine the economic benefits of integrating GCS with geothermal energy production. In addition to considering CO2 injection, reservoir analyses are conducted for nitrogen (N2) injection to investigate the potential benefits of incorporating N2 injection with integrated geothermal-GCS, as well as the use of N2 injection as a potential pressure-support and working-fluid option. Phase 1 includes preliminary environmental risk assessments of integrated geothermal-GCS, with the focus on managing reservoir overpressure. Phase 1 also includes an economic survey of pipeline costs, which will be applied in Phase 2 to the analysis of CO2 conveyance costs for techno-economics analyses of integrated geothermal-GCS reservoir sites. Phase 1 also includes a geospatial GIS survey of potential integrated geothermal-GCS reservoir sites, which will be used in Phase 2 to conduct sweet-spot analyses that determine where promising geothermal resources are co-located in sedimentary settings conducive to safe CO2 storage, as well as being in adequate proximity to large stationary CO2 sources.

  11. Active Management of Integrated Geothermal-CO2 Storage Reservoirs in Sedimentary Formations

    DOE Data Explorer [Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)]

    Buscheck, Thomas A.

    2012-01-01

    The purpose of phase 1 is to determine the feasibility of integrating geologic CO2 storage (GCS) with geothermal energy production. Phase 1 includes reservoir analyses to determine injector/producer well schemes that balance the generation of economically useful flow rates at the producers with the need to manage reservoir overpressure to reduce the risks associated with overpressure, such as induced seismicity and CO2 leakage to overlying aquifers. Based on a range of well schemes, techno-economic analyses of the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) are conducted to determine the economic benefits of integrating GCS with geothermal energy production. In addition to considering CO2 injection, reservoir analyses are conducted for nitrogen (N2) injection to investigate the potential benefits of incorporating N2 injection with integrated geothermal-GCS, as well as the use of N2 injection as a potential pressure-support and working-fluid option. Phase 1 includes preliminary environmental risk assessments of integrated geothermal-GCS, with the focus on managing reservoir overpressure. Phase 1 also includes an economic survey of pipeline costs, which will be applied in Phase 2 to the analysis of CO2 conveyance costs for techno-economics analyses of integrated geothermal-GCS reservoir sites. Phase 1 also includes a geospatial GIS survey of potential integrated geothermal-GCS reservoir sites, which will be used in Phase 2 to conduct sweet-spot analyses that determine where promising geothermal resources are co-located in sedimentary settings conducive to safe CO2 storage, as well as being in adequate proximity to large stationary CO2 sources.

  12. Estimate of Maximum Underground Working Gas Storage Capacity in the United States

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2006-01-01

    This report examines the aggregate maximum capacity for U.S. natural gas storage. Although the concept of maximum capacity seems quite straightforward, there are numerous issues that preclude the determination of a definitive maximum volume. The report presents three alternative estimates for maximum capacity, indicating appropriate caveats for each.

  13. Complex Hydride Compounds with Enhanced Hydrogen Storage Capacity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mosher, Daniel A.; Opalka, Susanne M.; Tang, Xia; Laube, Bruce L.; Brown, Ronald J.; Vanderspurt, Thomas H.; Arsenault, Sarah; Wu, Robert; Strickler, Jamie; Anton, Donald L.; Zidan, Ragaiy; Berseth, Polly

    2008-02-18

    The United Technologies Research Center (UTRC), in collaboration with major partners Albemarle Corporation (Albemarle) and the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL), conducted research to discover new hydride materials for the storage of hydrogen having on-board reversibility and a target gravimetric capacity of ? 7.5 weight percent (wt %). When integrated into a system with a reasonable efficiency of 60% (mass of hydride / total mass), this target material would produce a system gravimetric capacity of ? 4.5 wt %, consistent with the DOE 2007 target. The approach established for the project combined first principles modeling (FPM - UTRC) with multiple synthesis methods: Solid State Processing (SSP - UTRC), Solution Based Processing (SBP - Albemarle) and Molten State Processing (MSP - SRNL). In the search for novel compounds, each of these methods has advantages and disadvantages; by combining them, the potential for success was increased. During the project, UTRC refined its FPM framework which includes ground state (0 Kelvin) structural determinations, elevated temperature thermodynamic predictions and thermodynamic / phase diagram calculations. This modeling was used both to precede synthesis in a virtual search for new compounds and after initial synthesis to examine reaction details and options for modifications including co-reactant additions. The SSP synthesis method involved high energy ball milling which was simple, efficient for small batches and has proven effective for other storage material compositions. The SBP method produced very homogeneous chemical reactions, some of which cannot be performed via solid state routes, and would be the preferred approach for large scale production. The MSP technique is similar to the SSP method, but involves higher temperature and hydrogen pressure conditions to achieve greater species mobility. During the initial phases of the project, the focus was on higher order alanate complexes in the phase space between alkaline metal hydrides (AmH), Alkaline earth metal hydrides (AeH2), alane (AlH3), transition metal (Tm) hydrides (TmHz, where z=1-3) and molecular hydrogen (H2). The effort started first with variations of known alanates and subsequently extended the search to unknown compounds. In this stage, the FPM techniques were developed and validated on known alanate materials such as NaAlH4 and Na2LiAlH6. The coupled predictive methodologies were used to survey over 200 proposed phases in six quaternary spaces, formed from various combinations of Na, Li Mg and/or Ti with Al and H. A wide range of alanate compounds was examined using SSP having additions of Ti, Cr, Co, Ni and Fe. A number of compositions and reaction paths were identified having H weight fractions up to 5.6 wt %, but none meeting the 7.5 wt%H reversible goal. Similarly, MSP of alanates produced a number of interesting compounds and general conclusions regarding reaction behavior of mixtures during processing, but no alanate based candidates meeting the 7.5 wt% goal. A novel alanate, LiMg(AlH4)3, was synthesized using SBP that demonstrated a 7.0 wt% capacity with a desorption temperature of 150C. The deuteride form was synthesized and characterized by the Institute for Energy (IFE) in Norway to determine its crystalline structure for related FPM studies. However, the reaction exhibited exothermicity and therefore was not reversible under acceptable hydrogen gas pressures for on-board recharging. After the extensive studies of alanates, the material class of emphasis was shifted to borohydrides. Through SBP, several ligand-stabilized Mg(BH4)2 complexes were synthesized. The Mg(BH4)2*2NH3 complex was found to change behavior with slightly different synthesis conditions and/or aging. One of the two mechanisms was an amine-borane (NH3BH3) like dissociation reaction which released up to 16 wt %H and more conservatively 9 wt%H when not including H2 released from the NH3. From FPM, the stability of the Mg(BH4)2*2NH3 compound was found to increase with the inclusion of NH3 groups in the inner-Mg coordination

  14. Voltage Dependent Charge Storage Modes and Capacity in Subnanometer Pores

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Qiao, Rui; Meunier, V.; Huang, Jingsong; Wu, Peng; Sumpter, Bobby G

    2012-01-01

    Using molecular dynamics simulations, we show that charge storage in subnanometer pores follows a distinct voltage-dependent behavior. Specifically, at lower voltages, charge storage is achieved by swapping co-ions in the pore with counterions in the bulk electrolyte. As voltage increases, further charge storage is due mainly to the removal of co-ions from the pore, leading to a capacitance increase. The capacitance eventually reaches a maximum when all co-ions are expelled from the pore. At even higher electrode voltages, additional charge storage is realized by counterion insertion into the pore, accompanied by a reduction of capacitance. The molecular mechanisms of these observations are elucidated and provide useful insight for optimizing energy storage based on supercapacitors.

  15. THE OHIO RIVER VALLEY CO2 STORAGE PROJECT - PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF DEEP SALINE RESERVOIRS AND COAL SEAMS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Michael J. Mudd; Howard Johnson; Charles Christopher; T.S. Ramakrishnan, Ph.D.

    2003-08-01

    This report describes the geologic setting for the Deep Saline Reservoirs and Coal Seams in the Ohio River Valley CO{sub 2} Storage Project area. The object of the current project is to site and design a CO{sub 2} injection facility. A location near New Haven, WV, has been selected for the project. To assess geologic storage reservoirs at the site, regional and site-specific geology were reviewed. Geologic reports, deep well logs, hydraulic tests, and geologic maps were reviewed for the area. Only one well within 25 miles of the site penetrates the deeper sedimentary rocks, so there is a large amount of uncertainty regarding the deep geology at the site. New Haven is located along the Ohio River on the border of West Virginia and Ohio. Topography in the area is flat in the river valley but rugged away from the Ohio River floodplain. The Ohio River Valley incises 50-100 ft into bedrock in the area. The area of interest lies within the Appalachian Plateau, on the western edge of the Appalachian Mountain chain. Within the Appalachian Basin, sedimentary rocks are 3,000 to 20,000 ft deep and slope toward the southeast. The rock formations consist of alternating layers of shale, limestone, dolomite, and sandstone overlying dense metamorphic continental shield rocks. The Rome Trough is the major structural feature in the area, and there may be some faults associated with the trough in the Ohio-West Virginia Hinge Zone. The area has a low earthquake hazard with few historical earthquakes. Target injection reservoirs include the basal sandstone/Lower Maryville and the Rose Run Sandstone. The basal sandstone is an informal name for sandstones that overlie metamorphic shield rock. Regional geology indicates that the unit is at a depth of approximately 9,100 ft below the surface at the project site and associated with the Maryville Formation. Overall thickness appears to be 50-100 ft. The Rose Run Sandstone is another potential reservoir. The unit is located approximately 1,100 ft above the basal sandstone and is 100-200 ft thick. The storage capacity estimates for a 20-mile radius from the injection well ranged from 39-78 million tons (Mt) for each formation. Several other oil and gas plays have hydraulic properties conducive for injection, but the formations are generally only 5-50 ft thick in the study area. Overlying the injection reservoirs are thick sequences of dense, impermeable dolomite, limestone, and shale. These layers provide containment above the potential injection reservoirs. In general, it appears that the containment layers are much thicker and extensive than the injection intervals. Other physical parameters for the study area appear to be typical for the region. Anticipated pressures at maximum depths are approximately 4,100 psi based on a 0.45 psi/ft pressure gradient. Temperatures are likely to be 150 F. Groundwater flow is slow and complex in deep formations. Regional flow directions appear to be toward the west-northwest at less than 1 ft per year within the basal sandstone. Vertical gradients are downward in the study area. A review of brine geochemistry indicates that formation fluids have high salinity and dissolved solids. Total dissolved solids ranges from 200,000-325,000 mg/L in the deep reservoirs. Brine chemistry is similar throughout the different formations, suggesting extensive mixing in a mature basin. Unconsolidated sediments in the Ohio River Valley are the primary source of drinking water in the study area.

  16. Rocky Mountain Regional CO{sub 2} Storage Capacity and Significance

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Laes, Denise; Eisinger, Chris; Esser, Richard; Morgan, Craig; Rauzi, Steve; Scholle, Dana; Matthews, Vince; McPherson, Brian

    2013-08-30

    The purpose of this study includes extensive characterization of the most promising geologic CO{sub 2} storage formations on the Colorado Plateau, including estimates of maximum possible storage capacity. The primary targets of characterization and capacity analysis include the Cretaceous Dakota Formation, the Jurassic Entrada Formation and the Permian Weber Formation and their equivalents in the Colorado Plateau region. The total CO{sub 2} capacity estimates for the deep saline formations of the Colorado Plateau region range between 9.8 metric GT and 143 metric GT, depending on assumed storage efficiency, formations included, and other factors.

  17. Using Pressure and Volumetric Approaches to Estimate CO2 Storage Capacity in Deep Saline Aquifers

    DOE Public Access Gateway for Energy & Science Beta (PAGES Beta)

    Thibeau, Sylvain; Bachu, Stefan; Birkholzer, Jens; Holloway, Sam; Neele, Filip; Zhou, Quanlin

    2014-12-31

    Various approaches are used to evaluate the capacity of saline aquifers to store CO2, resulting in a wide range of capacity estimates for a given aquifer. The two approaches most used are the volumetric “open aquifer” and “closed aquifer” approaches. We present four full-scale aquifer cases, where CO2 storage capacity is evaluated both volumetrically (with “open” and/or “closed” approaches) and through flow modeling. These examples show that the “open aquifer” CO2 storage capacity estimation can strongly exceed the cumulative CO2 injection from the flow model, whereas the “closed aquifer” estimates are a closer approximation to the flow-model derived capacity. Anmore » analogy to oil recovery mechanisms is presented, where the primary oil recovery mechanism is compared to CO2 aquifer storage without producing formation water; and the secondary oil recovery mechanism (water flooding) is compared to CO2 aquifer storage performed simultaneously with extraction of water for pressure maintenance. This analogy supports the finding that the “closed aquifer” approach produces a better estimate of CO2 storage without water extraction, and highlights the need for any CO2 storage estimate to specify whether it is intended to represent CO2 storage capacity with or without water extraction.« less

  18. Using Pressure and Volumetric Approaches to Estimate CO2 Storage Capacity in Deep Saline Aquifers

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Thibeau, Sylvain; Bachu, Stefan; Birkholzer, Jens; Holloway, Sam; Neele, Filip; Zhou, Quanlin

    2014-12-31

    Various approaches are used to evaluate the capacity of saline aquifers to store CO2, resulting in a wide range of capacity estimates for a given aquifer. The two approaches most used are the volumetric open aquifer and closed aquifer approaches. We present four full-scale aquifer cases, where CO2 storage capacity is evaluated both volumetrically (with open and/or closed approaches) and through flow modeling. These examples show that the open aquifer CO2 storage capacity estimation can strongly exceed the cumulative CO2 injection from the flow model, whereas the closed aquifer estimates are a closer approximation to the flow-model derived capacity. An analogy to oil recovery mechanisms is presented, where the primary oil recovery mechanism is compared to CO2 aquifer storage without producing formation water; and the secondary oil recovery mechanism (water flooding) is compared to CO2 aquifer storage performed simultaneously with extraction of water for pressure maintenance. This analogy supports the finding that the closed aquifer approach produces a better estimate of CO2 storage without water extraction, and highlights the need for any CO2 storage estimate to specify whether it is intended to represent CO2 storage capacity with or without water extraction.

  19. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity as of September...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    for PAD District 2 and the U.S. total have been revised to correct a processing error that caused some capacity data to be double counted in the original release of this...

  20. EA-1044: Melton Valley Storage Tanks Capacity Increase Project- Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This EA evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposal to construct and maintain additional storage capacity at the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,...

  1. Wireless Battery Management System for Safe High-Capacity Energy Storage

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    (Conference) | SciTech Connect Wireless Battery Management System for Safe High-Capacity Energy Storage Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Wireless Battery Management System for Safe High-Capacity Energy Storage Authors: Farmer, J ; Chang, J ; Zumstein, J ; Kotovsky, J ; Dobley, A ; Puglia, F ; Osswald, S ; Wolf, K ; Kaschmitter, J ; Eaves, S ; Bandhauer, T Publication Date: 2013-10-01 OSTI Identifier: 1124816 Report Number(s): LLNL-CONF-644556 DOE Contract Number: W-7405-ENG-48

  2. Wireless Battery Management System for Safe High-Capacity Energy Storage

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    (Conference) | SciTech Connect Wireless Battery Management System for Safe High-Capacity Energy Storage Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Wireless Battery Management System for Safe High-Capacity Energy Storage × You are accessing a document from the Department of Energy's (DOE) SciTech Connect. This site is a product of DOE's Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) and is provided as a public service. Visit OSTI to utilize additional information resources in energy

  3. Blackfoot Reservoir Geothermal Area | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Resource Estimate Mean Reservoir Temp: Estimated Reservoir Volume: Mean Capacity: USGS Mean Reservoir Temp: USGS Estimated Reservoir Volume: USGS Mean Capacity: Click "Edit With...

  4. U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Total Storage

  5. Reservoir Engineering Optimization Strategies for Subsurface CO{sub 2} Storage

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mclntire, Blayde; McPherson, Brian

    2013-09-30

    The purpose of this report is to outline a methodology for calculating the optimum number of injection wells for geologic CCS. The methodology is intended primarily for reservoir pressure management, and factors in cost as well. Efficiency may come in many forms depending on project goals; therefore, various results are presented simultaneously. The developed methodology is illustrated via application in a case study of the Rocky Mountain Carbon Capture and Storage (RMCCS) project, including a CCS candidate site near Craig, Colorado, USA. The forecasting method provided reasonable estimates of cost and injection volume when compared to simulated results.

  6. A Dynamic Programming Approach to Estimate the Capacity Value of Energy Storage

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    We present a method to estimate the capacity value of storage. Our method uses a dynamic program to model the effect of power system outages on the operation and state of charge of storage in subsequent periods. We combine the optimized dispatch from the dynamic program with estimated system loss of load probabilities to compute a probability distribution for the state of charge of storage in each period. This probability distribution can be used as a forced outage rate for storage in standard reliability-based capacity value estimation methods. Our proposed method has the advantage over existing approximations that it explicitly captures the effect of system shortage events on the state of charge of storage in subsequent periods. We also use a numerical case study, based on five utility systems in the U.S., to demonstrate our technique and compare it to existing approximation methods.

  7. ,"U.S. Total Shell Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Shell Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Total Shell Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries",28,"Annual",2015,"6/30/1982" ,"Release Date:","6/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","6/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  8. ,"U.S. Working Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Working Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Working Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries",28,"Annual",2015,"6/30/1982" ,"Release Date:","6/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","6/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  9. CO2 utilization and storage in shale gas reservoirs: Experimental results and economic impacts

    DOE Public Access Gateway for Energy & Science Beta (PAGES Beta)

    Schaef, Herbert T.; Davidson, Casie L.; Owen, Antionette Toni; Miller, Quin R. S.; Loring, John S.; Thompson, Christopher J.; Bacon, Diana H.; Glezakou, Vassiliki Alexandra; McGrail, B. Peter

    2014-12-31

    Natural gas is considered a cleaner and lower-emission fuel than coal, and its high abundance from advanced drilling techniques has positioned natural gas as a major alternative energy source for the U.S. However, each ton of CO2 emitted from any type of fossil fuel combustion will continue to increase global atmospheric concentrations. One unique approach to reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions involves coupling CO2 based enhanced gas recovery (EGR) operations in depleted shale gas reservoirs with long-term CO2 storage operations. In this paper, we report unique findings about the interactions between important shale minerals and sorbing gases (CH4 and CO2) andmore » associated economic consequences. Where enhanced condensation of CO2 followed by desorption on clay surface is observed under supercritical conditions, a linear sorption profile emerges for CH4. Volumetric changes to montmorillonites occur during exposure to CO2. Theory-based simulations identify interactions with interlayer cations as energetically favorable for CO2 intercalation. Thus, experimental evidence suggests CH4 does not occupy the interlayer and has only the propensity for surface adsorption. Mixed CH4:CO2 gas systems, where CH4 concentrations prevail, indicate preferential CO2 sorption as determined by in situ infrared spectroscopy and X-ray diffraction techniques. Collectively, these laboratory studies combined with a cost-based economic analysis provide a basis for identifying favorable CO2-EOR opportunities in previously fractured shale gas reservoirs approaching final stages of primary gas production. Moreover, utilization of site-specific laboratory measurements in reservoir simulators provides insight into optimum injection strategies for maximizing CH4/CO2 exchange rates to obtain peak natural gas production.« less

  10. Optimal capacity of the battery energy storage system in a power system

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tsungying Lee; Nanming Chen

    1993-12-01

    Due to the cyclical human life, utility loads appear to be cyclical too. During daytime when most factories are in operation, the electricity demand is very high. On the contrary, when most people are sleeping from midnight to daybreak, the electric load is very low, usually only half of the peak load amount. To meet this large gap between peak load and light load, utilities must idle many generation plants during light load period while operating all generation plants during peak load period no matter how expensive they are. This low utilization factor of generation plants and uneconomical operation have sparked utilities to invest in energy storage devices such as pumped storage plants, compressed air energy storage plants, battery energy storage systems (BES) and superconducting magnetic energy storage systems (SMES) etc. Among these, pumped storage is already commercialized and is the most widely used device. However, it suffers the limit of available sites and will be saturated in the future. Other energy storage devices are still under research to reduce the cost. This paper investigates the optimal capacity of the battery energy storage system in a power system. Taiwan Power Company System is used as the example system to test this algorithm. Results show that the maximum economic benefit of the battery energy storage in a power system can be achieved by this algorithm.

  11. Carborane-Based Metal-Organic Framework with High Methane and Hydrogen Storage Capacities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kennedy, RD; Krungleviciute, V; Clingerman, DJ; Mondloch, JE; Peng, Y; Wilmer, CE; Sarjeant, AA; Snurr, RQ; Hupp, JT; Yildirim, T; Farha, OK; Mirkin, CA

    2013-09-10

    A Cu-carborane-based metal organic framework (MOF), NU-135, which contains a quasi-spherical para-carborane moiety, has been synthesized and characterized. NU-135 exhibits a pore volume of 1.02 cm(3)/g and a gravimetric BET surface area of ca. 2600 m(2)/g, and thus represents the first highly porous carborane-based MOF. As a consequence of the, unique geometry of the carborane unit, NU-135 has a very high volumetric BET surface area of ca. 1900 m(2)/cm(3). CH4, CO2, and H-2 adsorption isotherms were measured over a broad range of pressures and temperatures and are in good agreement with computational predictions. The methane storage capacity of NU-135 at 35 bar and 298 K is ca. 187 v(STP)/v. At 298 K, the pressure required to achieve a methane storage density comparable to that of a compressed natural gas (CNG) tank pressurized to 212 bar, which is a typical storage pressure, is only 65 bar. The methane working capacity (5-65 bar) is 170 v(STP)/v. The volumetric hydrogen storage capacity at 55 bar and 77 K is 49 g/L. These properties are comparable to those of current record holders in the area of methane and hydrogen storage. This initial example lays the groundwork for carborane-based materials with high surface areas.

  12. Review of private sector treatment, storage, and disposal capacity for radioactive waste. Revision 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, M.; Harris, J.G.; Moore-Mayne, S.; Mayes, R.; Naretto, C.

    1995-04-14

    This report is an update of a report that summarized the current and near-term commercial and disposal of radioactive and mixed waste. This report was capacity for the treatment, storage, dating and written for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) with the objective of updating and expanding the report entitled ``Review of Private Sector Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Capacity for Radioactive Waste``, (INEL-95/0020, January 1995). The capacity to process radioactively-contaminated protective clothing and/or respirators was added to the list of private sector capabilities to be assessed. Of the 20 companies surveyed in the previous report, 14 responded to the request for additional information, five did not respond, and one asked to be deleted from the survey. One additional company was identified as being capable of performing LLMW treatability studies and six were identified as providers of laundering services for radioactively-contaminated protective clothing and/or respirators.

  13. Blackfoot Reservoir Geothermal Area | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    GEA Development Phase: Resource Estimate Mean Reservoir Temp: Estimated Reservoir Volume: Mean Capacity: USGS Mean Reservoir Temp: USGS Estimated Reservoir Volume: USGS Mean...

