Powered by Deep Web Technologies
Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


1

FY 2009 State Table  

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

State Tables State Tables Preliminary February 2008 Office of Chief Financial Officer Department of Energy FY 2009 Congressional Budget Request State Tables Preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Printed with soy ink on recycled paper State Index Page Number FY 2009 Congressional Budget 1/30/2008 Department Of Energy (Dollars In Thousands) 9:01:45AM Page 1 of 2 FY 2007 Appropriation FY 2008 Appropriation FY 2009 Request State Table 1 1 $27,588

2

FY 2005 State Table  

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

Office of Management, Budget Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation/CFO February 2004 State Tables State Tables Preliminary Preliminary Department of Energy Department of Energy FY 2005 Congressional Budget FY 2005 Congressional Budget Request Request Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation/CFO February 2004 State Tables State Tables Printed with soy ink on recycled paper Preliminary Preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, uses of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. State Index Page Number

3

FY 2010 State Table  

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

State Tables State Tables Preliminary May 2009 Office of Chief Financial Officer FY 2010 Congressional Budget Request State Tables Preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Printed with soy ink on recycled paper State Index Page Number FY 2010 Congressional Budget 5/4/2009 Department Of Energy (Dollars In Thousands) 2:13:22PM Page 1 of 2 FY 2008 Appropriation FY 2009 Appropriation FY 2010 Request State Table 1 1 $46,946 $48,781 $38,844 Alabama 2 $6,569

4

FY 2006 State Table  

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

State Tables State Tables Preliminary Department of Energy FY 2006 Congressional Budget Request Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation/CFO February 2005 State Tables Preliminary Printed with soy ink on recycled paper The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, uses of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. State Index Page Number FY 2006 Congressional Budget 1/27/2005 Department Of Energy (Dollars In Thousands) 3:32:58PM Page 1 of 2 FY 2004 Comp/Approp FY 2005 Comp/Approp FY 2006 Request State Table

5

FY 2008 State Table  

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

State Table State Table Preliminary Department of Energy FY 2008 Congressional Budget Request February 2007 Office of Chief Financial Officer State Table Preliminary Printed with soy ink on recycled paper The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, uses of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. State Index Page Number FY 2008 Congressional Budget 2/1/2007 Department Of Energy (Dollars In Thousands) 6:53:08AM Page 1 of 2 FY 2006 Appropriation FY 2007 Request FY 2008 Request State Table 1 1 $28,332 $30,341

6

FY 2011 State Table  

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

State Tables State Tables Department of Energy FY 2011 Congressional Budget Request DOE/CF-0054 March 2010 Office of Chief Financial Officer State Tables Printed with soy ink on recycled paper The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Department of Energy FY 2011 Congressional Budget Request DOE/CF-0054 State Index Page Number FY 2011 Congressional Budget 1/29/2010 Department Of Energy (Dollars In Thousands) 6:34:40AM Page 1 of 2 FY 2009 Appropriation

7

FY 2012 State Table  

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

6 6 Department of Energy FY 2012 Congressional Budget Request State Tables P li i Preliminary February 2012 Office of Chief Financial Officer DOE/CF-0066 Department of Energy FY 2012 Congressional Budget Request State Tables P li i Preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. February 2012 Office of Chief Financial Officer Printed with soy ink on recycled

8

Qualified Energy Conservation Bond State-by-State Summary Tables  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

Provides a list of qualified energy conservation bond state summary tables. Author: Energy Programs Consortium

9

TABLE 1. Nuclear Reactor, State, Type, Net Capacity, Generation...  

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

TABLE 1. Nuclear Reactor, State, Type, Net Capacity, Generation, and Capacity Factor " "PlantReactor Name","Generator ID","State","Type","2009 Summer Capacity"," 2010 Annual...

10

State Multinationals: The Impact of State Ownership on International Diversification and Firm Performance  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Summary ............................................................................................ 107 IV METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 109 Sample Selection...?s international expansion (the number of foreign countries where the firm has subsidiaries) (Kogut & Singh, 1988; Reuer & Leiblein, 2000) to describe the degree of multinationality (DOM). My dataset consists of firms with a minimum DOM of owning at least 50...

He, Xiaoming

2011-10-21T23:59:59.000Z

11

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

3 165 3 165 Appendix B Metric and Thermal Conversion Tables Metric Conversions Table B1 presents Summary Statistics for Natural Gas in the United States for 1999 through 2003 in metric units of measure. Volumes are shown in cubic meters instead of cubic feet. Prices are shown in dollars per thousand cubic meters instead of dollars per thousand cubic feet. The data in this table have been converted from the data that appear in Table 1 of this report. Thermal Conversions Table B2 presents the thermal (Btu) conversion factors and the converted data for natural gas supply and disposition from 1999 through 2003. A brief documentation for the thermal conversion factors follows: * Marketed Production. The conversion factor is calculated by adding the total heat content of dry

12

State Historical Tables for 2001 - 2003  

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

3 3 Released: November 23, 2010" "YEAR","STATE","ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY","OPERATING REVENUE (Dollars)","OPERATING EXPENSES (Dollars)","MAINTENANCE (Dollars)","DEPRECIATION (Dollars)","AMORTIZATION (Dollars)","TAXES (Dollars)","INCOME (Dollars) " 2001,"AK","Public Generating Utilities",111943315,102264618,9387481,39295128,514986,3739749,9678697 2001,"AR","Public Generating Utilities",246368630,212622546,9431249,22420097,0,16915413,33746084 2001,"AZ","Public Generating Utilities",3030812753,2527544405,147926114,220490131,248061352,80336985,503268348 2001,"CA","Public Generating Utilities",8603693112,7493606346,361997320,674090424,77723284,44864971,1110086766

13

State Historical Tables for 2001 - 2004  

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

4 4 Released: November 23, 2010 " "YEAR","STATE","ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY ","OPERATING REVENUE (Dollars)","OPERATING EXPENSES (Dollars)","MAINTENANCE (Dollars)","DEPRECIATION (Dollars)","AMORTIZATION (Dollars)","TAXES (Dollars)","INCOME (Dollars) " 2001,"AL","PUBLIC NON-GENERATING UTILITIES",929668740,876713550,23552342,28323485,21902,27740202,52955190 2001,"AR","PUBLIC NON-GENERATING UTILITIES",77541291,65685734,1885725,3099876,0,1918230,11855557 2001,"AZ","PUBLIC NON-GENERATING UTILITIES",86297510,75606888,989560,7217552,0,0,10690622 2001,"CA","PUBLIC NON-GENERATING UTILITIES",415854281,350700190,15665358,13782510,0,13671867,65154091

14

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

49 49 0.00-1.99 2.00-3.99 4.00-5.99 6.00-7.99 8.00-9.99 10.00-11.99 12.00+ WA ID MT OR CA NV UT AZ NM CO WY ND SD MN WI NE IA KS MO TX IL IN OH MI OK AR TN WV VA KY PA WI NY VT NH MA CT ME RI NJ DE DC NC SC GA AL MS LA FL HI AK MD 0.00-1.99 2.00-3.99 4.00-5.99 6.00-7.99 8.00-9.99 10.00-11.99 12.00+ WA ID MT OR CA NV UT AZ NM CO WY ND SD MN WI NE IA KS MO TX IL IN OH MI OK AR TN WV VA KY MD PA WI NY VT NH MA CT ME RI NJ DE DC NC SC GA AL MS LA FL HI AK Figure 18. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to U.S. Onsystem Industrial Consumers, 2003 (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Figure 19. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to U.S. Electric Power Consumers, 2003 (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-176, "Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition." Note: States where the electric power price has been withheld (see Table 23) are included in the $0.00-$1.99 price category.

15

Faculty Handbook Table of Contents 08/23/10 Page 1 Appalachian State University  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

for which the handbook does not provide answers. As policies, procedures, and operating guidelines whichFaculty Handbook ­ Table of Contents ­ 08/23/10 ­ Page 1 Appalachian State University FACULTY HANDBOOK Last Revised: August 23, 2010 Table of Contents FOREWORD The purpose of publishing the Faculty

Rose, Annkatrin

16

Table 42. Residual Fuel Oil Prices by PAD District and State  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

55.1 47.1 W W 55.1 46.2 See footnotes at end of table. 42. Residual Fuel Oil Prices by PAD District and State Energy Information Administration Petroleum...

17

Table 39. Production Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries by State as of January 1, 2003  

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

State/Refiner/Location Alkylates Aromatics State/Refiner/Location Alkylates Aromatics Isobutane Lubricants Isomers Isopentane and Isohexane Asphalt and Road Oil Marketable Petroleum Coke Hydrogen (MMcfd) Sulfur (short tons per day) Table 4. Production Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries by State as of January 1, 2013 (Barrels per Stream Day, Except Where Noted) Isooctane a

18

Table 2. 2011 State energy-related carbon dioxide emisssions...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

2011 State energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by fuel million metric tons of carbon dioxide shares State Coal Petroleum Natural Gas Total Coal Petroleum Natural Gas Alabama...

19

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Appendix - Table B1 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells Producing at End of Year ................................... 302,421 341,678 373,304 R 387,772 393,327 Production (million cubic meters) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells................................................ 498,099 501,946 513,368 R 503,894 504,585 From Oil Wells.................................................. 176,485 182,582 180,417 R 174,047 176,617 Total................................................................... 674,584 684,528 693,785 R 677,942 681,202 Repressuring ...................................................... 93,235 95,701 95,451 97,839 100,462 Vented and Flared.............................................. 3,123 2,583 2,744

20

Louisiana Block Grant Tables | Department of Energy  

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

Louisiana Block Grant Tables Louisiana Block Grant Tables This table details funding for state, city, and county governments in the state of Louisiana. Louisiana Block Grant Tables...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


21

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

2 2 Volume State State or Country From/To Receipts/ Imports From Deliveries/ Exports To Net a Alabama Florida................................................................... 0 682,935 -682,935 Georgia ................................................................. 0 1,441,380 -1,441,380 Gulf of Mexico ....................................................... 131,698 0 131,698 Mississippi............................................................. 2,929,279 0 2,929,279 Tennessee ............................................................ 1,602 951,228 -949,625 Total ..................................................................... 3,062,579 3,075,542 -12,963

22

Table 6. Energy intensity by state (2000 - 2010  

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

Energy intensity by state (2000 - 2010)" Energy intensity by state (2000 - 2010)" "thousand Btu per dollar of GDP" ,,,,,,,,,,,,"Change" ,,,,,,,,,,,,"2000 to 2010" "State",2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,"Percent","Absolute" "Alabama",18.27258197,17.12573602,17.40982338,17.21199023,16.87274619,16.36600572,16.26201029,16.16667416,15.88996309,15.31511861,15.97051076,-0.1259849985,-2.302071213 "Alaska",21.74118991,20.61708506,19.78031734,20.18143227,20.28953911,21.09573287,18.72961653,17.79373817,15.85124571,14.13669694,14.24461661,-0.3448097058,-7.496573297 "Arizona",8.723022426,8.474435286,8.399371812,7.993493579,8.274516227,7.602521438,7.232690272,7.328159916,7.62679414,7.507000095,7.628169778,-0.1255129924,-1.094852647

23

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

20 20 Natural Gas Movements and Storage Energy Information Administration/Natural Gas Annual 2003 21 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, Natural Gas Division. Figure 7. Principal Interstate Natural Gas Flow Summary, 2003 Billion Cubic Feet 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 = Direction of flow = Bi-directional Energy Information Administration / Natural Gas Annual 2003 22 Volume State State or Country From/To Receipts/ Imports From Deliveries/ Exports To Net a Alabama Florida................................................................... 0 682,935 -682,935 Georgia ................................................................. 0 1,441,380 -1,441,380 Gulf of Mexico

24

FPEOS: A First-Principles Equation of State Table of Deuterium for Inertial Confinement Fusion Applications  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

FPEOS: A First-Principles Equation of State Table of Deuterium for Inertial Confinement Fusion) Understanding and designing inertial confinement fusion (ICF) implosions through radiation- hydrodynamics. To minimize the drive energy for ignition, the imploding shell of DT- fuel needs to be kept as cold

Militzer, Burkhard

25

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

43 Natural Gas Consumer Prices Energy Information Administration / Natural Gas Annual 2003 44 0 2 4 6 8 10 Residential Commercial Onsystem Industrial Onsystem Vehicle Fuel Electric Power Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 Dollars per Thousand Cubic Meters 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Figure 13. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers in the United States, 1999-2003 Note: Prices are calculated from onsystem sales in all States and sectors except in Georgia, Maryland, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, where prices reflect all deliveries in the residential and commercial sectors. Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-176, "Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition"; Federal Energy Regulatory

26

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 Residential Commercial Onsystem Industrial Onsystem Vehicle Fuel Electric Power Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 Dollars per Thousand Cubic Meters 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Figure 13. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers in the United States, 1999-2003 Note: Prices are calculated from onsystem sales in all States and sectors except in Georgia, Maryland, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, where prices reflect all deliveries in the residential and commercial sectors. Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-176, "Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition"; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Form FERC-423, "Monthly Report of Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants"; and Form EIA-910, "Monthly Natural Gas Marketer Survey

27

Table S1. Cotton extent and Mexican free-tailed bat population size per county. County State  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

File S1 Table S1. Cotton extent and Mexican free-tailed bat population size per county. County State Bat population size Mean cotton hectares* County State Bat population size Mean cotton hectares 28,255 4,127 *From 1990 to 2008 Table S2. Upland and Pima cotton price over time. Year Upland Cotton

Russell, Amy L.

28

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

2 2 State Synthetic Natural Gas Propane- Air Refinery Gas Biomass Gas Other Total Alabama ................ 0 22 0 0 0 22 Colorado ................ 0 23 0 0 5,385 5,409 Connecticut............ 0 57 0 0 0 57 Delaware ............... 0 7 0 0 0 7 Georgia.................. 0 14 0 0 0 14 Hawaii.................... 2,602 0 0 0 0 2,602 Illinois .................... 0 49 0 3 0 52 Indiana................... 0 102 0 0 2,274 2,376 Iowa....................... 0 118 0 25 0 143 Kentucky................ 0 98 0 0 0 98 Maryland................ 0 160 0 0 0 160 Maine..................... 0 6 0 0 0 6 Massachusetts....... 0 253 0 0 0 253 Minnesota .............. 0 42 0 0 0 42 Missouri ................. 0 1,056 0 0 0 1,056 Nebraska ............... 0 13 0 0 0 13 New Jersey............ 0 0 0 0 473 473 North Carolina ....... 0 1 0

29

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 Salt Caverns Aquifers Depleted Fields Total State Number of Active Fields Capacity Number of Active Fields Capacity Number of Active Fields Capacity Number of Active Fields Capacity Percent of U.S. Capacity Aquifers Salt Caverns Depleted Fields Alabama ................. 1 8 0 0 1 3 2 11 0.13 Arkansas ................ 0 0 0 0 2 22 2 22 0.27 California ................ 0 0 0 0 8 446 8 446 5.44 Colorado................. 0 0 0 0 9 101 9 101 1.23 Illinois ..................... 0 0 17 767 12 206 29 972 11.85 Indiana ................... 0 0 12 81 11 32 23 114 1.38 Iowa ....................... 0 0 4 273 0 0 4 273 3.33 Kansas ................... 1 1 0 0 17 287 18 288 3.51 Kentucky ................ 0 0 3 10 20 211 23 221 2.69 Louisiana................ 6 61 0 0 8 530 14 592 7.21

30

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 Reported Wellhead Value Year and State Volume a (million cubic feet) Value (thousand dollars) Average Wellhead Price (dollars per thousand cubic feet) Marketed Production (million cubic feet) Imputed Wellhead Value of Marketed Production b (thousand dollars) 1999 Total ............................... 18,595,208 -- 2.19 19,804,848 43,324,690 2000 Total ............................... 17,251,333 -- 3.68 20,197,511 74,338,958 2001 Total ............................... 19,577,660 -- 4.00 20,570,295 82,202,805 2002 Total ............................... R 14,467,289 -- 2.95 R 19,884,780 R 58,596,868 2003 Total ............................... 14,589,545 -- 4.88 19,911,802 97,249,837 Alabama .................................. 348,722 2,066,575 5.93 346,145 2,051,308 Alaska......................................

31

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Gross Withdrawals Year and State From Gas Wells From Oil Wells Total Repressuring Vented And Flared Nonhydro- carbon Gases Removed Marketed Production Extraction Loss Dry Production 1999 Total ................ 17,590,187 6,232,524 23,822,711 3,292,564 110,285 615,014 19,804,848 972,614 18,832,234 2000 Total ................ 17,726,056 6,447,820 24,173,875 3,379,661 91,232 505,472 20,197,511 1,015,542 19,181,969 2001 Total ................ 18,129,408 6,371,371 24,500,779 3,370,832 96,913 462,738 20,570,295 953,984 19,616,311 2002 Total ................ R 17,794,858 R 6,146,420 R 23,941,279 3,455,145 R 99,178 502,176 R 19,884,780 956,992 R 18,927,788 2003 Total ................ 17,819,244 6,237,176 24,056,420 3,547,781 98,113 498,724 19,911,802 875,816 19,035,986 Alabama Total

32

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Natural Gas Natural Gas Supplies Energy Information Administration / Natural Gas Annual 2003 6 Gross Withdrawals Year and State From Gas Wells From Oil Wells Total Repressuring Vented And Flared Nonhydro- carbon Gases Removed Marketed Production Extraction Loss Dry Production 1999 Total ................ 17,590,187 6,232,524 23,822,711 3,292,564 110,285 615,014 19,804,848 972,614 18,832,234 2000 Total ................ 17,726,056 6,447,820 24,173,875 3,379,661 91,232 505,472 20,197,511 1,015,542 19,181,969 2001 Total ................ 18,129,408 6,371,371 24,500,779 3,370,832 96,913 462,738 20,570,295 953,984 19,616,311 2002 Total ................ R 17,794,858 R 6,146,420 R 23,941,279 3,455,145 R 99,178 502,176 R 19,884,780 956,992 R 18,927,788 2003 Total ................ 17,819,244 6,237,176 24,056,420 3,547,781

33

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4 4 Residential Commercial Industrial Year and State Volume (million cubic feet) Consumers Volume (million cubic feet) Consumers Volume (million cubic feet) Consumers 1999 Total ................... 4,725,672 58,223,229 3,044,658 5,010,189 8,079,359 228,331 2000 Total ................... 4,996,179 59,252,728 3,182,469 5,010,817 8,142,240 220,251 2001 Total ................... 4,771,340 60,286,364 3,022,712 4,996,446 7,344,219 217,026 2002 Total ................... R 4,888,816 R 61,107,254 R 3,144,169 R 5,064,384 R 7,507,180 R 205,915 2003 Total ................... 5,078,197 61,857,913 3,216,660 5,150,925 7,139,029 205,457 Alabama ...................... 46,566 809,002 25,447 65,313 158,536 2,744 Alaska.......................... 16,853 100,404 17,270 14,502 66,503 10 Arizona ........................

34

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Year and State Marketed Production Extraction Loss Balancing Item a Net Interstate Movements b Net Movements Across U.S. Borders b Net Storage Changes c Supplemental Gas Supplies Consumption Alabama .................... 346,145 11,293 32,755 -12,963 0 4,212 22 350,454 Alaska........................ 489,757 33,316 47,520 0 -64,389 0 0 439,572 Arizona ...................... 443 0 -8,561 307,249 -26,205 0 0 272,926 Arkansas.................... 169,599 320 -1,527 79,114 0 -51 0 246,917 California ................... 337,216 13,971 -3,834 1,959,883 -60,857 709 0 2,217,727 Colorado .................... 1,011,285 33,650 -4,231 -541,798 0 759 5,409 436,257 Connecticut................ 0 0 -4,901 158,780 0 -140 57 154,076 District Of Columbia... 0 0 -1,652 34,467 0 0 0 32,815 Delaware ...................

35

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Average Price State 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Alabama............................... 3.21 4.50 6.63 4.74 6.06 Alaska .................................. 1.32 1.60 2.32 2.36 2.33 Arizona................................. 2.72 4.82 5.02 3.77 4.87 Arkansas.............................. 2.81 4.16 6.11 5.17 6.07 California.............................. 2.61 4.32 6.64 3.20 5.16 Colorado .............................. 2.31 3.53 4.25 2.72 4.11 Connecticut .......................... 4.91 6.73 8.12 6.42 5.59 Delaware.............................. 3.45 3.41 5.16 5.37 5.88 Florida.................................. 3.49 5.10 5.28 3.90 5.87 Georgia ................................ 2.95 4.64 6.02 4.55 6.25 Hawaii .................................. 5.62 8.41 7.86 7.17 8.63 Idaho....................................

36

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

WA WA MT ID OR WY ND SD CA NV UT CO NE KS AZ NM OK TX MN WI MI IA IL IN OH MO AR MS AL GA TN KY FL SC NC WV MD DE VA PA NJ NY CT RI MA VT NH ME LA HI AK Japan Mexico Mexico Algeria Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Algeria Mexico Trinidad Canada Canada Nigeria Oman Qatar Trinidad Gulf of Mexico Gulf of Mexico Gulf of Mexico Canada Trinidad Trinidad Gulf of Mexico Malaysia 13,623 Figure 8. Interstate Movements of Natural Gas in the United States, 2003 (Million Cubic Feet) Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-176, "Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition." Energy Information Administration / Natural Gas Annual 2003 Supplemental Data From Volume To From Volume To CT RI RI MA MA CT VA DC MD DC 366,224 655,731 666,614 633,960 144,284 43,869 536,776 63,133 36,848

37

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Residential Commercial Industrial Vehicle Fuel Electric Power State Average Price Percent of Total Volume Delivered Average Price Percent of Total Volume Delivered Average Price Percent of Total Volume Delivered Average Price Average Price Alabama ..................... 11.81 99.98 10.07 81.91 6.64 21.24 -- 5.80 Alaska......................... 4.39 100.00 3.58 59.09 1.75 82.81 -- 2.33 Arizona ....................... 11.31 98.89 7.84 90.70 6.54 39.95 5.65 5.14 Arkansas .................... 10.33 100.00 7.67 81.88 6.94 5.35 5.28 4.37 California .................... 9.13 99.56 8.15 62.34 7.19 5.47 5.76 5.49 Colorado..................... 6.61 99.99 5.93 95.34 4.46 0.93 4.16 4.38 Connecticut................. 12.77 98.73 10.47 68.14 7.52 45.33 10.72 W

38

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 State Volume Price Volume Price Volume Price Volume Price Volume Price Pipeline (Canada) Eastport, ID..................... 800,345 2.04 830,351 3.79 802,182 4.71 759,647 2.83 623,635 4.72 Calais, ME ...................... NA NA 123,521 4.50 152,486 4.47 124,991 3.49 108,342 5.86 Detroit, MI ....................... 7,671 2.51 6,171 3.82 405 9.34 1,948 3.56 2,514 5.96 Marysville, MI.................. 135 2.06 NA NA NA NA 74 3.95 NA NA St. Clair, MI..................... 33,388 2.62 17,198 4.45 21,747 4.54 28,441 3.19 5,202 5.84 International Falls, MN .... 4,857 2.33 3,022 2.77 617 4.85 602 3.01 NA NA Noyes, MN...................... 506,866 2.29 469,361 3.75 448,898 4.19 402,621 3.09 359,640 5.04 Warroad, MN .................. 412 2.06 4,576 3.95 5,318

39

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Adobe Acrobat Reader Logo Adobe Acrobat Reader is required for PDF format Excel logo Spreadsheets are provided in excel 1 to117 - Complete set of Supplemental Tables PDF Energy Consumption by Sector (Census Division) Table 1. New England XLS PDF Table 2. Middle Atlantic XLS PDF Table 3. East North Central XLS PDF Table 4. West North Central XLS PDF Table 5. South Atlantic XLS PDF Table 6. East South Central XLS PDF Table 7. West South Central XLS PDF Table 8. Mountain XLS PDF Table 9. Pacific XLS PDF Table 10. Total United States XLS PDF Energy Prices by Sector (Census Division) Table 11. New England XLS PDF Table 12. Middle Atlantic XLS PDF Table 13. East North Central XLS PDF Table 14. West North Central XLS PDF Table 15. South Atlantic XLS PDF Table 16. East South Central

40

Mississippi Block Grant Tables | Department of Energy  

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

Mississippi Block Grant Tables Mississippi Block Grant Tables A table describing where state funding is being distributed Mississippi Block Grant Tables More Documents &...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


41

Solar Firms Scale Back  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Solar Firms Scale Back ... First Solar, an Arizona-based thin-film photovoltaics firm, said last week that it will restructure its operations to reduce capacity and shift production to more efficient facilities. ...