  14. ,"Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mt2m.xls"

  15. ,"Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ne2m.xls"

  16. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290nm2m.xls"

  17. ,"New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ny2m.xls"

  18. ,"Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290oh2m.xls"

  19. ,"Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ok2m.xls"

  20. ,"Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290or2m.xls"

  1. ,"Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  2. ,"Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290tn2m.xls"

  3. ,"Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290tx2m.xls"

  4. ,"Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ut2m.xls"

  5. ,"Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290va2m.xls"

  6. ,"Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290wa2m.xls"

  7. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  8. ,"Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290wy2m.xls"

  9. U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Number

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    of Elements) Acquifers Capacity (Number of Elements) U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 49 2000's 49 39 38 43 43 44 44 43 43 43 2010's 43 43 44 47 46 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Number of

  10. U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Number of Elements) Depleted Fields Capacity (Number of Elements) U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 335 2000's 336 351 340 318 320 320 322 326 324 331 2010's 331 329 330 332 333 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  11. U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Number of Elements) Salt Caverns Capacity (Number of Elements) U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 29 2000's 28 28 29 30 30 30 31 31 34 35 2010's 37 38 40 40 39 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  12. U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Million

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Cubic Feet) Acquifers Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 396,950 396,092 2010's 364,228 363,521 367,108 453,054 452,044 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Working Gas

  13. U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Depleted Fields Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 3,583,786 3,659,968 2010's 3,733,993 3,769,113 3,720,980 3,839,852 3,844,927 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016

  14. U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (Million

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Cubic Feet) Salt Caverns Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 230,456 271,785 2010's 312,003 351,017 488,268 455,729 488,698 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Working Gas

  15. ,"Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290al2m.xls"

  16. ,"Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  17. ,"Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ar2m.xls"

  18. ,"California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ca2m.xls"

  19. ,"Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290co2m.xls"

  20. ,"Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290il2m.xls"

  1. ,"Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290in2m.xls"

  2. ,"Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ia2m.xls"

  3. ,"Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ks2m.xls"

  4. ,"Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ky2m.xls"

  5. ,"Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290la2m.xls"

  6. ,"Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290md2m.xls"

  7. ,"Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mi2m.xls"

  8. ,"Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mn2m.xls"

  9. ,"Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ms2m.xls"

  10. ,"Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mo2m.xls"

  11. Geochemical Impacts of Leaking CO2 from Subsurface Storage Reservoirs to Unconfined and Confined Aquifers

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Qafoku, Nikolla; Brown, Christopher F.; Wang, Guohui; Sullivan, E. C.; Lawter, Amanda R.; Harvey, Omar R.; Bowden, Mark

    2013-04-15

    Experimental research work has been conducted and is undergoing at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) to address a variety of scientific issues related with the potential leaks of the carbon dioxide (CO2) gas from deep storage reservoirs. The main objectives of this work are as follows: • Develop a systematic understanding of how CO2 leakage is likely to influence pertinent geochemical processes (e.g., dissolution/precipitation, sorption/desorption and redox reactions) in the aquifer sediments. • Identify prevailing environmental conditions that would dictate one geochemical outcome over another. • Gather useful information to support site selection, risk assessment, policy-making, and public education efforts associated with geological carbon sequestration. In this report, we present results from experiments conducted at PNNL to address research issues related to the main objectives of this effort. A series of batch and column experiments and solid phase characterization studies (quantitative x-ray diffraction and wet chemical extractions with a concentrated acid) were conducted with representative rocks and sediments from an unconfined, oxidizing carbonate aquifer, i.e., Edwards aquifer in Texas, and a confined aquifer, i.e., the High Plains aquifer in Kansas. These materials were exposed to a CO2 gas stream simulating CO2 gas leaking scenarios, and changes in aqueous phase pH and chemical composition were measured in liquid and effluent samples collected at pre-determined experimental times. Additional research to be conducted during the current fiscal year will further validate these results and will address other important remaining issues. Results from these experimental efforts will provide valuable insights for the development of site-specific, generation III reduced order models. In addition, results will initially serve as input parameters during model calibration runs and, ultimately, will be used to test model predictive capability and competency. The results from these investigations will provide useful information to support site selection, risk assessment, and public education efforts associated with geological, deep subsurface CO2 storage and sequestration.

  12. AGA totes up new U. S. gas-pipeline mileage, storage capacity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-07-04

    More than 8,000 miles of new US natural-gas transmission line or pipeline looping have been built, are under construction, or are proposed in 1993--94, the American Gas Association, Arlington, Va., states in its latest annual report on new construction. Additionally, AGA lists 47 proposed natural-gas storage projects in various stages of development to add more than 500 bcf of working-gas storage capacity and, if constructed, would increase total US working-gas storage capacity by nearly 20%. Throughout 1993 and 1994, more than $9 billion of new gas-pipeline construction projects have been in various stages of development. AGA classifies these projects as either built in 1993 or 1994 and operational, or currently under construction, or proposed and pending. In aggregate, the projects total 8,087 miles of new pipeline and pipeline looping, 1,098,940 hp of additional compression, and 15.3 bcfd of additional capacity. A table shows the regional breakout.

  13. Two-Stage, Integrated, Geothermal-CO2 Storage Reservoirs: An Approach for Sustainable Energy Production, CO2-Sequestration Security, and Reduced Environmental Risk

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Buscheck, T A; Chen, M; Sun, Y; Hao, Y; Elliot, T R

    2012-02-02

    We introduce a hybrid two-stage energy-recovery approach to sequester CO{sub 2} and produce geothermal energy at low environmental risk and low cost by integrating geothermal production with CO{sub 2} capture and sequestration (CCS) in saline, sedimentary formations. Our approach combines the benefits of the approach proposed by Buscheck et al. (2011b), which uses brine as the working fluid, with those of the approach first suggested by Brown (2000) and analyzed by Pruess (2006), using CO{sub 2} as the working fluid, and then extended to saline-formation CCS by Randolph and Saar (2011a). During stage one of our hybrid approach, formation brine, which is extracted to provide pressure relief for CO{sub 2} injection, is the working fluid for energy recovery. Produced brine is applied to a consumptive beneficial use: feedstock for fresh water production through desalination, saline cooling water, or make-up water to be injected into a neighboring reservoir operation, such as in Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS), where there is often a shortage of a working fluid. For stage one, it is important to find economically feasible disposition options to reduce the volume of brine requiring reinjection in the integrated geothermal-CCS reservoir (Buscheck et al. 2012a). During stage two, which begins as CO{sub 2} reaches the production wells; coproduced brine and CO{sub 2} are the working fluids. We present preliminary reservoir engineering analyses of this approach, using a simple conceptual model of a homogeneous, permeable CO{sub 2} storage formation/geothermal reservoir, bounded by relatively impermeable sealing units. We assess both the CO{sub 2} sequestration capacity and geothermal energy production potential as a function of well spacing between CO{sub 2} injectors and brine/CO{sub 2} producers for various well patterns and for a range of subsurface conditions.

  14. Assessing Reservoir Depositional Environments to Develop and Quantify Improvements in CO2 Storage Efficiency. A Reservoir Simulation Approach

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Okwen, Roland; Frailey, Scott; Leetaru, Hannes; Moulton, Sandy

    2014-09-30

    The storage potential and fluid movement within formations are dependent on the unique hydraulic characteristics of their respective depositional environments. Storage efficiency (E) quantifies the potential for storage in a geologic depositional environment and is used to assess basinal or regional CO2 storage resources. Current estimates of storage resources are calculated using common E ranges by lithology and not by depositional environment. The objectives of this project are to quantify E ranges and identify E enhancement strategies for different depositional environments via reservoir simulation studies. The depositional environments considered include deltaic, shelf clastic, shelf carbonate, fluvial deltaic, strandplain, reef, fluvial and alluvial, and turbidite. Strategies considered for enhancing E include CO2 injection via vertical, horizontal, and deviated wells, selective completions, water production, and multi-well injection. Conceptual geologic and geocellular models of the depositional environments were developed based on data from Illinois Basin oil fields and gas storage sites. The geologic and geocellular models were generalized for use in other US sedimentary basins. An important aspect of this work is the development of conceptual geologic and geocellular models that reflect the uniqueness of each depositional environment. Different injection well completions methods were simulated to investigate methods of enhancing E in the presence of geologic heterogeneity specific to a depositional environment. Modeling scenarios included horizontal wells (length, orientation, and inclination), selective and dynamic completions, water production, and multiwell injection. A Geologic Storage Efficiency Calculator (GSECalc) was developed to calculate E from reservoir simulation output. Estimated E values were normalized to diminish their dependency on fluid relative permeability. Classifying depositional environments according to normalized baseline E ranges ranks fluvial deltaic and turbidite highest and shelf carbonate lowest. The estimated average normalized baseline E of turbidite, and shelf carbonate depositional environments are 42.5% and 13.1%, with corresponding standard deviations of 11.3%, and 3.10%, respectively. Simulations of different plume management techniques suggest that the horizontal well, multi-well injection with brine production from blanket vertical producers are the most efficient E enhancement strategies in seven of eight depositional environments; for the fluvial deltaic depositional environment, vertical well with blanket completions is the most efficient. This study estimates normalized baseline E ranges for eight depositional environments, which can be used to assess the CO2 storage resource of candidate formations. This study also improves the general understanding of depositional environment’s influence on E. The lessons learned and results obtained from this study can be extrapolated to formations in other US basins with formations of similar depositional environments, which should be used to further refine regional and national storage resource estimates in future editions of the Carbon Utilization and Storage Atlas of the United States. Further study could consider the economic feasibility of the E enhancement strategies identified here.

  15. Preliminary formation analysis for compressed air energy storage in depleted natural gas reservoirs : a study for the DOE Energy Storage Systems Program.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gardner, William Payton

    2013-06-01

    The purpose of this study is to develop an engineering and operational understanding of CAES performance for a depleted natural gas reservoir by evaluation of relative permeability effects of air, water and natural gas in depleted natural gas reservoirs as a reservoir is initially depleted, an air bubble is created, and as air is initially cycled. The composition of produced gases will be evaluated as the three phase flow of methane, nitrogen and brine are modeled. The effects of a methane gas phase on the relative permeability of air in a formation are investigated and the composition of the produced fluid, which consists primarily of the amount of natural gas in the produced air are determined. Simulations of compressed air energy storage (CAES) in depleted natural gas reservoirs were carried out to assess the effect of formation permeability on the design of a simple CAES system. The injection of N2 (as a proxy to air), and the extraction of the resulting gas mixture in a depleted natural gas reservoir were modeled using the TOUGH2 reservoir simulator with the EOS7c equation of state. The optimal borehole spacing was determined as a function of the formation scale intrinsic permeability. Natural gas reservoir results are similar to those for an aquifer. Borehole spacing is dependent upon the intrinsic permeability of the formation. Higher permeability allows increased injection and extraction rates which is equivalent to more power per borehole for a given screen length. The number of boreholes per 100 MW for a given intrinsic permeability in a depleted natural gas reservoir is essentially identical to that determined for a simple aquifer of identical properties. During bubble formation methane is displaced and a sharp N2methane boundary is formed with an almost pure N2 gas phase in the bubble near the borehole. During cycling mixing of methane and air occurs along the boundary as the air bubble boundary moves. The extracted gas mixture changes as a function of time and proximity of the bubble boundary to the well. For all simulations reported here, with a formation radius above 50 m the maximum methane composition in the produced gas phase was less than 0.5%. This report provides an initial investigation of CAES in a depleted natural gas reservoir, and the results will provide useful guidance in CAES system investigation and design in the future.

  16. Grid Inertial Response-Based Probabilistic Determination of Energy Storage System Capacity Under High Solar Penetration

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yue, Meng; Wang, Xiaoyu

    2015-07-01

    It is well-known that responsive battery energy storage systems (BESSs) are an effective means to improve the grid inertial response to various disturbances including the variability of the renewable generation. One of the major issues associated with its implementation is the difficulty in determining the required BESS capacity mainly due to the large amount of inherent uncertainties that cannot be accounted for deterministically. In this study, a probabilistic approach is proposed to properly size the BESS from the perspective of the system inertial response, as an application of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). The proposed approach enables a risk-informed decision-making process regarding (1) the acceptable level of solar penetration in a given system and (2) the desired BESS capacity (and minimum cost) to achieve an acceptable grid inertial response with a certain confidence level.

  17. U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Million Cubic

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Feet) Acquifers Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 1,263,106 2000's 1,263,711 1,195,141 1,234,007 1,237,132 1,238,158 1,350,689 1,356,323 1,347,516 1,351,832 1,340,633 2010's 1,233,017 1,231,897 1,237,269 1,443,769 1,445,031 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  18. U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (Million

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Cubic Feet) Depleted Fields Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 6,780,700 2000's 6,788,130 6,768,622 6,747,108 6,733,983 6,776,894 6,667,222 6,711,656 6,801,291 6,805,490 6,917,547 2010's 7,074,773 7,104,948 7,038,245 7,074,916 7,085,773 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure

  19. U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (Million Cubic

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Feet) Salt Caverns Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 185,451 2000's 189,043 218,483 225,958 234,601 239,990 250,532 261,988 253,410 341,213 397,560 2010's 456,009 512,279 715,821 654,266 702,548 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  20. Grid Inertial Response-Based Probabilistic Determination of Energy Storage System Capacity Under High Solar Penetration

    DOE Public Access Gateway for Energy & Science Beta (PAGES Beta)

    Yue, Meng; Wang, Xiaoyu

    2015-07-01

    It is well-known that responsive battery energy storage systems (BESSs) are an effective means to improve the grid inertial response to various disturbances including the variability of the renewable generation. One of the major issues associated with its implementation is the difficulty in determining the required BESS capacity mainly due to the large amount of inherent uncertainties that cannot be accounted for deterministically. In this study, a probabilistic approach is proposed to properly size the BESS from the perspective of the system inertial response, as an application of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). The proposed approach enables a risk-informed decision-making processmore » regarding (1) the acceptable level of solar penetration in a given system and (2) the desired BESS capacity (and minimum cost) to achieve an acceptable grid inertial response with a certain confidence level.« less

  1. The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Two of the most important characteristics of an underground storage reservoir are its capacity to hold natural gas for future use and the rate at which gas inventory can be...

  2. Geochemical Impacts of Leaking CO2 from Subsurface Storage Reservoirs to an Unconfined Oxidizing Carbonate Aquifer

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wang, Guohui; Qafoku, Nikolla; Lawter, Amanda R.; Bowden, Mark E.; Harvey, Omar; Sullivan, E. C.; Brown, Christopher F.

    2015-07-15

    A series of batch and column experiments combined with solid phase characterization studies (i.e., quantitative x-ray diffraction and wet chemical extractions) were conducted to address a variety of scientific issues and evaluate the impacts of the potential leakage of carbon dioxide (CO2) from deep subsurface storage reservoirs. The main objective was to gain an understanding of how CO2 gas influences: 1) the aqueous phase pH; and 2) mobilization of major, minor, and trace elements from minerals present in an aquifer overlying potential CO2 sequestration subsurface repositories. Rocks and slightly weathered rocks representative of an unconfined, oxidizing carbonate aquifer within the continental US, i.e., the Edwards aquifer in Texas, were used in these studies. These materials were exposed to a CO2 gas stream or were leached with a CO2-saturated influent solution to simulate different CO2 gas leakage scenarios, and changes in aqueous phase pH and chemical composition were measured in the liquid samples collected at pre-determined experimental times (batch experiments) or continuously (column experiments). The results from the strong acid extraction tests confirmed that in addition to the usual elements present in most soils, rocks, and sediments, the Edward aquifer samples contain As, Cd, Pb, Cu, and occasionally Zn, which may potentially be mobilized from the solid to the aqueous phase during or after exposure to CO2. The results from the batch and column experiments confirmed the release of major chemical elements into the contacting aqueous phase (such as Ca, Mg, Ba, Sr, Si, Na, and K); the mobilization and possible rapid immobilization of minor elements (such as Fe, Al, and Mn), which are able to form highly reactive secondary phases; and sporadic mobilization of only low concentrations of trace elements (such as As, Cd, Pb, Cu, Zn, Mo, etc.). The results from this experimental research effort will help in developing a systematic understanding of how CO2 leakage is likely to influence pertinent geochemical processes (e.g., dissolution/precipitation, sorption/desorption) in the aquifer sediments and will support site selection, risk assessment, policy-making, and public education efforts associated with geologic carbon sequestration.

  3. Capacity Enhancement of Aqueous Borohydride Fuels for hydrogen storage in liquids

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Schubert, David M.; Neiner, Doinita; Bowden, Mark E.; Whittemore, Sean M.; Holladay, Jamelyn D.; Huang, Zhenguo; Autrey, Thomas

    2015-10-05

    In this work we demonstrate enhanced hydrogen storage capacities through increased solubility of sodium borate product species in aqueous media achieved by adjusting the sodium (NaOH) to boron (B(OH)3) ratio, i.e., M/B, to obtain a distribution of polyborate anions. For a 1:1 mole ratio of NaOH to B(OH)3, M/B = 1, the ratio of the hydrolysis product formed from NaBH4 hydrolysis, the sole borate species formed and observed by 11B NMR is sodium metaborate, NaB(OH)4. When the ratio is 1:3 NaOH to B(OH)3, M/B = 0.33, a mixture of borate anions is formed and observed as a broad peak in the 11B NMR spectrum. The complex polyborate mixture yields a metastable solution that is difficult to crystallize. Given the enhanced solubility of the polyborate mixture formed when M/B = 0.33 it should follow that the hydrolysis of sodium octahydrotriborate, NaB3H8, can provide a greater storage capacity of hydrogen for fuel cell applications compared to sodium borohydride while maintaining a single phase. Accordingly, the hydrolysis of a 23 wt% NaB3H8 solution in water yields a solution having the same complex polyborate mixture as formed by mixing a 1:3 molar ratio of NaOH and B(OH)3 and releases >8 eq of H2. By optimizing the M/B ratio a complex mixture of soluble products, including B3O3(OH)52-, B4O5(OH)42-, B3O3(OH)4-, B5O6(OH)4- and B(OH)3, can be maintained as a single liquid phase throughout the hydrogen release process. Consequently, hydrolysis of NaB3H8 can provide a 40% increase in H2 storage density compared to the hydrolysis of NaBH4 given the decreased solubility of sodium metaborate. The authors would like to thank Jim Sisco and Paul Osenar of Protonex Inc. for useful discussion regarding liquid hydrogen storage materials for portable power applications and the U.S. DoE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fuel Cell Technologies Office for their continued interest in liquid hydrogen storage carriers. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is a multi-program national laboratory operated for DOE by Battelle. The authors dedicate the work to the memory of Professor Sheldon Shore. His contributions to boron hydride chemistry set the foundation for many who have followed.

  4. Information retrieval system: impacts of water-level changes on uses of federal storage reservoirs of the Columbia River.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fickeisen, D.H.; Cowley, P.J.; Neitzel, D.A.; Simmons, M.A.

    1982-09-01

    A project undertaken to provide the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) with information needed to conduct environmental assessments and meet requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Regional Act) is described. Access to information on environmental effects would help BPA fulfill its responsibilities to coordinate power generation on the Columbia River system, protect uses of the river system (e.g., irrigation, recreation, navigation), and enhance fish and wildlife production. Staff members at BPA identified the need to compile and index information resources that would help answer environmental impact questions. A computer retrieval system that would provide ready access to the information was envisioned. This project was supported by BPA to provide an initial step toward a compilation of environmental impact information. Scientists at Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) identified, gathered, and evaluated information related to environmental effects of water level on uses of five study reservoirs and developed and implemented and environmental data retrieval system, which provides for automated storage and retrieval of annotated citations to published and unpublished information. The data retrieval system is operating on BPA's computer facility and includes the reservoir water-level environmental data. This project was divided into several tasks, some of which were conducted simultaneously to meet project deadlines. The tasks were to identify uses of the five study reservoirs, compile and evaluate reservoir information, develop a data entry and retrieval system, identify and analyze research needs, and document the data retrieval system and train users. Additional details of the project are described in several appendixes.

  5. Optimizing accuracy of determinations of CO? storage capacity and permanence, and designing more efficient storage operations: An example from the Rock Springs Uplift, Wyoming

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bentley, Ramsey; Dahl, Shanna; Deiss, Allory; Duguid, Andrew; Ganshin, Yuri; Jiao, Zunsheng; Quillinan, Scott

    2015-12-01

    At a potential injection site on the Rock Springs Uplift in southwest Wyoming, an investigation of confining layers was undertaken to develop and test methodology, identify key data requirements, assess previous injection scenarios relative to detailed confining layer properties, and integrate all findings in order to reduce the uncertainty of CO? storage permanence. The assurance of safe and permanent storage of CO? at a storage site involves a detailed evaluation of the confining layers. Four suites of field data were recognized as crucial for determining storage permanence relative to the confining layers; seismic, core and petrophysical data from a wellbore, formation fluid samples, and in-situ formation tests. Core and petrophysical data were used to create a vertical heterogenic property model that defined porosity, permeability, displacement pressure, geomechanical strengths, and diagenetic history. These analyses identified four primary confining layers and multiple redundant confining layers. In-situ formation tests were used to evaluate fracture gradients, regional stress fields, baseline microseismic data, step-rate injection tests, and formation perforation responses. Seismic attributes, correlated with the vertical heterogenic property models, were calculated and used to create a 3-D volume model over the entire site. The seismic data provided the vehicle to transform the vertical heterogenic property model into a horizontal heterogenic property model, which allowed for the evaluation of confining layers across the entire study site without risking additional wellbore perforations. Lastly, formation fluids were collected and analyzed for geochemical and isotopic compositions from stacked reservoir systems. These data further tested primary confining layers, by evaluating the evidence of mixing between target reservoirs (mixing would imply an existing breach of primary confining layers). All data were propagated into a dynamic, heterogenic geologic property model used to test various injection scenarios. These tests showed that the study site could retain 25MT of injected CO? over an injection lifespan of 50 years. Major findings indicate that active reservoir pressure management through reservoir fluid production (minimum of three production wells) greatly reduces the risk of breaching a confining layer. To address brine production, a well completion and engineering study was incorporated to reduce the risks of scaling and erosion during injection and production. These scenarios suggest that the dolostone within the Mississippian Madison Limestone is the sites best injection/production target by two orders of magnitude, and that commercial well equipment would meet all performance requirements. This confirms that there are multiple confining layers in southwest Wyoming that are capable of retaining commercial volumes of CO?, making Wyomings Paleozoic reservoirs ideal storage targets for low-risk injection and long-term storage. This study also indicates that column height retention calculations are reduced in a CO?-brine system relative to a hydrocarbon-brine system, which is an observation that affects all potential CCS sites. Likewise, this study identified the impacts that downhole testing imparts on reservoir fluids, and the likelihood of introducing uncertainty in baseline site assumptions and later modeling.

  6. CHARACTERIZATION OF CONDITIONS OF NATURAL GAS STORAGE RESERVOIRS AND DESIGN AND DEMONSTRATION OF REMEDIAL TECHNIQUES FOR DAMAGE MECHANISMS FOUND THEREIN

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    J.H. Frantz Jr; K.G. Brown; W.K. Sawyer; P.A. Zyglowicz; P.M. Halleck; J.P. Spivey

    2004-12-01

    The underground gas storage (UGS) industry uses over 400 reservoirs and 17,000 wells to store and withdrawal gas. As such, it is a significant contributor to gas supply in the United States. It has been demonstrated that many UGS wells show a loss of deliverability each year due to numerous damage mechanisms. Previous studies estimate that up to one hundred million dollars are spent each year to recover or replace a deliverability loss of approximately 3.2 Bscf/D per year in the storage industry. Clearly, there is a great potential for developing technology to prevent, mitigate, or eliminate the damage causing deliverability losses in UGS wells. Prior studies have also identified the presence of several potential damage mechanisms in storage wells, developed damage diagnostic procedures, and discussed, in general terms, the possible reactions that need to occur to create the damage. However, few studies address how to prevent or mitigate specific damage types, and/or how to eliminate the damage from occurring in the future. This study seeks to increase our understanding of two specific damage mechanisms, inorganic precipitates (specifically siderite), and non-darcy damage, and thus serves to expand prior efforts as well as complement ongoing gas storage projects. Specifically, this study has resulted in: (1) An effective lab protocol designed to assess the extent of damage due to inorganic precipitates; (2) An increased understanding of how inorganic precipitates (specifically siderite) develop; (3) Identification of potential sources of chemical components necessary for siderite formation; (4) A remediation technique that has successfully restored deliverability to storage wells damaged by the inorganic precipitate siderite (one well had nearly a tenfold increase in deliverability); (5) Identification of the types of treatments that have historically been successful at reducing the amount of non-darcy pressure drop in a well, and (6) Development of a tool that can be used by operators to guide treatment selection in wells with significant non-darcy damage component. In addition, the effectiveness of the remediation treatment designed to reduce damage caused by the inorganic precipitate siderite was measured, and the benefits of this work are extrapolated to the entire U.S. storage industry. Similarly the potential benefits realized from more effective identification and treatment of wells with significant nondarcy damage component are also presented, and these benefits are also extrapolated to the entire U.S. storage industry.

  7. Role of Surface Structure on Li-ion Energy Storage Capacity of...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    of Publication: United States Language: English Subject: catalysis (heterogeneous), solar (fuels), energy storage (including batteries and capacitors), hydrogen and fuel...

  8. CO2 utilization and storage in shale gas reservoirs: Experimental results and economic impacts

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Schaef, Herbert T.; Davidson, Casie L.; Owen, Antionette Toni; Miller, Quin R. S.; Loring, John S.; Thompson, Christopher J.; Bacon, Diana H.; Glezakou, Vassiliki Alexandra; McGrail, B. Peter

    2014-12-31

    Natural gas is considered a cleaner and lower-emission fuel than coal, and its high abundance from advanced drilling techniques has positioned natural gas as a major alternative energy source for the U.S. However, each ton of CO2 emitted from any type of fossil fuel combustion will continue to increase global atmospheric concentrations. One unique approach to reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions involves coupling CO2 based enhanced gas recovery (EGR) operations in depleted shale gas reservoirs with long-term CO2 storage operations. In this paper, we report unique findings about the interactions between important shale minerals and sorbing gases (CH4 and CO2) and associated economic consequences. Where enhanced condensation of CO2 followed by desorption on clay surface is observed under supercritical conditions, a linear sorption profile emerges for CH4. Volumetric changes to montmorillonites occur during exposure to CO2. Theory-based simulations identify interactions with interlayer cations as energetically favorable for CO2 intercalation. Thus, experimental evidence suggests CH4 does not occupy the interlayer and has only the propensity for surface adsorption. Mixed CH4:CO2 gas systems, where CH4 concentrations prevail, indicate preferential CO2 sorption as determined by in situ infrared spectroscopy and X-ray diffraction techniques. Collectively, these laboratory studies combined with a cost-based economic analysis provide a basis for identifying favorable CO2-EOR opportunities in previously fractured shale gas reservoirs approaching final stages of primary gas production. Moreover, utilization of site-specific laboratory measurements in reservoir simulators provides insight into optimum injection strategies for maximizing CH4/CO2 exchange rates to obtain peak natural gas production.

  9. Estimating the supply and demand for deep geologic CO2 storage capacity over the course of the 21st Century: A meta-analysis of the literature

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dooley, James J.

    2013-08-05

    Whether there is sufficient geologic CO2 storage capacity to allow CCS to play a significant role in mitigating climate change has been the subject of debate since the 1990s. This paper presents a meta- analysis of a large body of recently published literature to derive updated estimates of the global deep geologic storage resource as well as the potential demand for this geologic CO2 storage resource over the course of this century. This analysis reveals that, for greenhouse gas emissions mitigation scenarios that have end-of-century atmospheric CO2 concentrations of between 350 ppmv and 725 ppmv, the average demand for deep geologic CO2 storage over the course of this century is between 410 GtCO2 and 1,670 GtCO2. The literature summarized here suggests that -- depending on the stringency of criteria applied to calculate storage capacity global geologic CO2 storage capacity could be: 35,300 GtCO2 of theoretical capacity; 13,500 GtCO2 of effective capacity; 3,900 GtCO2, of practical capacity; and 290 GtCO2 of matched capacity for the few regions where this narrow definition of capacity has been calculated. The cumulative demand for geologic CO2 storage is likely quite small compared to global estimates of the deep geologic CO2 storage capacity, and therefore, a lack of deep geologic CO2 storage capacity is unlikely to be an impediment for the commercial adoption of CCS technologies in this century.

  10. Analysis of Large- Capacity Water Heaters in Electric Thermal Storage Programs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cooke, Alan L.; Anderson, David M.; Winiarski, David W.; Carmichael, Robert T.; Mayhorn, Ebony T.; Fisher, Andrew R.

    2015-03-17

    This report documents a national impact analysis of large tank heat pump water heaters (HPWH) in electric thermal storage (ETS) programs and conveys the findings related to concerns raised by utilities regarding the ability of large-tank heat pump water heaters to provide electric thermal storage services.

  11. California: Conducting Polymer Binder Boosts Storage Capacity, Wins R&D 100 Award

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Working with Nextval, Inc., Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) developed a Conducting Polymer Binder for high-capacity lithium-ion batteries.

  12. From Fundamental Understanding To Predicting New Nanomaterials For High Capacity Hydrogen/Methane Storage and Carbon Capture

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yildirim, Taner

    2015-03-03

    On-board hydrogen/methane storage in fuel cell-powered vehicles is a major component of the national need to achieve energy independence and protect the environment. The main obstacles in hydrogen storage are slow kinetics, poor reversibility and high dehydrogenation temperatures for the chemical hydrides; and very low desorption temperatures/energies for the physisorption materials (MOF’s, porous carbons). Similarly, the current methane storage technologies are mainly based on physisorption in porous materials but the gravimetric and volumetric storage capacities are below the target values. Finally, carbon capture, a critical component of the mitigation of CO2 emissions from industrial plants, also suffers from similar problems. The solid-absorbers such as MOFs are either not stable against real flue-gas conditions and/or do not have large enough CO2 capture capacity to be practical and cost effective. In this project, we addressed these challenges using a unique combination of computational, synthetic and experimental methods. The main scope of our research was to achieve fundamental understanding of the chemical and structural interactions governing the storage and release of hydrogen/methane and carbon capture in a wide spectrum of candidate materials. We studied the effect of scaffolding and doping of the candidate materials on their storage and dynamics properties. We reviewed current progress, challenges and prospect in closely related fields of hydrogen/methane storage and carbon capture.[1-5] For example, for physisorption based storage materials, we show that tap-densities or simply pressing MOFs into pellet forms reduce the uptake capacities by half and therefore packing MOFs is one of the most important challenges going forward. For room temperature hydrogen storage application of MOFs, we argue that MOFs are the most promising scaffold materials for Ammonia-Borane (AB) because of their unique interior active metal-centers for AB binding and well defined and ordered pores. Here the main challenge is to find a chemically stable MOF required for regeneration of the AB-spent fuel. Finally, for carbon capture application of MOFs, we investigate the performance of a number of metal–organic frameworks with particular focus on their behavior at the low pressures commonly used in swing adsorption. This comparison clearly shows that it is the process that determines which MOF is optimal rather than there being one best MOF, though MOFs that possess enhanced binding at open metal sites generally perform better than those with high surface area. References: 1. Y. Peng, V. Krungleviciute, J. T. Hupp, O. K. Farha, and T. Yildirim, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135, 11887 (2013). 2. G. Srinivas, V. Krungleviciute, Z. Guo, and T. Yildirim, Ener. Environ. Sci. 7, 335 (2014). 3. G. Burres, and T. Yildirim, Ener. Environ. Sci. 5, 6453 (2012). 4. G. Srinivas, W. Travis, J. Ford, H. Wu, Z. X. Guo, and T. Yildirim, J. Mat. Chem.1, 4167 (2013). 5. For details, please see http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/staff/taner

  13. Design and Synthesis of Novel Porous Metal-Organic Frameworks (MOFs) Toward High Hydrogen Storage Capacity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mohamed, Eddaoudi; Zaworotko, Michael; Space, Brian; Eckert, Juergen

    2013-05-08

    Statement of Objectives: 1. Synthesize viable porous MOFs for high H2 storage at ambient conditions to be assessed by measuring H2 uptake. 2. Develop a better understanding of the operative interactions of the sorbed H2 with the organic and inorganic constituents of the sorbent MOF by means of inelastic neutron scattering (INS, to characterize the H2-MOF interactions) and computational studies (to interpret the data and predict novel materials suitable for high H2 uptake at moderate temperatures and relatively low pressures). 3. Synergistically combine the outcomes of objectives 1 and 2 to construct a made-to-order inexpensive MOF that is suitable for super H2 storage and meets the DOE targets - 6% H2 per weight (2kWh/kg) by 2010 and 9% H2 per weight (3kWh/kg) by 2015. The ongoing research is a collaborative experimental and computational effort focused on assessing H2 storage and interactions with pre-selected metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) and zeolite-like MOFs (ZMOFs), with the eventual goal of synthesizing made-to-order high H2 storage materials to achieve the DOE targets for mobile applications. We proposed in this funded research to increase the amount of H2 uptake, as well as tune the interactions (i.e. isosteric heats of adsorption), by targeting readily tunable MOFs:

  14. Rigorous Screening Technology for Identifying Suitable CO2 Storage Sites II

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    George J. Koperna Jr.; Vello A. Kuuskraa; David E. Riestenberg; Aiysha Sultana; Tyler Van Leeuwen

    2009-06-01

    This report serves as the final technical report and users manual for the 'Rigorous Screening Technology for Identifying Suitable CO2 Storage Sites II SBIR project. Advanced Resources International has developed a screening tool by which users can technically screen, assess the storage capacity and quantify the costs of CO2 storage in four types of CO2 storage reservoirs. These include CO2-enhanced oil recovery reservoirs, depleted oil and gas fields (non-enhanced oil recovery candidates), deep coal seems that are amenable to CO2-enhanced methane recovery, and saline reservoirs. The screening function assessed whether the reservoir could likely serve as a safe, long-term CO2 storage reservoir. The storage capacity assessment uses rigorous reservoir simulation models to determine the timing, ultimate storage capacity, and potential for enhanced hydrocarbon recovery. Finally, the economic assessment function determines both the field-level and pipeline (transportation) costs for CO2 sequestration in a given reservoir. The screening tool has been peer reviewed at an Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI) technical meeting in March 2009. A number of useful observations and recommendations emerged from the Workshop on the costs of CO2 transport and storage that could be readily incorporated into a commercial version of the Screening Tool in a Phase III SBIR.

  15. Templated assembly of photoswitches significantly increases the energy-storage capacity of solar thermal fuels

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kucharski, TJ; Ferralis, N; Kolpak, AM; Zheng, JO; Nocera, DG; Grossman, JC

    2014-04-13

    Large-scale utilization of solar-energy resources will require considerable advances in energy-storage technologies to meet ever-increasing global energy demands. Other than liquid fuels, existing energy-storage materials do not provide the requisite combination of high energy density, high stability, easy handling, transportability and low cost. New hybrid solar thermal fuels, composed of photoswitchable molecules on rigid, low-mass nanostructures, transcend the physical limitations of molecular solar thermal fuels by introducing local sterically constrained environments in which interactions between chromophores can be tuned. We demonstrate this principle of a hybrid solar thermal fuel using azobenzene-functionalized carbon nanotubes. We show that, on composite bundling, the amount of energy stored per azobenzene more than doubles from 58 to 120 kJ mol(-1), and the material also maintains robust cyclability and stability. Our results demonstrate that solar thermal fuels composed of molecule-nanostructure hybrids can exhibit significantly enhanced energy-storage capabilities through the generation of template-enforced steric strain.

  16. New High Capacity Getter for Vacuum-Insulated Mobile Liquid Hydrogen Storage Systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    H. Londer; G. R. Myneni; P. Adderley; G. Bartlok; J. Setina; W. Knapp; D. Schleussner

    2006-05-01

    Current ''Non evaporable getters'' (NEGs), based on the principle of metallic surface sorption of gas molecules, are important tools for the improving the performance of many vacuum systems. High porosity alloys or powder mixtures of Zr, Ti, Al, V, Fe and other metals are the base materials for this type of getters. The continuous development of vacuum technologies has created new challenges for the field of getter materials. The main sorption parameters of the current NEGs, namely, pumping speed and sorption capacity, have reached certain upper limits. Chemically active metals are the basis of a new generation of NEGs. The introduction of these new materials with high sorption capacity at room temperature is a long-awaited development. These new materials enable the new generation of NEGs to reach faster pumping speeds, significantly higher sticking rates and sorption capacities up to 104 times higher during their lifetimes. Our development efforts focus on producing these chemically active metals with controlled insulation or protection. The main structural forms of our new getter materials are spherical powders, granules and porous multi-layers. The full pumping performance can take place at room temperature with activation temperatures ranging from room temperature to 650 C. In one of our first pilot projects, our proprietary getter solution was successfully introduced as a getter pump in a double-wall mobile LH2 tank system. Our getters were shown to have very high sorption capacity of all relevant residual gases, including H2. This new concept opens the opportunity for significant vacuum improvements, especially in the field of H2 pumping which is an important task in many different vacuum applications.

  17. Area of Interest 1, CO2 at the Interface. Nature and Dynamics of the Reservoir/Caprock Contact and Implications for Carbon Storage Performance

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mozley, Peter; Evans, James; Dewers, Thomas

    2014-10-31

    We examined the influence of geologic features present at the reservoir/caprock interface on the transmission of supercritical CO2 into and through caprock. We focused on the case of deformation-band faults in reservoir lithologies that intersect the interface and transition to opening-mode fractures in caprock lithologies. Deformation-band faults are exceeding common in potential CO2 injection units and our fieldwork in Utah indicates that this sort of transition is common. To quantify the impact of these interface features on flow and transport we first described the sedimentology and permeability characteristics of selected sites along the Navajo Sandstone (reservoir lithology) and Carmel Formation (caprock lithology) interface, and along the Slickrock Member (reservoir lithology) and Earthy Member (caprock lithology) of the Entrada Sandstone interface, and used this information to construct conceptual permeability models for numerical analysis. We then examined the impact of these structures on flow using single-phase and multiphase numerical flow models for these study sites. Key findings include: (1) Deformation-band faults strongly compartmentalize the reservoir and largely block cross-fault flow of supercritical CO2. (2) Significant flow of CO2 through the fractures is possible, however, the magnitude is dependent on the small-scale geometry of the contact between the opening-mode fracture and the deformation band fault. (3) Due to the presence of permeable units in the caprock, caprock units are capable of storing significant volumes of CO2, particularly when the fracture network does not extend all the way through the caprock. The large-scale distribution of these deformation-bandfault-to-opening-mode-fractures is related to the curvature of the beds, with greater densities of fractures in high curvature regions. We also examined core and outcrops from the Mount Simon Sandstone and Eau Claire Formation reservoir/caprock interface in order to extend our work to a reservoir/caprock pair this is currently being assessed for long-term carbon storage. These analyses indicate that interface features similar to those observed at the Utah sites 3 were not observed. Although not directly related to our main study topic, one byproduct of our investigation is documentation of exceptionally high degrees of heterogeneity in the pore-size distribution of the Mount Simon Sandstone. This suggests that the unit has a greater-than-normal potential for residual trapping of supercritical CO2.

  18. Pumped Storage Hydropower

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    In addition to traditional hydropower, pumped-storage hydropower (PSH)—A type of hydropower that works like a battery, pumping water from a lower reservoir to an upper reservoir for storage and...

  19. Electricity storage using a thermal storage scheme

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    White, Alexander

    2015-01-22

    The increasing use of renewable energy technologies for electricity generation, many of which have an unpredictably intermittent nature, will inevitably lead to a greater demand for large-scale electricity storage schemes. For example, the expanding fraction of electricity produced by wind turbines will require either backup or storage capacity to cover extended periods of wind lull. This paper describes a recently proposed storage scheme, referred to here as Pumped Thermal Storage (PTS), and which is based on sensible heat storage in large thermal reservoirs. During the charging phase, the system effectively operates as a high temperature-ratio heat pump, extracting heat from a cold reservoir and delivering heat to a hot one. In the discharge phase the processes are reversed and it operates as a heat engine. The round-trip efficiency is limited only by process irreversibilities (as opposed to Second Law limitations on the coefficient of performance and the thermal efficiency of the heat pump and heat engine respectively). PTS is currently being developed in both France and England. In both cases, the schemes operate on the Joule-Brayton (gas turbine) cycle, using argon as the working fluid. However, the French scheme proposes the use of turbomachinery for compression and expansion, whereas for that being developed in England reciprocating devices are proposed. The current paper focuses on the impact of the various process irreversibilities on the thermodynamic round-trip efficiency of the scheme. Consideration is given to compression and expansion losses and pressure losses (in pipe-work, valves and thermal reservoirs); heat transfer related irreversibility in the thermal reservoirs is discussed but not included in the analysis. Results are presented demonstrating how the various loss parameters and operating conditions influence the overall performance.

  20. Refinery Capacity Report

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries by PAD District as of January 1, 2006 PDF 9 Shell Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries by PAD District as of January 1, 2006 PDF 10...

  1. Storage

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Solar Energy Wind Energy Water Power Supercritical CO2 Geothermal Natural Gas Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & Engineering ...

  2. Assessing the Effect of Timing of Availability for Carbon Dioxide Storage in the Largest Oil and Gas Pools in the Alberta Basin: Description of Data and Methodology

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dahowski, Robert T.; Bachu, Stefan

    2007-03-05

    Carbon dioxide capture from large stationary sources and storage in geological media is a technologically-feasible mitigation measure for the reduction of anthropogenic emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere in response to climate change. Carbon dioxide (CO2) can be sequestered underground in oil and gas reservoirs, in deep saline aquifers, in uneconomic coal beds and in salt caverns. The Alberta Basin provides a very large capacity for CO2 storage in oil and gas reservoirs, along with significant capacity in deep saline formations and possible unmineable coal beds. Regional assessments of potential geological CO2 storage capacity have largely focused so far on estimating the total capacity that might be available within each type of reservoir. While deep saline formations are effectively able to accept CO2 immediately, the storage potential of other classes of candidate storage reservoirs, primarily oil and gas fields, is not fully available at present time. Capacity estimates to date have largely overlooked rates of depletion in these types of storage reservoirs and typically report the total estimated storage capacity that will be available upon depletion. However, CO2 storage will not (and cannot economically) begin until the recoverable oil and gas have been produced via traditional means. This report describes a reevaluation of the CO2 storage capacity and an assessment of the timing of availability of the oil and gas pools in the Alberta Basin with very large storage capacity (>5 MtCO2 each) that are being looked at as likely targets for early implementation of CO2 storage in the region. Over 36,000 non-commingled (i.e., single) oil and gas pools were examined with effective CO2 storage capacities being individually estimated. For each pool, the life expectancy was estimated based on a combination of production decline analysis constrained by the remaining recoverable reserves and an assessment of economic viability, yielding an estimated depletion date, or year that it will be available for CO2 storage. The modeling framework and assumptions used to assess the impact of the timing of CO2 storage resource availability on the regions deployment of CCS technologies is also described. The purpose of this report is to describe the data and methodology for examining the carbon dioxide (CO2) storage capacity resource of a major hydrocarbon province incorporating estimated depletion dates for its oil and gas fields with the largest CO2 storage capacity. This allows the development of a projected timeline for CO2 storage availability across the basin and enables a more realistic examination of potential oil and gas field CO2 storage utilization by the regions large CO2 point sources. The Alberta Basin of western Canada was selected for this initial examination as a representative mature basin, and the development of capacity and depletion date estimates for the 227 largest oil and gas pools (with a total storage capacity of 4.7 GtCO2) is described, along with the impact on source-reservoir pairing and resulting CO2 transport and storage economics. The analysis indicates that timing of storage resource availability has a significant impact on the mix of storage reservoirs selected for utilization at a given time, and further confirms the value that all available reservoir types offer, providing important insights regarding CO2 storage implementation to this and other major oil and gas basins throughout North America and the rest of the world. For CCS technologies to deploy successfully and offer a meaningful contribution to climate change mitigation, CO2 storage reservoirs must be available not only where needed (preferably co-located with or near large concentrations of CO2 sources or emissions centers) but also when needed. The timing of CO2 storage resource availability is therefore an important factor to consider when assessing the real opportunities for CCS deployment in a given region.

  3. Aluminium doped ceriazirconia supported palladium-alumina catalyst with high oxygen storage capacity and CO oxidation activity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dong, Qiang; Yin, Shu Guo, Chongshen; Wu, Xiaoyong; Kimura, Takeshi; Sato, Tsugio

    2013-12-15

    Graphical abstract: Ce{sub 0.5}Zr{sub 0.3}Al{sub 0.2}O{sub 1.9}/Pd/?-Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} possessed high OSC and CO oxidation activity at low temperature. - Highlights: A new OSC material of Ce{sub 0.5}Zr{sub 0.3}Al{sub 0.2}O{sub 1.9}/Pd/?-Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} is prepared via a mechanochemical method. Ce{sub 0.5}Zr{sub 0.3}Al{sub 0.2}O{sub 1.9}/Pd/?-Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} showed high OSC even after calcination at 1000 C for 20 h. Ce{sub 0.5}Zr{sub 0.3}Al{sub 0.2}O{sub 1.9}/Pd/?-Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} exhibited the highest CO oxidation activity at low temperature correlates with enhanced OSC. - Abstract: The Ce{sub 0.5}Zr{sub 0.3}Al{sub 0.2}O{sub 1.9}/Pd-?-Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} catalyst prepared by a mechanochemical route and calcined at 1000 C for 20 h in air atmosphere to evaluate the thermal stability. The prepared Ce{sub 0.5}Zr{sub 0.3}Al{sub 0.2}O{sub 1.9}/Pd-?-Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} catalyst was characterized for the oxygen storage capacity (OSC) and CO oxidation activity in automotive catalysis. For the characterization, X-ray diffraction, transmission electron microscopy and the BrunauerEmmetTeller (BET) technique were employed. The OSC values of all samples were measured at 600 C using thermogravimetric-differential thermal analysis. Ce{sub 0.5}Zr{sub 0.3}Al{sub 0.2}O{sub 1.9}/Pd-?-Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} catalyst calcined at 1000 C for 20 h with a BET surface area of 41 m{sup 2} g{sup ?1} exhibited the considerably high OSC of 583 ?mol-O g{sup ?1} and good OSC performance stability. The same synthesis route was employed for the preparation of the CeO{sub 2}/Pd-?-Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} and Ce{sub 0.5}Zr{sub 0.5}O{sub 2}/Pd-?-Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} for comparison.

  4. Underground pumped hydroelectric storage

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Allen, R.D.; Doherty, T.J.; Kannberg, L.D.

    1984-07-01

    Underground pumped hydroelectric energy storage was conceived as a modification of surface pumped storage to eliminate dependence upon fortuitous topography, provide higher hydraulic heads, and reduce environmental concerns. A UPHS plant offers substantial savings in investment cost over coal-fired cycling plants and savings in system production costs over gas turbines. Potential location near load centers lowers transmission costs and line losses. Environmental impact is less than that for a coal-fired cycling plant. The inherent benefits include those of all pumped storage (i.e., rapid load response, emergency capacity, improvement in efficiency as pumps improve, and capacity for voltage regulation). A UPHS plant would be powered by either a coal-fired or nuclear baseload plant. The economic capacity of a UPHS plant would be in the range of 1000 to 3000 MW. This storage level is compatible with the load-leveling requirements of a greater metropolitan area with population of 1 million or more. The technical feasibility of UPHS depends upon excavation of a subterranean powerhouse cavern and reservoir caverns within a competent, impervious rock formation, and upon selection of reliable and efficient turbomachinery - pump-turbines and motor-generators - all remotely operable.