MELODY BOMGARDNER

2012-04-23T23:59:59.000Z

42

Windy Gap Firming Project  

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

Infrastructure projects Interconnection OASIS OATT Windy Gap Firming Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement, DOEEIS-0370 (cooperating agency) Western's proposed...

43

Table 1. Summary statistics for natural gas in the United States, 2007-2011  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 1. Summary statistics for natural gas in the United States, 2007-2011 See footnotes at end of table. Number of Wells Producing at End of Year 452,945 476,652 493,100 487,627 514,637 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells R 14,991,891 R 15,134,644 R 14,414,287 R 13,247,498 12,291,070 From Oil Wells R 5,681,871 R 5,609,425 R 5,674,120 R 5,834,703 5,907,919 From Coalbed Wells R 1,999,748 R 2,022,228 R 2,010,171 1,916,762 1,779,055 From Shale Gas Wells 1,990,145 R 2,869,960 R 3,958,315 5,817,122 8,500,983 Total 24,663,656 25,636,257 26,056,893 R 26,816,085 28,479,026 Repressuring 3,662,685 3,638,622 3,522,090 3,431,587 3,365,313 Vented and Flared 143,457 166,909 165,360

44

Table 23. Coal Mining Productivity by State, Mine Type, and Mine Production Range, 2012  

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

Mining Productivity by State, Mine Type, and Mine Production Range, 2012 Mining Productivity by State, Mine Type, and Mine Production Range, 2012 (short tons produced per employee hour) U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Coal Report 2012 Table 23. Coal Mining Productivity by State, Mine Type, and Mine Production Range, 2012 (short tons produced per employee hour) U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Coal Report 2012 Mine Production Range (thousand short tons) Coal-Producing State, Region 1 and Mine Type Above 1,000 Above 500 to 1,000 Above 200 to 500 Above 100 to 200 Above 50 to 100 Above 10 to 50 10 or Under Total 2 Alabama 1.69 2.50 1.95 1.72 1.83 0.69 0.55 1.68 Underground 1.73 - - - 1.08 0.31 - 1.64 Surface 1.36 2.50 1.95 1.72 2.11 1.19 0.55 1.75 Alaska 5.98 - - - - - - 5.98 Surface 5.98 - - - - - - 5.98 Arizona 7.38 - - - - - - 7.38 Surface

45

Table Search (or Ranking Tables)  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

;Table Search #3 #12;Outline · Goals of table search · Table search #1: Deep Web · Table search #3 search Table search #1: Deep Web · Table search #3: (setup): Fusion Tables · Table search #2: WebTables ­Version 1: modify document search ­Version 2: recover table semantics #12;Searching the Deep Web store

Halevy, Alon

46

Windy Gap Firming Project  

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

Windy Gap Firming Project Windy Gap Firming Project Skip Navigation Links Transmission Functions Infrastructure projects Interconnection OASIS OATT Windy Gap Firming Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0370 (cooperating agency) Western's proposed action is to relocate approximately 3.8 miles of the existing Estes to Lyons 115-kilovolt transmission line, if the Chimney Hollow Reservoir alternative is constructed. The line would be moved outside the area proposed for the reservoir, and Western would ensure the new location would allow the agency to continue to operate and maintain it. Section 2.4.1.4 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1 provides more information on the transmission line relocation proposal. The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation is the Lead Agency for the National Environmental Policy Act Review. Cooperating agencies are Western, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Grand County, Colo.

47

Table 12. Interstate movements and movements across U.S. borders of natural gas by state, 2011  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Table 12. Interstate movements and movements across U.S. borders of natural gas by state, 2011 (million cubic feet) See footnotes at end of table. Alabama Florida 0 1,167,184 -1,167,184 Georgia 0 1,665,731 -1,665,731 Gulf of Mexico 195,241 0 195,241 Mississippi 3,690,612 0 3,690,612 Tennessee 536 573,157 -572,621 Total 3,886,389 3,406,072 480,317 Alaska Japan 0 15,271 -15,271 China 0 1,127 -1,127 Total 0 16,398 -16,398 Arizona California 122,198 940,673 -818,475 Mexico 3,061

48

Table 12. Interstate movements and movements across U.S. borders of natural gas by state, 2012  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Table 12. Interstate movements and movements across U.S. borders of natural gas by state, 2012 (million cubic feet) See footnotes at end of table. Alabama Florida 0 1,246,541 -1,246,541 Georgia 0 1,714,216 -1,714,216 Gulf of Mexico 154,527 0 154,527 Mississippi 3,635,297 0 3,635,297 Tennessee 79,316 290,500 -211,184 Total 3,869,140 3,251,257 617,883 Alaska Japan 0 9,342 -9,342 Total 0 9,342 -9,342 Arizona California 83,992 951,872 -867,880 Mexico 2,546 46,385 -43,838 New Mexico 1,256,916

49

Table B1. Summary Statistics for Natural Gas in the United States, Metric Equivalents, 2005-2009  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table B1. Summary Statistics for Natural Gas in the United States, Metric Equivalents, 2005-2009 See footnotes at end of table. Number of Wells Producing at End of Year .... 425,887 440,516 452,945 R 476,652 493,100 Production (million cubic meters) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells .............................................. 494,748 509,577 483,238 R 442,265 420,197 From Oil Wells ................................................ 169,476 156,860 164,759 R 162,742 164,611 From Coalbed Wells ....................................... NA NA 50,400 R 56,249 55,990 From Shale Gas Wells .................................... NA NA NA 64,682 95,811 Total ................................................................. 664,223 666,438 698,397 R 725,938 736,609

50

Table B1. Summary Statistics for Natural Gas in the United States, Metric Equivalents, 2004-2008  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table B1. Summary Statistics for Natural Gas in the United States, Metric Equivalents, 2004-2008 See footnotes at end of table. Number of Wells Producing at End of Year .... 406,147 425,887 440,516 R 452,945 478,562 Production (million cubic meters) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells .............................................. 506,454 494,748 509,577 R 483,238 510,019 From Oil Wells ................................................ 172,292 169,476 156,860 R 164,759 165,506 From Coalbed Wells ....................................... NA NA NA 50,400 53,757 Total ................................................................. 678,746 664,223 666,438 R 698,397 729,282 Repressuring .................................................... 104,819 104,759

51

Table B1. Summary Statistics for Natural Gas in the United States, Metric Equivalents, 2003-2007  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table B1. Summary Statistics for Natural Gas in the United States, Metric Equivalents, 2003-2007 See footnotes at end of table. Number of Wells Producing at End of Year .... 393,327 406,147 425,887 R 440,516 452,768 Production (million cubic meters) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells .............................................. 506,356 506,454 494,748 R 509,577 530,629 From Oil Wells ................................................ 176,617 172,292 169,476 R 156,860 165,699 Total ................................................................. 682,973 678,746 664,223 R 666,438 696,328 Repressuring .................................................... 100,462 104,819 104,759 92,453 107,274 Vented and Flared ............................................

52

Table B1. Summary Statistics for Natural Gas in the United States, Metric Equivalents, 2002-2006  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Table B1. Summary Statistics for Natural Gas in the United States, Metric Equivalents, 2002-2006 See footnotes at end of table. Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells Producing at End of Year .................................. 387,772 393,327 406,147 R 425,887 448,641 Production (million cubic meters) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells .............................................. 503,894 506,356 506,454 R 494,748 508,075 From Oil Wells ................................................ 174,047 176,617 172,292 R 169,476 157,583 Total ................................................................. 677,942 682,973 678,746 R 664,223 665,657 Repressuring .................................................... 97,839 100,462 104,819 R 104,759 92,453 Vented and Flared

53

Table 16. Recoverable Coal Reserves and Average Recovery Percentage at Producing Underground Coal Mines by State and Mining Method,  

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

Recoverable Coal Reserves and Average Recovery Percentage at Producing Underground Coal Mines by State and Mining Method, Recoverable Coal Reserves and Average Recovery Percentage at Producing Underground Coal Mines by State and Mining Method, 2012 (million short tons) U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Coal Report 2012 Table 16. Recoverable Coal Reserves and Average Recovery Percentage at Producing Underground Coal Mines by State and Mining Method, 2012 (million short tons) U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Coal Report 2012 Continuous 1 Conventional and Other 2 Longwall 3 Total Coal-Producing State Recoverable Coal Reserves at Producing Mines Average Recovery Percentage Recoverable Coal Reserves at Producing Mines Average Recovery Percentage Recoverable Coal Reserves at Producing Mines Average Recovery Percentage Recoverable Coal Reserves at Producing Mines Average Recovery Percentage

54

CERN seeks firm commitment to LHC  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

... ) last week reaffirmed its intention of approving the building of its Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at its meeting in June. But the council failed to reach agreement on the ... are keen that the wording should include a firm commitment to the construction of the LHC, regardless of whether additional funding is promised by non-member states.

Alison Abbott

1994-04-21T23:59:59.000Z

55

Table B1. Summary statistics for natural gas in the United States, metric equivalents, 2008-2012  

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

6 6 Table B1. Summary statistics for natural gas in the United States, metric equivalents, 2008-2012 See footnotes at end of table. Number of Wells Producing at End of Year 476,652 493,100 487,627 514,637 482,822 Production (million cubic meters) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 428,565 408,167 375,127 348,044 360,663 From Oil Wells 158,841 160,673 165,220 167,294 140,725 From Coalbed Wells 57,263 56,922 54,277 50,377 43,591 From Shale Gas Wells 81,268 112,087 164,723 240,721 291,566 Total 725,938 737,849 759,347 806,436 836,545 Repressuring 103,034 99,734 97,172 95,295 92,304 Vented and Flared 4,726 4,682 4,699 5,931 6,027 Nonhydrocarbon Gases Removed 20,351 20,431 23,693 24,577 21,573

56

Table 10. Estimated rail transportation rates for coal, basin to state, STB dat  

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

Estimated rail transportation rates for coal, basin to state, STB data" Estimated rail transportation rates for coal, basin to state, STB data" ,,"Real Dollars per Ton",,,,,,,,,,"Annual Percent Change" "Basin","Destination State",2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,," 2001-2009"," 2008-2009" "Northern Appalachian Basin","Delaware"," W"," W"," $16.45"," $14.29"," W"," -"," W"," W"," -",," -"," -" "Northern Appalachian Basin","Florida"," $21.45"," W"," W"," W"," W"," $28.57"," W"," W"," W",," W"," W"

57

Table 4. 2010 State energy-related carbon dioxide emission shares by sector  

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

2010 State energy-related carbon dioxide emission shares by sector " 2010 State energy-related carbon dioxide emission shares by sector " "percent of total" ,"Shares" "State","Commercial","Electric Power","Residential","Industrial","Transportation" "Alabama",0.01584875241,0.5778871607,0.02136328943,0.1334667239,0.2514340736 "Alaska",0.06448385239,0.0785744956,0.0462016929,0.4291084798,0.3816314793 "Arizona",0.02474932909,0.5668758159,0.02425067581,0.04966758421,0.334456595 "Arkansas",0.03882032779,0.4886410984,0.03509200153,0.1307772146,0.3066693577 "California",0.04308920353,0.1176161395,0.07822332929,0.1824277392,0.5786435885 "Colorado",0.04301641968,0.4131279202,0.08115394032,0.1545280216,0.3081736982

58

Leading firms choose ENERGY STAR | ENERGY STAR Buildings & Plants  

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

Leading firms choose ENERGY STAR Leading firms choose ENERGY STAR Secondary menu About us Press room Contact Us Portfolio Manager Login Facility owners and managers Existing buildings Commercial new construction Industrial energy management Small business Service providers Service and product providers Verify applications for ENERGY STAR certification Design commercial buildings Energy efficiency program administrators Commercial and industrial program sponsors Associations State and local governments Federal agencies Tools and resources Training In this section Why you should design to earn the ENERGY STAR Leading firms choose ENERGY STAR Why new doesn't always mean efficient Follow EPA's step-by-step process ENERGY STAR Challenge for Architects Leading firms choose ENERGY STAR Facebook data center Hundreds of leading A/E firms have already partnered

59

EIA - Supplement Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2009  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

10 10 Regional Energy Consumption and Prices by Sector Energy Consumption by Sector and Source Table 1. New England Excel Gif Table 2. Middle Atlantic Excel Gif Table 3. East North Central Excel Gif Table 4. West North Central Excel Gif Table 5. South Atlantic Excel Gif Table 6. East South Central Excel Gif Table 7. West South Central Excel Gif Table 8. Mountain Excel Gif Table 9. Pacific Excel Gif Table 10. Total United States Excel Gif Energy Prices by Sector and Source Table 11. New England Excel Gif Table 12. Middle Atlantic Excel Gif Table 13. East North Central Excel Gif Table 14. West North Central Excel Gif Table 15. South Atlantic Excel Gif Table 16. East South Central Excel Gif Table 17. West South Central Excel Gif Table 18. Mountain Excel Gif Table 19. Pacific

60

EIA - Supplement Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2009  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

09 09 Regional Energy Consumption and Prices by Sector Energy Consumption by Sector and Source Table 1. New England Excel Gif Table 2. Middle Atlantic Excel Gif Table 3. East North Central Excel Gif Table 4. West North Central Excel Gif Table 5. South Atlantic Excel Gif Table 6. East South Central Excel Gif Table 7. West South Central Excel Gif Table 8. Mountain Excel Gif Table 9. Pacific Excel Gif Table 10. Total United States Excel Gif Energy Prices by Sector and Source Table 11. New England Excel Gif Table 12. Middle Atlantic Excel Gif Table 13. East North Central Excel Gif Table 14. West North Central Excel Gif Table 15. South Atlantic Excel Gif Table 16. East South Central Excel Gif Table 17. West South Central Excel Gif Table 18. Mountain Excel Gif Table 19. Pacific

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


61

Table 8. Carbon intensity of the economy by state (2000 - 2010  

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

Carbon intensity of the economy by state (2000 - 2010)" Carbon intensity of the economy by state (2000 - 2010)" "metric tons energy-related carbon dioxide per million dollars of GDP" ,,,,,,,,,,,,"Change" ,,,,,,,,,,,,"2000 to 2010" "State",2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,"Percent","Absolute" "Alabama",1058.711976,985.9830444,997.7398528,980.4829779,950.0822539,936.4496611,935.6825335,938.4848601,889.0206564,785.4772247,861.2952959,-0.1864687321,-197.4166798 "Alaska",1298.328591,1216.063856,1175.487563,1199.290881,1223.852261,1270.682404,1148.488204,1084.165172,961.0592359,850.2898059,859.7252518,-0.337821521,-438.6033395 "Arizona",479.5818378,474.991173,460.4738058,446.205915,465.2665852,433.7092206,418.4239106,416.7348091,426.892719,409.9336342,419.7764202,-0.1247032579,-59.80541762

62

Table 1. State energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by year (2000 - 2010  

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

State energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by year (2000 - 2010)" State energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by year (2000 - 2010)" "million metric tons carbon dioxide" ,,,,,,,,,,,,"Change" ,,,,,,,,,,,," 2000 to 2010 " "State",2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,"Percent","Absolute" "Alabama",140.4264977,131.9521389,136.7103146,137.2323195,139.6896437,141.493798,143.9716001,146.076107,139.2224128,119.7962734,132.7462762,-0.05469211069,-7.680221558 "Alaska",44.32104312,43.40375114,43.56121812,43.5078746,46.76217106,48.06229125,45.79367017,44.11576503,39.46205329,37.91867389,38.72718369,-0.1262122693,-5.593859429 "Arizona",85.96984024,88.33838336,87.66914741,89.29026566,96.58329461,96.7032775,100.0087541,102.1950438,103.1458188,94.63481918,95.91303514,0.1156591064,9.943194897

63

Table 3. 2010 state energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by sector  

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

2010 state energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by sector " 2010 state energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by sector " "million metric tons of carbon dioxide" "State","Commercial","Electric Power","Residential","Industrial","Transportation","Total" "Alabama",2.103862865,76.71236863,2.835897119,17.71721059,33.37693698,132.7462762 "Alaska",2.497277997,3.042968925,1.789261448,16.61816292,14.7795124,38.72718369 "Arizona",2.373783271,54.37078005,2.325955921,4.76376875,32.07874715,95.91303514 "Arkansas",2.566776983,32.30865878,2.320262268,8.646911643,20.27679552,66.11940519 "California",15.93482613,43.49564577,28.92778352,67.46363514,213.9882899,369.8101805 "Colorado",4.150125234,39.85763155,7.82954551,14.90850811,29.73188961,96.47770002

64

Table 2. 2010 state energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by fuel  

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

2010 state energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by fuel " 2010 state energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by fuel " "million metric tons of carbon dioxide" ,,,,,," Shares " "State","Coal","Petroleum","Natural Gas ","Total","Coal","Petroleum","Natural Gas" "Alabama",67.81545193,35.95576449,28.97505976,132.7462762,0.5108651925,0.2708608145,0.218273993 "Alaska",1.364880388,19.58916888,17.77313443,38.72718369,0.03524347131,0.5058247724,0.4589317562 "Arizona",43.2377726,34.82066125,17.85460129,95.91303514,0.4508018387,0.3630440972,0.1861540641 "Arkansas",27.72445786,23.82768621,14.56726112,66.11940519,0.4193089424,0.3603735717,0.2203174859 "California",5.157135123,241.2575077,123.3955377,369.8101805,0.01394535736,0.6523820067,0.3336726359

65

Table 4. Biodiesel Producers and Production Capacity by State, September 2013  

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

Biodiesel Producers and Production Capacity by State, September 2013" Biodiesel Producers and Production Capacity by State, September 2013" "State","Number of Producers","Annual Production Capacity (million gallons per year)" "Alabama",3,47 "Alaska",0,0 "Arizona",1,2 "Arkansas",3,85 "California",9,60.65 "Colorado",0,0 "Connecticut",2,3.05 "Delaware",0,0 "District of Columbia",0,0 "Florida",0,0 "Georgia",3,16 "Hawaii",1,5 "Idaho",1,1 "Illinois",5,166.5 "Indiana",2,104 "Iowa",8,249.5 "Kansas",1,1.2 "Kentucky",5,68.1 "Louisiana",1,12 "Maine",1,0.6 "Maryland",0,0 "Massachussetts",1,0.5 "Michigan",2,17.916

66

Table 5. Per capita energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by state (2000 - 201  

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

Per capita energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by state (2000 - 2010)" Per capita energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by state (2000 - 2010)" "metric tons carbon dioxide per person" ,,,,,,,,,,,,"Change" ,,,,,,,,,,,,"2000 to 2010" "State",2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,"Percent","Absolute" "Alabama",31.54590416,29.56352198,30.5739632,30.56483509,30.96927578,31.14605742,31.33283758,31.52225314,29.78727412,25.44798199,28.06679306,-0.1102872527,-3.479111105 "Alaska",70.60324067,68.51009907,67.8551127,67.17588806,70.92646205,72.04509462,67.81012638,64.8863351,57.56413017,54.58358965,54.63289567,-0.2261984697,-15.97034499 "Arizona",16.64049197,16.65546102,16.08173855,15.97087112,16.77174168,16.18743942,16.15392734,16.06780183,15.87052371,14.3654833,14.36549251,-0.1367146759,-2.274999466

67

Table HC15.10 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005  

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

0 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005 0 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005 Total.................................................................................... 111.1 7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day................................................. 8.2 0.6 0.5 0.8 1.4 2 Times A Day.............................................................. 24.6 1.4 1.5 2.0 3.1 Once a Day................................................................... 42.3 2.4 3.0 2.7 4.1 A Few Times Each Week.............................................. 27.2 2.1 1.7 1.7 2.5 About Once a Week...................................................... 3.9 0.3 Q 0.4 0.6 Less Than Once a Week............................................... 4.1 Q Q 0.3 0.4 No Hot Meals Cooked...................................................

68

Table HC15.7 Air-Conditioning Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005  

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

7 Air-Conditioning Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005 7 Air-Conditioning Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005 Total.................................................................................. 111.1 7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment.................................... 17.8 1.8 Q Q 4.9 Have Cooling Equipment................................................. 93.3 5.3 7.0 7.8 7.2 Use Cooling Equipment.................................................. 91.4 5.3 7.0 7.7 6.6 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it................................ 1.9 Q N Q 0.6 Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System............................................................. 65.9 1.1 6.4 6.4 5.4 Without a Heat Pump................................................. 53.5 1.1 3.5 5.7 4.9 With a Heat Pump......................................................

69

"Table HC15.3 Household Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005"  

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

3 Household Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" 3 Household Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,"Housing Units (millions)","Four Most Populated States" "Household Characteristics",,"New York","Florida","Texas","California" "Total",111.1,7.1,7,8,12.1 "Household Size" "1 Person",30,1.8,1.9,2,3.2 "2 Persons",34.8,2.2,2.3,2.4,3.2 "3 Persons",18.4,1.1,1.3,1.2,1.8 "4 Persons",15.9,1,0.9,1,2.3 "5 Persons",7.9,0.6,0.6,0.9,0.9 "6 or More Persons",4.1,0.4,"Q",0.5,0.7 "2005 Annual Household Income Category" "Less than $9,999",9.9,0.8,0.7,0.9,1 "$10,000 to $14,999",8.5,0.8,0.4,0.6,0.7

70

Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update / Table 1  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

1. Natural Gas Processing Plant Capacity by State 1. Natural Gas Processing Plant Capacity by State Natural Gas Processing Capacity (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Number of Natural Gas Plants Average Plant Capacity (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Change Between 2004 and 2009 State 2009 Percent of U.S. Total 2009 Percent of U.S. Total 2004 2009 Capacity (Percent) Number of Plants Texas 19,740 25.5 163 33.1 95 121 24.7 -3 Louisiana 18,535 23.9 60 12.2 271 309 12.3 -1 Wyoming 7,273 9.4 37 7.5 154 197 5.1 -8 Colorado 3,791 4.9 44 8.9 49 86 81.1 1 Oklahoma 3,740 4.8 58 11.8 58 64 8.8 -1 New Mexico 3,022 3.9 24 4.9 137 126 -11.8 -1 Mississippi 2,273 2.9 4 0.8 262 568 44.6 -2 Illinois 2,102 2.7 2 0.4 1101 1,051 -4.6 0 Kansas 1,250 1.6 6 1.2 353 208 -64.6 -4 Alabama 1,248 1.6 12 2.4 87 104 -4.7 -3 Utah 1,185 1.5 12 2.4 61 99 22.2 -4 Michigan 977 1.3 10 2.0 30 98 102.2 -6 California 876 1.1 20 4.1 43 44 -15.5 -4 Arkansas 710 0.9 4 0.8 10 178

71

Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update / Table 2  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

2. Average Annual Flows and Utilization Rates for Processing Plants in the United States 2. Average Annual Flows and Utilization Rates for Processing Plants in the United States Average Annual Flows (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Minimum Plant Utilization Rate Maximum Plant Utilization Rate Average Utilization Rate (Percent) 2008 Percent of U.S. Total Texas 14,020 27.3 3 100 71 Louisiana 10,462 20.4 3 100 56 Alaska 8,105 15.8 77 100 86 Wyoming 4,462 8.7 21 100 61 Colorado 2,934 5.7 15 100 77 Oklahoma 2,789 5.4 12 100 75 New Mexico 2,221 4.3 17 95 73 Illinois 1,601 3.1 35 76 76 Kansas 852 1.7 51 84 68 Alabama 746 1.5 32 80 60 Utah 728 1.4 22 100 61 Mississippi 688 1.3 29 67 30 California 557 1.1 2 100 64 West Virginia 382 0.7 70 91 82 Kentucky 217 0.4 40 92 75 Michigan 182 0.4 5 100 19 North Dakota 158 0.3 33 94 80 Montana 89 0.2 27 88 54 Pennsylvania 36 0.1 43 89 70 Arkansas 27 0.1 3 90 4 Florida 20 0.0 22 22 22 Tennessee 16 0.0 64 64 64 TOTAL U.S. 51,289 100.0 2 100 66 Note: Average utilization rates are based on 2008 flows and 2009 capacity,

72

Reilly Industries Is Acquired By Investment Firm  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Reilly Industries Is Acquired By Investment Firm ... Arsenal Managing Director Barry Siadat says his firm invests in niche market leaders in the specialty chemical ... ...