  5. Energy Storage

    ScienceCinema (OSTI)

    Paranthaman, Parans

    2014-06-23

    ORNL Distinguished Scientist Parans Paranthaman is discovering new materials with potential for greatly increasing batteries' energy storage capacity and bring manufacturing back to the US.

  6. Energy Storage

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Paranthaman, Parans

    2014-06-03

    ORNL Distinguished Scientist Parans Paranthaman is discovering new materials with potential for greatly increasing batteries' energy storage capacity and bring manufacturing back to the US.

  7. Relative Economic Merits of Storage and Combustion Turbines for Meeting Peak Capacity Requirements under Increased Penetration of Solar Photovoltaics

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Denholm, Paul; Diakov, Victor; Margolis, Robert

    2015-09-01

    Batteries with several hours of capacity provide an alternative to combustion turbines for meeting peak capacity requirements. Even when compared to state-of-the-art highly flexible combustion turbines, batteries can provide a greater operational value, which is reflected in a lower system-wide production cost. By shifting load and providing operating reserves, batteries can reduce the cost of operating the power system to a traditional electric utility. This added value means that, depending on battery life, batteries can have a higher cost than a combustion turbine of equal capacity and still produce a system with equal or lower overall life-cycle cost. For a utility considering investing in new capacity, the cost premium for batteries is highly sensitive to a variety of factors, including lifetime, natural gas costs, PV penetration, and grid generation mix. In addition, as PV penetration increases, the net electricity demand profile changes, which may reduce the amount of battery energy capacity needed to reliably meet peak demand.

  8. Reservoir Claddings

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2009-05-14

    This information sheet explains how to properly decouple reservoir claddings from water sensitive materials of the wall assembly.

  9. Liquid heat capacity lasers

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Comaskey, Brian J. (Walnut Creek, CA); Scheibner, Karl F. (Tracy, CA); Ault, Earl R. (Livermore, CA)

    2007-05-01

    The heat capacity laser concept is extended to systems in which the heat capacity lasing media is a liquid. The laser active liquid is circulated from a reservoir (where the bulk of the media and hence waste heat resides) through a channel so configured for both optical pumping of the media for gain and for light amplification from the resulting gain.

  10. Water-Stable Zirconium-Based Metal-Organic Framework Material with High-Surface Area and Gas-Storage Capacities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gutov, OV; Bury, W; Gomez-Gualdron, DA; Krungleviciute, V; Fairen-Jimenez, D; Mondloch, JE; Sarjeant, AA; Al-Juaid, SS; Snurr, RQ; Hupp, JT; Yildirim, T; Farha, OK

    2014-08-14

    We designed, synthesized, and characterized a new Zr-based metal-organic framework material, NU-1100, with a pore volume of 1.53 ccg(-1) and Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) surface area of 4020 m(2)g(-1); to our knowledge, currently the highest published for Zr-based MOFs. CH4/CO2/H-2 adsorption isotherms were obtained over a broad range of pressures and temperatures and are in excellent agreement with the computational predictions. The total hydrogen adsorption at 65 bar and 77 K is 0.092 gg(-1), which corresponds to 43 gL(-1). The volumetric and gravimetric methane-storage capacities at 65 bar and 298 K are approximately 180 v(STP)/v and 0.27 gg(-1), respectively.

  11. HT Combinatorial Screening of Novel Materials for High Capacity...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    HT Combinatorial Screening of Novel Materials for High Capacity Hydrogen Storage HT Combinatorial Screening of Novel Materials for High Capacity Hydrogen Storage Presentation for...

  12. Natural Gas Aquifers Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    1,340,633 1,233,017 1,231,897 1,237,269 1,443,769 1,445,031 1999-2014 Alabama 0 0 1999-2014 Arkansas 0 0 1999-2014 California 0 0 12,000 12,000 1999-2014 Colorado 0 0 1999-2014 Illinois 885,848 772,381 777,294 779,862 974,362 978,624 1999-2014 Indiana 81,328 81,268 81,310 80,746 80,746 80,746 1999-2014 Iowa 284,811 288,010 288,210 288,210 288,210 288,210 1999-2014 Kansas 0 0 1999-2014 Kentucky 9,567 9,567 9,567 9,567 9,567 6,567 1999-2014 Louisiana 0 0 1999-2014 Michigan 0 0 1999-2014 Minnesota

  13. T10K Change Max Capacity

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    2013-08-16

    This command line utility will enable/disable the Oracle StorageTek T10000 tape drive's maximum capacity feature.

  14. Magic Reservoir Geothermal Area | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    110C383.15 K 230 F 689.67 R 1 USGS Estimated Reservoir Volume: 2 km 1 USGS Mean Capacity: 9 MW 1 Click "Edit With Form" above to add content History and...

  15. Passive injection: A strategy for mitigating reservoir pressurization,

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    induced seismicity and brine migration in geologic CO2 storage (Journal Article) | SciTech Connect Journal Article: Passive injection: A strategy for mitigating reservoir pressurization, induced seismicity and brine migration in geologic CO2 storage Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Passive injection: A strategy for mitigating reservoir pressurization, induced seismicity and brine migration in geologic CO2 storage Authors: Dempsey, David ; Kelkar, Sharad ; Pawar, Rajesh Publication

  16. storage | netl.doe.gov

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Geologic Storage Technologies & Simulation & Risk Assessment The Carbon Storage Program's Geologic Storage and Simulation and Risk Assessment (GSRA) Technology Area supports research to develop technologies that can improve containment and injection operations, increase reservoir storage efficiency, and prevent and mitigate unwanted migration of CO2 in all types of storage formations. Research conducted in the near and long term will augment existing technologies to ensure permanent

  17. Refinery Capacity Report

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2015-01-01

    Data series include fuel, electricity, and steam purchased for consumption at the refinery; refinery receipts of crude oil by method of transportation; and current and projected atmospheric crude oil distillation, downstream charge, and production capacities. Respondents are operators of all operating and idle petroleum refineries (including new refineries under construction) and refineries shut down during the previous year, located in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and other U.S. possessions. The Refinery Capacity Report does not contain working and shell storage capacity data. This data is now being collected twice a year as of March 31 and September 30 on the Form EIA-810, "Monthly Refinery Report", and is now released as a separate report Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity.

  18. Wireless Battery Management System for Safe High-Capacity Energy...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Wireless Battery Management System for Safe High-Capacity Energy Storage Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Wireless Battery Management System for Safe High-Capacity Energy ...

  19. Spent fuel storage alternatives

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    O'Connell, R.H.; Bowidowicz, M.A.

    1983-01-01

    This paper compares a small onsite wet storage pool to a dry cask storage facility in order to determine what type of spent fuel storage alternatives would best serve the utilities in consideration of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The Act allows the DOE to provide a total of 1900 metric tons (MT) of additional spent fuel storage capacity to utilities that cannot reasonably provide such capacity for themselves. Topics considered include the implementation of the Act (DOE away-from reactor storage), the Act's impact on storage needs, and an economic evaluation. The Waste Act mandates schedules for the determination of several sites, the licensing and construction of a high-level waste repository, and the study of a monitored retrievable storage facility. It is determined that a small wet pool storage facility offers a conservative and cost-effective approach for many stations, in comparison to dry cask storage.

  20. EIA - Analysis of Natural Gas Storage

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Prices This presentation provides information about EIA's estimates of working gas peak storage capacity, and the development of the natural gas storage industry....

  1. The lifetime of carbon capture and storage as a climate-change mitigation technology

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Juanes, Ruben

    2013-12-30

    In carbon capture and storage (CCS), CO2 is captured at power plants and then injected underground into reservoirs like deep saline aquifers for long-term storage. While CCS may be critical for the continued use of fossil fuels in a carbon-constrained world, the deployment of CCS has been hindered by uncertainty in geologic storage capacities and sustainable injection rates, which has contributed to the absence of concerted government policy. Here, we clarify the potential of CCS to mitigate emissions in the United States by developing a storage-capacity supply curve that, unlike current large-scale capacity estimates, is derived from the fluid mechanics of CO2 injection and trapping and incorporates injection-rate constraints. We show that storage supply is a dynamic quantity that grows with the duration of CCS, and we interpret the lifetime of CCS as the time for which the storage supply curve exceeds the storage demand curve from CO2 production. We show that in the United States, if CO2 production from power generation continues to rise at recent rates, then CCS can store enough CO2 to stabilize emissions at current levels for at least 100 years. This result suggests that the large-scale implementation of CCS is a geologically viable climate-change mitigation option in the United States over the next century.

  2. Compressed air energy storage system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Ahrens, Frederick W. (Naperville, IL); Kartsounes, George T. (Naperville, IL)

    1981-01-01

    An internal combustion reciprocating engine is operable as a compressor during slack demand periods utilizing excess power from a power grid to charge air into an air storage reservoir and as an expander during peak demand periods to feed power into the power grid utilizing air obtained from the air storage reservoir together with combustible fuel. Preferably the internal combustion reciprocating engine is operated at high pressure and a low pressure turbine and compressor are also employed for air compression and power generation.

  3. Status of Norris Reservoir

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1990-09-01

    This is one in a series of reports prepared by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for those interested in the conditions of TVA reservoirs. This overview of Norris Reservoir summarizes reservoir and watershed characteristics, reservoir uses, conditions that impair reservoir uses, water quality and aquatic biological conditions, and activities of reservoir management agencies. This information was extracted from the most up-to-date publications and data available, and from interviews with water resource professionals in various federal, state, and local agencies, and in public and private water supply and wastewater treatment facilities. 14 refs., 3 figs.

  4. The Rosetta Resources CO2 Storage Project - A WESTCARB GeologicPilot Test

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Trautz, Robert; Benson, Sally; Myer, Larry; Oldenburg, Curtis; Seeman, Ed; Hadsell, Eric; Funderburk, Ben

    2006-01-30

    WESTCARB, one of seven U.S. Department of Energypartnerships, identified (during its Phase I study) over 600 gigatonnesof CO2 storage capacity in geologic formations located in the Westernregion. The Western region includes the WESTCARB partnership states ofAlaska, Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington and theCanadian province of British Columbia. The WESTCARB Phase II study iscurrently under way, featuring three geologic and two terrestrial CO2pilot projects designed to test promising sequestration technologies atsites broadly representative of the region's largest potential carbonsinks. This paper focuses on two of the geologic pilot studies plannedfor Phase II -referred to-collectively as the Rosetta-Calpine CO2 StorageProject. The first pilot test will demonstrate injection of CO2 into asaline formation beneath a depleted gas reservoir. The second test willgather data for assessing CO2 enhanced gas recovery (EGR) as well asstorage in a depleted gas reservoir. The benefit of enhanced oil recovery(EOR) using injected CO2 to drive or sweep oil from the reservoir towarda production well is well known. EaR involves a similar CO2 injectionprocess, but has received far less attention. Depleted natural gasreservoirs still contain methane; therefore, CO2 injection may enhancemethane production by reservoir repressurization or pressure maintenance.CO2 injection into a saline formation, followed by injection into adepleted natural gas reservoir, is currently scheduled to start inOctober 2006.

  5. co2-saline-storage | netl.doe.gov

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    for 2-D seismic, 3-D seismic, vertical seismic profiling, crosswell seismic and microseismic technologies. Which Reservoir for Low Cost Capture, Transportation, and Storage? -...

  6. Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    and stored in a reservoir, then when electricity is needed, air is heated with natural gas and expanded through a turbine. Adiabatic Adiabatic compressed air energy storage...

  7. Status of Wheeler Reservoir

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1990-09-01

    This is one in a series of status reports prepared by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for those interested in the conditions of TVA reservoirs. This overview of Wheeler Reservoir summarizes reservoir purposes and operation, reservoir and watershed characteristics, reservoir uses and use impairments, and water quality and aquatic biological conditions. The information presented here is from the most recent reports, publications, and original data available. If no recent data were available, historical data were summarized. If data were completely lacking, environmental professionals with special knowledge of the resource were interviewed. 12 refs., 2 figs.

  8. Status of Cherokee Reservoir

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1990-08-01

    This is the first in a series of reports prepared by Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for those interested in the conditions of TVA reservoirs. This overviews of Cherokee Reservoir summarizes reservoir and watershed characteristics, reservoir uses and use impairments, water quality and aquatic biological conditions, and activities of reservoir management agencies. This information was extracted from the most current reports, publications, and data available, and interviews with water resource professionals in various Federal, state, and local agencies and in public and private water supply and wastewater treatment facilities. 11 refs., 4 figs., 1 tab.

  9. HT Combinatorial Screening of Novel Materials for High Capacity Hydrogen

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Storage | Department of Energy HT Combinatorial Screening of Novel Materials for High Capacity Hydrogen Storage HT Combinatorial Screening of Novel Materials for High Capacity Hydrogen Storage Presentation for the high temperature combinatorial screening for high capacity hydrogen storage meeting PDF icon ht_ucf_raissi.pdf More Documents & Publications Proceedings of the 1998 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review: April 28-30, 1998 Alexandria, Virginia: Volume I Hydrogen Leak Detection -

  10. Storage Statistics

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Storage Trends and Summaries Storage by Scientific Discipline Troubleshooting IO ... Storage Trends and Summaries Total Bytes Utilized The growth in NERSC's storage systems ...

  11. Chemical Hydrogen Storage Materials | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Storage » Materials-Based Storage » Chemical Hydrogen Storage Materials Chemical Hydrogen Storage Materials The Fuel Cell Technologies Office's (FCTO's) chemical hydrogen storage materials research focuses on improving the volumetric and gravimetric capacity, transient performance, and efficient, cost-effective regeneration of the spent storage material. Technical Overview The category of chemical hydrogen storage materials generally refers to covalently bound hydrogen in either solid or

  12. Capacity Value of Concentrating Solar Power Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Madaeni, S. H.; Sioshansi, R.; Denholm, P.

    2011-06-01

    This study estimates the capacity value of a concentrating solar power (CSP) plant at a variety of locations within the western United States. This is done by optimizing the operation of the CSP plant and by using the effective load carrying capability (ELCC) metric, which is a standard reliability-based capacity value estimation technique. Although the ELCC metric is the most accurate estimation technique, we show that a simpler capacity-factor-based approximation method can closely estimate the ELCC value. Without storage, the capacity value of CSP plants varies widely depending on the year and solar multiple. The average capacity value of plants evaluated ranged from 45%?90% with a solar multiple range of 1.0-1.5. When introducing thermal energy storage (TES), the capacity value of the CSP plant is more difficult to estimate since one must account for energy in storage. We apply a capacity-factor-based technique under two different market settings: an energy-only market and an energy and capacity market. Our results show that adding TES to a CSP plant can increase its capacity value significantly at all of the locations. Adding a single hour of TES significantly increases the capacity value above the no-TES case, and with four hours of storage or more, the average capacity value at all locations exceeds 90%.

  13. Sandia Energy - DOE International Energy Storage Database Has...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    International Energy Storage Database Has Logged 420 Energy Storage Projects Worldwide with 123 GW of Installed Capacity Home Energy Assurance Infrastructure Security Energy Surety...

  14. Concentrated Solar Power with Thermal Energy Storage Can Help...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Concentrated Solar Power with Thermal Energy Storage Can Help Utilities' Bottom Line, Study Shows December 20, 2012 The storage capacity of concentrating solar power (CSP) can add ...

  15. Air ejector augmented compressed air energy storage system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Ahrens, F.W.; Kartsounes, G.T.

    Energy is stored in slack demand periods by charging a plurality of underground reservoirs with air to the same peak storage pressure, during peak demand periods throttling the air from one storage reservoir into a gas turbine system at a constant inlet pressure until the air presure in the reservoir falls to said constant inlet pressure, thereupon permitting air in a second reservoir to flow into said gas turbine system while drawing air from the first reservoir through a variable geometry air ejector and adjusting said variable geometry air ejector, said air flow being essentially at the constant inlet pressure of the gas turbine system.

  16. Air ejector augmented compressed air energy storage system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Ahrens, Frederick W.; Kartsounes, George T.

    1980-01-01

    Energy is stored in slack demand periods by charging a plurality of underground reservoirs with air to the same peak storage pressure, during peak demand periods throttling the air from one storage reservoir into a gas turbine system at a constant inlet pressure until the air pressure in the reservoir falls to said constant inlet pressure, thereupon permitting air in a second reservoir to flow into said gas turbine system while drawing air from the first reservoir through a variable geometry air ejector and adjusting said variable geometry air ejector, said air flow being essentially at the constant inlet pressure of the gas turbine system.

  17. Natural Gas Depleted Fields Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    6,917,547 7,074,773 7,104,948 7,038,245 7,074,916 7,085,773 1999-2014 Alaska 83,592 83,592 2013-2014 Alabama 11,000 11,000 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 1999-2014 Arkansas 21,760 21,760 21,359 21,853 21,853 21,853 1999-2014 California 513,005 542,511 570,511 592,411 587,711 587,711 1999-2014 Colorado 105,768 105,768 105,858 124,253 122,086 130,186 1999-2014 Illinois 103,606 218,106 220,070 220,070 25,920 25,923 1999-2014 Indiana 32,946 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 1999-2014 Iowa 0 0

  18. Natural Gas Salt Caverns Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    397,560 456,009 512,279 715,821 654,266 702,548 1999-2014 Alabama 15,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 30,100 1999-2014 Arkansas 0 0 1999-2014 California 0 0 1999-2014 Colorado 0 0 1999-2014 Illinois 0 0 1999-2014 Indiana 0 0 1999-2014 Kansas 931 931 931 931 0 1999-2014 Kentucky 0 0 1999-2014 Louisiana 123,341 142,253 161,668 297,020 213,039 224,129 1999-2014 Maryland 0 0 1999-2014 Michigan 3,821 3,834 3,834 3,834 3,834 3,834 1999-2014 Mississippi 62,301 82,411 90,452 139,627 153,733 181,810

  19. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    714,417 714,417 714,417 714,417 714,417 714,217 714,097 2004 712,687 712,292 712,292 709,946 709,946 709,946 709,946 709,826 721,019 748,874 748,874 748,338 2005 748,338...

  20. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    not necessarily coincide. As such, the noncoincident peak for any region is at least as big as any monthly volume in the historical record. Data from Form EIA-191M, "Monthly...

  1. Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,720 37,720 2003 37,720 37,720 37,720 37,720...

  2. West Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    531,456 531,480 524,324 524,324 524,337 528,637 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 531,456 531,480 524,324 524,324 524,337 528,637 1999-2014 Total Working Gas...

  3. Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    NA NA NA NA NA NA 2002-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  4. Iowa Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    284,747 284,811 288,010 288,210 288,210 288,210 1988-2013 Aquifers 284,747 284,811 288,010 288,210 288,210 288,210 1999-2013 Depleted Fields 0 0 1999-2013 Total Working Gas...

  5. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... Form EIA-813 "Monthly Crude Oil Report", Form EIA-815 "Monthly Bulk Terminal and Blender Report", Form EIA-819 "Monthly Oxygenate Report" EIAWorking and Net Available Shell ...

  6. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... Form EIA-813 "Monthly Crude Oil Report", Form EIA-815 "Monthly Bulk Terminal and Blender Report", Form EIA-819 "Monthly Oxygenate Report" PAD Districts EIAWorking and Net ...

  7. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-813 "Monthly Crude Oil Report", Form EIA-815 "Monthly Bulk Terminal and Blender Report" PAD Districts 1 EIAWorking and Net ...

  8. CO2 Saline Storage Demonstration in Colorado Sedimentary Basins. Applied

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Studies in Reservoir Assessment and Dynamic Processes Affecting Industrial Operations (Technical Report) | SciTech Connect CO2 Saline Storage Demonstration in Colorado Sedimentary Basins. Applied Studies in Reservoir Assessment and Dynamic Processes Affecting Industrial Operations Citation Details In-Document Search Title: CO2 Saline Storage Demonstration in Colorado Sedimentary Basins. Applied Studies in Reservoir Assessment and Dynamic Processes Affecting Industrial Operations This

  9. Improved characterization of reservoir behavior by integration of reservoir performances data and rock type distributions

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Davies, D.K.; Vessell, R.K.; Doublet, L.E.

    1997-08-01

    An integrated geological/petrophysical and reservoir engineering study was performed for a large, mature waterflood project (>250 wells, {approximately}80% water cut) at the North Robertson (Clear Fork) Unit, Gaines County, Texas. The primary goal of the study was to develop an integrated reservoir description for {open_quotes}targeted{close_quotes} (economic) 10-acre (4-hectare) infill drilling and future recovery operations in a low permeability, carbonate (dolomite) reservoir. Integration of the results from geological/petrophysical studies and reservoir performance analyses provide a rapid and effective method for developing a comprehensive reservoir description. This reservoir description can be used for reservoir flow simulation, performance prediction, infill targeting, waterflood management, and for optimizing well developments (patterns, completions, and stimulations). The following analyses were performed as part of this study: (1) Geological/petrophysical analyses: (core and well log data) - {open_quotes}Rock typing{close_quotes} based on qualitative and quantitative visualization of pore-scale features. Reservoir layering based on {open_quotes}rock typing {close_quotes} and hydraulic flow units. Development of a {open_quotes}core-log{close_quotes} model to estimate permeability using porosity and other properties derived from well logs. The core-log model is based on {open_quotes}rock types.{close_quotes} (2) Engineering analyses: (production and injection history, well tests) Material balance decline type curve analyses to estimate total reservoir volume, formation flow characteristics (flow capacity, skin factor, and fracture half-length), and indications of well/boundary interference. Estimated ultimate recovery analyses to yield movable oil (or injectable water) volumes, as well as indications of well and boundary interference.

  10. Reservoir Temperature Estimator

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    2014-12-08

    The Reservoir Temperature Estimator (RTEst) is a program that can be used to estimate deep geothermal reservoir temperature and chemical parameters such as CO2 fugacity based on the water chemistry of shallower, cooler reservoir fluids. This code uses the plugin features provided in The Geochemist’s Workbench (Bethke and Yeakel, 2011) and interfaces with the model-independent parameter estimation code Pest (Doherty, 2005) to provide for optimization of the estimated parameters based on the minimization of themore » weighted sum of squares of a set of saturation indexes from a user-provided mineral assemblage.« less

  11. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Virginia" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Bath County","Pumped storage","Virginia Electric & Power Co",3003 2,"North ...

  12. Transient well testing in two-phase geothermal reservoirs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Aydelotte, S.R.

    1980-03-01

    A study of well test analysis techniques in two-phase geothermal reservoirs has been conducted using a three-dimensional, two-phase, wellbore and reservoir simulation model. Well tests from Cerro Prieto and the Hawaiian Geothermal project have been history matched. Using these well tests as a base, the influence of reservoir permeability, porosity, thickness, and heat capacity, along with flow rate and fracturing were studied. Single and two-phase transient well test equations were used to analyze these tests with poor results due to rapidly changing fluid properties and inability to calculate the flowing steam saturation in the reservoir. The injection of cold water into the reservoir does give good data from which formation properties can be calculated.

  13. Seismicity and Reservoir Fracture Characterization

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Below are the project presentations and respective peer review results for Seismicity and Reservoir Fracture Characterization.

  14. Sub-Seafloor Carbon Dioxide Storage Potential on the Juan de Fuca Plate, Western North America

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jerry Fairley; Robert Podgorney

    2012-11-01

    The Juan de Fuca plate, off the western coast of North America, has been suggested as a site for geological sequestration of waste carbon dioxide because of its many attractive characteristics (high permeability, large storage capacity, reactive rock types). Here we model CO2 injection into fractured basalts comprising the upper several hundred meters of the sub-seafloor basalt reservoir, overlain with low-permeability sediments and a large saline water column, to examine the feasibility of this reservoir for CO2 storage. Our simulations indicate that the sub-seafloor basalts of the Juan de Fuca plate may be an excellent CO2 storage candidate, as multiple trapping mechanisms (hydrodynamic, density inversions, and mineralization) act to keep the CO2 isolated from terrestrial environments. Questions remain about the lateral extent and connectivity of the high permeability basalts; however, the lack of wells or boreholes and thick sediment cover maximize storage potential while minimizing potential leakage pathways. Although promising, more study is needed to determine the economic viability of this option.

  15. Renewable Energy Interconnection and Storage - Technical Aspects...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Interconnection and Storage - Technical Aspects Jump to: navigation, search Tool Summary LAUNCH TOOL Name: Spain Installed Wind Capacity Website Focus Area: Renewable Energy...

  16. NV Energy Electricity Storage Valuation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ellison, James F.; Bhatnagar, Dhruv; Samaan, Nader A.; Jin, Chunlian

    2013-06-30

    This study examines how grid-level electricity storage may benet the operations of NV Energy in 2020, and assesses whether those benets justify the cost of the storage system. In order to determine how grid-level storage might impact NV Energy, an hourly production cost model of the Nevada Balancing Authority (\\BA") as projected for 2020 was built and used for the study. Storage facilities were found to add value primarily by providing reserve. Value provided by the provision of time-of-day shifting was found to be limited. If regulating reserve from storage is valued the same as that from slower ramp rate resources, then it appears that a reciprocating engine generator could provide additional capacity at a lower cost than a pumped storage hydro plant or large storage capacity battery system. In addition, a 25-MW battery storage facility would need to cost $650/kW or less in order to produce a positive Net Present Value (NPV). However, if regulating reserve provided by storage is considered to be more useful to the grid than that from slower ramp rate resources, then a grid-level storage facility may have a positive NPV even at today's storage system capital costs. The value of having storage provide services beyond reserve and time-of-day shifting was not assessed in this study, and was therefore not included in storage cost-benefit calculations.

  17. HPSS Disk Cache Upgrade Caters to Capacity

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    HPSS Disk Cache Upgrade Caters to Capacity HPSS Disk Cache Upgrade Caters to Capacity Analysis of NERSC Users' Data-Access Habits Reveals Sweet Spot for Short-term Storage October 16, 2015 Contact: Kathy Kincade, +1 510 495 2124, kkincade@lbl.gov HPSS 09 vert NERSC users today are benefiting from a business decision made three years ago by the center's Storage Systems Group (SSG) as they were looking to upgrade the High-Performance Storage System (HPSS) disk cache: rather than focus primarily on

  18. Increased oil production and reserves utilizing secondary/tertiary recovery techniques on small reservoirs in the Paradox Basin, Utah. Annual report, February 9, 1997--February 8, 1998

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chidsey, T.C. Jr.

    1998-03-01

    The Paradox basin of Utah, Colorado, and Arizona contains nearly 100 small oil fields producing from carbonate buildups or mounds within the Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian) Paradox Formation. These fields typically have one to four wells with primary production ranging from 700,000 to 2,000,000 barrels (111,300-318,000 m{sup 3}) of oil per field at a 15 to 20 percent recovery rate. At least 200 million barrels (31,800,000 m{sup 3}) of oil are at risk of being unrecovered in these small fields because of inefficient recovery practices and undrained heterogeneous reservoirs. Five fields (Anasazi, Mule, Blue Hogan, Heron North, and Runway) within the Navajo Nation of southeastern Utah are being evaluated for waterflood or carbon-dioxide (CO{sub 2})-miscible flood projects based upon geological characterization and reservoir modeling. The results can be applied to other fields in the Paradox basin and the Rocky Mountain region, the Michigan and Illinois basins, and the Midcontinent. Geological characterization on a local scale focused on reservoir heterogeneity, quality, and lateral continuity as well as possible compartmentalization within each of the five project fields. This study utilized representative core and modern geophysical logs to characterize and grade each of the five fields for suitability of enhanced recovery projects. The typical vertical sequence or cycle of lithofacies from each field, as determined from conventional core, was tied to its corresponding log response. The diagenetic fabrics and porosity types found in the various hydrocarbon-bearing rocks of each field can be an indicator of reservoir flow capacity, storage capacity, and potential for water- and/or CO{sub 2}-flooding. Diagenetic histories of the various Desert Creek reservoirs were determined from 50 representative samples selected from the conventional cores of each field. Thin sections were also made of each sample for petrographic description.

  19. Method and apparatus for storage battery electrolyte circulation

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Inkmann, Mark S. (Milwaukee, WI)

    1980-09-09

    An electrolyte reservoir in fluid communication with the cell of a storage battery is intermittently pressurized with a pulse of compressed gas to cause a flow of electrolyte from the reservoir to the upper region of less dense electrolyte in the cell. Upon termination of the pressure pulse, more dense electrolyte is forced into the reservoir from the lower region of the cell by the differential pressure head between the cell and reservoir electrolyte levels. The compressed gas pulse is controlled to prevent the entry of gas from the reservoir into the cell.

  20. Sorbent Storage Materials | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Storage » Materials-Based Storage » Sorbent Storage Materials Sorbent Storage Materials The Fuel Cell Technologies Office's sorbent storage materials research focuses on increasing the dihydrogen binding energies and improving the hydrogen volumetric capacity by optimizing the material's pore size, pore volume, and surface area, as well as investigating effects of material densification. Technical Overview Illustration of a sorbent showing the location of hydrogen molecules relative to open

  1. Reinjection into geothermal reservoirs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bodvarsson, G.S.; Stefansson, V.

    1987-08-01

    Reinjection of geothermal wastewater is practiced as a means of disposal and for reservoir pressure support. Various aspects of reinjection are discussed, both in terms of theoretical studies as well as specific field examples. The discussion focuses on the major effects of reinjection, including pressure maintenance and chemical and thermal effects. (ACR)

  2. File storage

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    File storage File storage Disk Quota Change Request Form Euclid File Systems Euclid has 3 kinds of file systems available to users: home directories, scratch directories and...

  3. Site characterization of the highest-priority geologic formations for CO2 storage in Wyoming

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Surdam, Ronald C.; Bentley, Ramsey; Campbell-Stone, Erin; Dahl, Shanna; Deiss, Allory; Ganshin, Yuri; Jiao, Zunsheng; Kaszuba, John; Mallick, Subhashis; McLaughlin, Fred; Myers, James; Quillinan, Scott

    2013-12-07

    This study, funded by U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory award DE-FE0002142 along with the state of Wyoming, uses outcrop and core observations, a diverse electric log suite, a VSP survey, in-bore testing (DST, injection tests, and fluid sampling), a variety of rock/fluid analyses, and a wide range of seismic attributes derived from a 3-D seismic survey to thoroughly characterize the highest-potential storage reservoirs and confining layers at the premier CO2 geological storage site in Wyoming. An accurate site characterization was essential to assessing the following critical aspects of the storage site: (1) more accurately estimate the CO2 reservoir storage capacity (Madison Limestone and Weber Sandstone at the Rock Springs Uplift (RSU)), (2) evaluate the distribution, long-term integrity, and permanence of the confining layers, (3) manage CO2 injection pressures by removing formation fluids (brine production/treatment), and (4) evaluate potential utilization of the stored CO2

  4. Microsoft PowerPoint - Andy Ronald.Finger Lakes NGL Storage Providence...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    of pipeline - 80 Bcf natural gas storage capacity (2) * NGL and Crude Oil - Eight ... expansion projects (2) Total storage ... results in higher prices for consumers * ...

  5. Increasing water holding capacity for irrigation

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Increasing water holding capacity for irrigation Researchers recommend solutions for sediment trapping in irrigation system LANL and SNL leveraged technical expertise to determine the sources of sediment and recommend solutions for irrigation sediment buildup management. April 3, 2012 Santa Cruz Irrigation District (SCID) Kenny Salazar, owner of Kenny Salazar Orchards, stands beside the Santa Cruz Reservoir Dam, which holds back the waters of the Santa Cruz Irrigation District. Salazar, a board

  6. A life cycle cost analysis framework for geologic storage of hydrogen : a user's tool.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kobos, Peter Holmes; Lord, Anna Snider; Borns, David James; Klise, Geoffrey T.

    2011-09-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has an interest in large scale hydrogen geostorage, which could offer substantial buffer capacity to meet possible disruptions in supply or changing seasonal demands. The geostorage site options being considered are salt caverns, depleted oil/gas reservoirs, aquifers and hard rock caverns. The DOE has an interest in assessing the geological, geomechanical and economic viability for these types of geologic hydrogen storage options. This study has developed an economic analysis methodology and subsequent spreadsheet analysis to address costs entailed in developing and operating an underground geologic storage facility. This year the tool was updated specifically to (1) incorporate more site-specific model input assumptions for the wells and storage site modules, (2) develop a version that matches the general format of the HDSAM model developed and maintained by Argonne National Laboratory, and (3) incorporate specific demand scenarios illustrating the model's capability. Four general types of underground storage were analyzed: salt caverns, depleted oil/gas reservoirs, aquifers, and hard rock caverns/other custom sites. Due to the substantial lessons learned from the geological storage of natural gas already employed, these options present a potentially sizable storage option. Understanding and including these various geologic storage types in the analysis physical and economic framework will help identify what geologic option would be best suited for the storage of hydrogen. It is important to note, however, that existing natural gas options may not translate to a hydrogen system where substantial engineering obstacles may be encountered. There are only three locations worldwide that currently store hydrogen underground and they are all in salt caverns. Two locations are in the U.S. (Texas), and are managed by ConocoPhillips and Praxair (Leighty, 2007). The third is in Teeside, U.K., managed by Sabic Petrochemicals (Crotogino et al., 2008; Panfilov et al., 2006). These existing H{sub 2} facilities are quite small by natural gas storage standards. The second stage of the analysis involved providing ANL with estimated geostorage costs of hydrogen within salt caverns for various market penetrations for four representative cities (Houston, Detroit, Pittsburgh and Los Angeles). Using these demand levels, the scale and cost of hydrogen storage necessary to meet 10%, 25% and 100% of vehicle summer demands was calculated.

  7. Radiocarbon as a Reactive Tracer for Tracking Permanent CO2 Storage in Basaltic Rocks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Matter, Juerg; Stute, Martin; Schlosser, Peter; Broecker, Wallace

    2015-09-30

    In view of concerns about the long-term integrity and containment of CO2 storage in geologic reservoirs, many efforts have been made to improve the monitoring, verification and accounting methods for geologically stored CO2. Our project aimed to demonstrate that carbon-14 (14C) could be used as a reactive tracer to monitor geochemical reactions and evaluate the extent of mineral trapping of CO2 in basaltic rocks. The capacity of a storage reservoir for mineral trapping of CO2 is largely a function of host rock composition. Mineral carbonation involves combining CO2 with divalent cations including Ca2+, Mg2+ and Fe2+. The most abundant geological sources for these cations are basaltic rocks. Based on initial storage capacity estimates, we know that basalts have the necessary capacity to store million to billion tons of CO2 via in situ mineral carbonation. However, little is known about CO2-fluid-rock reactions occurring in a basaltic storage reservoir during and post-CO2 injection. None of the common monitoring and verification techniques have been able to provide a surveying tool for mineral trapping. The most direct method for quantitative monitoring and accounting involves the tagging of the injected CO2 with 14C because 14C is not present in deep geologic reservoirs prior to injection. Accordingly, we conducted two CO2 injection tests at the CarbFix pilot injection site in Iceland to study the feasibility of 14C as a reactive tracer for monitoring CO2-fluid-rock reactions and CO2 mineralization. Our newly developed monitoring techniques, using 14C as a reactive tracer, have been successfully demonstrated. For the first time, permanent and safe disposal of CO2 as environmentally benign carbonate minerals in basaltic rocks could be shown. Over 95% of the injected CO2 at the CarbFix pilot injection site was mineralized to carbonate minerals in less than two years after injection. Our monitoring results confirm that CO2 mineralization in basaltic rocks is far faster than previously postulated.

  8. Rock Physics of Geologic Carbon Sequestration/Storage (Technical Report) |

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    SciTech Connect Technical Report: Rock Physics of Geologic Carbon Sequestration/Storage Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Rock Physics of Geologic Carbon Sequestration/Storage This report covers the results of developing the rock physics theory of the effects of CO{sub 2} injection and storage in a host reservoir on the rock�s elastic properties and the resulting seismic signatures (reflections) observed during sequestration and storage. Specific topics addressed are: (a) how the

  9. The Petascale Data Storage Institute

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gibson, Garth; Long, Darrell; Honeyman, Peter; Grider, Gary; Kramer, William; Shalf, John; Roth, Philip; Felix, Evan; Ward, Lee

    2013-07-01

    Petascale computing infrastructures for scientific discovery make petascale demands on information storage capacity, performance, concurrency, reliability, availability, and manageability.The Petascale Data Storage Institute focuses on the data storage problems found in petascale scientific computing environments, with special attention to community issues such as interoperability, community buy-in, and shared tools.The Petascale Data Storage Institute is a collaboration between researchers at Carnegie Mellon University, National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of Michigan, and the University of California at Santa Cruz.

  10. The Potosi Reservoir Model 2013

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Adushita, Yasmin; Smith, Valerie; Leetaru, Hannes

    2014-09-30

    As a part of a larger project co-funded by the United States Department of Energy (US DOE) to evaluate the potential of formations within the Cambro-Ordovician strata above the Mt. Simon as potential targets for carbon sequestration in the Illinois and Michigan Basins, the Illinois Clean Coal Institute (ICCI) requested Schlumberger to evaluate the potential injectivity and carbon dioxide (CO2) plume size of the Cambrian Potosi Formation. The evaluation of this formation was accomplished using wireline data, core data, pressure data, and seismic data from the US DOE-funded Illinois Basin–Decatur Project (IBDP) being conducted by the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium in Macon County, Illinois. In 2010, technical performance evaluations on the Cambrian Potosi Formation were performed through reservoir modeling. The data included formation tops from mud logs, well logs from the VW1 and the CCS1 wells, structural and stratigraphic formation from three dimensional (3D) seismic data, and field data from several waste water injection wells for Potosi Formation. Intention was for two million tons per annum (MTPA) of CO2 to be injected for 20 years. In the preceding, the 2010 Potosi heterogeneous model (referred to as the "Potosi Dynamic Model 2010" in this topical report) was re-run using a new injection scenario; 3.2 MTPA for 30 years. The extent of the Potosi Dynamic Model 2010, however, appeared too small for the new injection target. It was not sufficiently large enough to accommodate the evolution of the plume. The new model, Potosi Dynamic Model 2013a, was built by extending the Potosi Dynamic Model 2010 grid to 30 miles x 30 miles (48.3km x48.3km), while preserving all property modeling workflows and layering. This model was retained as the base case of Potosi Dynamic Model 2013a. The Potosi reservoir model was updated to take into account the new data from the verification well VW2 which was drilled in 2012. The new porosity and permeability modeling was performed to take into account the log data from the new well. Revisions of the 2010 modeling assumptions were also done on relative permeability, capillary pressures, formation water salinity, and the maximum allowable well bottomhole pressure. Dynamic simulations were run using the injection target of 3.2 MTPA for 30 years. This new dynamic model was named Potosi Dynamic Model 2013b. Due to the major uncertainties on the vugs permeability, two models were built; the Pessimistic and Optimistic Cases. The Optimistic Case assumes vugs permeability of 9,000 mD, which is analog to the vugs permeability identified in the pressure fall off test of a waste water injector in the Tuscola site, approx. 40 miles (64.4km) away from the IBDP area. The Pessimistic Case assumes that the vugs permeability is equal to the log data, which does not take into account the permeability from secondary porosity. The probability of such case is deemed low and could be treated as the worst case scenario, since the contribution of secondary porosity to the permeability is neglected and the loss circulation events might correspond to a much higher permeability. It is considered important, however, to identify the range of possible reservoir performance since there are no rigorous data available for the vugs permeability. The Optimistic Case gives an average CO2 injection rate of 0.8 MTPA and cumulative injection of 26 MT in 30 years, which corresponds to 27% of the injection target. The injection rate is approx. 3.2 MTPA in the first year as the well is injecting into the surrounding vugs, and declines rapidly to 0.8 MTPA in year 4 once the surrounding vugs are full and the CO2 start to reach the matrix. This implies that according to this preliminary model, a minimum of four (4) wells could be required to achieve the injection target. This result is lower than the injectivity estimated in the Potosi Dynamic Model 2013a (43 MT in 30 years), since the permeability model applied in the Potosi Dynamic Model 2013b is more conservative. This revision was deemed necessary to treat the uncertainty in a more appropriate manner. As the CO2 follows the paths where vugs interconnection exists, a reasonably large and irregular plume extent was created. For the Optimistic Case, the plume extends 17 miles (27.4km) in E-W and 14 miles (22.5km) in N-S directions after 30 years. After injection is completed, the plume continues to migrate laterally, mainly driven by the remaining pressure gradient. After 100 years post injection, the plume extends 20 miles (32.2km) in E-W and 15.5 miles (24.9km) in N-S directions. Should the targeted cumulative injection of 96 MT be achieved; a much larger plume extent could be expected. For the Optimistic Case, the increase of reservoir pressure at the end of injection is approximately 1200 psia (8,274 kPa) around the injector and gradually decreases away from the well. The reservoir pressure increase is less than 30 psia (206.8 kPa) beyond 14 miles (22.5km) away from injector. Should the targeted cumulative injection of 96 MT be achieved; a much larger areal pressure increase could be expected. The initial reservoir pressure is nearly restored after approximately 100 years post injection. The presence of matrix slows down the pressure dissipations. The Pessimistic Case gives an average CO2 injection rate of 0.2 MTPA and cumulative injection of 7 MT in 30 years, which corresponds to 7% of the injection target. This implies that in the worst case scenario, a minimum of sixteen (16) wells could be required to achieve the injection target. The present evaluation is mainly associated with uncertainty on the vugs permeability, distribution, and interconnectivity. The different results indicated by the Optimistic and Pessimistic Cases signify the importance of vugs permeability characterization. Therefore, injection test and pressure interference test among the wells could be considered to evaluate the local vugs permeability, extent, and interconnectivity. Porosity mapping derived from the seismic inversion could also be used in the succeeding task to characterize the lateral porosity distribution within the reservoir. With or without seismic inversion porosity mapping, it is worth exploring whether increased lateral heterogeneity plays a significant role in Potosi injectivity. Investigations on vugular, dolomitic outcrops suggest that there may be significantly greater lateral heterogeneity than what has been modeled here. Facies modeling within the Potosi has yet to be thoroughly addressed. The carbonates during the time of deposition are believed to be regionally extensive. However, it may be worth delineating the reservoir with other regional wells or modern day analogues to understand the extent of the Potosi. More specifically, the model could incorporate lateral changes or trends if deemed necessary to represent facies transition. Data acquisitions to characterize the fracture pressure gradient, the formation water properties, the relative permeability, and the capillary pressure could also be considered in order to allow a more rigorous evaluation of the Potosi storage performance. A simulation using several injectors could also be considered to determine the required number of wells to achieve the injection target while taking into account the pressure interference.

  11. Reservoir analysis of the Palinpinon geothermal field, Negros Oriental, Philippines

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Amistoso, A.E.; Aquino, B.G.; Aunzo, Z.P.; Jordan, O.T.; Ana, F.X.M.S.; Bodvarsson, G.S.; Doughty, C.

    1993-10-01

    The Philippine National Oil Company and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory have conducted an informal cooperative project on the reservoir evaluation of the Palinpinon geothermal field in the Philippines. The work involved the development of various numerical models of the field in order to understand the observed data. A three-dimensional porous medium model of the reservoir has been developed that matches well the observed pressure declines and enthalpy transients of the wells. Submodels representing the reservoir as a fractured porous medium were developed for the analysis of chemical transport of chlorides within the reservoir and the movement of the cold water front away from injection wells. These models indicate that the effective porosity of the reservoir varies between 1 and 7% and the effective permeability between 1 and 45 millidarcies. The numerical models were used to predict the future performance of the Palinpinon reservoir using various possible exploitation scenarios. A limited number of make-up wells were allocated to each sector of the field. When all the make-up wells had been put on line, power production gradually began to decline. The model indicates that under the assumed conditions it will not be possible to maintain the planned power production of 112.5 MWe at Palinpinon I and 80 MWe at Palinpinon II for the next 30 years, but the decline in power output will be within acceptable normal operating capacities of the plants.

  12. Metal Hydride Storage Materials | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Storage » Metal Hydride Storage Materials Metal Hydride Storage Materials The Fuel Cell Technologies Office's (FCTO's) metal hydride storage materials research focuses on improving the volumetric and gravimetric capacities, hydrogen adsorption/desorption kinetics, cycle life, and reaction thermodynamics of potential material candidates. Technical Overview Figure shows pressure composition isotherms and van't Hoff traces for metal hydride materials. Metal hydrides (MHx) are the most

  13. INCREASED OIL PRODUCTION AND RESERVES UTILIZING SECONDARY/TERTIARY RECOVERY TECHNIQUES ON SMALL RESERVOIRS IN THE PARADOX BASIN, UTAH

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Thomas C. Chidsey, Jr.

    2002-11-01

    The Paradox Basin of Utah, Colorado, and Arizona contains nearly 100 small oil fields producing from shallow-shelf carbonate buildups or mounds within the Desert Creek zone of the Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian) Paradox Formation. These fields typically have one to four wells with primary production ranging from 700,000 to 2,000,000 barrels (111,300-318,000 m{sup 3}) of oil per field at a 15 to 20 percent recovery rate. Five fields in southeastern Utah were evaluated for waterflood or carbon-dioxide (CO{sub 2})-miscible flood projects based upon geological characterization and reservoir modeling. Geological characterization on a local scale focused on reservoir heterogeneity, quality, and lateral continuity as well as possible compartmentalization within each of the five project fields. The Desert Creek zone includes three generalized facies belts: (1) open-marine, (2) shallow-shelf and shelf-margin, and (3) intra-shelf, salinity-restricted facies. These deposits have modern analogs near the coasts of the Bahamas, Florida, and Australia, respectively, and outcrop analogs along the San Juan River of southeastern Utah. The analogs display reservoir heterogeneity, flow barriers and baffles, and lithofacies geometry observed in the fields; thus, these properties were incorporated in the reservoir simulation models. Productive carbonate buildups consist of three types: (1) phylloid algal, (2) coralline algal, and (3) bryozoan. Phylloid-algal buildups have a mound-core interval and a supra-mound interval. Hydrocarbons are stratigraphically trapped in porous and permeable lithotypes within the mound-core intervals of the lower part of the buildups and the more heterogeneous supramound intervals. To adequately represent the observed spatial heterogeneities in reservoir properties, the phylloid-algal bafflestones of the mound-core interval and the dolomites of the overlying supra-mound interval were subdivided into ten architecturally distinct lithotypes, each of which exhibits a characteristic set of reservoir properties obtained from outcrop analogs, cores, and geophysical logs. The Anasazi and Runway fields were selected for geostatistical modeling and reservoir compositional simulations. Models and simulations incorporated variations in carbonate lithotypes, porosity, and permeability to accurately predict reservoir responses. History matches tied previous production and reservoir pressure histories so that future reservoir performances could be confidently predicted. The simulation studies showed that despite most of the production being from the mound-core intervals, there were no corresponding decreases in the oil in place in these intervals. This behavior indicates gravity drainage of oil from the supra-mound intervals into the lower mound-core intervals from which the producing wells' major share of production arises. The key to increasing ultimate recovery from these fields (and similar fields in the basin) is to design either waterflood or CO{sub 2}-miscible flood projects capable of forcing oil from high-storage-capacity but low-recovery supra-mound units into the high-recovery mound-core units. Simulation of Anasazi field shows that a CO{sub 2} flood is technically superior to a waterflood and economically feasible. For Anasazi field, an optimized CO{sub 2} flood is predicted to recover a total 4.21 million barrels (0.67 million m3) of oil representing in excess of 89 percent of the original oil in place. For Runway field, the best CO{sub 2} flood is predicted to recover a total of 2.4 million barrels (0.38 million m3) of oil representing 71 percent of the original oil in place. If the CO{sub 2} flood performed as predicted, it is a financially robust process for increasing the reserves in the many small fields in the Paradox Basin. The results can be applied to other fields in the Rocky Mountain region, the Michigan and Illinois Basins, and the Midcontinent.