MICHAEL MCCOY

2005-10-10T23:59:59.000Z

73

Table 16. Natural gas delivered to consumers by sector, 2008-2012, and by state and sector, 2012  

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

1 1 Table 16. Natural gas delivered to consumers by sector, 2008-2012, and by state and sector, 2012 2008 Total 4,892,277 65,073,996 3,152,529 5,444,335 6,670,182 225,044 2009 Total 4,778,907 65,329,582 3,118,592 5,322,332 6,167,371 207,624 2010 Total 4,782,412 65,542,345 3,102,593 5,301,576 6,826,192 192,730 2011 Total R 4,713,777 R 65,940,522 R 3,155,319 R 5,319,817 R 6,994,120 R 189,301 2012 Total 4,148,970 66,624,457 2,895,358 5,355,613 7,223,835 189,330 Alabama 27,582 767,412 21,574 67,234 171,730 3,045 Alaska 21,380 122,983 19,898 13,134 6,357 3 Arizona 34,974 1,157,688 31,530 56,532 22,657 379 Arkansas 26,191 549,959 41,435 68,765 81,399 988 California 477,931 10,681,916 253,148 442,708 735,787 37,685 Colorado 115,306 1,659,808

74

Table 16. Natural gas delivered to consumers by sector, 2007-2011, and by state and sector, 2011  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

1 1 Table 16. Natural gas delivered to consumers by sector, 2007-2011, and by state and sector, 2011 2007 Total 4,722,358 64,964,769 3,012,904 5,308,785 6,654,716 198,289 2008 Total 4,892,277 65,073,996 3,152,529 5,444,335 6,670,182 225,044 2009 Total 4,778,907 65,329,582 3,118,592 5,322,332 6,167,371 207,624 2010 Total R 4,782,412 R 65,542,345 R 3,102,593 R 5,301,576 R 6,826,192 R 192,730 2011 Total 4,713,695 65,938,523 3,153,605 5,319,405 6,904,843 189,097 Alabama 36,556 772,248 25,136 67,657 153,067 2,976 Alaska 20,262 121,736 16,652 13,024 6,769 5 Arizona 38,592 1,146,286 32,633 56,547 21,724 371 Arkansas 33,737 551,795 39,986 67,815 85,175 1,131 California 512,565 10,625,190 246,141 440,990 706,350 37,575 Colorado 130,116 1,645,716

75

A THEORY OF FIRM SCOPE  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

The formal literature on firm boundaries has assumed that ex post conflicts are resolved through bargaining. In reality, parties often simply exercise their decision rights. We develop a model, based on shading, in which ...

Holmstrom, Bengt

76

Table 4. 2010 State energy-related carbon dioxide emission shares by sector  

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

percent of total percent of total State Commercial Electric Power Residential Industrial Transportation Alabama 1.6% 57.8% 2.1% 13.3% 25.1% Alaska 6.4% 7.9% 4.6% 42.9% 38.2% Arizona 2.5% 56.7% 2.4% 5.0% 33.4% Arkansas 3.9% 48.9% 3.5% 13.1% 30.7% California 4.3% 11.8% 7.8% 18.2% 57.9% Colorado 4.3% 41.3% 8.1% 15.5% 30.8% Connecticut 9.2% 20.8% 20.9% 5.2% 43.9% Delaware 7.1% 36.0% 9.0% 9.1% 38.8% District of Columbia 35.5% 5.6% 25.2% 1.0% 32.7% Florida 2.2% 48.6% 0.7% 5.0% 43.5% Georgia 2.3% 45.5% 4.8% 8.3% 39.0% Hawaii 1.3% 40.1% 0.3% 9.0% 49.3% Idaho 6.6% 4.1% 10.0% 21.0% 58.3% Illinois 5.0% 40.8% 10.3% 14.7% 29.2% Indiana 2.4% 52.2% 4.0% 22.1% 19.3% Iowa 4.7% 45.7% 5.1% 20.2% 24.3% Kansas 2.7% 47.2% 6.0% 20.1% 24.0% Kentucky 1.6% 62.5% 2.5% 11.9% 21.5% Louisiana 0.9% 19.1% 1.2% 57.3% 21.6% Maine 9.6% 14.0% 14.6% 15.6% 46.3% Maryland 7.0% 35.3% 9.4% 5.9% 42.3% Massachusetts 9.3% 24.9% 18.8% 4.7%

77

EIA - Annual Energy Outlook 2009 - chapter Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Chapter Tables Chapter Tables Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030 Chapter Tables Table 1. Estimated fuel economy for light-duty vehicles, based on proposed CAFE standards, 2010-2015 Table 2. State appliance efficiency standards and potential future actions Table 3. State renewable portfolio standards Table 4. Key analyses from "issues in Focus" in recent AEOs Table 5. Liquid fuels production in three cases, 2007 and 2030 Table 6. Assumptions used in comparing conventional and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles Table 7. Conventional vehicle and plug-in hybrid system component costs for mid-size vehicles at volume production Table 8. Technically recoverable resources of crude oil and natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf, as of January 1, 2007

78

Table 2 -Lime use and practices on Corn, major producing states, 2001 CO GA IL IN IA KS KY MI MN MO NE NY NC ND OH PA SD TX WI Area  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Table 2 - Lime use and practices on Corn, major producing states, 2001 CO GA IL IN IA KS KY MI MN.7 Table 2 - Lime use and practices on Corn, major producing states, 2000 CO IL IN IA KS KY MI MN MO NE NY use and practices on Corn, major producing states, 1999 CO IL IN IA KS KY MI MN MO NE NC OH SD TX WI

Kammen, Daniel M.

79

FY 2007 State Table  

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

Fossil Energy Research and Development 11,690 17,627 12,699 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale...

80

EPC Firms Expand Their Role  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

and were financed by the investor-owned electric utilities themselves. The bulk of U.S. base-load fossil, nuclear and hydro power plants were built by major firms such as Bechtel Power, Stone & Webster Enginnering Corp., Ebasco and others. Most... and were financed by the investor-owned electric utilities themselves. The bulk of U.S. base-load fossil, nuclear and hydro power plants were built by major firms such as Bechtel Power, Stone & Webster Enginnering Corp., Ebasco and others. Most...

Hernandez, L. A. Jr.

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


81

CBECS Buildings Characteristics --Revised Tables  

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

Geographic Location Tables Geographic Location Tables (24 pages, 136kb) CONTENTS PAGES Table 3. Census Region, Number of Buildings and Floorspace, 1995 Table 4. Census Region and Division, Number of Buildings, 1995 Table 5. Census Region and Division, Floorspace, 1995 Table 6. Climate Zone, Number of Buildings and Floorspace, 1995 Table 7. Metropolitan Status, Number of Buildings and Floorspace, 1995 These data are from the 1995 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), a national probability sample survey of commercial buildings sponsored by the Energy Information Administration, that provides information on the use of energy in commercial buildings in the United States. The 1995 CBECS was the sixth survey in a series begun in 1979. The data were collected from a sample of 6,639 buildings representing 4.6 million commercial buildings

82

RECRUITMENT SEARCH FIRMS HUMAN RESOURCES  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

RECRUITMENT SEARCH FIRMS HUMAN RESOURCES GUIDELINES Workforce Planning | Washington Square, San by the Workforce Planning Unit in Human Resources at SJSU. Process Consistent, defensible processes for evaluating of the recruitment. - At this meeting, the Workforce Planning analyst can provide contact information for search

Su, Xiao

83

IT investments and firm performance across economies  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Research has shown a positive relationship between IT investments and firm performance. But the results vary across firms and performance measures. Evidence indicates that IT resource allocations, in the form of investment ...

Sahu, Rakesh

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

84

How Sales Taxes Affect Customer and Firm Behavior: The Role of Search on the Internet  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

When a multichannel retailer opens its first retail store in a state, the firm is obligated to collect sales taxes on all Internet and catalog orders shipped to that state. This article assesses how opening a store affects ...

Anderson, Eric T.

85

CBECS Buildings Characteristics --Revised Tables  

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

Conservation Tables Conservation Tables (16 pages, 86 kb) CONTENTS PAGES Table 41. Energy Conservation Features, Number of Buildings and Floorspace, 1995 Table 42. Building Shell Conservation Features, Number of Buildings, 1995 Table 43. Building Shell Conservation Features, Floorspace, 1995 Table 44. Reduction in Equipment Use During Off Hours, Number of Buildings and Floorspace, 1995 These data are from the 1995 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), a national probability sample survey of commercial buildings sponsored by the Energy Information Administration, that provides information on the use of energy in commercial buildings in the United States. The 1995 CBECS was the sixth survey in a series begun in 1979. The data were collected from a sample of 6,639 buildings representing 4.6 million commercial buildings

86

CBECS Buildings Characteristics --Revised Tables  

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

Structure Tables Structure Tables (16 pages, 93 kb) CONTENTS PAGES Table 8. Building Size, Number of Buildings, 1995 Table 9. Building Size, Floorspace, 1995 Table 10. Year Constructed, Number of Buildings, 1995 Table 11. Year Constructed, Floorspace, 1995 These data are from the 1995 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), a national probability sample survey of commercial buildings sponsored by the Energy Information Administration, that provides information on the use of energy in commercial buildings in the United States. The 1995 CBECS was the sixth survey in a series begun in 1979. The data were collected from a sample of 6,639 buildings representing 4.6 million commercial buildings and 58.8 billion square feet of commercial floorspace in the U.S. The 1995 data are available for the four Census

87

Conversion Tables  

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

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center - Conversion Tables Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center - Conversion Tables Contents taken from Glossary: Carbon Dioxide and Climate, 1990. ORNL/CDIAC-39, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Third Edition. Edited by: Fred O'Hara Jr. 1 - International System of Units (SI) Prefixes 2 - Useful Quantities in CO2 3 - Common Conversion Factors 4 - Common Energy Unit Conversion Factors 5 - Geologic Time Scales 6 - Factors and Units for Calculating Annual CO2 Emissions Using Global Fuel Production Data Table 1. International System of Units (SI) Prefixes Prefix SI Symbol Multiplication Factor exa E 1018 peta P 1015 tera T 1012 giga G 109 mega M 106 kilo k 103 hecto h 102 deka da 10 deci d 10-1 centi c 10-2

88

The effects of the split share structure reform on Chinese listed firms leverage decisions  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract This paper examines the effects of China's split share structure reform on the leverage decisions of listed firms. The results show that there are two effects, multiple large shareholders and liquidity that affect the leverage ratio. In non-state controlled firms, multiple large shareholders are able to monitor the controlling shareholders which reduce the leverage ratio. However, in state-controlled firms, they collude with the controlling shareholders to expropriate through debt financing. State ownership plays a decisive role in driving multiple large shareholders to collude with the controlling shareholders.

Han-Fang Tsai; Tsui-Jung Lin; Jung-Hua Hung

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

89

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................................................................II  

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

i i ii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................................................................II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................................... 4 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 6 COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA) .................... 6

90

International technology transfer, firm productivity and employment.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??This dissertation contributes to the empirical literature on the effects of international technology transfer on firms' productivity and employment in developing and transition countries. It (more)

Pantea, Smaranda

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

91

Market Orientation in Indian Seafood Processing Firms.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??This thesis studied the impact of market orietnation on business performance, in the seafood industry, which is a unique situation wherein the firms were all (more)

Smitha, Nair

2007-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

92

Building Relationships with Executive Search Firms Building Relationships with Executive Search Firms  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Relationships Similar Searches Alumni Organizations Education Company Team - Sports Job Hunting / NetworkingBuilding Relationships with Executive Search Firms for Building Relationships with Executive Search Firms for Weiner & Associates, Inc. Executive Search Partners Weiner & Associates, Inc. Executive Search

Ferrari, Silvia

93

Does corporate ownership structure affect firms' environmental performance? Evidence in the European energy industry  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The present paper aims to explore the mutual influence existing between corporate ownership structure and firms' environmental performance. The attention is focused on the energy industry, that represents one of the industries with the highest environmental impact and that, in the last few years, has been forced to increase efforts towards green issues. In particular, the introduction of vertical unbundling in electricity and gas markets provides the opportunity to concentrate the attention on European energy companies operating in service activities, in which it is possible to better understand firms' environmental performance. The study, performing a linear regression model, examines the explanatory power of corporate governance issues, in particular firms' ownership structure, as potential determinants of companies' environmental performance. The results show that firms with more diffuse ownership present the worst environmental performance, while greater stakes held by institutional investors or by the state do not seem to be related with firms' green performance.

Francesco Calza; Giorgia Profumo; Ilaria Tutore

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

94

"Table HC15.1 Housing Unit Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005"  

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

Housing Unit Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" Housing Unit Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" " Million Housing Units" ,"U.S. Housing Units (millions)","Four Most Populated States" "Housing Unit Characteristics",,"New York","Florida","Texas","California" "Total",111.1,7.1,7,8,12.1 "Census Region and Division" "Northeast",20.6,7.1,"N","N","N" "New England",5.5,"N","N","N","N" "Middle Atlantic",15.1,7.1,"N","N","N" "Midwest",25.6,"N","N","N","N" "East North Central",17.7,"N","N","N","N"

95

1992 CBECS Detailed Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Detailed Tables Detailed Tables To download all 1992 detailed tables: Download Acrobat Reader for viewing PDF files. Yellow Arrow Buildings Characteristics Tables (PDF format) (70 tables, 230 pages, file size 1.39 MB) Yellow Arrow Energy Consumption and Expenditures Tables (PDF format) (47 tables, 208 pages, file size 1.28 MB) Yellow Arrow Energy End-Use Tables (PDF format) (6 tables, 6 pages, file size 31.7 KB) Detailed tables for other years: Yellow Arrow 1999 CBECS Yellow Arrow 1995 CBECS Background information on detailed tables: Yellow Arrow Description of Detailed Tables and Categories of Data Yellow Arrow Statistical Significance of Data 1992 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) Detailed Tables Data from the 1992 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) are presented in three groups of detailed tables:

96

"Table HC15.6 Air Conditioning Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005"  

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

6 Air Conditioning Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" 6 Air Conditioning Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,"U.S. Housing Units (millions)","Four Most Populated States" "Air Conditioning Characteristics",,"New York","Florida","Texas","California" "Total",111.1,7.1,7,8,12.1 "Do Not Have Cooling Equipment",17.8,1.8,"Q","Q",4.9 "Have Cooling Equipment",93.3,5.3,7,7.8,7.2 "Use Cooling Equipment",91.4,5.3,7,7.7,6.6 "Have Equipment But Do Not Use it",1.9,"Q","N","Q",0.6 "Air-Conditioning Equipment1, 2 " "Central System",65.9,1.1,6.4,6.4,5.4

97

"Table HC15.4 Space Heating Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005"  

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

4 Space Heating Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" 4 Space Heating Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,"Housing Units (millions)","Four Most Populated States" "Space Heating Characteristics",,"New York","Florida","Texas","California" "Total",111.1,7.1,7,8,12.1 "Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment",1.2,"Q","Q","Q",0.2 "Have Main Space Heating Equipment",109.8,7.1,6.8,7.9,11.9 "Use Main Space Heating Equipment",109.1,7.1,6.6,7.9,11.4 "Have Equipment But Do Not Use It",0.8,"N","Q","N",0.5 "Main Heating Fuel and Equipment" "Natural Gas",58.2,3.8,0.4,3.8,8.4

98

"Table HC15.5 Space Heating Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005"  

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

5 Space Heating Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005" 5 Space Heating Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,"U.S. Housing Units (millions)","Four Most Populated States" "Space Heating Usage Indicators",,"New York","Florida","Texas","California" "Total U.S. Housing Units",111.1,7.1,7,8,12.1 "Do Not Have Heating Equipment",1.2,"Q","Q","Q",0.2 "Have Space Heating Equipment",109.8,7.1,6.8,7.9,11.9 "Use Space Heating Equipment",109.1,7.1,6.6,7.9,11.4 "Have But Do Not Use Equipment",0.8,"N","Q","N",0.5 "Space Heating Usage During 2005" "Heated Floorspace (Square Feet)"

99

"Table HC15.9 Home Appliances Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005"  

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

9 Home Appliances Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" 9 Home Appliances Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,"U.S. Housing Units (millions)","Four Most Populated States" "Home Appliances Characteristics",,"New York","Florida","Texas","California" "Total U.S.",111.1,7.1,7,8,12.1 "Cooking Appliances" "Conventional Ovens" "Use an Oven",109.6,7.1,6.9,7.8,11.7 "1.",103.3,6.5,6.6,7.4,11.2 "2 or More",6.2,0.6,"Q",0.4,0.5 "Do Not Use an Oven",1.5,"Q","Q","Q",0.4 "Most-Used Oven Fuel" "Electric",67.9,2.3,6.5,4.9,4.9 "Natural Gas",36.4,4.2,"Q",2.6,6.6

100

"Table HC15.8 Water Heating Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005"  

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

8 Water Heating Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" 8 Water Heating Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,"Housing Units (millions)","Four Most Populated States" "Water Heating Characteristics",,"New York","Florida","Texas","California" "Total",111.1,7.1,7,8,12.1 "Number of Water Heaters" "1.",106.3,6.5,6.9,7.4,11.7 "2 or More",3.7,"Q","Q",0.5,0.4 "Do Not Use Hot Water",1.1,0.5,"N","Q","N" "Housing Units Served by Main Water Heater" "One Housing Unit",99.7,4.3,6.8,7.4,10.6 "Two or More Housing Units",10.3,2.3,"Q",0.5,1.5

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


101

"Table HC15.7 Air-Conditioning Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005"  

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

7 Air-Conditioning Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005" 7 Air-Conditioning Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,"Housing Units (millions)","Four Most Populated States" "Air Conditioning Usage Indicators",,"New York","Florida","Texas","California" "Total",111.1,7.1,7,8,12.1 "Do Not Have Cooling Equipment",17.8,1.8,"Q","Q",4.9 "Have Cooling Equipment",93.3,5.3,7,7.8,7.2 "Use Cooling Equipment",91.4,5.3,7,7.7,6.6 "Have Equipment But Do Not Use it",1.9,"Q","N","Q",0.6 "Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment1, 2" "Central System",65.9,1.1,6.4,6.4,5.4

102

"Table HC15.10 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005"  

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

0 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005" 0 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,"Housing Units (millions)","Four Most Populated States" "Home Appliances Usage Indicators",,"New York","Florida","Texas","California" "Total",111.1,7.1,7,8,12.1 "Cooking Appliances" "Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked" "3 or More Times A Day",8.2,0.6,0.5,0.8,1.4 "2 Times A Day",24.6,1.4,1.5,2,3.1 "Once a Day",42.3,2.4,3,2.7,4.1 "A Few Times Each Week",27.2,2.1,1.7,1.7,2.5 "About Once a Week",3.9,0.3,"Q",0.4,0.6 "Less Than Once a Week",4.1,"Q","Q",0.3,0.4

103

"Table HC15.11 Home Electronics Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005"  

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

1 Home Electronics Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" 1 Home Electronics Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,"U.S. Housing Units (millions)","Four Most Populated States" "Home Electronics Characteristics",,"New York","Florida","Texas","California" "Total",111.1,7.1,7,8,12.1 "Personal Computers" "Do Not Use a Personal Computer ",35.5,3,2,2.7,3.1 "Use a Personal Computer",75.6,4.2,5,5.3,9 "Number of Desktop PCs" "1.",50.3,3.1,3.4,3.4,5.4 "2.",16.2,0.7,1.1,1.2,2.2 "3 or More",9,0.3,0.5,0.7,1.4 "Number of Laptop PCs" "1.",22.5,1.2,1.4,1.8,3 "2.",4,"Q","Q",0.3,0.6

104

Table 25  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

89 89 Table 25 Created on: 1/3/2014 3:10:33 PM Table 25. Natural gas home customer-weighted heating degree days, New England Middle Atlantic East North Central West North Central South Atlantic Month/Year/Type of data CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT NJ, NY, PA IL, IN, MI, OH, WI IA, KS, MN, MO, ND, NE, SD DE, FL, GA, MD, DC, NC, SC, VA, WV November Normal 702 665 758 841 442 2012 751 738 772 748 527 2013 756 730 823 868 511 % Diff (normal to 2013) 7.7 9.8 8.6 3.2 15.6 % Diff (2012 to 2013) 0.7 -1.1 6.6 16.0 -3.0 November to November Normal 702 665 758 841 442 2012 751 738 772 748 527 2013 756 730 823 868 511 % Diff (normal to 2013) 7.7 9.8 8.6 3.2 15.6 % Diff (2012 to 2013) 0.7 -1.1 6.6 16.0 -3.0

105

chapter 5. Detailed Tables  

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

5. Detailed Tables 5. Detailed Tables Chapter 5. Detailed Tables The following tables present detailed characteristics of vehicles in the residential sector. Data are from the 1994 Residential Transportation Energy Consumption Survey. Table Organization The "Detailed Tables" section consists of three types of tables: (1) Tables of totals such as number of vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) or gallons consumed; (2) tables of per household statistics such as VMT per household; and (3) tables of per-vehicle statistics, such as vehicle fuel consumption per vehicle. The tables have been grouped together by specific topics such as model-year data or family-income data to facilitate finding related information. The Quick-Reference Guide to the detailed tables indicates major topics of each table.

106

"Table HC15.13 Lighting Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005"  

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

3 Lighting Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005" 3 Lighting Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,"Housing Units (millions)","Four Most Populated States" "Lighting Usage Indicators",,"New York","Florida","Texas","California" "Total U.S. Housing Units",111.1,7.1,7,8,12.1 "Indoor Lights Turned On During Summer" "Number of Lights Turned On" "Between 1 and 4 Hours per Day",91.8,5.5,5.5,6.7,9.5 "1.",28.6,1.8,2,2.3,2.8 "2.",29.5,2.3,1.9,2,3.4 "3.",14.7,0.7,0.8,0.9,1.4 "4.",9.3,0.4,"Q",0.8,1.1 "5 or More",9.7,0.4,0.4,0.8,0.9 "Energy-Efficient Bulbs Used",31.1,1.7,1.7,2.1,4.7

107

Institutional Investors, Managerial Incentives, and Firms' Risk Profiles  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

(Vega). Instead, I find that institutional investors appear to influence the risk profile of firm through the firms investment, financing and diversification policy choices even after I control for the CEOs compensation structure. The results suggest...

Celil, Hursit S

2013-04-11T23:59:59.000Z

108

Notices TABLE  

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

7 Federal Register 7 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Notices TABLE 2-NET BURDEN CHANGE-Continued 2011-2012 2012-2013 Change % Change Burden disposition Total Applicants .................................... 23,611,500 24,705,864 +1,094,364 +4.63 Net decrease in burden. The increase in applicants is offset by the results of the Department's simplification changes. This has created an over- all decrease in burden of 8.94% or 2,881,475 hours. Total Applicant Burden ......................... 32,239,328 29,357,853 ¥2,881,475 ¥8.94 Total Annual Responses ....................... 32,239,328 46,447,024 +14,207,696 +44.07 Cost for All Applicants .......................... $159,370.20 $234,804.24 $75,434.04 +47.33 The Department is proud that efforts to simplify the FAFSA submission

109

Table 4  

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

4. Mean Annual Electricity Expenditures for Lighting, by Number of 4. Mean Annual Electricity Expenditures for Lighting, by Number of Household Members by Number of Rooms, 1993 (Dollars) Number of Rooms Number of Household Members All Households One to Three Four Five Six Seven Eight or More RSE Column Factors: 0.5 1.8 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.2 RSE Row Factors All Households................................... 83 49 63 76 87 104 124 2.34 One..................................................... 55 44 51 54 69 78 87 5.33 Two..................................................... 80 56 63 77 82 96 107 3.38 Three.................................................. 92 60 73 82 95 97 131 4.75 Four.................................................... 106 64 78 93 96 124 134 4.53 Five or More....................................... 112 70 83 98 99 117 150 5.89 Notes: -- To obtain the RSE percentage for any table cell, multiply the

110

Capital expenditure decision making in small firms  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

A number of studies have been conducted to determine the extent to which large firms utilize sophisticated techniques in capital expenditure decision making. This research effort focuses on financial decision making procedures of small firms, exploring the techniques utilized to evaluate investment opportunities, methods employed to adjust for risk, purposes of expenditures and concern for profitability, and the source and cost of funds. In light of the recent debate on the capital shortage issue, small firms were also asked what type of tax reform they deemed most desirable to stimulate capital investments.

L.R. Runyon

1983-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

111

The Role of Capital Expenditures in Signalling Firm Value  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

and Corporate Capital Expenditure Announcements," PurdueTHE ROLE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES IN SIGNALLING FIRM VALUEAngeles THE ROLE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES IN SIGNALLING FIRM

Titman, Brett

1983-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

112

Firm leverage decisions: Does industry matter?  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract We use a standard capital structure mode l to investigate the firm leverage decisions of 1620 companies listed in the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) across a span of 13 years (20002012), dividing the sample into mining and other industries (non-mining). We also test for significant differences in leverage decisions between these two groups by applying a dummy variable approach. Our findings show that fundamental differences exist between mining and non-mining companies when making leverage decisions. We find evidence that mining firms are more sensitive to profitability and asset tangibility where neither profitability nor asset tangibility has significant association for non-mining firms. Overall results suggest that industry-type does matter for firms making leverage decisions.

Silvia Z. Islam; Sarod Khandaker

2015-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

113

Empirical essays on firm behavior in India  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

In this thesis, I study the behavior of industrial firms in India in the electricity market and with respect to locational choice and environmental regulation. In the first chapter, I study the competitive effects of ...

Ryan, Nicholas (Nicholas James)

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

114

1995 Detailed Tables  

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

Households, Buildings & Industry > Commercial Buildings Energy Households, Buildings & Industry > Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey > Detailed Tables 1995 Detailed Tables Data from the 1995 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) are presented in three groups of detailed tables: Buildings Characteristics Tables, number of buildings and amount of floorspace for major building characteristics. Energy Consumption and Expenditures Tables, energy consumption and expenditures for major energy sources. Energy End-Use Data, total, electricity and natural gas consumption and energy intensities for nine specific end-uses. Summary Table—All Principal Buildings Activities (HTML Format) Background information on detailed tables: Description of Detailed Tables and Categories of Data Statistical Significance of Data

115

Table ET1. Primary Energy, Electricity, and Total Energy Price and Expenditure Estimates, Selected Years, 1970-2011, United States  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

ET1. Primary Energy, Electricity, and Total Energy Price and Expenditure Estimates, Selected Years, 1970-2011, United States ET1. Primary Energy, Electricity, and Total Energy Price and Expenditure Estimates, Selected Years, 1970-2011, United States Year Primary Energy Electric Power Sector h,j Retail Electricity Total Energy g,h,i Coal Coal Coke Natural Gas a Petroleum Nuclear Fuel Biomass Total g,h,i,j Coking Coal Steam Coal Total Exports Imports Distillate Fuel Oil Jet Fuel b LPG c Motor Gasoline d Residual Fuel Oil Other e Total Wood and Waste f,g Prices in Dollars per Million Btu 1970 0.45 0.36 0.38 1.27 0.93 0.59 1.16 0.73 1.43 2.85 0.42 1.38 1.71 0.18 1.29 1.08 0.32 4.98 1.65 1975 1.65 0.90 1.03 2.37 3.47 1.18 2.60 2.05 2.96 4.65 1.93 2.94 3.35 0.24 1.50 2.19 0.97 8.61 3.33 1980 2.10 1.38 1.46 2.54 3.19 2.86 6.70 6.36 5.64 9.84 3.88 7.04 7.40 0.43 2.26 4.57 1.77 13.95 6.89 1985 2.03 1.67 1.69 2.76 2.99 4.61 7.22 5.91 6.63 9.01 4.30 R 7.62 R 7.64 0.71 2.47 4.93 1.91 19.05

116

Institutions, resources and firm strategies: a comparative analysis of entrepreneurial firms in three transitional economies  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

This study contrasts the impacts of institutions on entrepreneurial high technology firms in three transitional economies that share many institutional similarities but have taken different paths to economic reform: China, Poland and Russia. The study explores the impact of institutions on core aspects of the firm including strategic orientation, top management dynamics and firm strategy. We argue that different institutional environments that result from different development paths produce different strategic mindsets and generate different strategic actions. The findings have significant implications for institutional effects on transitional economies, which are discussed in light of future research on entrepreneurial firms.

Garry D. Bruton; Chung-Ming Lau; Krzysztof Obloj

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

117

Table of Contents  

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

NT0005638 NT0005638 Cruise Report 1-19 July 2009 HYFLUX Sea Truth Cruise Northern Gulf of Mexico Submitted by: Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi 6300 Ocean Dr. Corpus Christi, TX 78412 Principal Authors: Ian R. MacDonald and Thomas Naehr Prepared for: United States Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory October 30, 2009 Office of Fossil Energy HYFLUX Seatruth Cruise Report -1- Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi Table of Contents Summary ............................................................................................................................. 2 Participating Organizations ................................................................................................. 3 Major Equipment ................................................................................................................ 4

118

Do Private Firms Invest Dierently than Public Firms? Taking Cues from the Natural Gas Industry  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Do Private Firms Invest Dierently than Public Firms? Taking Cues from the Natural Gas Industry Erik and public rms using a unique dataset of onshore U.S. natural gas producers. In rm-level regressions we nd that investments by private rms are 68% less responsive to changes in natural gas prices, a measure that captures

Lin, Xiaodong

119

Essays on Firm Growth and Survival as a Fortune 500 Firm  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

In this dissertation, I develop frameworks and models capturing the effects of marketing capital and R and D capital on firm growth and sustained membership in the Fortune 500 cohort. Drawing on the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm...

Vadakkepatt, Gautham Gopal

2011-10-21T23:59:59.000Z

120

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

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

2 Table 4. Offshore gross withdrawals of natural gas by state and the Gulf of Mexico, 2009-2013 (million cubic feet) 2009 Total 259,848 327,105 586,953 1,878,928 606,403 2,485,331...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


121

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Adobe Acrobat Reader Logo Adobe Acrobat Reader is required for PDF format. Adobe Acrobat Reader Logo Adobe Acrobat Reader is required for PDF format. MS Excel Viewer Spreadsheets are provided in excel Errata - August 25, 2004 1 to117 - Complete set of of Supplemental Tables PDF Table 1. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (New England) XLS PDF Table 2. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (Middle Atlantic) XLS PDF Table 3. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (East North Central) XLS PDF Table 4. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (West North Central) XLS PDF Table 5. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (South Atlantic) XLS PDF Table 6. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (East South Central) XLS PDF Table 7. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (West South Central) XLS PDF Table 8. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (Mountain)

122

1999 CBECS Detailed Tables  

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

Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) > Detailed Tables Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) > Detailed Tables 1999 CBECS Detailed Tables Building Characteristics | Consumption & Expenditures Data from the 1999 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) are presented in the Building Characteristics tables, which include number of buildings and total floorspace for various Building Characteristics, and Consumption and Expenditures tables, which include energy usage figures for major energy sources. A table of Relative Standard Errors (RSEs) is included as a worksheet tab in each Excel tables. Complete sets of RSE tables are also available in .pdf format. (What is an RSE?) Preliminary End-Use Consumption Estimates for 1999 | Description of 1999 Detailed Tables and Categories of Data

123

A study of the correlation between pre-IPO venture funds and founder characteristics with high-tech firm growth  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

High-tech firms are among the fastest growing in the United States. The four industries with the most rapid growth -internet, software, semiconductors, and technology hardware - have almost doubled their share of industry ...

Zaheer, Safwan

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

124

Truth-telling by Third-party Auditors and the Response of Polluting Firms: Experimental Evidence from India  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

In many regulated markets, private, third-party auditors are chosen and paid by the firms that they audit, potentially creating a conflict of interest. This paper reports on a two-year field experiment in the Indian state ...

Duflo, Esther

2013-07-17T23:59:59.000Z

125

Investment firms to buy Sterling Chemicals  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Sterling Chemicalsa Houston-based company that put itself on the block in Januaryhas reached a definitive agreement to sell the company to two investment banking firms. The deal could spark a bidding war with Huntsman Corp., another potential purchaser. ...

MARC REISCH; SUSAN AINSWORTH

1996-04-29T23:59:59.000Z

126

Marketing Plan for BJI Architectural Design Firm  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

The partners of the architectural design firm BJI will use the information put together in this marketing plan to help focus their efforts on building a client base and obtaining more work. In the past, BJI relied on their networking skills...

Gruber, Jaci

2007-05-18T23:59:59.000Z

127

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

December 22, 2000 (Next Release: December, 2001) Related Links Annual Energy Outlook 2001 Assumptions to the AEO2001 NEMS Conference Contacts Forecast Homepage EIA Homepage AEO Supplement Reference Case Forecast (1999-2020) (HTML) Table 1. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (New England) Table 2. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (Middle Atlantic) Table 3. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (East North Central) Table 4. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (West North Central) Table 5. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (South Atlantic) Table 6. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (East South Central) Table 7. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (West South Central) Table 8. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (Mountain)

128

Knowledge, Compensation, and Firm Value: An Empirical Analysis of Firm Communication  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

and examine its economic consequences in terms of management compensation and firm valuation. To identify are not the costs of inducing truth telling as in a standard adverse selection game, but instead result from

129

FY 2005 Statistical Table  

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

Statistical Table by Appropriation Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) Table of Contents Summary...................................................................................................... 1 Mandatory Funding....................................................................................... 3 Energy Supply.............................................................................................. 4 Non-Defense site acceleration completion................................................... 6 Uranium enrichment D&D fund.................................................................... 6 Non-Defense environmental services.......................................................... 6 Science.........................................................................................................

130

Microsoft Word - table_87  

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

5 5 Table 6. Natural gas processed, liquids extracted, and natural gas plant liquids production, by state, 2012 Alabama 87,269 5,309 7,110 Alabama Onshore Alabama 33,921 2,614 3,132 Alabama Offshore Alabama 53,348 2,695 3,978 Alaska 2,788,997 18,339 21,470 Alaska 2,788,997 18,339 21,470 Arkansas 6,872 336 424 Arkansas 6,872 336 424 California 169,203 9,923 12,755 California Onshore California 169,203 9,923 12,755 California Offshore California NA NA NA Federal Offshore California NA NA NA

131

The impact of financial incentives on firm behavior  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

This dissertation analyzes the impact of various financial incentives on firm behavior. The first two chapters examine product-market and input-market effects of a firm's capital structure and the incentives they create. ...

Matsa, David

2006-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

132

Product service transformation in product-centric firms  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

In slow or no-growth economies, firms cannot rely solely on recurring business from large, core customers who often delay or cancel capital investments in belt-tightening times. To achieve growth, firms must lever domain ...

Levitt, Benjamin (Benjamin P.)

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

133

Petroleum Products Table 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 56 Energy Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1996 Table 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD...

134

Petroleum Products Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 262 Energy Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1996 Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type,...

135

Petroleum Products Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 262 Energy Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1997 Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type,...

136

Table 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane...  

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

See footnotes at end of table. 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane, and Residual Fuel Oil by PAD District and State 386 Energy Information...

137

Table 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane...  

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

Marketing Annual 1999 Table 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane, and Residual Fuel Oil by PAD District and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) -...

138

Table 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane...  

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

Marketing Annual 1995 Table 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane, and Residual Fuel Oil by PAD District and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) -...

139

Table 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Marketing Annual 1998 Table 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane, and Residual Fuel Oil by PAD District and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) -...

140

Table 44. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Formulation, Sales...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1998 Table 44. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Formulation, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Thousand Gallons per...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


141

Table 35. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1995 Table 35. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding...

142

Table 32. Conventional Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1995 Table 32. Conventional Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding...

143

Table 32. Conventional Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

- - - - W W - - - - - - See footnotes at end of table. 32. Conventional Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 86 Energy Information...

144

Table 44. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Formulation, Sales...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1999 Table 44. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Formulation, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Thousand Gallons per...

145

Table 32. Conventional Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1998 Table 32. Conventional Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding...

146

Table 33. Oxygenated Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1995 Table 33. Oxygenated Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding...

147

Table 44. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Formulation, Sales...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

- - - - W W - - - - - - See footnotes at end of table. 44. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Formulation, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 292 Energy Information...

148

Table 33. Oxygenated Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

- - - - - - - - - - - - See footnotes at end of table. 33. Oxygenated Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 116 Energy Information...

149

Table 34. Reformulated Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1995 Table 34. Reformulated Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding...

150

Table 35. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1999 Table 35. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding...

151

Table 48. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Motor Gasoline by...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

Petroleum Marketing Annual 1999 Table 48. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Motor Gasoline by Grade, Formulation, PAD District, and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) - Continued...

152

Table 48. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Motor Gasoline by...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

Petroleum Marketing Annual 1995 Table 48. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Motor Gasoline by Grade, Formulation, PAD District, and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) - Continued...

153

Table 44. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Formulation, Sales...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1995 Table 44. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Formulation, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Thousand Gallons per...

154

Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1998 Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) -...

155

Table 35. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1998 Table 35. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding...

156

Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1995 Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) -...

157

Table 48. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Motor Gasoline by...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

Petroleum Marketing Annual 1998 Table 48. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Motor Gasoline by Grade, Formulation, PAD District, and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) - Continued...

158

Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1999 Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) -...

159

Table 32. Conventional Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

- - - - 64.7 64.7 - - - - - - See footnotes at end of table. 32. Conventional Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 86 Energy Information...

160

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

The AEO Supplementary tables were generated for the reference case of the The AEO Supplementary tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 2002 (AEO2002) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 1999 to 2020. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO2002, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO2002 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of one hundred and seven tables is presented. The data for tables 10 and 20 match those published in AEO2002 Appendix tables A2 and A3, respectively. Forecasts for 2000-2002 may differ slightly from values published in the Short Term Energy Outlook, which are the official EIA short-term forecasts and are based on more current

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


161

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Homepage Homepage Supplement Tables to the AEO2001 The AEO Supplementary tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 2001 (AEO2001) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 1999 to 2020. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO2001, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO2001 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of ninety-five tables is presented. The data for tables 10 and 20 match those published in AEO2001 Appendix tables A2 and A3, respectively. Forecasts for 1999 and 2000 may differ slightly from values published in the Short Term Energy Outlook, which are the official EIA short-term forecasts and are based on more current information than the AEO.

162

Risk management in a globalised cosmetic firm  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The need of control and optimise the supply chain is now crucial for the firm operating in the actual economic environment. Some aspects such as globalisation, heavy dependence on transportation, communication infrastructures and lean manufacturing have led an increase in the vulnerability of supply networks. Owing to a large number of interrelated processes and products, disruptions caused by these vulnerabilities propagate rapidly. Firms, however, can partially control the robustness and resilience of their supply networks through strategic and tactical decisions. Therefore, a decision-support tool that assists managers to evaluate the risk exposure of their supply networks can considerably increase the robustness/resilience of these networks. In this paper, focusing the attention on a cosmetic sector where the uncertainty is even more high, it is shown how real option and risk analysis can help managers to manage new projects mitigating risk factors.

Federica Cucchiella; Massimo Gastaldi

2007-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

163

A Longitudinal Analysis of the Impact of Firm Resources and Industry Characteristics on Firm-Specific Profitability  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Using a dynamic heterogeneous panel data model, we examine the relationship between firm-specific resources (corporate management capabilities, employee value-added and technological competence) and firm-specific profitability ...

Acquaah, Moses; Chi, Tailan

2007-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

164

Table HIST002R_2. Death rates for 113 selected causes by 5-year age groups, race and sex: United States, 1979-98  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

,241.7 1988 957.9 441.1 719.7 1,193.5 1,903.9 2,887.8 4,516.8 6,827.0 10,651.9 19,020.8 1987 952.7 447.2 745 in this table: * Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision - Quantity zero 0.0 Quantity greater

Hunter, David

165

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AEO Supplementary tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 2000 (AEO2000) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 1998 to 2020. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO2000, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO2000 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of ninety-six tables are presented. AEO Supplementary tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 2000 (AEO2000) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 1998 to 2020. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO2000, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO2000 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of ninety-six tables are presented. The data for tables 10 and 20 match those published in AEO200 Appendix tables A2 and A3, respectively. Forecasts for 1998, and 2000 may differ slightly from values published in the Short Term Energy Outlook, Fourth Quarter 1999 or Short Term Energy Outlook, First Quarter 2000, which are the official EIA short-term forecasts and are based on more current information than the AEO.

166

Ethiopia-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) |  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Ethiopia-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Ethiopia-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Jump to: navigation, search Logo: Ethiopia-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Name Ethiopia-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Agency/Company /Organization United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Partner Global Environment Facility (GEF), Government of Denmark Sector Climate, Energy, Land Topics Adaptation, Co-benefits assessment, - Environmental and Biodiversity, Finance, Implementation, Low emission development planning Website http://www.unep.org/climatecha Program Start 2011 Program End 2013 Country Ethiopia UN Region Central America References Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM)[1]

167

UNEP-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) | Open  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

UNEP-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) UNEP-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Jump to: navigation, search Logo: UNEP-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Name UNEP-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Agency/Company /Organization United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Partner Global Environment Facility (GEF), Government of Denmark Sector Climate, Energy, Land Topics Adaptation, Co-benefits assessment, - Environmental and Biodiversity, Finance, Implementation, Low emission development planning Website http://www.unep.org/climatecha Program Start 2011 References Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM)[1] "The Government of Denmark will provide US$6 million to the new programme

168

Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) | Open  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Jump to: navigation, search Logo: UNEP-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Name UNEP-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Agency/Company /Organization United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Partner Global Environment Facility (GEF), Government of Denmark Sector Climate, Energy, Land Topics Adaptation, Co-benefits assessment, - Environmental and Biodiversity, Finance, Implementation, Low emission development planning Website http://www.unep.org/climatecha Program Start 2011 Program End 2013 Country Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Ghana, Indonesia, Mexico, Morocco, Senegal, South Africa, Vietnam UN Region Central America References Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM)[1]

169

Costa Rica-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM)  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Costa Rica-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Costa Rica-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Jump to: navigation, search Logo: Costa Rica-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Name Costa Rica-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Agency/Company /Organization United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Partner Global Environment Facility (GEF), Government of Denmark Sector Climate, Energy, Land Topics Adaptation, Co-benefits assessment, - Environmental and Biodiversity, Finance, Implementation, Low emission development planning Website http://www.unep.org/climatecha Program Start 2011 Program End 2013 Country Costa Rica UN Region Central America References Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM)[1]

170

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 State Energy Data 2011: Consumption Table C11. Energy Consumption by Source, Ranked by State, 2011 Rank Coal Natural Gas a Petroleum b Retail Electricity Sales State Trillion Btu State Trillion Btu State Trillion Btu State Trillion Btu 1 Texas 1,695.2 Texas 3,756.9 Texas 5,934.3 Texas 1,283.1 2 Indiana 1,333.4 California 2,196.6 California 3,511.4 California 893.7 3 Ohio 1,222.6 Louisiana 1,502.9 Louisiana 1,925.7 Florida 768.0 4 Pennsylvania 1,213.0 New York 1,246.9 Florida 1,680.3 Ohio 528.0 5 Illinois 1,052.2 Florida 1,236.6 New York 1,304.0 Pennsylvania 507.6 6 Kentucky 1,010.6 Pennsylvania 998.6 Pennsylvania 1,255.6 New York 491.5

171

Exploring firm emergence: initially conditioned or actively created?  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Previous research has established a connection between initial conditions and new firm performance. Research on the gestation activities of nascent entrepreneurs, on the other hand, has demonstrated the potential importance of active behaviours on firm emergence. Since no research has addressed the effects of these two constructs on firm emergence in an empirical fashion, we frame this paper as an exploratory study designed to answer the following research question: to what extent do initial conditions and/or active behaviours explain firm emergence? We use a French national business plan competition to identify nascent firms. As a result, it seems that only active behaviours make a statistically significant impact on firm emergence, while initial conditions do not. Therefore, our preliminary finding is that a firm emerges merely through the active behaviours of entrepreneurs rather than as an outcome of initial conditions.

Erno T. Tornikoski; Vesa Puhakka

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

172

FY 2005 Laboratory Table  

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

Congressional Budget Congressional Budget Request Laboratory Tables Preliminary Department of Energy FY 2005 Congressional Budget Request Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation/CFO February 2004 Laboratory Tables Preliminary Department of Energy Department of Energy FY 2005 Congressional Budget FY 2005 Congressional Budget Request Request Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation/CFO February 2004 Laboratory Tables Laboratory Tables Printed with soy ink on recycled paper Preliminary Preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropria ted as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress.

173

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2005 Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2005 EIA Glossary Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2005 Release date: February 2005 Next release date: February 2006 The AEO Supplemental tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 2005 (AEO2005) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 2003 to 2025. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO2005, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO2005 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of one hundred and seventeen tables is presented. The data for tables 10 and 20 match those published in AEO2005 Appendix tables A2 and A3, respectively. Forecasts for 2003-2005 may differ slightly from values published in the Short Term Energy Outlook, which are the official EIA short-term forecasts and are based on more current information than the AEO.

174

Exporting licensing regulations affecting US geothermal firms  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This document presents a brief introduction and overview of the Department of Commerce's Export Administration Regulations which might affect potential US geothermal goods exporters. It is intended to make US geothermal firms officials aware of the existence of such regulations and to provide them with references, contacts and phone numbers where they can obtain specific and detailed information and assistance. It must be stressed however, that the ultimate responsibility for complying with the above mentioned regulations lies with the exporter who must consult the complete version of the regulations.