  14. Carbon Storage

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Storage Fact Sheet Research Team Members Key Contacts Carbon Storage Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a key component of the U.S. carbon management portfolio. Numerous studies have shown that CCS can account for up to 55 percent of the emissions reductions needed to stabilize and ultimately reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2. NETL's Carbon Storage Program is readying CCS technologies for widespread commercial deployment by 2020. The program's goals are: By 2015, develop technologies

  15. Natural gas productive capacity for the lower 48 states 1984 through 1996, February 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1996-02-09

    This is the fourth wellhead productive capacity report. The three previous ones were published in 1991, 1993, and 1994. This report should be of particular interest to those in Congress, Federal and State agencies, industry, and the academic community, who are concerned with the future availability of natural gas. The EIA Dallas Field Office has prepared five earlier reports regarding natural gas productive capacity. These reports, Gas Deliverability and Flow Capacity of Surveillance Fields, reported deliverability and capacity data for selected gas fields in major gas producing areas. The data in the reports were based on gas-well back-pressure tests and estimates of gas-in-place for each field or reservoir. These reports use proven well testing theory, most of which has been employed by industry since 1936 when the Bureau of Mines first published Monograph 7. Demand for natural gas in the United States is met by a combination of natural gas production, underground gas storage, imported gas, and supplemental gaseous fuels. Natural gas production requirements in the lower 48 States have been increasing during the last few years while drilling has remained at low levels. This has raised some concern about the adequacy of future gas supplies, especially in periods of peak heating or cooling demand. The purpose of this report is to address these concerns by presenting a 3-year projection of the total productive capacity of natural gas at the wellhead for the lower 48 States. Alaska is excluded because Alaskan gas does not enter the lower-48 States pipeline system. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) generates this 3-year projection based on historical gas-well drilling and production data from State, Federal, and private sources. In addition to conventional gas-well gas, coalbed gas and oil-well gas are also included.

  16. NEDO Research Related to Battery Storage Applications for Integration...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    NEDO Research Related to Battery Storage Applications for Integration of Renewable Energy Jump to: navigation, search Tool Summary LAUNCH TOOL Name: Spain Installed Wind Capacity...

  17. Carbon Capture and Storage in Southern Africa | Open Energy Informatio...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    assessment of the rationale, possibilities and capacity needs to enable CO2 capture and storage in Botswana, Mozambique and Namibia AgencyCompany Organization Energy Research...

  18. The Relative Economic Merits of Storage and Combustion Turbines...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    The Relative Economic Merits of Storage and Combustion Turbines for Meeting Peak Capacity Requirements under Increased Penetration of Solar Photovoltaics Paul Denholm, Victor...

  19. Spatiotemporal Distribution of NOx Storage: a Factor Controlling...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    over a Commercial LNT Catalyst Evaluation of commercial Ba-based LNT (CLEERS benchmark catalyst; containing oxygen storage capacity) in a bench flow reactor under...

  20. Collapsible sheath fluid reservoirs for flow cytometers

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Mark, Graham A. (Los Alamos, NM)

    2000-01-01

    The present invention is a container in the form of a single housing for holding fluid, including a first collapsible reservoir having a first valve. The first reservoir initially contains a volume of fluid. The container also includes a second reservoir, initially empty (or substantially empty), expandable to a second volume. The second reservoir has a second valve. As the volume of said first reservoir decreases, the volume of the second reservoir proportionally increases.

  1. Water resources review: Ocoee reservoirs, 1990

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cox, J.P.

    1990-08-01

    Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is preparing a series of reports to make technical information on individual TVA reservoirs readily accessible. These reports provide a summary of reservoir purpose and operation; physical characteristics of the reservoir and watershed; water quality conditions; aquatic biological conditions; and designated, actual and potential uses of the reservoir and impairments of those use. This reservoir status report addressed the three Ocoee Reservoirs in Polk County, Tennessee.

  2. Analysis of real-time reservoir monitoring : reservoirs, strategies, & modeling.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mani, Seethambal S.; van Bloemen Waanders, Bart Gustaaf; Cooper, Scott Patrick; Jakaboski, Blake Elaine; Normann, Randy Allen; Jennings, Jim; Gilbert, Bob; Lake, Larry W.; Weiss, Chester Joseph; Lorenz, John Clay; Elbring, Gregory Jay; Wheeler, Mary Fanett; Thomas, Sunil G.; Rightley, Michael J.; Rodriguez, Adolfo; Klie, Hector; Banchs, Rafael; Nunez, Emilio J.; Jablonowski, Chris

    2006-11-01

    The project objective was to detail better ways to assess and exploit intelligent oil and gas field information through improved modeling, sensor technology, and process control to increase ultimate recovery of domestic hydrocarbons. To meet this objective we investigated the use of permanent downhole sensors systems (Smart Wells) whose data is fed real-time into computational reservoir models that are integrated with optimized production control systems. The project utilized a three-pronged approach (1) a value of information analysis to address the economic advantages, (2) reservoir simulation modeling and control optimization to prove the capability, and (3) evaluation of new generation sensor packaging to survive the borehole environment for long periods of time. The Value of Information (VOI) decision tree method was developed and used to assess the economic advantage of using the proposed technology; the VOI demonstrated the increased subsurface resolution through additional sensor data. Our findings show that the VOI studies are a practical means of ascertaining the value associated with a technology, in this case application of sensors to production. The procedure acknowledges the uncertainty in predictions but nevertheless assigns monetary value to the predictions. The best aspect of the procedure is that it builds consensus within interdisciplinary teams The reservoir simulation and modeling aspect of the project was developed to show the capability of exploiting sensor information both for reservoir characterization and to optimize control of the production system. Our findings indicate history matching is improved as more information is added to the objective function, clearly indicating that sensor information can help in reducing the uncertainty associated with reservoir characterization. Additional findings and approaches used are described in detail within the report. The next generation sensors aspect of the project evaluated sensors and packaging survivability issues. Our findings indicate that packaging represents the most significant technical challenge associated with application of sensors in the downhole environment for long periods (5+ years) of time. These issues are described in detail within the report. The impact of successful reservoir monitoring programs and coincident improved reservoir management is measured by the production of additional oil and gas volumes from existing reservoirs, revitalization of nearly depleted reservoirs, possible re-establishment of already abandoned reservoirs, and improved economics for all cases. Smart Well monitoring provides the means to understand how a reservoir process is developing and to provide active reservoir management. At the same time it also provides data for developing high-fidelity simulation models. This work has been a joint effort with Sandia National Laboratories and UT-Austin's Bureau of Economic Geology, Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering, and the Institute of Computational and Engineering Mathematics.

  3. Supercritical Carbon Dioxide / Reservoir Rock Chemical Interactions...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Reservoir Rock Chemical Interactions Jump to: navigation, search Geothermal Lab Call Projects for Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Reservoir Rock...

  4. Reservoir-Stimulation Optimization with Operational Monitoring...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Reservoir-Stimulation Optimization with Operational Monitoring for Creation of Enhanced Geothermal Systems Reservoir-Stimulation Optimization with Operational Monitoring for ...

  5. ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF CO2 STORAGE AND SINK ENHANCEMENT OPTIONS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bert Bock; Richard Rhudy; Howard Herzog; Michael Klett; John Davison; Danial G. De La Torre Ugarte; Dale Simbeck

    2003-02-01

    This project developed life-cycle costs for the major technologies and practices under development for CO{sub 2} storage and sink enhancement. The technologies evaluated included options for storing captured CO{sub 2} in active oil reservoirs, depleted oil and gas reservoirs, deep aquifers, coal beds, and oceans, as well as the enhancement of carbon sequestration in forests and croplands. The capture costs for a nominal 500 MW{sub e} integrated gasification combined cycle plant from an earlier study were combined with the storage costs from this study to allow comparison among capture and storage approaches as well as sink enhancements.

  6. Carbon Storage R&D | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    R&D Carbon Storage R&D Carbon dioxide storage in geologic formations includes oil and gas reservoirs, unmineable coal seams, and deep saline reservoirs. These are structures that have stored crude oil, natural gas, brine and CO2 over millions of years. The primary goal of our carbon storage research is to understand the behavior of CO2 when stored in geologic formations. For example, studies are being conducted to determine the extent to which the CO2 moves within the geologic formation,

  7. ORISE: Capacity Building

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Capacity Building Because public health agencies must maintain the resources to respond to public health challenges, critical situations and emergencies, the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) helps government agencies and organizations develop a solid infrastructure through capacity building. Capacity building refers to activities that improve an organization's ability to achieve its mission or a person's ability do his or her job more effectively. For organizations, capacity

  8. Geothermal Reservoir Dynamics - TOUGHREACT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pruess, Karsten; Xu, Tianfu; Shan, Chao; Zhang, Yingqi; Wu,Yu-Shu; Sonnenthal, Eric; Spycher, Nicolas; Rutqvist, Jonny; Zhang,Guoxiang; Kennedy, Mack

    2005-03-15

    This project has been active for several years and has focused on developing, enhancing and applying mathematical modeling capabilities for fractured geothermal systems. The emphasis of our work has recently shifted towards enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) and hot dry rock (HDR), and FY05 is the first year that the DOE-AOP actually lists this project under Enhanced Geothermal Systems. Our overall purpose is to develop new engineering tools and a better understanding of the coupling between fluid flow, heat transfer, chemical reactions, and rock-mechanical deformation, to demonstrate new EGS technology through field applications, and to make technical information and computer programs available for field applications. The objectives of this project are to: (1) Improve fundamental understanding and engineering methods for geothermal systems, primarily focusing on EGS and HDR systems and on critical issues in geothermal systems that are difficult to produce. (2) Improve techniques for characterizing reservoir conditions and processes through new modeling and monitoring techniques based on ''active'' tracers and coupled processes. (3) Improve techniques for targeting injection towards specific engineering objectives, including maintaining and controlling injectivity, controlling non-condensable and corrosive gases, avoiding scale formation, and optimizing energy recovery. Seek opportunities for field testing and applying new technologies, and work with industrial partners and other research organizations.

  9. The Bulalo geothermal field, Philippines: Reservoir characteristics and response to production

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Clemente, W.C.; Villadolid-Abrigo, F.L.

    1993-10-01

    The Bulalo geothermal field has been operating since 1979, and currently has 330 MWe of installed capacity. The field is associated with a 0.5 Ma dacite dome on the southeastern flank of the Late Pliocene to Quaternary Mt. Makiling stratovolcano. The reservoir occurs within pre-Makiling andesite flows and pyroclastic rocks capped by the volcanic products of Mt. Makiling. Initially, the reservoir was liquid-dominated with a two-phase zone overlying the neutral-pH liquid. Exploitation has resulted in an enlargement of the two-phase zone, return to the reservoir of separated waste liquid that has been injected, scaling in the wellbores and rock formation, and influx of cooler groundwaters. Return of injected waters to the reservoir and scaling have been the major reservoir management concerns. These have been mitigated effectively by relocating injection wells farther away from the production area and by dissolving scale from wells with an acid treatment.

  10. Simulation and Risk Assessment for Carbon Storage | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Carbon Capture and Storage » Simulation and Risk Assessment for Carbon Storage Simulation and Risk Assessment for Carbon Storage Research in simulation and risk assessment is focused on development of advanced simulation models of the subsurface and integration of the results into a risk assessment that includes both technical and programmatic risks. Simulation models are critical for predicting the flow of the CO2 in the target formations, chemical changes that may occur in the reservoir, and

  11. Chickamauga reservoir embayment study - 1990

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Meinert, D.L.; Butkus, S.R.; McDonough, T.A.

    1992-12-01

    The objectives of this report are three-fold: (1) assess physical, chemical, and biological conditions in the major embayments of Chickamauga Reservoir; (2) compare water quality and biological conditions of embayments with main river locations; and (3) identify any water quality concerns in the study embayments that may warrant further investigation and/or management actions. Embayments are important areas of reservoirs to be considered when assessments are made to support water quality management plans. In general, embayments, because of their smaller size (water surface areas usually less than 1000 acres), shallower morphometry (average depth usually less than 10 feet), and longer detention times (frequently a month or more), exhibit more extreme responses to pollutant loadings and changes in land use than the main river region of the reservoir. Consequently, embayments are often at greater risk of water quality impairments (e.g. nutrient enrichment, filling and siltation, excessive growths of aquatic plants, algal blooms, low dissolved oxygen concentrations, bacteriological contamination, etc.). Much of the secondary beneficial use of reservoirs occurs in embayments (viz. marinas, recreation areas, parks and beaches, residential development, etc.). Typically embayments comprise less than 20 percent of the surface area of a reservoir, but they often receive 50 percent or more of the water-oriented recreational use of the reservoir. This intensive recreational use creates a potential for adverse use impacts if poor water quality and aquatic conditions exist in an embayment.

  12. SMALL, GEOLOGICALLY COMPLEX RESERVOIRS CAN BENEFIT FROM RESERVOIR SIMULATION

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Richard E. Bennett

    2002-06-24

    The Cascade Sand zone of the Mission-Visco Lease in the Cascade Oil field of Los Angeles County, California, has been under water flood since 1970. Increasing water injection to increase oil production rates was being considered as an opportunity to improve oil recovery. However, a secondary gas cap had formed in the up-dip portion of the reservoir with very low gas cap pressures, creating concern that oil could be displaced into the gas cap resulting in the loss of recoverable oil. Therefore, injecting gas into the gas cap to keep the gas cap pressurized and restrict the influx of oil during water injection was also being considered. Further, it was recognized that the reservoir geology in the gas cap area is very complex with numerous folding and faulting and thus there are potential pressure barriers in several locations throughout the reservoir. With these conditions in mind, there were concerns regarding well to well continuity in the gas cap, which could interfere with the intended repressurization impact. Concerns about the pattern of gas flow from well to well, the possibilities of cycling gas without the desired increased pressure, and the possible loss of oil displaced into the gas cap resulted in the decision to conduct a gas tracer survey in an attempt to better define inter-well communication. Following the gas tracer survey, a reservoir model would be developed to integrate the findings of the gas tracer survey, known geologic and reservoir data, and historic production data. The reservoir model would be used to better define the reservoir characteristics and provide information that could help optimize the waterflood-gas injection project under consideration for efficient water and gas injection management to increase oil production. However, due to inadequate gas sampling procedures in the field and insufficiently developed laboratory analytical techniques, the laboratory was unable to detect the tracer in the gas samples taken. At that point, focus on, and an expansion of the scope of the reservoir simulation and modeling effort was initiated, using DOE's BOAST98 (a visual, dynamic, interactive update of BOAST3), 3D, black oil reservoir simulation package as the basis for developing the reservoir model. Reservoir characterization, modeling, and reservoir simulation resulted in a significant change in the depletion strategy. Information from the reservoir characterization and modeling effort indicate that in-fill drilling and relying on natural water influx from the aquifer could increase remaining reserves by 125,000 barrels of oil per well, and that up to 10 infill wells could be drilled in the field. Through this scenario, field production could be increased two to three times over the current 65 bopd. Based on the results of the study, permits have been applied for to drill a directional infill well to encounter the productive zone at a high angle in order to maximize the amount of pay and reservoirs encountered.

  13. Reservoir characterization of Pennsylvanian Sandstone Reservoirs. Annual report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kelkar, M.

    1992-09-01

    This annual report describes the progress during the second year of a project on Reservoir Characterization of Pennsylvanian Sandstone Reservoirs. The report is divided into three sections: (i) reservoir description and scale-up procedures; (ii) outcrop investigation; (iii) in-fill drilling potential. The first section describes the methods by which a reservoir can be characterized, can be described in three dimensions, and can be scaled up with respect to its properties, appropriate for simulation purposes. The second section describes the progress on investigation of an outcrop. The outcrop is an analog of Bartlesville Sandstone. We have drilled ten wells behind the outcrop and collected extensive log and core data. The cores have been slabbed, photographed and the several plugs have been taken. In addition, minipermeameter is used to measure permeabilities on the core surface at six inch intervals. The plugs have been analyzed for the permeability and porosity values. The variations in property values will be tied to the geological descriptions as well as the subsurface data collected from the Glen Pool field. The third section discusses the application of geostatistical techniques to infer in-fill well locations. The geostatistical technique used is the simulated annealing technique because of its flexibility. One of the important reservoir data is the production data. Use of production data will allow us to define the reservoir continuities, which may in turn, determine the in-fill well locations. The proposed technique allows us to incorporate some of the production data as constraints in the reservoir descriptions. The technique has been validated by comparing the results with numerical simulations.

  14. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Pipeline Capacity and Utilization

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Pipeline Utilization & Capacity About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity & Utilization Overview | Utilization Rates | Integration of Storage | Varying Rates of Utilization | Measures of Utilization Overview of Pipeline Utilization Natural gas pipeline companies prefer to operate their systems as close to full capacity as possible to maximize their revenues. However, the average

  15. EIA - Electricity Generating Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Electricity Generating Capacity Release Date: January 3, 2013 | Next Release: August 2013 Year Existing Units by Energy Source Unit Additions Unit Retirements 2011 XLS XLS XLS 2010...

  16. Hydrogen Storage

    Fuel Cell Technologies Publication and Product Library (EERE)

    This 2-page fact sheet provides a brief introduction to hydrogen storage technologies. Intended for a non-technical audience, it explains the different ways in which hydrogen can be stored, as well a

  17. File Storage

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    File Storage File Storage Disk Quota Change Request Form Carver File Systems Carver has 3 kinds of file systems available to users: home directories, scratch directories and project directories, all provided by the NERSC Global File system. Each file system serves a different purpose. File System Home Scratch Project Environment Variable Definition $HOME $SCRATCH or $GSCRATCH No environment variable /project/projectdirs/ Description Global homes file system shared by all NERSC systems except

  18. File storage

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    File storage File storage Disk Quota Change Request Form Euclid File Systems Euclid has 3 kinds of file systems available to users: home directories, scratch directories and project directories, all provided by the NERSC Global File system. Each file system serves a different purpose. File System Home Scratch Project Environment Variable Definition $HOME $SCRATCH or $GSCRATCH No environment variable /project/projectdirs/ Description Global homes file system shared by all NERSC systems except

  19. Energy Storage

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Stationary Power/Safety, Security & Resilience of Energy Infrastructure/Energy Storage - Energy StorageTara Camacho-Lopez2015-10-16T01:57:05+00:00 ESTP The contemporary grid limits renewable energy and other distributed energy sources from being economically and reliably integrated into the grid. While a national renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS) has yet to be established, 35 states have forged ahead with their own RPS programs and policies. As this generation becomes a larger

  20. Application of Integrated Reservoir Management and Reservoir Characterization to Optimize Infill Drilling

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1998-01-01

    Infill drilling if wells on a uniform spacing without regard to reservoir performance and characterization foes not optimize reservoir development because it fails to account for the complex nature of reservoir heterogeneities present in many low permeability reservoirs, and carbonate reservoirs in particular. New and emerging technologies, such as geostatistical modeling, rigorous decline curve analysis, reservoir rock typing, and special core analysis can be used to develop a 3-D simulation model for prediction of infill locations.

  1. Variable capacity gasification burner

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Saxon, D.I.

    1985-03-05

    A variable capacity burner that may be used in gasification processes, the burner being adjustable when operating in its intended operating environment to operate at two different flow capacities, with the adjustable parts being dynamically sealed within a statically sealed structural arrangement to prevent dangerous blow-outs of the reactants to the atmosphere.

  2. Refinery Capacity Report

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    CORPORATION / Refiner / Location Table 5. Refiners' Total Operable Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity as of January 1, 2015 Calendar Day Barrels per CORPORATION / Refiner / Location Calendar Day Barrels per Companies with Capacity Over 100,000 bbl/cd .............................................................................................................................. VALERO ENERGY CORP 1,964,300 Valero Refining Co Texas LP

  3. Knudsen heat capacity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Babac, Gulru; Reese, Jason M.

    2014-05-15

    We present a Knudsen heat capacity as a more appropriate and useful fluid property in micro/nanoscale gas systems than the constant pressure heat capacity. At these scales, different fluid processes come to the fore that are not normally observed at the macroscale. For thermodynamic analyses that include these Knudsen processes, using the Knudsen heat capacity can be more effective and physical. We calculate this heat capacity theoretically for non-ideal monatomic and diatomic gases, in particular, helium, nitrogen, and hydrogen. The quantum modification for para and ortho hydrogen is also considered. We numerically model the Knudsen heat capacity using molecular dynamics simulations for the considered gases, and compare these results with the theoretical ones.

  4. Refinery Capacity Report

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Cokers Catalytic Crackers Hydrocrackers Capacity Inputs Capacity Inputs Capacity Inputs Table 8. Capacity and Fresh Feed Input to Selected Downstream Units at U.S. Refineries, 2013 - 2015 (Barrels per Calendar Day) Reformers Capacity Inputs 2013 2,596,369 5,681,643 1,887,024 2,302,764 4,810,611 1,669,540 2,600,518 3,405,017 74,900 543,800 41,500 47,537 387,148 33,255 PADD I 162,249 240,550 450,093 1,196,952 303,000 414,732 1,028,003 263,238 PADD II 648,603 818,718 1,459,176 2,928,673 981,114

  5. Mathematical models as tools for probing long-term safety of CO2 storage

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pruess, Karsten; Birkholzer, Jens; Zhou, Quanlin

    2009-02-01

    Subsurface reservoirs being considered for storing CO{sub 2} include saline aquifers, oil and gas reservoirs, and unmineable coal seams (Baines and Worden, 2004; IPCC, 2005). By far the greatest storage capacity is in saline aquifers (Dooley et al., 2004), and our discussion will focus primarily on CO{sub 2} storage in saline formations. Most issues for safety and security of CO{sub 2} storage arise from the fact that, at typical temperature and pressure conditions encountered in terrestrial crust, CO{sub 2} is less dense than aqueous fluids. Accordingly, CO{sub 2} will experience an upward buoyancy force in most subsurface environments, and will tend to migrate upwards whenever (sub-)vertical permeable pathways are available, such as fracture zones, faults, or improperly abandoned wells (Bachu, 2008; Pruess, 2008a, b; Tsang et al., 2008). CO{sub 2} injection will increase fluid pressures in the target formation, thereby altering effective stress distributions, and potentially triggering movement along fractures and faults that could increase their permeability and reduce the effectiveness of a caprock in containing CO{sub 2} (Rutqvist et al., 2008; Chiaramonte et al., 2008). Induced seismicity as a consequence of fluid injection is also a concern (Healy et al., 1968; Raleigh et al., 1976; Majer et al., 2007). Dissolution of CO{sub 2} in the aqueous phase generates carbonic acid, which may induce chemical corrosion (dissolution) of minerals with associated increase in formation porosity and permeability, and may also mediate sequestration of CO{sub 2} as solid carbonate (Gaus et al., 2008). Chemical dissolution of caprock minerals could promote leakage of CO{sub 2} from a storage reservoir (Gherardi et al., 2007). Chemical dissolution and geomechanical effects could reinforce one another in compromising CO{sub 2} containment. Additional issues arise from the potential of CO{sub 2} to mobilize hazardous chemical species (Kharaka et al., 2006), and from migration of the large amounts of brine that would be mobilized by industrial-scale CO{sub 2} injection (Nicot et al., 2008; Birkholzer et al., 2008a, b).