Not Available

1988-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

175

Foreign firms to get equal opportunity in Mexican selloff plans  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) has not finalized details of its long-awaited petrochemical privatization program. However, the state oil group has made it clear the selloff schedule, due to begin during the next two months, will give equal investment opportunity to foreign firms, dashing the hopes of Mexican groups that they would be given first right of refusal in the privatization program. Meanwhile, Pemex has agreed with Shell Oil on a previously announced refining joint venture involving Shell's 225,000-bbl/day refinery at Deer Park, TX. Under the plan, Pemex will purchase a 50% stake in the refinery and join Shell in a $1-billion upgrade with would enable it to handle more Mexican crude. Sources believe that Shell and other US oil groups are interested in acquiring assets from Pemex Petroquimica.

Wood, A.; Alvarez, C.

1993-03-17T23:59:59.000Z

176

Organizational Learning and Internationalization Knowledge: A Comparative Study of Family Firms and Non-Family Firms  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

1 Organizational Learning and Internationalization Knowledge: A Comparative Study of Family Firms's internationalization as a process of organizational learning is becoming frequent (Eriksson et al, 2000; Eriksson and organizational learning is deemed to underlie the process of resource commitment and more generally

Boyer, Edmond

177

2003 CBECS RSE Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/2003rsetables_files/plainlink.css" cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/2003rsetables_files/plainlink.css" type=text/css rel=stylesheet> Home > Households, Buildings & Industry > Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) > 2003 Detailed Tables > RSE Tables 2003 CBECS Relative Standard Error (RSE) Tables Released: Dec 2006 Next CBECS will be conducted in 2007 Standard error is a measure of the reliability or precision of the survey statistic. The value for the standard error can be used to construct confidence intervals and to perform hypothesis tests by standard statistical methods. Relative Standard Error (RSE) is defined as the standard error (square root of the variance) of a survey estimate, divided by the survey estimate and multiplied by 100. (More information on RSEs)

178

Supplemental Figures and Tables for Groundfish EFH Review Phase 1 Report "Federal and State Marine Protected Areas Type of Fishing Restriction"  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

"Federal and State Marine Protected Areas ­ Type of Fishing Restriction" Author and state MPAs depicted in map figures, categorized by level of fishing restriction Fishing Restriction BEFORE AFTER Commercial and Recreational Fishing Prohibited

Goldfinger, Chris

179

Precision Flow Table | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Table Table Jump to: navigation, search Basic Specifications Facility Name Flow Table Overseeing Organization United States Army Corp of Engineers (ERDC) Hydrodynamic Testing Facility Type Flow Table Length(m) 2.4 Beam(m) 1.2 Water Type Freshwater Cost(per day) Contact POC Towing Capabilities Towing Capabilities None Wavemaking Capabilities Wavemaking Capabilities None Channel/Tunnel/Flume Channel/Tunnel/Flume Yes Wind Capabilities Wind Capabilities None Control and Data Acquisition Description Automated data acquisition and control system Cameras None Available Sensors Flow, Pressure Range(psi), Turbulence, Velocity, Wave Probe Data Generation Capability Real-Time No Test Services Test Services Yes Past Pertinent Test Experience Users are District Engineers, Planners, and Engineering Consultants

180

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

17 17 Table C12. Total Energy Consumption, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Energy Consumption per Real Dollar of GDP, Ranked by State, 2011 Rank Total Energy Consumption Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Energy Consumption per Real Dollar of GDP State Trillion Btu State Billion Chained (2005) Dollars State Thousand Btu per Chained (2005) Dollar 1 Texas 12,206.6 California 1,735.4 Louisiana 19.7 2 California 7,858.4 Texas 1,149.9 Wyoming 17.5 3 Florida 4,217.1 New York 1,016.4 North Dakota 15.4 4 Louisiana 4,055.3 Florida 661.1 Alaska 14.3 5 Illinois 3,977.8 Illinois 582.1 Mississippi 13.8 6 Ohio 3,827.6 Pennsylvania 500.4 Kentucky 13.5

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


181

CBECS Buildings Characteristics --Revised Tables  

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

Buildings Use Tables Buildings Use Tables (24 pages, 129 kb) CONTENTS PAGES Table 12. Employment Size Category, Number of Buildings, 1995 Table 13. Employment Size Category, Floorspace, 1995 Table 14. Weekly Operating Hours, Number of Buildings, 1995 Table 15. Weekly Operating Hours, Floorspace, 1995 Table 16. Occupancy of Nongovernment-Owned and Government-Owned Buildings, Number of Buildings, 1995 Table 17. Occupancy of Nongovernment-Owned and Government-Owned Buildings, Floorspace, 1995 These data are from the 1995 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), a national probability sample survey of commercial buildings sponsored by the Energy Information Administration, that provides information on the use of energy in commercial buildings in the

182

ARM - Instrument Location Table  

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

govInstrumentsLocation Table govInstrumentsLocation Table Instruments Location Table Contacts Comments? We would love to hear from you! Send us a note below or call us at 1-888-ARM-DATA. Send Instrument Locations Site abbreviations explained in the key. Instrument Name Abbreviation NSA SGP TWP AMF C1 C2 EF BF CF EF IF C1 C2 C3 EF IF Aerosol Chemical Speciation Monitor ACSM Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer AERI Aethalometer AETH Ameriflux Measurement Component AMC Aerosol Observing System AOS Meteorological Measurements associated with the Aerosol Observing System AOSMET Broadband Radiometer Station BRS

183

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Annual Energy Outlook 1999 Annual Energy Outlook 1999 bullet1.gif (843 bytes) Assumptions to the AEO99 bullet1.gif (843 bytes) NEMS Conference bullet1.gif (843 bytes) Contacts bullet1.gif (843 bytes) To Forecasting Home Page bullet1.gif (843 bytes) EIA Homepage supplemental.gif (7420 bytes) (Errata as of 9/13/99) The AEO Supplementary tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 1999 (AEO99) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 1997 to 2020. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO99, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO99 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of ninety-five tables are presented.

184

FY 2010 Laboratory Table  

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

Laboratory Tables Laboratory Tables Preliminary May 2009 Office of Chief Financial Officer FY 2010 Congressional Budget Request Laboratory Tables Preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Printed with soy ink on recycled paper Laboratory / Facility Index FY 2010 Congressional Budget Page 1 of 3 (Dollars In Thousands) 2:08:56PM Department Of Energy 5/4/2009 Page Number FY 2008 Appropriation FY 2009 Appropriation FY 2010 Request Laboratory Table 1 1 $1,200

185

Table of Contents  

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

E N N E E R R A A L L Semiannual Report toCongress DOEIG-0065 April 1 - September 30, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS From the Desk of the Inspector General ......

186

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 8. Supplemental Gas Supplies by State, 2008 (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado ......................... 0 2 0 6,256 6,258 Delaware ........................ 0 2 0 0 2 Georgia........................... 0 * 0 0 * Hawaii............................. 2,554 5 0 0 2,559 Illinois.............................. 0 15 0 0 15 Indiana............................ 0 30 0 0 30 Iowa ................................ 0 24 3 0 27 Kentucky......................... 0 15 0 0 15 Maryland ......................... 0 181 0 0 181 Massachusetts................ 0 13 0 0 13 Minnesota ....................... 0 46 0 0 46 Missouri .......................... * 6 0 0 6 Nebraska ........................ 0 28 0 0 28 New Hampshire .............. 0 44 0 0 44 New Jersey ..................... 0 0 0 489 489 New York ........................

187

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 8. Supplemental Gas Supplies by State, 2009 (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado ......................... 0 3 0 7,525 7,527 Connecticut..................... 0 * 0 0 * Delaware ........................ 0 2 0 0 2 Georgia........................... 0 0 52 * 52 Hawaii............................. 2,438 9 0 0 2,447 Illinois.............................. 0 20 0 0 20 Indiana............................ 0 * 0 0 * Iowa ................................ 0 3 0 0 3 Kentucky......................... 0 18 0 0 18 Maryland ......................... 0 170 0 0 170 Massachusetts................ 0 10 0 0 10 Minnesota ....................... 0 47 0 0 47 Missouri .......................... * 10 0 0 10 Nebraska ........................ 0 18 0 0 18 New Jersey ..................... 0 0 0 454 454 New York ........................

188

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 8. Supplemental Gas Supplies by State, 2010 (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado ......................... 0 4 0 5,144 5,148 Delaware ........................ 0 1 0 0 1 Georgia........................... 0 0 732 0 732 Hawaii............................. 2,465 6 0 0 2,472 Illinois.............................. 0 17 0 0 17 Indiana............................ 0 1 0 0 1 Iowa ................................ 0 2 0 0 2 Kentucky......................... 0 5 0 0 5 Louisiana ........................ 0 0 249 0 249 Maryland ......................... 0 115 0 0 115 Massachusetts................ 0 * 0 0 * Minnesota ....................... 0 12 0 0 12 Missouri .......................... * 18 0 0 18 Nebraska ........................ 0 12 0 0 12 New Jersey ..................... 0 0 0 457 457 New York ........................

189

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 8. Supplemental Gas Supplies by State, 2007 (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado ......................... 0 3 0 6,866 6,869 Delaware ........................ 0 5 0 0 5 Georgia........................... 0 2 0 0 2 Hawaii............................. 2,679 4 0 0 2,683 Illinois.............................. 0 11 0 0 11 Indiana............................ 0 81 0 554 635 Iowa ................................ 0 2 38 0 40 Kentucky......................... 0 124 0 0 124 Maryland ......................... 0 245 0 0 245 Massachusetts................ 0 15 0 0 15 Minnesota ....................... 0 54 0 0 54 Missouri .......................... 7 60 0 0 66 Nebraska ........................ 0 33 0 0 33 New Hampshire .............. 0 9 0 0 9 New Jersey ..................... 0 0 0 379 379 New York ........................

190

RSE Table 3.2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 3.2  

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

2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 3.2;" 2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 3.2;" " Unit: Percents." " "," "," ",," "," "," "," "," "," "," ",," " " "," " "NAICS"," "," ","Net","Residual","Distillate","Natural","LPG and",,"Coke"," " "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Total","Electricity(b)","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil(c)","Gas(d)","NGL(e)","Coal","and Breeze","Other(f)" ,,"Total United States" 311,"Food",4,5,25,20,5,27,6,0,10

191

RSE Table 5.2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.2  

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

2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.2;" 2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.2;" " Unit: Percents." " "," "," ",," ","Distillate"," "," ",," " " "," ",,,,"Fuel Oil",,,"Coal" "NAICS"," "," ","Net","Residual","and","Natural ","LPG and","(excluding Coal"," " "Code(a)","End Use","Total","Electricity(b)","Fuel Oil","Diesel Fuel(c)","Gas(d)","NGL(e)","Coke and Breeze)","Other(f)" ,,"Total United States" " 311 - 339","ALL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES"

192

RSE Table 5.4 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.4  

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

4 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.4;" 4 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.4;" " Unit: Percents." " "," ",," ","Distillate"," "," " " "," ","Net Demand",,"Fuel Oil",,,"Coal" "NAICS"," ","for ","Residual","and","Natural ","LPG and","(excluding Coal" "Code(a)","End Use","Electricity(b)","Fuel Oil","Diesel Fuel(c)","Gas(d)","NGL(e)","Coke and Breeze)" ,,"Total United States" " 311 - 339","ALL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES" ,"TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION",2,3,6,2,3,9

193

RSE Table 7.9 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.9  

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

9 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.9;" 9 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.9;" " Unit: Percents." " "," "," ",," "," "," "," "," "," "," ",," " " "," " "NAICS"," "," ",,"Residual","Distillate","Natural ","LPG and",,"Coke"," " "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Total","Electricity","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil(b)","Gas(c)","NGL(d)","Coal","and Breeze","Other(e)" ,,"Total United States" 311,"Food",4,4,24,21,5,23,7,0,20

194

"Why Are Some Firms More Innovative? Knowledge Inputs, Knowledge Stocks,  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

"Why Are Some Firms More Innovative? Knowledge Inputs, Knowledge Stocks, and the Role of Global, Exporting, Knowledge and Technological Change Abstract Why do some firms create more knowledge than others stock of knowledge. But there is very little empirical evidence on production functions for new ideas

Sadoulet, Elisabeth

195

IS Planning autonomy in US subsidiaries of multinational firms  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Research has suggested that information systems planning is an important challenge to managers of multinational firms. Although studies have examined marketing, finance, and manufacturing, limited research has considered IS planning autonomy in such ... Keywords: IS planning, agency theory, autonomy, corporate governance theory, multinational firms

Dinesh A. Mirchandani; Albert L. Lederer

2004-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

196

FIRM INVESTMENT AND MONETARY POLICY TRANSMISSION IN THE EURO AREA  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

FIRM INVESTMENT AND MONETARY POLICY TRANSMISSION IN THE EURO AREA J.B. Chatelain1 , A. Generale2 of results on the monetary transmission channels on firm investment (the interest rate channel and the broad. For each of those countries, investment relationships are estimated explaining investment by its user cost

Paris-Sud XI, Université de

197

Pricing and Firm Conduct in California's Deregulated Electricity Market  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

sector to competitive forces by restructuring the method of procuring electricity. Private electricPWP-080 Pricing and Firm Conduct in California's Deregulated Electricity Market Steven L. Puller.ucei.berkeley.edu/ucei #12;Pricing and Firm Conduct in California's Deregulated Electricity Market Steven L. Puller August

California at Berkeley. University of

198

Morocco-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) |  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Morocco-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Morocco-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Jump to: navigation, search Logo: Morocco-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Name Morocco-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Agency/Company /Organization United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Partner Global Environment Facility (GEF), Government of Denmark Sector Climate, Energy, Land Topics Adaptation, Co-benefits assessment, - Environmental and Biodiversity, Finance, Implementation, Low emission development planning Website http://www.unep.org/climatecha Program Start 2011 Program End 2013 Country Morocco UN Region Central America References Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM)[1] "The Government of Denmark will provide US$6 million to the new programme

199

Vietnam-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) |  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Vietnam-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Vietnam-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Jump to: navigation, search Logo: Vietnam-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Name Vietnam-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Agency/Company /Organization United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Partner Global Environment Facility (GEF), Government of Denmark Sector Climate, Energy, Land Topics Adaptation, Co-benefits assessment, - Environmental and Biodiversity, Finance, Implementation, Low emission development planning Website http://www.unep.org/climatecha Program Start 2011 Program End 2013 Country Vietnam UN Region Central America References Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM)[1] "The Government of Denmark will provide US$6 million to the new programme

200

Ghana-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) |  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Ghana-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Ghana-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Jump to: navigation, search Logo: Ghana-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Name Ghana-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Agency/Company /Organization United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Partner Global Environment Facility (GEF), Government of Denmark Sector Climate, Energy, Land Topics Adaptation, Co-benefits assessment, - Environmental and Biodiversity, Finance, Implementation, Low emission development planning Website http://www.unep.org/climatecha Program Start 2011 Program End 2013 Country Ghana UN Region Central America References Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM)[1] "The Government of Denmark will provide US$6 million to the new programme

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


201

Mexico-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) |  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Mexico-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Mexico-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Jump to: navigation, search Logo: Mexico-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Name Mexico-Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM) Agency/Company /Organization United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Partner Global Environment Facility (GEF), Government of Denmark Sector Climate, Energy, Land Topics Adaptation, Co-benefits assessment, - Environmental and Biodiversity, Finance, Implementation, Low emission development planning Website http://www.unep.org/climatecha Program Start 2011 Program End 2013 Country Mexico UN Region Central America References Facilitating Implementation and Readiness for Mitigation (FIRM)[1] "The Government of Denmark will provide US$6 million to the new programme

202

Utility Sector Leaders Make Firm Commitment to Energy Efficiency |  

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

Utility Sector Leaders Make Firm Commitment to Energy Efficiency Utility Sector Leaders Make Firm Commitment to Energy Efficiency Utility Sector Leaders Make Firm Commitment to Energy Efficiency Utility Sector Leaders Make Firm Commitment to Energy Efficiency: Press Release, July 31, 2006 announcing an energy efficiency action plan. More than 80 energy, environmental and other organizations announced commitments and public statements in support of the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (NAPEE), which provides energy consumers and providers information on policies and techniques to save money as well as protect the environment. Utility Sector Leaders Make Firm Commitment to Energy Efficiency More Documents & Publications Chapter 3: Demand-Side Resources US - Brazil Binational Energy Working Group Joint Action Plan

203

NREL: News - NREL Report Firms Up Land-Use Requirements of Solar  

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

NREL Report Firms Up Land-Use Requirements of Solar NREL Report Firms Up Land-Use Requirements of Solar Study shows solar for 1,000 homes would require 32 acres July 30, 2013 The Energy Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has published a report on the land use requirements of solar power plants based on actual land-use practices from existing solar facilities. "Having real data from a majority of the solar plants in the United States will help people make proper comparisons and informed decisions," lead author Sean Ong said. The report, "Land-use Requirements for Solar Power Plants in the United States," was written with NREL colleagues Clinton Campbell, Robert Margolis, Paul Denholm and Garvin Heath. Ong gathered data from 72% of the solar power plants installed or under

204

State Energy Production Estimates  

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

State Energy Production Estimates 1960 Through 2012 2012 Summary Tables Table P1. Energy Production Estimates in Physical Units, 2012 Alabama 19,455 215,710 9,525 0 Alaska 2,052...

205

All Price Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

1) 1) June 2013 State Energy Price and Expenditure Estimates 1970 Through 2011 2011 Price and Expenditure Summary Tables Table E1. Primary Energy, Electricity, and Total Energy Price Estimates, 2011 (Dollars per Million Btu) State Primary Energy Electric Power Sector g,h Retail Electricity Total Energy g,i Coal Natural Gas a Petroleum Nuclear Fuel Biomass Total g,h,i Distillate Fuel Oil Jet Fuel b LPG c Motor Gasoline d Residual Fuel Oil Other e Total Wood and Waste f Alabama 3.09 5.66 26.37 22.77 25.54 27.12 13.18 19.42 25.90 0.61 3.01 8.75 2.56 27.08 19.85 Alaska 3.64 6.70 29.33 23.12 29.76 31.60 20.07 34.62 26.61 - 14.42 20.85 6.36 47.13 25.17 Arizona 1.99 7.07 27.73 22.84 31.95 26.97 17.00 17.23 26.71 0.75 6.31 10.79 2.16 28.46 25.23 Arkansas 1.93 6.94 26.37 22.45 26.66 27.35 17.35 33.22

206

Microsoft Word - table_13.doc  

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

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Natural Gas Monthly 31 Table 13 Created on: 12/12/2013 2:28:44 PM Table 13. Activities of underground natural gas storage operators, by state, September 2013 (volumes in million cubic feet) State Field Count Total Storage Capacity Working Gas Storage Capacity Natural Gas in Underground Storage at End of Period Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Storage Activity Base Gas Working Gas Total Volume Percent Injections Withdrawals Alabama 2 35,400 27,350 8,050 21,262 29,312 2,852 15.5 1,743 450 Alaska a 5 83,592 67,915 14,197 20,455 34,652 NA NA 1,981 30 Arkansas 2 21,853 12,178 9,648 3,372 13,020 -1,050 -23.7 204 0 California 14 599,711 374,296

207

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4) 4) June 2007 State Energy Consumption Estimates 1960 Through 2004 2004 Consumption Summary Tables Table S1. Energy Consumption Estimates by Source and End-Use Sector, 2004 (Trillion Btu) State Total Energy b Sources End-Use Sectors a Coal Natural Gas c Petroleum Nuclear Electric Power Hydro- electric Power d Biomass e Other f Net Interstate Flow of Electricity/Losses g Residential Commercial Industrial b Transportation Alabama 2,159.7 853.9 404.0 638.5 329.9 106.5 185.0 0.1 -358.2 393.7 270.2 1,001.1 494.7 Alaska 779.1 14.1 411.8 334.8 0.0 15.0 3.3 0.1 0.0 56.4 63.4 393.4 266.0 Arizona 1,436.6 425.4 354.9 562.8 293.1 69.9 8.7 3.6 -281.7 368.5 326.0 231.2 511.0 Arkansas 1,135.9 270.2 228.9 388.3 161.1 36.5 76.0 0.6 -25.7 218.3 154.7 473.9 288.9 California 8,364.6 68.9 2,474.2 3,787.8 315.6 342.2

208

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9) 9) June 2011 State Energy Consumption Estimates 1960 Through 2009 2009 Consumption Summary Tables Table C1. Energy Consumption Overview: Estimates by Energy Source and End-Use Sector, 2009 (Trillion Btu) State Total Energy b Sources End-Use Sectors a Fossil Fuels Nuclear Electric Power Renewable Energy e Net Interstate Flow of Electricity/ Losses f Net Electricity Imports Residential Commercial Industrial b Transportation Coal Natural Gas c Petroleum d Total Alabama 1,906.8 631.0 473.9 583.9 1,688.8 415.4 272.9 -470.3 0.0 383.2 266.0 788.5 469.2 Alaska 630.4 14.5 344.0 255.7 614.1 0.0 16.3 0.0 (s) 53.4 61.0 325.4 190.6 Arizona 1,454.3 413.3 376.7 520.8 1,310.8 320.7 103.5 -279.9 -0.8 400.8 352.1 207.8 493.6 Arkansas 1,054.8 264.1 248.1 343.1 855.3 158.7 126.5 -85.7 0.0 226.3 167.0 372.5

209

Advanced Vehicle Technologies Awards Table | Department of Energy  

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

Vehicle Technologies Awards Table Vehicle Technologies Awards Table Advanced Vehicle Technologies Awards Table The table contains a listing of the applicants, their locations, the amounts of the awards, and description of each project. The sub-categories of the table include: Advanced fuels and lubricants Light-weighting materials Demonstration Project for a Multi-Material Light-Weight Prototype Vehicle Advanced cells and design technology for electric drive batteries Advanced power electronics and electric motor technology Solid State Thermoelectric Energy Conversion Devices Fleet Efficiency Advanced Vehicle Testing and Evaluation Microsoft Word - VTP $175 Advanced Vehicle Tech project descriptions draft v5 8-2-11 More Documents & Publications Advanced Vehicle Technologies Awards advanced vehicle technologies awards table

210

Microsoft Word - table_07.doc  

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

7 7 Table 7. Supplemental gas supplies by state, 2012 (million cubic feet) Colorado 0 99 0 4,313 4,412 Georgia 0 0 660 0 660 Hawaii 2,491 20 0 0 2,510 Illinois 0 1 0 0 1 Indiana 0 1 0 0 1 Kentucky 0 1 0 0 1 Louisiana 0 0 553 0 553 Maryland 0 116 0 0 116 Minnesota 0 9 0 0 9 Missouri * 0 0 0 * Nebraska 0 4 0 0 4 New Jersey 0 0 0 139 139 North Dakota 52,541 0 0 0 52,541 Ohio 0 6 360 0 366 Pennsylvania 0 2 0 0 2 Vermont 0 3 0 0 3 Virginia 0 48 0 0 48 Total 55,032 309 1,573 4,452 61,366 State Synthetic Natural Gas Propane-Air Biomass Gas Other Total * Volume is less than 500,000 cubic feet.