  6. Bottling Electricity: Storage as a Strategic Tool for Managing Variability

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    and Capacity Concerns in the Modern Grid - EAC Report (December 2008) | Department of Energy Bottling Electricity: Storage as a Strategic Tool for Managing Variability and Capacity Concerns in the Modern Grid - EAC Report (December 2008) Bottling Electricity: Storage as a Strategic Tool for Managing Variability and Capacity Concerns in the Modern Grid - EAC Report (December 2008) The objectives of this report are to provide the Secretary of Energy with the Electricity Advisory Committee's

  7. WINDExchange: Potential Wind Capacity

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Potential Wind Capacity Potential wind capacity maps are provided for a 2014 industry standard wind turbine installed on a 110-m tower, which represents plausible current technology options, and a wind turbine on a 140-m tower, which represents near-future technology options. Enlarge image This map shows the wind potential at a 110-m height for the United States. Download a printable map. Click on a state to view the wind map for that state. * Grid Granularity = 400 sq km* 35% Gross Capacity

  8. Energy Storage

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mukundan, Rangachary

    2014-09-30

    Energy storage technology is critical if the U.S. is to achieve more than 25% penetration of renewable electrical energy, given the intermittency of wind and solar. Energy density is a critical parameter in the economic viability of any energy storage system with liquid fuels being 10 to 100 times better than batteries. However, the economical conversion of electricity to fuel still presents significant technical challenges. This project addressed these challenges by focusing on a specific approach: efficient processes to convert electricity, water and nitrogen to ammonia. Ammonia has many attributes that make it the ideal energy storage compound. The feed stocks are plentiful, ammonia is easily liquefied and routinely stored in large volumes in cheap containers, and it has exceptional energy density for grid scale electrical energy storage. Ammonia can be oxidized efficiently in fuel cells or advanced Carnot cycle engines yielding water and nitrogen as end products. Because of the high energy density and low reactivity of ammonia, the capital cost for grid storage will be lower than any other storage application. This project developed the theoretical foundations of N2 catalysis on specific catalysts and provided for the first time experimental evidence for activation of Mo 2N based catalysts. Theory also revealed that the N atom adsorbed in the bridging position between two metal atoms is the critical step for catalysis. Simple electrochemical ammonia production reactors were designed and built in this project using two novel electrolyte systems. The first one demonstrated the use of ionic liquid electrolytes at room temperature and the second the use of pyrophosphate based electrolytes at intermediate temperatures (200 – 300 ºC). The mechanism of high proton conduction in the pyrophosphate materials was found to be associated with a polyphosphate second phase contrary to literature claims and ammonia production rates as high as 5X 10-8 mol/s/cm2 were achieved.

  9. Some mismatches occurred when simulating fractured reservoirs as homogeneous porous media

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mario Cesar Suarez Arriaga; Fernando Samaniego V.; Fernando Rodriguez

    1996-01-24

    The understanding of transport processes that occur in naturally fractured geothermal systems is far from being complete. Often, evaluation and numerical simulations of fractured geothermal reservoirs, are carried out by assuming equivalent porous media and homogeneous petrophysical properties within big matrix blocks. The purpose of this paper, is to present a comparison between results obtained from numerical studies of a naturally fractured reservoir treated as a simple porous medium and the simulation of some real aspects of the fractured reservoir. A general conclusion outlines the great practical importance of considering even approximately, the true nature of such systems. Our results show that the homogeneous simplified evaluation of the energy resource in a fractured system, could result in unrealistic estimates of the reservoir capacity to generate electricity.

  10. Tenth workshop on geothermal reservoir engineering: proceedings

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1985-01-22

    The workshop contains presentations in the following areas: (1) reservoir engineering research; (2) field development; (3) vapor-dominated systems; (4) the Geysers thermal area; (5) well test analysis; (6) production engineering; (7) reservoir evaluation; (8) geochemistry and injection; (9) numerical simulation; and (10) reservoir physics. (ACR)

  11. An assessment of the Tongonan geothermal reservoir, Philippines, at high-pressure operating conditions

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sarmiento, Z.F.; Aquino, B.G.; Aunzo, Z.P.; Rodis, N.O.; Saw, V.S.

    1993-10-01

    An evaluation of the Tongonan geothermal reservoir was conducted to improve the power recovery through reservoir and process optimization. The performance of the existing production wells was reviewed and the response of the field based on the anticipated production levels was simulated at various operating conditions. The results indicate that the Tongonan geothermal reservoir can be exploited at a high pressure operating condition with substantial improvement in the field capacity. The authors calculate that the Upper Mahiao and the Malitbog sectors of the Tongonan field are capable of generating 395 MWe at 1.0 MPa abs., on top of the existing 112.5 MWe plant, compared with 275 MWe if the field is operated at 0.6 MPa abs. The total capacity for the proposed Leyte A 640 MWe expansion can be generated from these sectors with the additional power to be tapped from Mahanagdong and Alto Peak sectors.

  12. Increasing Waterflooding Reservoirs in the Wilmington Oil Field through Improved Reservoir Characterization and Reservoir Management, Class III

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Koerner, Roy; Clarke, Don; Walker, Scott; Phillips, Chris; Nguyen, John; Moos, Dan; Tagbor, Kwasi

    2001-08-07

    This project was intended to increase recoverable waterflood reserves in slope and basin reservoirs through improved reservoir characterization and reservoir management. The particular application of this project is in portions of Fault Blocks IV and V of the Wilmington Oil Field, in Long Beach, California, but the approach is widely applicable in slope and basin reservoirs, transferring technology so that it can be applied in other sections of the Wilmington field and by operators in other slope and basin reservoirs is a primary component of the project.

  13. Report on interim storage of spent nuclear fuel

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-04-01

    The report on interim storage of spent nuclear fuel discusses the technical, regulatory, and economic aspects of spent-fuel storage at nuclear reactors. The report is intended to provide legislators state officials and citizens in the Midwest with information on spent-fuel inventories, current and projected additional storage requirements, licensing, storage technologies, and actions taken by various utilities in the Midwest to augment their capacity to store spent nuclear fuel on site.

  14. Sunset Reservoir Solar Power Plant | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Reservoir Solar Power Plant Facility Sunset Reservoir Sector Solar Facility Type Photovoltaic Developer Recurrent Energy Location San Francisco, California Coordinates...

  15. THMC Modeling of EGS Reservoirs … Continuum through Discontinuum...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Evolution and Induced Seismicity THMC Modeling of EGS Reservoirs Continuum through Discontinuum Representations: Capturing Reservoir Stimulation, Evolution and ...

  16. Development of Reservoir Characterization Techniques and Production Models for Exploiting Naturally Fractured Reservoirs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wiggins, M.L.; Evans, R.D.; Brown, R.L.; Gupta, A.

    2001-03-28

    This report focuses on integrating geoscience and engineering data to develop a consistent characterization of the naturally fractured reservoirs. During this reporting period, effort was focused on relating seismic data to reservoir properties of naturally fractured reservoirs, scaling well log data to generate interwell descriptors of these reservoirs, enhancing and debugging a naturally fractured reservoir simulator, and developing a horizontal wellbore model for use in the simulator.

  17. Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2003 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2004 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2005 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2006 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2007 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200

  18. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 220,597 220,597 2003 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 2004 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,804 220,804 220,804 2005 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 2006 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804

  19. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 576,841 576,841 2003 576,841 576,841 576,841 576,841 576,841 587,116 563,590 587,116 587,116 587,116 587,116 587,116 2004 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 591,673 591,673 591,673 2005 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 2006 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673

  20. Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2003 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2004 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2005 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2006 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000

  1. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,071,747 1,071,747 2003 1,043,529 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,034,429 1,034,429 2004 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,018,517 1,018,517 1,018,517 1,045,517 1,045,517 1,013,437 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 2005 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264

  2. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2003 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2004 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2005 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2006 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2007 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000

  3. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 141,912 141,912 141,912 141,912 144,787 144,787 2003 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 2004 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 143,887 143,887 143,887 2005 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 2006 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887

  4. Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,992 31,992 2003 31,992 31,992 31,992 31,992 31,992 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 2004 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,080 32,080 32,080 2005 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 2006 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,146 32,146 32,146

  5. Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 374,125 374,125 2003 374,125 374,125 374,125 374,125 374,125 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2004 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2005 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2006 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201

  6. Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2003 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2004 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2005 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2006 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480

  7. Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 2,992 2,992 2003 2,992 2,992 2,992 2,992 2,992 5,100 5,100 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 2004 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 8,024 8,024 8,024 2005 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 2006 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 9,035 9,035 9,035 2007 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,692

  8. Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 2003 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 2004 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 114,187 114,187 114,187 2005 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 2006 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187

  9. Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2003 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2004 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2005 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2006 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469

  10. New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2003 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 2004 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 2005 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 2006 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,124 83,124 83,124

  11. Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 575,959 575,959 2003 575,959 575,959 575,959 575,959 575,959 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 2004 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 572,404 572,404 572,404 2005 572,404 572,404 572,329 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 2006 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404

  12. Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 378,137 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 2003 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 2004 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 384,838 384,838 384,838 2005 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 2006 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838

  13. Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 17,755 21,080 21,080 21,080 21,080 21,080 21,080 21,080 22,042 22,042 22,042 22,042 2003 22,042 22,042 22,042 22,042 22,042 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 2004 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,796 23,796 23,796 2005 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 2006 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,034 24,034 24,034

  14. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 7,000 7,000 1990's 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 6,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2000's 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2010's

  15. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 108,171 108,207 1990's 108,601 114,621 114,627 114,627 124,138 124,114 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 2000's 134,012 134,000 144,787 143,887 146,287 150,947 150,809 166,909 187,251 210,128 2010's 235,638 240,241 289,416 303,522 331,469

  16. Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 29,025 29,791 1990's 29,791 29,791 30,564 30,564 30,564 30,564 31,125 31,273 31,273 31,273 2000's 31,878 32,000 32,098 32,080 32,004 32,146 32,505 32,940 32,876 10,889 2010's 11,502

  17. Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 373,963 373,960 1990's 373,960 373,960 375,010 375,010 375,010 375,010 375,010 342,785 371,510 371,510 2000's 371,510 372,000 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 376,301 2010's

  18. Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 88,438 88,438 1990's 143,311 93,311 93,311 93,311 93,311 39,468 39,468 39,468 39,468 39,468 2000's 39,468 39,000 39,468 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 34,850 34,850 34,850 2010's

  19. New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 94,600 94,600 1990's 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2000's 96,600 97,000 89,800 83,800 83,800 83,124 82,652 78,424 80,000 80,000 2010's 84,300 84,3

  20. Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 612,547 612,547 1990's 591,494 591,494 591,494 594,644 595,008 620,544 557,452 573,434 575,234 575,384 2000's 573,784 574,000 573,709 572,404 572,404 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 580,380 2010's 580,380 580,380 577,944 577,944 577,94

  1. Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 377,189 364,887 1990's 362,616 362,616 359,616 359,616 363,593 364,593 395,087 396,087 394,827 394,827 2000's 378,137 382,000 389,767 384,838 383,638 378,738 380,038 373,738 371,324 371,338 2010's 371,338 372,838 370,838 370,535 375,935

  2. Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 9,791 1990's 9,791 9,791 11,445 11,445 11,622 11,622 11,622 11,622 11,622 11,622 2000's 16,035 21,000 23,675 23,796 24,480 24,034 26,703 29,415 29,415 29,565 2010's 29,565 29,565 28,750

  3. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 805,394 805,393 1990's 640,938 640,938 669,354 664,693 658,578 654,570 680,006 684,842 684,842 684,842 2000's 684,518 717,070 714,216 748,074 749,018 748,792 750,054 759,365 759,153 776,964 2010's 776,822 776,845 774,309 774,309 774,309

  4. Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 82,662 82,662 1990's 98,999 98,999 105,790 105,790 105,583 108,837 99,599 99,599 99,599 99,599 2000's 100,226 100,000 101,054 101,055 101,055 98,068 98,068 98,068 95,068 105,768 2010's 105,768 105,858 124,253 122,0

  5. Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 953,947 952,279 1990's 949,914 949,914 949,721 952,388 958,968 905,260 898,239 965,565 898,565 898,565 2000's 898,565 899,000 945,307 972,388 982,474 981,995 984,768 980,691 977,989 989,454 2010's 990,487 997,364 999,931 1,000,281 1,004,547

  6. Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 114,603 112,045 1990's 97,332 102,246 106,176 106,676 108,621 113,121 113,209 113,209 113,209 113,209 2000's 113,210 113,000 111,095 113,597 113,397 114,080 114,294 114,294 114,937 114,274 2010's 111,271 111,313 110,749 110,749 110,749

  7. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 311,000 311,000 1990's 229,700 279,700 279,700 279,700 270,200 270,200 270,200 408,200 273,200 273,200 2000's 273,200 273,000 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 275,200 278,238 284,747 284,811 2010's 288,0

  8. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 334,925 334,925 1990's 301,199 301,199 290,571 289,797 290,148 283,603 285,201 304,065 301,101 301,101 2000's 300,401 300,000 299,473 288,197 289,450 289,747 288,383 288,926 282,221 282,300 2010's 284,821 284,731 284,905 283,97

  9. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 206,572 206,603 1990's 312,061 307,235 210,242 210,242 209,753 215,351 216,351 219,907 219,907 219,907 2000's 219,913 220,000 220,596 220,804 220,844 218,927 218,394 220,359 220,359 220,368 2010's 221,751 221,751 221,751 221,723 221,723

  10. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 559,019 559,019 1990's 550,823 559,823 539,200 542,900 551,580 549,436 554,872 559,012 563,867 564,062 2000's 569,187 580,000 587,115 591,673 593,740 593,740 599,165 588,711 615,858 651,968 2010's 670,880 690,295 699,646 733,939 745,029

  11. Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 61,978 61,978 1990's 61,978 61,978 62,400 62,400 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2000's 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 2010's

  12. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 982,362 982,362 1990's 994,542 995,181 994,281 1,043,781 1,046,582 1,053,814 1,052,236 992,933 1,021,674 1,071,699 2000's 1,070,716 1,071,000 1,034,429 1,028,344 1,010,034 1,021,622 1,031,290 1,060,558 1,062,339 1,069,405 2010's 1,069,898 1,075,472 1,078,979 1,079,424 1,079,462

  13. Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 2,600 3,280 3,280 3,280 3,280 2000's 3,280 5,000 8,520 11,015 11,015 11,015 19,300 19,300 26,900 26,900 2010's 32,900 35,400 35,400 35,4

  14. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's

  15. Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 36,147 31,447 1990's 31,277 31,277 31,277 31,277 31,277 38,347 31,871 31,871 24,190 24,190 2000's 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 21,760 2010's 21,760 21,359

  16. California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 459,673 466,818 1990's 291,678 467,678 472,108 472,108 472,108 472,908 469,695 396,430 388,370 388,370 2000's 388,480 476,000 478,995 446,095 478,226 477,726 484,711 487,711 498,705 513,005 2010's 542,511 570,511 592,411 599,711 599,711

  17. Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 1,200 1,200 2000's 1,200 1,000 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2010's 0

  18. Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 590,248 589,780 1990's 586,502 589,018 595,229 598,782 627,589 653,420 672,533 683,891 684,226 684,226 2000's 699,323 686,000 699,471 662,593 674,196 680,096 690,061 690,678 740,477 766,768 2010's 783,579 812,394 831,190 842,072 834,124

  19. Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2008 679,449 679,449 679,449 679,449 679,449 679,449 679,449 679,449 679,449 698,449 709,678 709,678 2009 709,678 709,678 709,678 709,678 709,678 709,678 709,678 709,678...

  20. Colorado Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 48,709 48,709 48,709 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,582 60,582 2013...

  1. Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 2,600 3,280 3,280 3,280 3,280 2000's 3,280 5,000 8,520 11,015 11,015 11,015 19,300 19,300 26,900 26,900 2010's 32,900 35,400 35,400 35,4

  2. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's

  3. Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 36,147 31,447 1990's 31,277 31,277 31,277 31,277 31,277 38,347 31,871 31,871 24,190 24,190 2000's 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 21,760 2010's 21,760 21,359

  4. U.S. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    7,933,967 7,934,228 7,929,728 7,974,893 7,974,893 7,974,893 7,975,643 7,978,632 7,979,132 7,987,416 7,985,156 7,988,856 1994 7,990,852 8,028,112 8,028,112 8,028,321 8,028,321...

  5. West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 523,132 523,132 1990's 525,138 525,138 525,206 519,286 520,457 466,089 484,596 734,157 733,157...

  6. East Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2,200,169 2,200,169 2015 2,197,282 2,197,282 2,197,282 2,197,282 2,197,282 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 - No Data Reported; -- Not...

  7. "Table A7. Shell Storage Capacity of Selected Petroleum Products...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Products",38,1448,306,531,12.1 2011," Meat Packing Plants",1,229,40,13,13.2 2033," ... Kindred Products",3,196,59,142,20.2 2011," Meat Packing Plants","*",1,2,3,22.6 2033," ...

  8. Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 2003 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 2004 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 11,015 11,015 11,015 2005 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 2006 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 2007 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015

  9. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 25,907 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2014 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2015 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592

  10. Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2003 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2004 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2005 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2006 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000

  11. California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 388,480 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 474,920 474,920 2003 474,920 474,920 474,920 474,920 474,920 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 2004 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 486,095 446,095 446,095 454,095 454,095 454,095 2005 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 2006 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095

  12. Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 2003 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 2004 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 2005 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 2006 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055

  13. Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 2003 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 901,274 901,274 901,274 945,307 945,307 945,307 945,307 2004 959,244 959,244 959,244 959,244 959,112 959,112 959,112 959,112 959,112 972,388 972,388 972,388 2005 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 2006 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388

  14. Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 111,556 111,556 2003 112,088 129,968 112,095 112,095 112,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 2004 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 113,597 113,397 113,397 2005 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 2006 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397

  15. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2003 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2004 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2005 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2006 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200

  16. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 2003 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 2004 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 288,197 288,197 288,197 2005 288,197 288,197 288,197 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 2006 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259

  17. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 220,597 220,597 2003 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 2004 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,804 220,804 220,804 2005 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 2006 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804

  18. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 576,841 576,841 2003 576,841 576,841 576,841 576,841 576,841 587,116 563,590 587,116 587,116 587,116 587,116 587,116 2004 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 591,673 591,673 591,673 2005 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 2006 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673

  19. Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2003 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2004 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2005 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2006 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000

  20. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,071,747 1,071,747 2003 1,043,529 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,034,429 1,034,429 2004 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,018,517 1,018,517 1,018,517 1,045,517 1,045,517 1,013,437 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 2005 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264

  1. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2003 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2004 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2005 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2006 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2007 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000

  2. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 141,912 141,912 141,912 141,912 144,787 144,787 2003 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 2004 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 143,887 143,887 143,887 2005 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 2006 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887

  3. Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,992 31,992 2003 31,992 31,992 31,992 31,992 31,992 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 2004 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,080 32,080 32,080 2005 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 2006 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,146 32,146 32,146

  4. Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 374,125 374,125 2003 374,125 374,125 374,125 374,125 374,125 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2004 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2005 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2006 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201

  5. Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2003 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2004 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2005 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2006 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469

  6. California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 388,480 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 474,920 474,920 2003 474,920 474,920 474,920 474,920 474,920 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 2004 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 486,095 446,095 446,095 454,095 454,095 454,095 2005 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 2006 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095

  7. Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 2003 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 2004 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 2005 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 2006 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055

  8. Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 2003 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 901,274 901,274 901,274 945,307 945,307 945,307 945,307 2004 959,244 959,244 959,244 959,244 959,112 959,112 959,112 959,112 959,112 972,388 972,388 972,388 2005 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 2006 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388

  9. Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 111,556 111,556 2003 112,088 129,968 112,095 112,095 112,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 2004 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 113,597 113,397 113,397 2005 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 2006 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397

  10. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2003 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2004 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2005 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2006 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200

  11. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 2003 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 2004 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 288,197 288,197 288,197 2005 288,197 288,197 288,197 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 2006 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259

  12. Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 61,978 61,978 1990's 61,978 61,978 62,400 62,400 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2000's 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 2010's

  13. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 982,362 982,362 1990's 994,542 995,181 994,281 1,043,781 1,046,582 1,053,814 1,052,236 992,933 1,021,674 1,071,699 2000's 1,070,716 1,071,000 1,034,429 1,028,344 1,010,034 1,021,622 1,031,290 1,060,558 1,062,339 1,069,405 2010's 1,069,898 1,075,472 1,078,979 1,079,424 1,079,462

  14. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 7,000 7,000 1990's 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 6,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2000's 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2010's

  15. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 108,171 108,207 1990's 108,601 114,621 114,627 114,627 124,138 124,114 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 2000's 134,012 134,000 144,787 143,887 146,287 150,947 150,809 166,909 187,251 210,128 2010's 235,638 240,241 289,416 303,522 331,469

  16. Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 29,025 29,791 1990's 29,791 29,791 30,564 30,564 30,564 30,564 31,125 31,273 31,273 31,273 2000's 31,878 32,000 32,098 32,080 32,004 32,146 32,505 32,940 32,876 10,889 2010's 11,502

  17. Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 373,963 373,960 1990's 373,960 373,960 375,010 375,010 375,010 375,010 375,010 342,785 371,510 371,510 2000's 371,510 372,000 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 376,301 2010's

  18. Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 88,438 88,438 1990's 143,311 93,311 93,311 93,311 93,311 39,468 39,468 39,468 39,468 39,468 2000's 39,468 39,000 39,468 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 34,850 34,850 34,850 2010's

  19. New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 94,600 94,600 1990's 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2000's 96,600 97,000 89,800 83,800 83,800 83,124 82,652 78,424 80,000 80,000 2010's 84,300 84,3

  20. New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 156,259 156,259 1990's 147,618 150,538 167,834 173,463 173,463 173,463 173,979 175,479 175,479 175,129 2000's 175,495 166,000 190,156 200,545 204,765 204,855 213,225 229,013 228,613 245,579 2010's 245,579 245,579 245,5

  1. Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 612,547 612,547 1990's 591,494 591,494 591,494 594,644 595,008 620,544 557,452 573,434 575,234 575,384 2000's 573,784 574,000 573,709 572,404 572,404 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 580,380 2010's 580,380 580,380 577,944 577,944 577,94

  2. Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 377,189 364,887 1990's 362,616 362,616 359,616 359,616 363,593 364,593 395,087 396,087 394,827 394,827 2000's 378,137 382,000 389,767 384,838 383,638 378,738 380,038 373,738 371,324 371,338 2010's 371,338 372,838 370,838 370,535 375,935

  3. Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 9,791 1990's 9,791 9,791 11,445 11,445 11,622 11,622 11,622 11,622 11,622 11,622 2000's 16,035 21,000 23,675 23,796 24,480 24,034 26,703 29,415 29,415 29,565 2010's 29,565 29,565 28,750

  4. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 805,394 805,393 1990's 640,938 640,938 669,354 664,693 658,578 654,570 680,006 684,842 684,842 684,842 2000's 684,518 717,070 714,216 748,074 749,018 748,792 750,054 759,365 759,153 776,964 2010's 776,822 776,845 774,309 774,309 774,309

  5. "US Commercial Crude Oil Stocks and Storage Capacity"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    " Pipeline Fill and in Transit by Water and Rail1",75419,75543,77569,82649,80846,8... " Alaskan Crude Oil in Transit by Water",3631,4298,4485,2209,4959,2803,5814,3447,2...