211

FY 2007 Laboratory Table  

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

Laboratory tables Laboratory tables preliminary Department of Energy FY 2007 Congressional Budget Request February 2006 Printed with soy ink on recycled paper Office of Chief Financial Officer Laboratory tables preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, uses of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Laboratory / Facility Index FY 2007 Congressional Budget Page 1 of 3 (Dollars In Thousands) 12:10:40PM Department Of Energy 1/31/2006 Page Number FY 2005 Appropriation FY 2006 Appropriation FY 2007

212

FY 2011 Laboratory Table  

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

Laboratory Tables Laboratory Tables Department of Energy FY 2011 Congressional Budget Request DOE/CF-0055 March 2010 Office of Chief Financial Officer Laboratory Tables Printed with soy ink on recycled paper The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Department of Energy FY 2011 Congressional Budget Request DOE/CF-0055 Laboratory / Facility Index FY 2011 Congressional Budget Page 1 of 3 (Dollars In Thousands) 6:24:57AM Department Of Energy 1/29/2010 Page

213

FY 2008 Laboratory Table  

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

Laboratory Table Laboratory Table Preliminary Department of Energy FY 2008 Congressional Budget Request February 2007 Office of Chief Financial Officer Laboratory Table Preliminary Printed with soy ink on recycled paper The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, uses of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Laboratory / Facility Index FY 2008 Congressional Budget Page 1 of 3 (Dollars In Thousands) 6:51:02AM Department Of Energy 2/1/2007 Page Number FY 2006 Appropriation FY 2007 Request FY 2008 Request

214

FY 2006 Laboratory Table  

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

Laboratory Tables Laboratory Tables Preliminary Department of Energy FY 2006 Congressional Budget Request Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation/CFO February 2005 Laboratory Tables Preliminary Printed with soy ink on recycled paper The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, uses of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Laboratory / Facility Index FY 2006 Congressional Budget Page 1 of 3 (Dollars In Thousands) 3:43:16PM Department Of Energy 1/27/2005 Page Number FY 2004 Comp/Approp FY 2005 Comp/Approp

215

Fy 2009 Laboratory Table  

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

Laboratory Tables Laboratory Tables Preliminary February 2008 Office of Chief Financial Officer Department of Energy FY 2009 Congressional Budget Request Laboratory Tables Preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Printed with soy ink on recycled paper Laboratory / Facility Index FY 2009 Congressional Budget Page 1 of 3 (Dollars In Thousands) 8:59:25AM Department Of Energy 1/30/2008 Page Number FY 2007 Appropriation FY 2008 Appropriation FY 2009

216

Management entrenchment and the valuation discount of dual class firms  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract Prior studies provide empirical evidence that dual class firms are discounted compared to single class firms due to the extraction of private benefits. This study examines the link between managerial entrenchment and the dual class discount. Using propensity score matching and conditioning for past underperformance, the paper shows that investors apply a greater discount to the value of dual class firms as the degree of managerial entrenchment increases. The impact of entrenchment on dual class discount is more pronounced when the CEO is the controlling shareholder compared to when the controlling shareholder is a director or the chairman of the board.

Vishaal Baulkaran

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

217

FY 2013 Statistical Table  

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

Statistical Table by Appropriation Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Current Enacted Congressional Approp. Approp. * Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy........................................ 1,771,721 1,809,638 2,337,000 +527,362 +29.1% Electricity delivery and energy reliability......................................... 138,170 139,103 143,015 +3,912 +2.8% Nuclear energy................................................................................ 717,817 765,391 770,445 +5,054 +0.7% Fossil energy programs Clean coal technology.................................................................. -16,500 -- --

218

FY 2009 Statistical Table  

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

Statistical Table by Appropriation Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Current Current Congressional Op. Plan Approp. Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy.......................... -- 1,722,407 1,255,393 -467,014 -27.1% Electricity delivery and energy reliability........................... -- 138,556 134,000 -4,556 -3.3% Nuclear energy................................................................. -- 961,665 853,644 -108,021 -11.2% Legacy management........................................................ -- 33,872 -- -33,872 -100.0% Energy supply and conservation Operation and maintenance..........................................

219

Table of Contents Page i Table of Contents  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Table of Contents Page i Table of Contents 4. Building HVAC Requirements ....................................................................................1 4.1.2 What's New for the 2013 Standards.............................................................................................3 4.1.4 California Appliance Standards and Equipment Certification

220

Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

2,026.7 W W 234.5 161.7 - 396.3 See footnotes at end of table. 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 262 Energy Information...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


221

Table 34. Reformulated Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

70.8 92.7 90.7 81.5 72.8 - 78.0 See footnotes at end of table. 34. Reformulated Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 146 Energy Information...

222

Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

2,222.4 W W 206.4 134.3 - 340.7 See footnotes at end of table. 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 262 Energy Information...

223

Table 48. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Motor Gasoline by...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

466.1 466.1 See footnotes at end of table. 48. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Motor Gasoline by Grade, Formulation, PAD District, and State 356 Energy Information Administration...

224

Table 34. Reformulated Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

71.7 92.3 89.9 82.6 72.7 - 78.2 See footnotes at end of table. 34. Reformulated Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 146 Energy Information...

225

Table 48. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Motor Gasoline by...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

532.1 532.1 See footnotes at end of table. 48. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Motor Gasoline by Grade, Formulation, PAD District, and State 356 Energy Information Administration...

226

Cost Recovery Charge (CRC) Calculation Tables  

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

Cost Recovery Charge (CRC) Calculation Table Updated: October 6, 2014 FY 2016 September 2014 CRC Calculation Table (pdf) Final FY 2015 CRC Letter & Table (pdf) Note: The Cost...

227

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

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

/2011 /2011 Decades of Discovery Decades of Discovery Page 2 6/1/2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 6 2 BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES .................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Adenosine Triphosphate: The Energy Currency of Life .............................................. 7 2.2 Making Better Catalysts .............................................................................................. 8 2.3 Understanding Chemical Reactions............................................................................ 9 2.4 New Types of Superconductors ................................................................................ 10

228

FirmGreen Energy Inc FGE | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

FirmGreen Energy Inc FGE FirmGreen Energy Inc FGE Jump to: navigation, search Name FirmGreen Energy Inc (FGE) Place Irvine, California Zip 92612 Product FirmGreen Energy Inc is an integrated energy company participating in virtually all aspects of the global green energy business. Coordinates 41.837752°, -79.268594° Loading map... {"minzoom":false,"mappingservice":"googlemaps3","type":"ROADMAP","zoom":14,"types":["ROADMAP","SATELLITE","HYBRID","TERRAIN"],"geoservice":"google","maxzoom":false,"width":"600px","height":"350px","centre":false,"title":"","label":"","icon":"","visitedicon":"","lines":[],"polygons":[],"circles":[],"rectangles":[],"copycoords":false,"static":false,"wmsoverlay":"","layers":[],"controls":["pan","zoom","type","scale","streetview"],"zoomstyle":"DEFAULT","typestyle":"DEFAULT","autoinfowindows":false,"kml":[],"gkml":[],"fusiontables":[],"resizable":false,"tilt":0,"kmlrezoom":false,"poi":true,"imageoverlays":[],"markercluster":false,"searchmarkers":"","locations":[{"text":"","title":"","link":null,"lat":41.837752,"lon":-79.268594,"alt":0,"address":"","icon":"","group":"","inlineLabel":"","visitedicon":""}]}

229

Application of lean enterprise concept to construction firms in Japan  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Construction firms in Japan are struggling with the change in construction industry environment and need a new business model to meet the change. On the other hand, Japanese manufacturing companies, especially automobile ...

Taguchi, Hiroshi, 1973-

2004-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

230

When governments break contracts : foreign firms in emerging economies  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Emerging economy governments commit to protect the property rights of foreign firms through a variety of contracts, from treaties to direct agreements. In an era of liberalized capital flows, these contracts are thought ...

Wellhausen, Rachel L. (Rachel Louise)

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

231

Green Buildings: Construction Design Firms' Implementation of Sustainable Design Standards  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

This paper is written to show the importance of green buildings and therefore the need for sustainable design. The paper describes why a construction design firm must take the steps necessary to properly integrate these sustainable design standards...

Malone, Nathan

2008-12-19T23:59:59.000Z

232

The influence of institutional investors on firm value  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

The impact of corporate governance on firm value has been extensively debated by academics and business practitioners. Some studies show that companies that allow minority shareholders to have more control are likely to ...

Lee, Yong Seung

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

233

Microsoft Word - table_01.doc  

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

3 3 Table 1 Table 1. Summary of natural gas supply and disposition in the United States, 2008-2013 (billion cubic feet) Year and Month Gross Withdrawals Marketed Production NGPL Production a Dry Gas Production b Supplemental Gaseous Fuels c Net Imports Net Storage Withdrawals d Balancing Item e Consumption f 2008 Total 25,636 21,112 953 20,159 61 3,021 34 2 23,277 2009 Total 26,057 21,648 1,024 20,624 65 2,679 -355 -103 22,910 2010 Total 26,816 22,382 1,066 21,316 65 2,604 -13 115 24,087 2011 January 2,299 1,953 92 1,861 5 236 811 R -24 R 2,889 February 2,104 1,729 82 1,647 4 186 594 R 20 R 2,452 March 2,411 2,002 95 1,908 5 171 151 R -4 R 2,230 April 2,350 1,961 93 1,868 5 R 152 -216 R 17 R 1,825 May 2,411 2,031

234

Microsoft Word - table_02.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 2. Natural gas production, transmission, and consumption, by state, 2012 (million cubic feet) U.S. Energy Information Administration | Natural Gas Annual 4 Table 2 Alabama 215,710 7,110 -162,223 617,883 0 -2,478 0 666,738 Alaska 351,259 21,470 22,663 0 -9,342 0 0 343,110 Arizona 117 0 -13,236 389,036 -43,838 0 0 332,079 Arkansas 1,146,168 424 -18,281 -831,755 0 -103 0 295,811 California 246,822 12,755 104,820 2,222,355 -109,787 48,071 0 2,403,385 Colorado 1,709,376 81,943 -107,940 -1,077,968 0 2,570 4,412 443,367 Connecticut 0 0 4,191 225,228 0 260 0 229,159 Delaware 0 0 21,035 80,692 0 51 * 101,676 District of Columbia 0 0 497 28,075 0 0 0 28,572 Florida 18,681 0 15,168 1,294,620 0 0 0 1,328,469

235

Evidence of an Energy-Management Gap in U.S. manufacturing: Spillovers from firm management practices to energy efficiency  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract In this paper we merge a well-cited survey of firm management practices into confidential plant level U.S. Census manufacturing data to examine whether generic, i.e. non-energy specific, firm management practices, spillover to enhance energy efficiency in the United States. For U.S. manufacturing plants we find this relationship to be more nuanced than prior research on UK plants. Most management techniques are shown to have beneficial spillovers to energy efficiency, but an emphasis on generic targets, conditional on other management practices, results in spillovers that increase energy intensity. Our specification controls for industry specific effects at a detailed 6-digit NAICS level and finds the relationship between management and energy use to be strongest for firms in energy intensive industries. We interpret the empirical result that generic management practices do not necessarily spillover to improved energy performance as evidence of an energy management gap.

Gale A. Boyd; E. Mark Curtis

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

236

Microsoft Word - table_07.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 7. Natural Gas Processed, Liquids Extracted, and Estimated Extraction Loss by State, 2005 Alabama .................................. 255,157 9,748 13,759 37,048 Alaska...................................... 3,089,229 23,700 27,956 105,449 Arkansas.................................. 16,756 177 231 786 California ................................. 226,230 11,101 13,748 45,926 Colorado .................................. 730,948 25,603 34,782 95,881 Florida...................................... 3,584 359 495 1,400 Illinois....................................... 280 37 46 129 Kansas..................................... 476,656 22,165 31,521 85,737 Kentucky.................................. 38,792 1,411 1,716 5,725 Louisiana ................................. 2,527,636 73,035 103,381

237

Microsoft Word - table_05.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 5. Number of Producing Gas Wells by State and the Gulf of Mexico, December 31, 2006-2010 Alabama .......................................................... 6,227 6,591 6,860 6,913 7,026 Alaska.............................................................. 231 239 261 261 269 Arizona ............................................................ 7 7 6 6 5 Arkansas.......................................................... 3,814 4,773 5,592 6,314 7,397 California ......................................................... 1,451 1,540 1,645 1,643 1,580 Colorado .......................................................... 20,568 22,949 25,716 27,021 28,813 Gulf of Mexico.................................................. 2,419 2,552 1,527 1,984 1,852 Illinois...............................................................

238

Microsoft Word - table_06.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 6. Wellhead Value and Marketed Production of Natural Gas, 2004-2008, and by State, 2008 2004 Total ............................ 15,223,749 -- 5.46 19,517,491 106,521,974 2005 Total ............................ 15,425,867 -- 7.33 18,927,095 138,750,746 2006 Total ............................ 15,981,421 -- 6.39 19,409,674 124,074,399 2007 Total ............................ R 16,335,710 -- R 6.25 R 20,196,346 R 126,164,553 2008 Total ............................ 18,424,440 -- 7.96 21,239,516 169,038,089 Alabama ............................... 246,747 2,382,188 9.65 257,884 2,489,704 Alaska................................... 337,359 2,493,128 7.39 398,442 2,944,546 Arizona ................................. 503 3,568 7.09 523 3,710 Arkansas...............................

239

Microsoft Word - table_21.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 Table 21. Number of Natural Gas Industrial Consumers by Type of Service and State, 2008-2009 Alabama ...................... 2,476 281 2,757 2,789 271 3,060 Alaska.......................... 2 4 6 2 1 3 Arizona ........................ 285 98 383 274 116 390 Arkansas...................... 648 456 1,104 582 443 1,025 California ..................... 36,124 R 3,467 R 39,591 35,126 3,762 38,888 Colorado ...................... 341 4,475 4,816 297 4,787 5,084 Connecticut.................. 2,386 810 3,196 2,228 910 3,138 Delaware ..................... 96 69 165 39 73 112 Florida.......................... 161 288 449 123 484 607 Georgia........................ 1,003 1,887 2,890 956 1,298 2,254 Hawaii.......................... 27 0 27 25 0 25 Idaho............................ 108 91 199 109 78 187 Illinois...........................

240

Microsoft Word - table_21.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

8 8 Table 21. Number of Natural Gas Industrial Consumers by Type of Service and State, 2004-2005 Alabama ...................... 2,495 R 304 R 2,799 2,487 299 2,786 Alaska.......................... 6 4 10 7 5 12 Arizona ........................ 328 86 414 319 106 425 Arkansas...................... 782 R 441 R 1,223 671 449 1,120 California ..................... 39,426 2,061 41,487 38,150 2,076 40,226 Colorado ...................... 393 3,782 4,175 364 3,954 4,318 Connecticut.................. 2,625 845 3,470 2,618 819 3,437 Delaware ..................... 134 52 186 124 55 179 Florida.......................... R 174 224 R 398 159 273 432 Georgia........................ R 993 2,168 R 3,161 854 2,599 3,453 Hawaii.......................... 29 0 29 28 0 28 Idaho............................ 117 79 196 116 79 195

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


241

Microsoft Word - table_05.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 Table 5. Number of Wells Producing Gas and Gas Condensate by State and the Gulf of Mexico, December 31, 2001-2005 Alabama .......................................................... 4,597 4,803 5,157 5,526 5,523 Alaska.............................................................. 170 165 195 224 227 Arizona ............................................................ 8 7 9 6 6 Arkansas.......................................................... 4,825 6,755 7,606 3,460 2,878 California ......................................................... 1,244 1,232 1,249 1,272 1,356 Colorado .......................................................... 22,117 23,554 18,774 16,718 22,691 Gulf of Mexico.................................................. 3,271 3,245 3,039 2,781 2,123 Illinois...............................................................

242

Microsoft Word - table_07.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 7. Natural Gas Processed, Liquids Extracted, and Estimated Extraction Loss by State, 2009 Alabama .................................. 248,232 11,667 17,232 42,984 Alaska...................................... 2,830,034 19,542 22,925 86,767 Arkansas.................................. 2,352 125 168 541 California ................................. 198,213 11,042 13,722 45,669 Colorado .................................. 1,233,260 47,705 67,607 174,337 Illinois....................................... 164 24 31 84 Kansas..................................... 370,670 18,863 26,948 72,922 Kentucky.................................. 60,167 2,469 3,270 9,982 Louisiana ................................. 2,175,026 67,067 95,359 250,586 Michigan .................................. 23,819 2,409

243

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 8. Supplemental Gas Supplies by State, 2006 (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado ...................... 0 11 0 0 6,138 6,149 Connecticut.................. 0 91 0 0 0 91 Delaware ..................... 0 * 0 0 0 * Georgia........................ 0 3 0 0 0 3 Hawaii.......................... 2,610 3 0 0 0 2,613 Illinois........................... 0 13 0 0 0 13 Indiana......................... 0 2 0 0 1,640 1,642 Iowa ............................. 0 * 0 0 46 46 Kentucky...................... 0 3 0 0 0 3 Maryland ...................... 0 41 0 0 0 41 Massachusetts............. 0 51 0 0 0 51 Minnesota .................... 0 13 0 0 0 13 Missouri ....................... 0 78 0 0 0 78 Nebraska ..................... 0 19 0 0 0 19 New Hampshire ........... 0 92 0 0 0 92 New Jersey .................. 0 0 0 0 175 175 New York .....................

244

Microsoft Word - table_07.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 7. Natural Gas Processed, Liquids Extracted, and Estimated Extraction Loss by State, 2007 Alabama .................................. 257,443 13,381 19,831 48,922 Alaska...................................... 2,965,956 22,419 26,332 99,472 Arkansas.................................. 11,532 126 162 552 California ................................. 206,239 11,388 13,521 47,045 Colorado .................................. 888,705 27,447 38,180 102,563 Florida...................................... 2,422 103 132 423 Illinois....................................... 235 38 48 131 Kansas..................................... 391,022 19,600 28,063 74,941 Kentucky.................................. 38,158 1,455 1,957 5,917 Louisiana ................................. 2,857,443 77,905 110,745

245

Microsoft Word - table_07.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 7. Natural Gas Processed, Liquids Extracted, and Estimated Extraction Loss by State, 2008 Alabama .................................. 253,028 11,753 17,222 43,191 Alaska...................................... 2,901,760 20,779 24,337 92,305 Arkansas.................................. 6,531 103 139 446 California ................................. 195,272 11,179 13,972 46,176 Colorado .................................. 1,029,641 37,804 53,590 139,332 Florida...................................... 300 16 22 65 Illinois....................................... 233 33 42 115 Kansas..................................... 397,587 19,856 28,302 76,021 Kentucky.................................. 58,899 1,783 2,401 7,233 Louisiana ................................. 2,208,920 66,369 94,785 245,631

246

Microsoft Word - table_05.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 5. Number of Wells Producing Gas and Gas Condensate by State and the Gulf of Mexico, December 31, 2002-2006 Alabama .......................................................... 4,803 5,157 5,526 5,523 6,227 Alaska.............................................................. 165 195 224 227 231 Arizona ............................................................ 7 9 6 6 7 Arkansas.......................................................... 6,755 7,606 3,460 R 3,462 3,811 California ......................................................... 1,232 1,249 1,272 1,356 1,451 Colorado .......................................................... 23,554 18,774 16,718 22,691 20,568 Gulf of Mexico.................................................. 3,245 3,039 2,781 2,123 1,946 Illinois...............................................................

247

Microsoft Word - table_21.doc  

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

9 9 Table 21. Number of natural gas commercial consumers by type of service and state, 2011-2012 R Revised data. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-176, "Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition." Please see the cautionary note regarding the number of residential and commercial customers located on the second page of Appendix A of this report. Alabama R 67,561 135 R 67,696 67,099 135 67,234 Alaska R 12,724 303 R 13,027 13,073 61 13,134 Arizona 56,349 198 56,547 56,252 280 56,532 Arkansas 67,454 361 67,815 68,151 614 68,765

248

Microsoft Word - table_05.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 5. Number of Wells Producing by State and the Gulf of Mexico, December 31, 2003-2007 Alabama .......................................................... 5,157 5,526 5,523 6,227 6,591 Alaska.............................................................. 195 224 227 231 239 Arizona ............................................................ 9 6 6 7 7 Arkansas.......................................................... 7,606 3,460 3,462 R 3,814 4,773 California ......................................................... 1,249 1,272 1,356 1,451 1,540 Colorado .......................................................... 18,774 16,718 22,691 20,568 22,949 Gulf of Mexico.................................................. 3,039 2,781 2,123 R 2,419 2,552 Illinois...............................................................

249

Microsoft Word - table_21.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 Table 21. Number of Natural Gas Industrial Consumers by Type of Service and State, 2007-2008 Alabama ...................... 2,409 295 2,704 2,476 281 2,757 Alaska.......................... 7 4 11 2 4 6 Arizona ........................ 296 99 395 285 98 383 Arkansas...................... 637 418 1,055 648 456 1,104 California ..................... 35,814 3,320 39,134 36,124 3,533 39,657 Colorado ...................... 298 4,294 4,592 341 4,475 4,816 Connecticut.................. 2,472 845 3,317 2,386 810 3,196 Delaware ..................... 125 60 185 96 69 165 Florida.......................... 156 311 467 161 288 449 Georgia........................ R 1,013 1,900 R 2,913 1,003 1,887 2,890 Hawaii.......................... 27 0 27 27 0 27 Idaho............................ 109 79 188 108 91 199 Illinois...........................

250

Microsoft Word - table_07.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 7. Natural Gas Processed, Liquids Extracted, and Estimated Extraction Loss by State, 2006 Alabama .................................. 287,278 14,736 21,065 54,529 Alaska...................................... 2,665,742 20,993 24,638 93,346 Arkansas.................................. 13,702 166 212 734 California ................................. 223,580 11,267 14,056 46,641 Colorado .................................. 751,036 26,111 36,317 97,697 Florida...................................... 3,972 357 485 1,416 Illinois....................................... 242 37 47 128 Kansas..................................... 453,111 21,509 30,726 83,137 Kentucky.................................. 39,559 1,666 2,252 6,763 Louisiana ................................. 2,511,802 73,551 105,236

251

Microsoft Word - table_06.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 6. Wellhead Value and Marketed Production of Natural Gas by State, 2005-2009 2005 Total ............................ 15,425,867 -- 7.33 18,927,095 138,750,746 2006 Total ............................ 15,981,421 -- 6.39 19,409,674 124,074,399 2007 Total ............................ 16,335,710 -- 6.25 20,196,346 126,164,553 2008 Total ............................ R 18,305,411 -- R 7.97 R 21,112,053 R 168,342,230 2009 Total ............................ 18,763,726 -- 3.67 21,604,158 79,188,096 Alabama ............................... 225,666 975,789 4.32 236,029 1,020,599 Alaska................................... 397,077 1,163,555 2.93 397,077 1,163,554 Arizona ................................. 695 2,214 3.19 712 2,269 Arkansas............................... 680,613 2,332,956 3.43

252

Microsoft Word - table_21.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table 21. Number of natural gas commercial consumers by type of service and state, 2010-2011 R Revised data. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-176, "Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition." Please see the cautionary note regarding the number of residential and commercial customers located on the second page of Appendix A of this report. Alabama R 68,017 146 R 68,163 67,522 135 67,657 Alaska 12,673 325 12,998 12,721 303 13,024 Arizona 56,510 166 56,676 56,349 198 56,547 Arkansas 67,676 311 67,987 67,454 361 67,815 California 399,290 40,282

253

Microsoft Word - table_06.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 6. Wellhead Value and Marketed Production of Natural Gas by State, 2006-2010 2006 Total ............................ 15,981,421 -- 6.39 19,409,674 124,074,399 2007 Total ............................ 16,335,710 -- 6.25 20,196,346 126,164,553 2008 Total ............................ 18,305,411 -- 7.97 21,112,053 168,342,230 2009 Total ............................ 18,763,726 -- 3.67 R 21,647,936 R 79,348,561 2010 Total ............................ 19,262,198 -- 4.48 22,402,141 100,272,654 Alabama ............................... 212,769 949,340 4.46 222,932 994,688 Alaska................................... 316,546 1,002,566 3.17 374,226 1,185,249 Arizona ................................. 165 676 4.11 183 753 Arkansas............................... 936,600 3,594,843 3.84

254

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4 4 Table 8. Supplemental Gas Supplies by State, 2005 (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado ...................... 0 2 0 0 5,283 5,285 Connecticut.................. 0 273 0 0 0 273 Delaware ..................... 0 * 0 0 0 * Georgia........................ 0 * 0 0 0 * Hawaii.......................... 2,593 14 0 0 0 2,606 Illinois........................... 0 11 0 4 0 15 Indiana......................... 0 30 0 0 1,958 1,988 Iowa ............................. 0 2 0 30 0 31 Kentucky...................... 0 15 0 0 0 15 Maryland ...................... 0 382 0 0 0 382 Massachusetts............. 0 46 0 0 0 46 Minnesota .................... 0 154 0 0 0 154 Missouri ....................... 0 15 0 0 0 15 Nebraska ..................... 0 16 0 * 0 16 New Hampshire ........... 0 84 0 0 0 84 New Jersey .................. 0 0 0 0 435 435 New York

255

Microsoft Word - table_06.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 6. Wellhead Value and Marketed Production of Natural Gas, 2003-2007, and by State, 2007 2003 Total ............................ 14,589,545 -- 4.88 19,974,360 97,555,375 2004 Total ............................ 15,223,749 -- 5.46 19,517,491 106,521,974 2005 Total ............................ 15,425,867 -- 7.33 18,927,095 138,750,746 2006 Total ............................ R 15,981,421 -- R 6.39 R 19,409,674 R 124,074,399 2007 Total ............................ 16,031,199 -- 6.37 20,019,321 127,530,680 Alabama ............................... 259,062 1,926,374 7.44 270,407 2,010,736 Alaska................................... 368,344 2,072,647 5.63 433,485 2,439,193 Arizona ................................. 634 3,791 5.98 655 3,913 Arkansas...............................

256

Microsoft Word - table_07.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 7. Natural Gas Processed, Liquids Extracted, and Estimated Extraction Loss by State, 2010 Alabama .................................. 242,444 13,065 19,059 47,741 Alaska...................................... 2,731,803 17,798 20,835 79,355 Arkansas.................................. 9,599 160 213 692 California ................................. 204,327 10,400 13,244 42,509 Colorado .................................. 1,434,003 57,924 82,637 209,191 Kansas..................................... 341,778 18,424 26,251 70,425 Kentucky.................................. 66,579 3,317 4,576 13,311 Louisiana ................................. 2,207,760 71,231 102,448 262,178 Michigan .................................. 23,449 2,207 2,943 8,272 Mississippi ...............................

257

Table 46. Refiner No. 2 Distillate, Diesel Fuel, and Fuel Oil...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1998 295 Table 46. Refiner No. 2 Distillate, Diesel Fuel, and Fuel Oil Volumes by PAD District and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) -...

258

Table 46. Refiner No. 2 Distillate, Diesel Fuel, and Fuel Oil...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1999 295 Table 46. Refiner No. 2 Distillate, Diesel Fuel, and Fuel Oil Volumes by PAD District and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) -...

259

Table 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

56 Energy Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1999 Table 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding...

260

Table 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

56 Energy Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1998 Table 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


261

Table 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Energy Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1995 Table 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding...

262

Table A1. Refiner/Reseller Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, PAD...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1999 401 Table A1. RefinerReseller Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, PAD District and State, 1984-Present (Cents per Gallon Excluding...

263

FY 2006 Statistical Table  

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

Statistical Table by Appropriation Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Comparable Comparable Request to FY 2006 vs. FY 2005 Approp Approp Congress Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy supply Operation and maintenance................................................. 787,941 909,903 862,499 -47,404 -5.2% Construction......................................................................... 6,956 22,416 40,175 17,759 +79.2% Total, Energy supply................................................................ 794,897 932,319 902,674 -29,645 -3.2% Non-Defense site acceleration completion............................. 167,272 157,316 172,400 15,084 +9.6%

264

FY 2013 Laboratory Table  

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

8 8 Department of Energy FY 2013 Congressional Budget Request Laboratory Tables y Preliminary February 2012 Office of Chief Financial Officer DOE/CF-0078 Department of Energy FY 2013 Congressional Budget Request Laboratory Tables P li i Preliminary h b d i d i hi d h l l f b d h i f h The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. February 2012 Office of Chief Financial Officer Printed with soy ink on recycled paper Laboratory / Facility Index FY 2013 Congressional Budget

265

FY 2010 Statistical Table  

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

Statistical Table by Appropriation Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 Current Current Current Congressional Approp. Approp. Recovery Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy....................................... 1,704,112 2,178,540 16,800,000 2,318,602 +140,062 +6.4% Electricity delivery and energy reliability........................................ 136,170 137,000 4,500,000 208,008 +71,008 +51.8% Nuclear energy.............................................................................. 960,903 792,000 -- 761,274 -30,726 -3.9% Legacy management..................................................................... 33,872 -- -- --

266

FY 2012 Statistical Table  

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

2Statistical Table by Appropriation 2Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Current Congressional Annualized Congressional Approp. Request CR Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy....................................... 2,216,392 2,355,473 2,242,500 3,200,053 +983,661 +44.4% Electricity delivery and energy reliability........................................ 168,484 185,930 171,982 237,717 +69,233 +41.1% Nuclear energy............................................................................. 774,578 824,052 786,637 754,028 -20,550 -2.7% Fossil energy programs Fossil energy research and development................................... 659,770 586,583 672,383 452,975

267

FY 2007 Statistical Table  

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

Statistical Table by Appropriation Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Current Current Congressional Approp. Approp. Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy supply and conservation Operation and maintenance............................................ 1,779,399 1,791,372 1,917,331 +125,959 +7.0% Construction................................................................... 22,416 21,255 6,030 -15,225 -71.6% Total, Energy supply and conservation.............................. 1,801,815 1,812,627 1,923,361 +110,734 +6.1% Fossil energy programs Clean coal technology..................................................... -160,000 -20,000 -- +20,000 +100.0% Fossil energy research and development.......................

268

FY 2012 Laboratory Table  

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

5 5 Department of Energy FY 2012 Congressional Budget Request Laboratory Tables y Preliminary February 2012 Office of Chief Financial Officer DOE/CF-0065 Department of Energy FY 2012 Congressional Budget Request Laboratory Tables P li i Preliminary h b d i d i hi d h l l f b d h i f h The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. February 2012 Office of Chief Financial Officer Printed with soy ink on recycled paper Laboratory / Facility Index FY 2012 Congressional Budget

269

FY 2008 Statistical Table  

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

Statistical Table by Appropriation Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 Current Congressional Congressional Approp. Request Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy supply and conservation Operation and maintenance........................................... 1,781,242 1,917,331 2,187,943 +270,612 +14.1% Construction.................................................................... 31,155 6,030 -- -6,030 -100.0% Total, Energy supply and conservation............................. 1,812,397 1,923,361 2,187,943 +264,582 +13.8% Fossil energy programs Clean coal technology.................................................... -20,000 -- -58,000 -58,000 N/A Fossil energy research and development......................

270

All Price Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4) 4) June 2007 State Energy Price and Expenditure Estimates 1970 Through 2004 2004 Price and Expenditure Summary Tables Table S1a. Energy Price Estimates by Source, 2004 (Nominal Dollars per Million Btu) State Primary Energy Electric Power Sector d,e Retail Electricity Total Energy d,f Coal Natural Gas Petroleum Nuclear Fuel Biomass c Total d,e,f Distillate Fuel Jet Fuel LPG a Motor Gasoline Residual Fuel Other b Total Alabama 1.57 7.72 11.91 8.82 15.78 13.68 4.78 8.25 12.28 0.43 1.81 5.32 1.68 18.01 11.29 Alaska 1.91 3.59 12.43 9.61 19.64 15.55 3.63 12.09 11.05 - 6.68 9.07 3.18 32.29 11.09 Arizona 1.31 6.84 13.59 9.53 18.40 15.33 5.29 7.23 13.92 0.45 5.90 6.68 2.18 21.83 15.24 Arkansas 1.25 8.09 12.01 8.30 14.80 13.97 4.67 11.02 12.77 0.49 1.79 6.59 1.43 16.76 11.89 California 1.82 7.63 13.58

271

All Price Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7) 7) August 2009 State Energy Price and Expenditure Estimates 1970 Through 2007 2007 Price and Expenditure Summary Tables Table S1a. Energy Price Estimates by Source, 2007 (Nominal Dollars per Million Btu) State Primary Energy Electric Power Sector e,f Retail Electricity Total Energy e,g Coal Natural Gas a Petroleum Nuclear Fuel Biomass Total e,f,g Distillate Fuel Oil Jet Fuel LPG b Motor Gasoline Residual Fuel Oil Other c Total Wood and Waste d Alabama 2.17 9.06 19.43 16.20 21.84 21.26 8.46 14.19 19.62 0.42 2.71 7.47 2.29 22.46 16.01 Alaska 2.34 5.76 19.43 16.35 28.63 22.14 11.51 23.69 17.97 - 10.51 14.88 4.94 38.96 17.87 Arizona 1.61 8.44 19.84 16.24 27.16 21.95 10.04 11.27 20.50 0.57 10.86 9.61 2.78 25.02 20.72 Arkansas 1.65 9.33 19.63 15.73 21.10 21.54 8.65 18.76 20.42 0.57 2.66 9.45 1.98 20.57

272

Table of Contents  

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

COMMUNICATIONS REQUIREMENTS COMMUNICATIONS REQUIREMENTS OF SMART GRID TECHNOLOGIES October 5, 2010 i Table of Contents I. Introduction and Executive Summary.......................................................... 1 a. Overview of Smart Grid Benefits and Communications Needs................. 2 b. Summary of Recommendations .................................................................... 5 II. Federal Government Smart Grid Initiatives ................................................ 7 a. DOE Request for Information ....................................................................... 7 b. Other Federal Government Smart Grid Initiatives .................................... 9 III. Communications Requirements of Smart Grid Applications .................. 11 a. Advanced Metering Infrastructure ............................................................12

273

Do Campaign Contributions and Lobbying Expenditures by Firms Create Political Capital?  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

We examine the relation between a firms campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures and its Tobins q. We follow other studies that use q...to measure the value of the firms intangible capital (e.g., the v...

Philip Hersch; Jeffry M. Netter; Christopher Pope

2008-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

274

2003 CBECS Detailed Tables: Summary  

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

2003 Detailed Tables 2003 Detailed Tables 2003 CBECS Detailed Tables most recent available Released: September 2008 Building Characteristics | Consumption & Expenditures | End-Use Consumption In the 2003 CBECS, the survey procedures for strip shopping centers and enclosed malls ("mall buildings") were changed from those used in previous surveys, and, as a result, mall buildings are now excluded from most of the 2003 CBECS tables. Therefore, some data in the majority of the tables are not directly comparable with previous CBECS tables, all of which included mall buildings. Some numbers in the 2003 tables will be slightly lower than earlier surveys since the 2003 figures do not include mall buildings. See "Change in Data Collection Procedures for Malls" for a more detailed explanation.

275

Investment in Energy Efficiency by Small and Medium-Sized Firms: An Empirical Analysis of the Adoption of Process Improvement Recommendations.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

firms under the Industrial Assessment Centers (IAC) programsized firms by Industrial Assessment Centers (IAC) program

Muthulingam, S.; Corbett, C. J.; Benartzi, S.; Oppenheim, B.

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

276

EIA - Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Table-Figure Notes and Sources  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

A1. Notes and Sources A1. Notes and Sources Tables Chapter 1: Greenhouse gas emissions overview Table 1. U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, based on global warming potential, 1990-2009: Sources: Emissions: EIA estimates. Data in this table are revised from the data contained in the previous EIA report, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2008, DOE/EIA-0573(2008) (Washington, DC, December 2009). Global warming potentials: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Errata (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008), website http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Errata_2008-12-01.pdf. Table 2. U.S. greenhouse gas intensity and related factors, 1990-2009: Sources: Emissions: EIA estimates. Data in this table are revised from the

277

Strategic alliance announcements and new venture stock market returns: signaling and resource-based perspectives on the effects of partner firm, new venture firm, and alliance characteristics  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Firms form marketing and technology alliances to access other firms resources, and these alliances act as signals to investors. Investors use these signals to adjust expectations about new venture performance prospects, but our understanding...

Holmes Jr, Robert Michael

2009-05-15T23:59:59.000Z

278

RSE Table 2.1 Relative Standard Errors for Table 2.1  

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

2.1 Relative Standard Errors for Table 2.1;" 2.1 Relative Standard Errors for Table 2.1;" " Unit: Percents." " "," " " "," " "NAICS"," "," ","Residual","Distillate","Natural ","LPG and",,"Coke"," " "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Total","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil(b)","Gas(c)","NGL(d)","Coal","and Breeze","Other(e)" ,,"Total United States" 311,"Food",31,0,91,35,0,0,0,47 311221," Wet Corn Milling",0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 31131," Sugar ",0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 311421," Fruit and Vegetable Canning",1,0,0,0,0,0,0,8

279

RSE Table 10.10 Relative Standard Errors for Table 10.10  

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

0 Relative Standard Errors for Table 10.10;" 0 Relative Standard Errors for Table 10.10;" " Unit: Percents." ,,"Coal",,,"Alternative Energy Sources(b)" "NAICS"," ","Total"," ","Not","Electricity","Natural","Distillate","Residual" "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Consumed(c)","Switchable","Switchable","Receipts(d)","Gas","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil","LPG","Other(e)" ,,"Total United States" 311,"Food",6,18,5,0,20,85,29,20,0 311221," Wet Corn Milling",0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 31131," Sugar ",0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0

280

RSE Table 10.13 Relative Standard Errors for Table 10.13  

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

3 Relative Standard Errors for Table 10.13;" 3 Relative Standard Errors for Table 10.13;" " Unit: Percents." ,,"LPG(b)",,,"Alternative Energy Sources(c)" ,,,,,,,,,,"Coal Coke" "NAICS"," ","Total"," ","Not","Electricity","Natural","Distillate","Residual",,"and" "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Consumed(d)","Switchable","Switchable","Receipts(e)","Gas","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil","Coal","Breeze","Other(f)" ,,"Total United States" 311,"Food",8,17,8,20,21,43,34,35,37,29 311221," Wet Corn Milling",0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


281

RSE Table 5.7 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.7  

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

7 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.7;" 7 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.7;" " Unit: Percents." " ",,,"Distillate" " ","Net Demand",,"Fuel Oil",,,"Coal" " ","for ","Residual","and","Natural ","LPG and","(excluding Coal" "End Use","Electricity(a)","Fuel Oil","Diesel Fuel(b)","Gas(c)","NGL(d)","Coke and Breeze)" ,"Total United States" "TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION",2,3,6,2,4,9 "Indirect Uses-Boiler Fuel",6,4,10,2,10,13 " Conventional Boiler Use",12,5,14,2,10,8 " CHP and/or Cogeneration Process",4,2,6,3,2,19

282

RSE Table 4.1 Relative Standard Errors for Table 4.1  

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

1 Relative Standard Errors for Table 4.1;" 1 Relative Standard Errors for Table 4.1;" " Unit: Percents." " "," " " "," " "NAICS"," "," ",,"Residual","Distillate","Natural","LPG and",,"Coke"," " "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Total","Electricity(b)","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil(c)","Gas(d)","NGL(e)","Coal","and Breeze","Other(f)" ,,"Total United States" 311,"Food",4,5,25,20,5,27,6,0,17 311221," Wet Corn Milling",1,0,0,1,3,0,0,0,0 31131," Sugar ",0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 311421," Fruit and Vegetable Canning",8,11,46,45,8,57,0,0,3

283

RSE Table 5.8 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.8  

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

8 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.8;" 8 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.8;" " Unit: Percents." " ",," ","Distillate"," "," " " ","Net Demand",,"Fuel Oil",,,"Coal" " ","for ","Residual","and","Natural ","LPG and","(excluding Coal" "End Use","Electricity(a)","Fuel Oil","Diesel Fuel(b)","Gas(c)","NGL(d)","Coke and Breeze)" ,"Total United States" "TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION",2,3,6,2,3,9 "Indirect Uses-Boiler Fuel",6,4,14,2,9,13 " Conventional Boiler Use",12,5,14,2,10,8 " CHP and/or Cogeneration Process",4,2,6,3,2,18

284

RSE Table 5.6 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.6  

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

6 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.6;" 6 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.6;" " Unit: Percents." " "," ",," ","Distillate"," "," ",," " " ",,,,"Fuel Oil",,,"Coal" " "," ","Net","Residual","and","Natural","LPG and","(excluding Coal"," " "End Use","Total","Electricity(a)","Fuel Oil","Diesel Fuel(b)","Gas(c)","NGL(d)","Coke and Breeze)","Other(e)" ,"Total United States" "TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION",2,2,3,6,2,3,9,2 "Indirect Uses-Boiler Fuel",0,11,4,14,2,9,13,0

285

RSE Table 7.6 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.6  

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

6 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.6;" 6 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.6;" " Unit: Percents." " "," " " "," ",,,,,,,,," " "NAICS"," "," ",,"Residual","Distillate","Natural ","LPG and",,"Coke" "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Total","Electricity","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil(b)","Gas(c)","NGL(d)","Coal","and Breeze","Other(e)" ,,"Total United States" 311,"Food",4,5,25,20,5,27,6,0,20 311221," Wet Corn Milling",1,0,0,1,3,0,0,0,0 31131," Sugar ",0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 311421," Fruit and Vegetable Canning",8,11,42,45,8,57,0,0,4

286

RSE Table 10.11 Relative Standard Errors for Table 10.11  

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

1 Relative Standard Errors for Table 10.11;" 1 Relative Standard Errors for Table 10.11;" " Unit: Percents." ,,"Coal(b)",,,"Alternative Energy Sources(c)" "NAICS"," ","Total"," ","Not","Electricity","Natural","Distillate","Residual" "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Consumed(d)","Switchable","Switchable","Receipts(e)","Gas","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil","LPG","Other(f)" ,,"Total United States" 311,"Food",20,32,21,0,16,68,65,73,0 311221," Wet Corn Milling",0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 31131," Sugar ",0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0

287

Utility Sector Leaders Make Firm Commitment to Energy Efficiency |  

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

Utility Sector Leaders Make Firm Commitment to Energy Efficiency Utility Sector Leaders Make Firm Commitment to Energy Efficiency Utility Sector Leaders Make Firm Commitment to Energy Efficiency July 31, 2006 - 9:30am Addthis (San Francisco, Calif. - July 31, 2006) More than 80 energy, environmental and other organizations announced commitments and public statements in support of the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (NAPEE), released today, which provides energy consumers and providers information on policies and techniques to save money as well as protect the environment. By adopting the plan's recommendations on low-cost, under-used energy efficiency, Americans could save hundreds of billions of dollars on their gas and electric utility bills, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and lower the costs for energy and pollution controls.

288

Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation - Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation Table 2. Total Energy Consumption, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 3. Total Petroleum Consumption, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 4. Total Natural Gas Consumption, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 5. Total Coal Consumption, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 6. Total Electricity Sales, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 7. Crude Oil Production, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 8. Natural Gas Production, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 9. Coal Production, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 10. Net Petroleum Imports, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 11. Net Natural Gas Imports, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 12. Net Coal Exports, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 13. World Oil Prices, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 14. Natural Gas Wellhead Prices, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 15. Coal Prices to Electric Utilities, Actual vs. Forecasts

289

Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation - Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Analysis Papers > Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation>Tables Analysis Papers > Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation>Tables Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation Download Adobe Acrobat Reader Printer friendly version on our site are provided in Adobe Acrobat Spreadsheets are provided in Excel Actual vs. Forecasts Formats Table 2. Total Energy Consumption Excel, PDF Table 3. Total Petroleum Consumption Excel, PDF Table 4. Total Natural Gas Consumption Excel, PDF Table 5. Total Coal Consumption Excel, PDF Table 6. Total Electricity Sales Excel, PDF Table 7. Crude Oil Production Excel, PDF Table 8. Natural Gas Production Excel, PDF Table 9. Coal Production Excel, PDF Table 10. Net Petroleum Imports Excel, PDF Table 11. Net Natural Gas Imports Excel, PDF Table 12. World Oil Prices Excel, PDF Table 13. Natural Gas Wellhead Prices

290

Help:Tables | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Tables Tables Jump to: navigation, search Tables may be authored in wiki pages using either XHTML table elements directly, or using wikicode formatting to define the table. XHTML table elements and their use are well described on various web pages and will not be discussed here. The benefit of wikicode is that the table is constructed of character symbols which tend to make it easier to perceive the table structure in the article editing view compared to XHTML table elements. As a general rule, it is best to avoid using a table unless you need one. Table markup often complicates page editing. Contents 1 Wiki table markup summary 2 Basics 2.1 Table headers 2.2 Caption 3 XHTML attributes 3.1 Attributes on tables 3.2 Attributes on cells 3.3 Attributes on rows 3.4 HTML colspan and rowspan

291

Table Definitions, Sources, and Explanatory Notes  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Prices, Sales Volumes & Stocks by State Prices, Sales Volumes & Stocks by State Definitions Key Terms Definition Aviation Gasoline (Finished) A complex mixture of relatively volatile hydrocarbons with or without small quantities of additives, blended to form a fuel suitable for use in aviation reciprocating engines. Fuel specifications are provided in ASTM Specification D 910 and Military Specification MIL-G-5572. Note: Data on blending components are not counted in data on finished aviation gasoline. Gas Plant Operator Any firm, including a gas plant owner, which operates a gas plant and keeps the gas plant records. A gas plant is a facility in which natural gas liquids are separated from natural gas or in which natural gas liquids are fractionated or otherwise separated into natural gas liquid products or both. For the purposes of this survey, gas plant operator data are contained in the refiner categories.

292

Microsoft Word - table_07.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 Created on: 1/7/2014 9:25:31 AM Table 7. Marketed production of natural gas in selected states and the Federal Gulf of Mexico, 2008-2013 (million cubic feet) Year and Month Alaska Louisiana New Mexico Oklahoma Texas Wyoming Other a States Federal Gulf of Mexico U.S. Total 2008 Total 398,442 1,377,969 1,446,204 1,886,710 6,960,693 2,274,850 4,452,843 2,314,342 21,112,053 2009 Total 397,077 1,548,607 1,383,004 1,901,556 6,818,973 2,335,328 4,834,474 2,428,916 21,647,936 2010 Total 374,226 2,210,099 1,292,185 1,827,328 6,715,294 2,305,525 5,412,154 2,245,062 22,381,873 2011 January 31,027 224,410 100,352 154,940 588,714 178,331 496,362 178,597 1,952,732 February 31,076 208,495 88,553

293

Microsoft Word - table_25.doc  

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

8 8 Table 25. Average price of natural gas delivered to residential and commercial sector consumers by local distribution and marketers in selected states, 2011-2012 (dollars per thousand cubic feet) Georgia 11.98 16.38 15.72 15.1 12.47 16.82 16.23 13.5 New York 13.52 14.22 13.71 72.4 12.72 13.59 12.97 71.2 Ohio 10.32 11.09 10.78 40.8 8.75 10.42 9.91 30.9 Residential 2011 2012 State Local Distribution Company Average Price a Marketer Average Price b Combined Average Price c Percent Sold by Local Distribution Company Local Distribution Company Average Price a Marketer Average Price b Combined Average Price c Percent Sold by Local Distribution Company a Price derived from Form EIA-176, "Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition."