  6. West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 733,126 733,126 733,126 733,126 733,126 733,126 496,796 496,796 496,796 496,796 497,996 497,996 2003 497,996 497,996...

  7. Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 1,200 1,200 2000's 1,200 1,000 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2010's 0

  8. Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 590,248 589,780 1990's 586,502 589,018 595,229 598,782 627,589 653,420 672,533 683,891 684,226 684,226 2000's 699,323 686,000 699,471 662,593 674,196 680,096 690,061 690,678 740,477 766,768 2010's 783,579 812,394 831,190 842,072 834,124

  9. Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 114,980 114,980 1990's 114,980 114,980 114,980 114,980 122,498 122,498 121,980 121,980 121,980 121,980 2000's 129,480 129,000 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2010's 129,480 124,465 124,465 124,465 124,465

  10. Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 4,668 4,668 2000's 4,967 5,000 5,100 6,720 8,100 9,035 9,692 9,560 6,200 9,500 2010's

  11. Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 36,400 36,400 1990's 32,100 34,100 34,100 34,100 33,900 33,900 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 2000's 37,300 37,000 39,627 40,247 41,263 42,191 43,316 39,341 39,287 39,210 2010's 41,309 43,673

  12. Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 114,980 114,980 1990's 114,980 114,980 114,980 114,980 122,498 122,498 121,980 121,980 121,980 121,980 2000's 129,480 129,000 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2010's 129,480 124,465 124,465 124,465 124,465

  13. Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 4,668 4,668 2000's 4,967 5,000 5,100 6,720 8,100 9,035 9,692 9,560 6,200 9,500 2010's

  14. Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 36,400 36,400 1990's 32,100 34,100 34,100 34,100 33,900 33,900 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 2000's 37,300 37,000 39,627 40,247 41,263 42,191 43,316 39,341 39,287 39,210 2010's 41,309 43,673

  15. Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 103,831 103,830 1990's 106,130 106,130 105,668 105,668 105,668 105,668 105,868 105,868 105,868 105,868 2000's 105,868 106,000 115,068 114,187 114,160 114,160 114,096 114,067 111,167 111,120 2010's 111,120 106,764 124,937

  16. Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 2003 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 2004 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 11,015 11,015 11,015 2005 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 2006 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 2007 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015

  17. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 25,907 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2014 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2015 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592

  18. Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2003 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2004 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2005 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2006 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000

  19. Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2003 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2004 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2005 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2006 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2007 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200

  20. Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 699,324 698,258 699,324 699,324 699,324 699,324 699,324 699,324 700,324 700,324 723,922 723,922 2003 723,922 723,922 723,922 723,922 723,922 699,472 699,472 699,472 699,472 699,472 699,472 699,472 2004 700,769 700,769 700,769 700,769 675,769 675,769 675,769 675,769 675,769 665,730 665,730 665,730 2005 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 2006 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730

  1. New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2003 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 2004 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 2005 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 2006 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,124 83,124 83,124

  2. New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 189,267 189,267 2003 189,267 189,267 189,267 189,267 189,267 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 2004 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 203,265 203,265 203,265 2005 203,265 203,265 203,265 203,265 203,265 203,265 203,265 204,265 204,265 204,265 204,265 204,265 2006 204,265 204,265 204,265 204,265

  3. Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 575,959 575,959 2003 575,959 575,959 575,959 575,959 575,959 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 2004 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 572,404 572,404 572,404 2005 572,404 572,404 572,329 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 2006 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404

  4. Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 378,137 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 2003 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 2004 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 384,838 384,838 384,838 2005 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 2006 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838

  5. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 713,818 713,818 713,818 713,818 713,818 713,818 950,148 950,148 950,148 950,148 950,148 950,148 2003 950,148 950,148 950,148 950,148 950,148 714,417 714,417 714,417 714,417 714,417 714,217 714,097 2004 712,687 712,292 712,292 709,946 709,946 709,946 709,946 709,826 721,019 748,874 748,874 748,338 2005 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 2006 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338

  6. Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 2003 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 2004 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 114,187 114,187 114,187 2005 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 2006 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187

  7. California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 459,673 466,818 1990's 291,678 467,678 472,108 472,108 472,108 472,908 469,695 396,430 388,370 388,370 2000's 388,480 476,000 478,995 446,095 478,226 477,726 484,711 487,711 498,705 513,005 2010's 542,511 570,511 592,411 599,711 599,711

  8. Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 82,662 82,662 1990's 98,999 98,999 105,790 105,790 105,583 108,837 99,599 99,599 99,599 99,599 2000's 100,226 100,000 101,054 101,055 101,055 98,068 98,068 98,068 95,068 105,768 2010's 105,768 105,858 124,253 122,0

  9. Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 953,947 952,279 1990's 949,914 949,914 949,721 952,388 958,968 905,260 898,239 965,565 898,565 898,565 2000's 898,565 899,000 945,307 972,388 982,474 981,995 984,768 980,691 977,989 989,454 2010's 990,487 997,364 999,931 1,000,281 1,004,547

  10. Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 114,603 112,045 1990's 97,332 102,246 106,176 106,676 108,621 113,121 113,209 113,209 113,209 113,209 2000's 113,210 113,000 111,095 113,597 113,397 114,080 114,294 114,294 114,937 114,274 2010's 111,271 111,313 110,749 110,749 110,749

  11. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 311,000 311,000 1990's 229,700 279,700 279,700 279,700 270,200 270,200 270,200 408,200 273,200 273,200 2000's 273,200 273,000 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 275,200 278,238 284,747 284,811 2010's 288,0

  12. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 334,925 334,925 1990's 301,199 301,199 290,571 289,797 290,148 283,603 285,201 304,065 301,101 301,101 2000's 300,401 300,000 299,473 288,197 289,450 289,747 288,383 288,926 282,221 282,300 2010's 284,821 284,731 284,905 283,97

  13. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 206,572 206,603 1990's 312,061 307,235 210,242 210,242 209,753 215,351 216,351 219,907 219,907 219,907 2000's 219,913 220,000 220,596 220,804 220,844 218,927 218,394 220,359 220,359 220,368 2010's 221,751 221,751 221,751 221,723 221,723

  14. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 559,019 559,019 1990's 550,823 559,823 539,200 542,900 551,580 549,436 554,872 559,012 563,867 564,062 2000's 569,187 580,000 587,115 591,673 593,740 593,740 599,165 588,711 615,858 651,968 2010's 670,880 690,295 699,646 733,939 745,029

  15. U.S. Total Shell Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Area: U.S. East Coast (PADD 1) Midwest (PADD 2) Gulf Coast (PADD 3) Rocky Mountain (PADD 4) West Coast (PADD 5) Period: Annual (as of January 1) Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Product Area 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Total 710,413 -- -- -- -- -- 1982-2015 Crude Oil 180,846 -- -- -- -- -- 1985-2015 Liquefied Petroleum Gases 33,842 -- -- -- -- -- 1982-2015 Propane/Propylene 8,513 -- --

  16. U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Lower 48 States Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region East Region South Central Region Midwest Region Mountain Region Pacific Region Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download

  17. U.S. Working Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Area: U.S. East Coast (PADD 1) Midwest (PADD 2) Gulf Coast (PADD 3) Rocky Mountain (PADD 4) West Coast (PADD 5) Period: Annual (as of January 1) Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Product Area 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Total 617,513 -- -- -- -- -- 1982-2015 Crude Oil 153,181 -- -- -- -- -- 1982-2015 Liquefied Petroleum Gases 30,852 -- -- -- -- -- 1982-2015 Propane/Propylene 8,150 -- --

  18. Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2003 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2004 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2005 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2006 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480

  19. Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 2,992 2,992 2003 2,992 2,992 2,992 2,992 2,992 5,100 5,100 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 2004 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 8,024 8,024 8,024 2005 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 2006 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 9,035 9,035 9,035 2007 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,692

  20. Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,720 37,720 2003 37,720 37,720 37,720 37,720 37,720 38,969 38,969 38,969 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 2004 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 40,247 40,247 40,247 2005 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 2006 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 42,191 42,191 42,191

  1. West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 733,126 733,126 733,126 733,126 733,126 733,126 496,796 496,796 496,796 496,796 497,996 497,996 2003 497,996 497,996 497,996 497,996 497,996 509,836 509,836 509,836 509,836 509,758 494,458 494,458 2004 492,025 492,025 492,025 492,025 492,025 492,025 492,025 492,025 492,025 510,827 510,827 510,827 2005 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 2006 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827

  2. ,"U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Date:","1292016" ,"Next Release Date:","2292016" ,"Excel File Name:","ngstorcapdcunusm.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http:www.eia.govdnavng...

  3. West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 523,132 523,132 1990's 525,138 525,138 525,206 519,286 520,457 466,089 484,596 734,157 733,157 733,157 2000's 733,125 733,000 494,457 510,827 512,143 512,377 513,416 536,702 528,442 531,456 2010's 531,480 524,324 524,324 524,3

  4. Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 103,831 103,830 1990's 106,130 106,130 105,668 105,668 105,668 105,668 105,868 105,868 105,868 105,868 2000's 105,868 106,000 115,068 114,187 114,160 114,160 114,096 114,067 111,167 111,120 2010's 111,120 106,764 124,937

  5. New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 189,267 189,267 2003 189,267 189,267...

  6. New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 156,259 156,259 1990's 147,618 150,538 167,834 173,463 173,463 173,463 173,979 175,479 175,479...

  7. Ecosystem carbon storage capacity as affected by disturbance...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    and tausub 1 is the residence time of the carbon pool affected by disturbances (biomass pool in this study). The disturbance regime is characterized by the mean disturbance...

  8. Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    21,080 21,080 21,080 21,080 22,042 22,042 22,042 22,042 2003 22,042 22,042 22,042 22,042 22,042 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 2004 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676...

  9. NREL: Energy Storage - Awards

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Energy Storage Transportation Research Energy Storage Printable Version Awards R&D 100 2013 NREL's energy storage innovation has been recognized with numerous awards. R&D 100 ...

  10. 4. International reservoir characterization technical conference

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1997-04-01

    This volume contains the Proceedings of the Fourth International Reservoir Characterization Technical Conference held March 2-4, 1997 in Houston, Texas. The theme for the conference was Advances in Reservoir Characterization for Effective Reservoir Management. On March 2, 1997, the DOE Class Workshop kicked off with tutorials by Dr. Steve Begg (BP Exploration) and Dr. Ganesh Thakur (Chevron). Tutorial presentations are not included in these Proceedings but may be available from the authors. The conference consisted of the following topics: data acquisition; reservoir modeling; scaling reservoir properties; and managing uncertainty. Selected papers have been processed separately for inclusion in the Energy Science and Technology database.

  11. Compressed air energy storage technology program. Annual report for 1979

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Loscutoff, W.V.

    1980-06-01

    The objectives of the Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) program are to establish stability criteria for large underground reservoirs in salt domes, hard rock, and porous rock used for air storage in utility applications, and to develop second-generation CAES technologies that have minimal or no dependence on petroleum fuels. During the year reported reports have been issued on field studies on CAES on aquifers and in salt, stability, and design criteria for CAES and for pumped hydro-storage caverns, laboratory studies of CAES in porous rock reservoris have continued. Research has continued on combined CAES/Thermal Energy Storage, CAES/Solar systems, coal-fired fluidized bed combustors for CAES, and two-reservoir advanced CAES concepts. (LCL)

  12. THMC Modeling of EGS Reservoirs … Continuum through Discontinuum

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Representations: Capturing Reservoir Stimulation, Evolution and Induced Seismicity | Department of Energy THMC Modeling of EGS Reservoirs … Continuum through Discontinuum Representations: Capturing Reservoir Stimulation, Evolution and Induced Seismicity THMC Modeling of EGS Reservoirs … Continuum through Discontinuum Representations: Capturing Reservoir Stimulation, Evolution and Induced Seismicity THMC Modeling of EGS Reservoirs … Continuum through Discontinuum Representations: Capturing

  13. The role of reservoir characterization in the reservoir management process (as reflected in the Department of Energy`s reservoir management demonstration program)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fowler, M.L.; Young, M.A.; Madden, M.P.

    1997-08-01

    Optimum reservoir recovery and profitability result from guidance of reservoir practices provided by an effective reservoir management plan. Success in developing the best, most appropriate reservoir management plan requires knowledge and consideration of (1) the reservoir system including rocks, and rock-fluid interactions (i.e., a characterization of the reservoir) as well as wellbores and associated equipment and surface facilities; (2) the technologies available to describe, analyze, and exploit the reservoir; and (3) the business environment under which the plan will be developed and implemented. Reservoir characterization is the essential to gain needed knowledge of the reservoir for reservoir management plan building. Reservoir characterization efforts can be appropriately scaled by considering the reservoir management context under which the plan is being built. Reservoir management plans de-optimize with time as technology and the business environment change or as new reservoir information indicates the reservoir characterization models on which the current plan is based are inadequate. BDM-Oklahoma and the Department of Energy have implemented a program of reservoir management demonstrations to encourage operators with limited resources and experience to learn, implement, and disperse sound reservoir management techniques through cooperative research and development projects whose objectives are to develop reservoir management plans. In each of the three projects currently underway, careful attention to reservoir management context assures a reservoir characterization approach that is sufficient, but not in excess of what is necessary, to devise and implement an effective reservoir management plan.

  14. Potosi Reservoir Modeling; History and Recommendations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, Valerie; Leetaru, Hannes

    2014-09-30

    As a part of a larger project co-funded by the United States Department of Energy (US DOE) to evaluate the potential of formations within the Cambro-Ordovician strata above the Mt. Simon as potential targets for carbon sequestration in the Illinois and Michigan Basins, the Illinois Clean Coal Institute (ICCI) requested Schlumberger to evaluate the potential injectivity and carbon dioxide (CO₂) plume size of the Cambrian Potosi Formation. The evaluation of this formation was accomplished using wireline data, core data, pressure data, and seismic data from two projects: the US DOE-funded Illinois Basin–Decatur Project being conducted by the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium in Macon County, Illinois, as well as data from the Illinois – Industrial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (IL-ICCS) project funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In 2010, technical performance evaluations on the Cambrian Potosi Formation were performed through reservoir modeling. The data included formation tops from mud logs, well logs from the Verification Well 1 (VW1) and the Injection Well (CCS1), structural and stratigraphic formation from three dimensional (3D) seismic data, and field data from several waste water injection wells for the Potosi Formation. The intention was for two million tonnes per annum (MTPA) of CO₂ to be injected for 20 years into the Potosi Formation. In 2013, updated reservoir models for the Cambrian Potosi Formation were evaluated. The data included formation tops from mud logs, well logs from the CCS1, VW1, and Verification Well 2 (VW2) wells, structural and stratigraphic formation from a larger 3D seismic survey, and field data from several waste water injection wells for Potosi Formation. The objective is to simulate the injection of CO₂ at a rate 3.5 million tons per annum (3.2 million tonnes per annum [MTPA]) for 30 years 106 million tons (96 MT total) into the Potosi Formation. The Potosi geomodeling efforts have evolved from using data from a single well in 2010 to the inclusion of data from three wells in 2013 which largely leverage the porosity and permeability logs plus knowledge of lost circulation zones. The first Potosi model (Potosi Geobody Model 2010) attempted to use the available seismic inversion data to inform the geomodel and predict vugular zones in advance of drilling VW1. Lost circulation zones in VW1 came in as the geologists predicted. The model was not implemented in subsequent simulation work. To date, reservoir models used for flow simulation work have relied predominately on Gaussian distributed properties (porosity and permeability) and have employed a single injection well. Potosi Model 2013b incorporated the new VW2 logs, and exhibited an extra level of sophistication by delineating the vugular intervals. This method added further realism that likely represents the best reservoir approximation to date. Where the 2010 reservoir models were 10 by 10 mi (16 by 16 km) in area, the 2013 models were expanded in size to 30 by 30 mi (48 by 48 km). The latest reservoir simulations show that a minimum of four injectors might be required to meet target injection rates. Still, there is data that requires further scrutiny and modeling methodologies that require testing for the Potosi Formation. This work is currently ongoing, and the next phase of the reservoir modeling intends to implement valuable data like porosity derived from seismic inversion, seismically derived geobodies, or a combination of both to further define vugular zones and the porosity distribution within the Potosi Formation. Understanding the dual porosity, dual permeability character of the Potosi remains the greatest challenge in representing this formation. Further analysis of the FMI* fullbore formation microimager data may aid in assessing this uncertainty. The Potosi Formation is indeed an interesting formation, and recommendations to further characterize it are included in the following list: - Data acquisition to identify the vugs permeability, distribution, and interconnectivity could be considered to perform a more rigorous evaluation of the Potosi Formation injectivity and capacity. This could be achieved by performing an injection test on a vugular interval to determine the vugs permeability, and an interference test between wells to evaluate the local vugs extent and interconnectivity. - A thorough study of the available FMI data may reveal specifics on estimating the vug to matrix ratio. This estimate could be used to further condition the porosity distribution. Porosity logs alone might underestimate the formation’s porosity associated with vugs. Porosity mapping derived from the seismic inversion could also be used in the succeeding task to characterize the lateral porosity distribution within the reservoir. This could involve the geobody methodology previously attempted in 2010. With or without seismic inversion porosity mapping, it is worth exploring whether increased lateral heterogeneity plays a significant role in Potosi injectivity. Investigations on vugular, dolomitic outcrops suggest that there may be significantly greater lateral heterogeneity than what has been modeled here. - The FMI data also reveals the presence of and helps describe open fractures. The presence of fractures will further enhance the formation’s permeability. The task of leveraging this data in the geomodeling effort still remains. Under the best of circumstances, this data describing open fractures may be combined with seismic attributes to delineate fracture corridors. Fracture modeling would certainly add another layer of sophistication to the model. Its contribution and applicability remain to be explored. - Facies modeling within the Potosi has yet to be thoroughly addressed. The carbonates during the time of deposition are believed to be regionally extensive. However, it may be worth delineating the reservoir with other regional wells or modern day analogues to understand the extent of the Potosi. More specifically, the model could incorporate lateral changes or trends if deemed necessary to represent facies transition. - Currently there is no fracture gradient data available for the Potosi in the Decatur project area. The acquisition of the fracture pressure data could be considered to determine an appropriate maximum allowable bottomhole injection pressure. This would allow the evaluation of injectivity and the required number of wells in a more precise manner. - Special core analysis (SCAL) to determine the relative permeability and capillary pressure of the vugs and matrix could be considered to have a better estimation of the reservoir injectivity and plume extent. - Formation water sampling and analysis could be considered for the Potosi to estimate the water salinity and properties. A vertical flow performance evaluation could be considered for the succeeding task to determine the appropriate tubing size, the required injection tubing head pressure, and to investigate whether the corresponding well injection rate falls within the tubing erosional velocity limit. - A simulation using several injectors could also be considered to determine the required number of wells to achieve the injection target while taking into account the pressure interference.

  15. ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY DISTRIBUTED ENERGY STORAGE BATTERY

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    LANDI, J.T.; PLIVELICH, R.F.

    2006-04-30

    Electro Energy, Inc. conducted a research project to develop an energy efficient and environmentally friendly bipolar Ni-MH battery for distributed energy storage applications. Rechargeable batteries with long life and low cost potentially play a significant role by reducing electricity cost and pollution. A rechargeable battery functions as a reservoir for storage for electrical energy, carries energy for portable applications, or can provide peaking energy when a demand for electrical power exceeds primary generating capabilities.

  16. Dual capacity reciprocating compressor

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Wolfe, R.W.

    1984-10-30

    A multi-cylinder compressor particularly useful in connection with northern climate heat pumps and in which different capacities are available in accordance with reversing motor rotation is provided with an eccentric cam on a crank pin under a fraction of the connecting rods, and arranged for rotation upon the crank pin between opposite positions 180[degree] apart so that with cam rotation on the crank pin such that the crank throw is at its normal maximum value all pistons pump at full capacity, and with rotation of the crank shaft in the opposite direction the cam moves to a circumferential position on the crank pin such that the overall crank throw is zero. Pistons whose connecting rods ride on a crank pin without a cam pump their normal rate with either crank rotational direction. Thus a small clearance volume is provided for any piston that moves when in either capacity mode of operation. 6 figs.

  17. Dual capacity reciprocating compressor

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Wolfe, Robert W. (Wilkinsburg, PA)

    1984-01-01

    A multi-cylinder compressor 10 particularly useful in connection with northern climate heat pumps and in which different capacities are available in accordance with reversing motor 16 rotation is provided with an eccentric cam 38 on a crank pin 34 under a fraction of the connecting rods, and arranged for rotation upon the crank pin between opposite positions 180.degree. apart so that with cam rotation on the crank pin such that the crank throw is at its normal maximum value all pistons pump at full capacity, and with rotation of the crank shaft in the opposite direction the cam moves to a circumferential position on the crank pin such that the overall crank throw is zero. Pistons 24 whose connecting rods 30 ride on a crank pin 36 without a cam pump their normal rate with either crank rotational direction. Thus a small clearance volume is provided for any piston that moves when in either capacity mode of operation.

  18. Geothermal Plant Capacity Factors

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Greg Mines; Jay Nathwani; Christopher Richard; Hillary Hanson; Rachel Wood

    2015-01-01

    The capacity factors recently provided by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicated this plant performance metric had declined for geothermal power plants since 2008. Though capacity factor is a term commonly used by geothermal stakeholders to express the ability of a plant to produce power, it is a term frequently misunderstood and in some instances incorrectly used. In this paper we discuss how this capacity factor is defined and utilized by the EIA, including discussion on the information that the EIA requests from operations in their 923 and 860 forms that are submitted both monthly and annually by geothermal operators. A discussion is also provided regarding the entities utilizing the information in the EIA reports, and how those entities can misinterpret the data being supplied by the operators. The intent of the paper is to inform the facility operators as the importance of the accuracy of the data that they provide, and the implications of not providing the correct information.

  19. Energy Storage

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Energy Storage - Creation of 3D mesh from surface and background meshes using conformal decomposition finite-element method (CDFEM) for a LiCoO2 cathode: (a) reconstructed surface mesh from Avizo for particle phase, (b) background mesh for CDFEM, and (c) resultant 3D mesh for particle and electrolyte phases from CDFEM. Permalink Gallery Sandia Wins Funding for Two DOE-EERE Computer-Aided Battery-Safety R&D Projects Analysis, Capabilities, Computational Modeling & Simulation, Design,

  20. Carbon Storage

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    - Sandia Energy Energy Search Icon Sandia Home Locations Contact Us Employee Locator Energy & Climate Secure & Sustainable Energy Future Stationary Power Energy Conversion Efficiency Solar Energy Wind Energy Water Power Supercritical CO2 Geothermal Natural Gas Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & Engineering Grid Modernization Battery Testing Nuclear Fuel Cycle Defense Waste Management Programs Advanced Nuclear Energy Nuclear