294

CARINA Data Table  

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

Cruise Summary Table and Data Cruise Summary Table and Data Users are requested to report any data or metadata errors in the CARINA cruise files to CDIAC. Parameter units in all CARINA data files are in CCHDO exchange format. No Cruise Namea (Alias) Areab Number of Stations Datec Ship Chief Scientist Carbon PI Oxygen Nutrients TCO2d TALK pCO2e pHf CFC Other Measurements Data Files 1 06AQ19920929g (06ANTX_6) (See map) 2 118 9/29-11/30/1992 Polarstern V. Smetacek M. Stoll, J. Rommets, H. De Baar, D. Bakker 62 114h 53 54i U C 0 Choloroa,b Fluorescence, NH4 Data Files (Metadata) 2 06AQ19930806 (06ARKIX_4) (See map) 4 64 8/6-10/5/1993 Polarstern D.K. Fütterer L. Anderson 64 63 63j, bb 0 0 0 59he 3H, 3He, 18O, 14C, 85Kr, Bak Data Files

295

Supplement Tables - Contact  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Supplement Tables to the AEO99 Supplement Tables to the AEO99 bullet1.gif (843 bytes) Annual Energy Outlook 1999 bullet1.gif (843 bytes) Assumptions to the AEO99 bullet1.gif (843 bytes) NEMS Conference bullet1.gif (843 bytes) To Forecasting Home Page bullet1.gif (843 bytes) EIA Homepage furtherinfo.gif (5474 bytes) The Annual Energy Outlook 1999 (AEO99) was prepared by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, under the direction of Mary J. Hutzler (mhutzler@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2222). General questions may be addressed to Arthur T. Andersen (aanderse@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-1441), Director of the International, Economic, and Greenhouse Gas Division; Susan H. Holte (sholte@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-4838), Director of the Demand and Integration Division; James M. Kendell (jkendell@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-9646), Director of the Oil and Gas Division; Scott Sitzer (ssitzer@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2308), Director of the Coal and Electric Power Division; or Andy S. Kydes (akydes@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2222), Senior Modeling Analyst. Detailed questions about the forecasts and related model components may be addressed to the following analysts:

296

Appendix B: Summary Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Analysis of Impacts of a Clean Energy Standard as requested by Chairman Bingaman U.S. Energy Information Administration | Analysis of Impacts of a Clean Energy Standard as requested by Chairman Bingaman Appendix B: Summary Tables Table B1. The BCES and alternative cases compared to the Reference case, 2025 2009 2025 Ref Ref BCES All Clean Partial Credit Revised Baseline Small Utilities Credit Cap 2.1 Credit Cap 3.0 Stnds + Cds Generation (billion kilowatthours) Coal 1,772 2,049 1,431 1,305 1,387 1,180 1,767 1,714 1,571 1,358 Petroleum 41 45 43 44 44 44 45 45 45 43 Natural Gas 931 1,002 1,341 1,342 1,269 1,486 1,164 1,193 1,243 1,314 Nuclear 799 871 859 906 942 889 878 857 843 826 Conventional Hydropower 274 306 322 319 300 321 316 298 312 322 Geothermal 15 25 28 25 31 24 27 22 23 24 Municipal Waste 18 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 Wood and Other Biomass 38 162 303 289 295 301 241 266

297

"RSE Table C2.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C2.1;"  

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

C2.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C2.1;" C2.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C2.1;" " Unit: Percents." " "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," ",," " " "," ","Any Combustible" "NAICS"," ","Energy","Residual","Distillate",,"LPG and",,"Coke"," " "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Source(b)","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil(c)","Natural Gas(d)","NGL(e)","Coal","and Breeze","Other(f)" ,,"Total United States" , 311,"Food",4,0,3,0,1,0,2,6

298

"RSE Table C3.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C3.1;"  

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

C3.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C3.1;" C3.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C3.1;" " Unit: Percents." " "," "," ",," "," "," "," "," "," "," ",," " " "," ","Any" "NAICS"," ","Energy","Net","Residual","Distillate",,"LPG and",,"Coke"," " "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Source(b)","Electricity(c)","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil(d)","Natural Gas(e)","NGL(f)","Coal","and Breeze","Other(g)" ,,"Total United States"

299

"RSE Table C4.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C4.1;"  

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

C4.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C4.1;" C4.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C4.1;" " Unit: Percents." " "," "," ",," "," "," "," "," "," "," ",," " " "," ","Any" "NAICS"," ","Energy",,"Residual","Distillate",,"LPG and",,"Coke"," " "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Source(b)","Electricity(c)","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil(d)","Natural Gas(e)","NGL(f)","Coal","and Breeze","Other(g)" ,,"Total United States" ,

300

1. Introduction Alanine-based ionizing radiation dosimetry is firmly  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

1. Introduction Alanine-based ionizing radiation dosimetry is firmly woven into the fabric of high-dose System and Its Implications in High-Dose Ionizing Radiation Metrology Volume 113 Number 2 March.g., radiochromic dosimetry). From the NMI's perspective, the broad absorbed- dose range of the alanine system

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


301

Essays on the Performance of Manufacturing Firms in Developing Countries  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

s tate- and firm-level da ta f rom India ove r t he pe riodbout ha lf of w hich comes f rom i ncreased employment i n ternal to the f irm. Using da ta f rom a n experiment on the

Eifert, Benjamin Patrick

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

302

Machinery sharing by agribusiness firms: methodology, application, and simulation  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

entering into a joint machinery ownership contract are examined. Two, two-player models, a Nash equilibrium game theoretical model and an applied two-farm simulation model are used to determine impacts of machinery sharing on firms engaged in machinery...

Wolfley, Jared Lynn

2009-05-15T23:59:59.000Z

303

Microsoft Word - table_A2.doc  

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

4 4 Figure A1. Natural gas processing plant capacity in the United States, 2013 2012 Table A2. Natural gas processing plant capacity, by state, 2013 (million cubic feet per day) Alabama 1,403 Arkansas 24 California 926 Colorado 5,450 Florida 90 Illinois 2,100 Kansas 1,818 Kentucky 240 Louisiana 10,737 Michigan 479 Mississippi 1,123 State Plant Capacity Notes: Coverage includes the Lower 48 States (excluding Alaska and Hawaii). Sources: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-757, "Natural Gas Processing Plant Survey." State Plant Capacity Montana 161 New Mexico 3,149 North Dakota 660 Ohio 10 Oklahoma 4,976 Pennsylvania 369

304

CBECS 1992 - Consumption & Expenditures, Detailed Tables  

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

Detailed Tables Detailed Tables Detailed Tables Figure on Energy Consumption in Commercial Buildings by Energy Source, 1992 Divider Line The 49 tables present detailed energy consumption and expenditure data for buildings in the commercial sector. This section provides assistance in reading the tables by explaining some of the headings for the data categories. It will also explain the use of row and column factors to compute both the confidence levels of the estimates given in the tables and the statistical significance of differences between the data in two or more categories. The section concludes with a "Quick-Reference Guide" to the statistics in the different tables. Categories of Data in the Tables After Table 3.1, which is a summary table, the tables are grouped into the major fuel tables (Tables 3.2 through 3.13) and the specific fuel tables (Tables 3.14 through 3.29 for electricity, Tables 3.30 through 3.40 for natural gas, Tables 3.41 through 3.45 for fuel oil, and Tables 3.46 through 3.47 for district heat). Table 3.48 presents energy management and DSM data as reported by the building respondent. Table 3.49 presents data on participation in electric utility-sponsored DSM programs as reported by both the building respondent and the electricity supplier.

305

Mexican firms commit to responsabilidad integral  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

With the prospect of Mexico joining the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), eyes are on the environmental performance of that country's chemical industry. Its image has already been dented directly by pollution problems at certain maquiladora plants on the U.S. border, and indirectly by the April explosions at Guadalajara, blamed on gasoline leaks from state oil group Petroleos Mexicanos, (Pemex). NAFTA has drown the issue into focus, since the pact could encourage companies to build plants in Mexico to take advantage of cheaper labor costs. Concerned that laxer environmental provisions could also play a part, environmentalists are pressuring Washington to ensure that NAFTA puts Mexico on a par with the rest of North America. But chemical markers assert that Mexico's environmental legislation is already similar to that of the US. And, under the administration of President Carlos Salinas Gortari, the Ministry of Social Development has upped enforcement, fined a number of producers, and closed down some chemical units for failing to meet environmental regulations.

Wood, A.

1992-12-09T23:59:59.000Z

306

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

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

2 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Project Summary 1. Technical Progress 3 2. Cost Reporting 5 B. Detailed Reports 1.1 Magnets & Supports 8 1.2 Vacuum System 12 1.3 Power Supplies 14 1.4 RF System 16 1.5 Instrumentation & Controls 17 1.6 Cable Plant 18 1.7 Beam Line Front Ends 19 1.8 Facilities 19 1.9 Installation 20 2.1 Accelerator Physics 21 2 A. SPEAR 3 PROJECT SUMMARY 1. Technical Progress The progress and highlights of each major technical system are summarized below. Additional details are provided in Section B. Magnets - As of the end of this quarter (March 31, 2002), the status of magnet fabrication is as follows: Magnet Type Number Received % of Total Received Dipoles 40 100% Quadrupoles 102 100% Sextupoles 76 100%

307

Reviews, Tables, and Plots  

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

4 Review of Particle Physics 4 Review of Particle Physics Please use this CITATION: S. Eidelman et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Lett. B 592, 1 (2004) (bibtex) Standalone figures are now available for these reviews. Categories: * Constants, Units, Atomic and Nuclear Properties * Standard Model and Related Topics * Particle Properties * Hypothetical Particles * Astrophysics and Cosmology * Experimental Methods and Colliders * Mathematical Tools * Kinematics, Cross-Section Formulae, and Plots * Authors, Introductory Text, History plots PostScript help file PDF help file Constants, Units, Atomic and Nuclear Properties Physical constants (Rev.) PS PDF (1 page) Astrophysical constants (Rev.) PS PDF (2 pages) International System of units (SI) PS PDF (2 pages) Periodic table of the elements (Rev.) errata PS PDF (1 page)

308

Table G3  

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

1905-0194 1905-0194 Expiration Date: 07/31/2013 May 28, 2010 Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases 14 Table G3. Decision Chart for a Start Year Report for a Large Emitter Intending To Register Reductions Report Characteristics Reporting Requirements Schedule I Schedule II (For Each Subentity) Schedule III Schedule IV Sec. 1 Sec. 2 Sec. 3 Sec. 4 Sec. 1 Sec. 2 & Add. A Sec. 3 Sec. 1 Sec. 2 Sec. 1 Sec. 2 Part A Part B Part C Part D Part E Part A Part B Part C Independent Verification? All A- or B-Rated Methods? Foreign Emissions? Entity-Wide Reductions Only? Entity Statement Aggregated Emissions by Gas (Domestic and Foreign) † Emissions Inventory by Source

309

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

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

through June 2001 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Project Summary 1. Technical Progress 3 2. Cost Reporting 4 B. Detailed Reports 1.1 Magnets & Supports 9 1.2 Vacuum System 16 1.3 Power Supplies 21 1.4 RF System 25 1.5 Instrumentation & Controls 26 1.6 Cable Plant 28 1.8 Facilities 28 2.0 Accelerator Physics 29 2.1 ES&H 31 3 A. SPEAR 3 PROJECT SUMMARY 1. Technical Progress Magnet System - The project has received three shipments of magnets from IHEP. A total of 55 dipole, quadrupole and sextupole magnets out of 218 have arrived. All main magnets will arrive by December. The additional mechanical and electrical checks of the magnets at SSRL have been successful. Only minor mechanical problems were found and corrected. The prototype

310

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

AC05-00OR22800 AC05-00OR22800 TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents Page # TOC - i SECTION A - SOLICITATION/OFFER AND AWARD ......................................................................... A-i SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS ........................................................ B-i B.1 SERVICES BEING ACQUIRED ....................................................................................B-2 B.2 TRANSITION COST, ESTIMATED COST, MAXIMUM AVAILABLE FEE, AND AVAILABLE FEE (Modification 295, 290, 284, 280, 270, 257, 239, 238, 219, M201, M180, M162, M153, M150, M141, M132, M103, M092, M080, M055, M051, M049, M034, M022, M003, A002) ..........................................................B-2 SECTION C - DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATION/WORK STATEMENT DESCRIPTION OF

311

Table of Contents  

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

U U U . . S S . . D D E E P P A A R R T T M M E E N N T T O O F F E E N N E E R R G G Y Y O O F F F F I I C C E E O O F F I I N N S S P P E E C C T T O O R R G G E E N N E E R R A A L L Semiannual Report toCongress DOE/IG-0065 April 1 - September 30, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS From the Desk of the Inspector General ..................................................... 2 Impacts Key Accomplishments ............................................................................................... 3 Positive Outcomes ...................................................................................................... 3 Reports Investigative Outcomes .............................................................................................. 6 Audits ......................................................................................................................... 8

312

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

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

October October through December 2001 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Project Summary 1. Technical Progress 3 2. Cost Reporting 4 B. Detailed Reports 1.1 Magnets & Supports 7 1.2 Vacuum System 9 1.3 Power Supplies 13 1.4 RF System 16 1.5 Instrumentation & Controls 17 1.6 Cable Plant 18 1.9 Installation 19 2.0 Accelerator Physics 20 3 A. SPEAR 3 PROJECT SUMMARY 1. Technical Progress In the magnet area, the production of all major components (dipoles, quadrupoles, and sextupoles) has been completed on schedule. This results from a highly successful collaboration with our colleagues at the Institute of High Energy Physics (IHEP) in Beijing. The production of corrector magnets is still in progress with completion scheduled for May 2002.

313

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

State State Energy Data 2011: Consumption 11 Table C8. Transportation Sector Energy Consumption Estimates, 2011 (Trillion Btu) State Coal Natural Gas a Petroleum Retail Electricity Sales Net Energy Electrical System Energy Losses e Total Aviation Gasoline Distillate Fuel Oil Jet Fuel b LPG c Lubricants Motor Gasoline d Residual Fuel Oil Total Alabama ............. 0.0 23.5 0.4 124.4 13.4 0.3 2.3 316.3 6.7 463.7 0.0 487.2 0.0 487.2 Alaska ................. 0.0 3.5 0.8 44.4 118.2 (s) 0.4 32.9 0.4 197.2 0.0 200.7 0.0 200.7 Arizona ............... 0.0 15.6 1.0 111.3 21.5 0.8 1.6 318.2 0.0 454.5 0.0 470.1 0.0 470.1 Arkansas ............. 0.0 11.5 0.4 99.7 5.9 0.4 2.0 171.3 0.0 279.8 (s) 291.2 (s) 291.2 California ............ 0.0 25.7 1.9 440.9 549.7 3.8 13.3 1,770.1 186.9 2,966.5 2.8 2,995.1 5.5 3,000.5 Colorado ............. 0.0 14.7 0.6 83.2 58.3 0.3

314

2003 CBECS Detailed Tables: Summary  

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

Energy Expenditures by Major Fuel c2-pdf c2.xls c2.html Table C3. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of Major Fuels c3.pdf c3.xls c3.html Table C4. Expenditures for...

315

State  

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

Biodiesel Producers and Production Capacity by State, September 2013 Biodiesel Producers and Production Capacity by State, September 2013 State Number of Producers Annual Production Capacity (million gallons per year) Alabama 3 47 Alaska - - Arizona 1 2 Arkansas 3 85 California

316

1997 Housing Characteristics Tables Housing Unit Tables  

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

Million U.S. Households; 45 pages, 128 kb) Million U.S. Households; 45 pages, 128 kb) Contents Pages HC1-1a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Climate Zone, Million U.S. Households, 1997 4 HC1-2a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Year of Construction, Million U.S. Households, 1997 4 HC1-3a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Household Income, Million U.S. Households, 1997 4 HC1-4a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Type of Housing Unit, Million U.S. Households, 1997 3 HC1-5a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Type of Owner-Occupied Housing Unit, Million U.S. Households, 1997 3 HC1-6a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Type of Rented Housing Unit, Million U.S. Households, 1997 3 HC1-7a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, Million U.S. Households, 1997 4

317

2014 Headquarters Facilities Master Security Plan - Table of...  

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

Table of Contents 2014 Headquarters Facilities Master Security Plan - Table of Contents June 2014 2014 Headquarters Facilities Master Security Plan - Table of Contents The Table of...

318

FY 2014 Budget Request Summary Table | Department of Energy  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Summary Table FY 2014 Budget Request Summary Table Summary Table by Appropriations Summary Table by Organization More Documents & Publications FY 2014 Budget Request Statistical...

319

ARM - Instrument - s-table  

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

govInstrumentss-table govInstrumentss-table Documentation S-TABLE : Instrument Mentor Monthly Summary (IMMS) reports S-TABLE : Data Quality Assessment (DQA) reports ARM Data Discovery Browse Data Comments? We would love to hear from you! Send us a note below or call us at 1-888-ARM-DATA. Send Instrument : Stabilized Platform (S-TABLE) Instrument Categories Ocean Observations For ship-based deployments, some instruments require actively stabilized platforms to compensate for the ship's motion, especially rotations around the long axis of the ship (roll), short axis (pitch), and, for some instruments, vertical axis (yaw). ARM currently employs two types of stabilized platforms: one electrically controlled for lighter instruments that includes yaw control (dubbed RPY for Roll, Pitch, Yaw) and one

320

Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation - Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Modeling and Analysis Papers> Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation>Tables Modeling and Analysis Papers> Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation>Tables Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation Actual vs. Forecasts Available formats Excel (.xls) for printable spreadsheet data (Microsoft Excel required) MS Excel Viewer PDF (Acrobat Reader required Download Acrobat Reader ) Adobe Acrobat Reader Logo Table 2. Total Energy Consumption Excel, PDF Table 3. Total Petroleum Consumption Excel, PDF Table 4. Total Natural Gas Consumption Excel, PDF Table 5. Total Coal Consumption Excel, PDF Table 6. Total Electricity Sales Excel, PDF Table 7. Crude Oil Production Excel, PDF Table 8. Natural Gas Production Excel, PDF Table 9. Coal Production Excel, PDF Table 10. Net Petroleum Imports Excel, PDF Table 11. Net Natural Gas Imports Excel, PDF

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


321

Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation - Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation Actual vs. Forecasts Available formats Excel (.xls) for printable spreadsheet data (Microsoft Excel required) PDF (Acrobat Reader required) Table 2. Total Energy Consumption HTML, Excel, PDF Table 3. Total Petroleum Consumption HTML, Excel, PDF Table 4. Total Natural Gas Consumption HTML, Excel, PDF Table 5. Total Coal Consumption HTML, Excel, PDF Table 6. Total Electricity Sales HTML, Excel, PDF Table 7. Crude Oil Production HTML, Excel, PDF Table 8. Natural Gas Production HTML, Excel, PDF Table 9. Coal Production HTML, Excel, PDF Table 10. Net Petroleum Imports HTML, Excel, PDF Table 11. Net Natural Gas Imports HTML, Excel, PDF Table 12. Net Coal Exports HTML, Excel, PDF Table 13. World Oil Prices HTML, Excel, PDF

322

1997 Housing Characteristics Tables Housing Unit Tables  

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

Percent of U.S. Households; 45 pages, 121 kb) Percent of U.S. Households; 45 pages, 121 kb) Contents Pages HC1-1b. Housing Unit Characteristics by Climate Zone, Percent of U.S. Households, 1997 4 HC1-2b. Housing Unit Characteristics by Year of Construction, Percent of U.S. Households, 1997 4 HC1-3b. Housing Unit Characteristics by Household Income, Percent of U.S. Households, 1997 4 HC1-4b. Housing Unit Characteristics by Type of Housing Unit, Percent of U.S. Households, 1997 3 HC1-5b. Housing Unit Characteristics by Type of Owner-Occupied Housing Unit, Percent of U.S. Households, 1997 3 HC1-6b. Housing Unit Characteristics by Type of Rented Housing Unit, Percent of U.S. Households, 1997 3 HC1-7b. Housing Unit Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, Percent of U.S. Households, 1997 4

323

Microsoft Word - table_06.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Table 6. Natural gas processed, liquids extracted, and estimated extraction loss by state, 2011 Alabama 230,546 12,265 17,271 43,636 Alaska 2,721,396 18,314 21,554 82,255 Arkansas 5,611 212 268 883 California 180,648 9,831 12,095 39,909 Colorado 1,507,467 63,075 90,801 223,858 Illinois 15,727 705 1,043 2,409 Kansas 322,944 18,098 25,804 67,845 Kentucky 60,941 3,398 4,684 13,377 Louisiana 2,048,175 66,426 95,630 239,349 Michigan 21,518 2,132 2,465 7,875 Mississippi 126,859 7,732 11,221 28,404 Montana 11,185 927 1,252 3,744 New Mexico 795,069 61,857 90,291 223,829 North Dakota 112,206 10,199 14,182 41,156 Oklahoma 1,218,855 91,963 134,032 328,694 Pennsylvania 131,959 6,721 8,931 26,896 Tennessee 6,200

324

Microsoft Word - table_18.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Table 18. Natural Gas Delivered to Industrial Consumers for the Account of Others by State, 2001-2005 (Volumes in Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 120,717 77.85 125,467 78.45 124,857 78.77 R 129,337 R 79.22 115,449 76.41 Alaska................................... 2,539 3.78 6,411 9.76 11,433 27.77 15,472 R 33.10 16,582 31.35 Arizona ................................. 11,380 53.61 10,089 58.81 9,174 60.05 9,290 44.85 9,569 56.37 Arkansas............................... 114,976 94.00 112,544 95.03 105,215 94.65 R 94,613 R 94.06 84,177 94.77 California .............................. 606,097 90.94 682,886 92.26 740,589 95.06 791,981 94.75 738,704 94.54 Colorado ............................... 136,704 99.27 128,709 98.75 111,291 99.07 111,316 99.23 125,618 99.41

325

Microsoft Word - table_05.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

3 3 Table 5. Number of producing gas wells by state and the Gulf of Mexico, December 31, 2008-2012 Alabama 6,860 6,913 7,026 7,063 6,327 Alaska 261 261 269 277 185 Arizona 6 6 5 5 5 Arkansas 5,592 6,314 7,397 8,388 8,538 California 1,645 1,643 1,580 1,308 1,423 Colorado 25,716 27,021 28,813 30,101 32,000 Gulf of Mexico 1,527 1,984 1,852 1,559 1,474 Illinois 45 51 50 40 40 Indiana 525 563 620 914 819 Kansas 17,862 21,243 22,145 25,758 24,697 Kentucky 16,290 17,152 17,670 14,632 17,936 Louisiana 19,213 18,860 19,137 21,235 19,792 Maryland 7 7 7 8 9 Michigan 9,995 10,600 10,100 11,100 10,900 Mississippi 2,343 2,320 1,979 5,732 1,669 Missouri 0 0 0 53 100 Montana 7,095 7,031 6,059 6,477 6,240 Nebraska 322 285 276 322 270 Nevada 0 0 0 0 0 New Mexico 44,241 44,784

326

Microsoft Word - table_02.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 2. Natural gas production, transmission, and consumption, by state, 2011 (million cubic feet) Alabama 195,581 17,271 -53,277 480,317 0 7,282 0 598,068 Alaska 356,225 21,554 14,450 0 -16,398 0 0 332,723 Arizona 168 0 -17,607 348,820 -42,026 0 0 289,357 Arkansas 1,072,212 268 3,943 -791,878 0 212 0 283,797 California 250,177 12,095 72,353 1,954,947 -91,287 20,598 0 2,153,498 Colorado 1,637,576 90,801 -76,093 -1,005,837 0 3,128 4,268 465,985 Connecticut 0 0 1,253 228,585 0 129 0 229,710 Delaware 0 0 11,756 67,928 0 -31 0 79,716 District of Columbia 0 0 1,961 31,016 0 0 0 32,976 Florida 15,125 0 -5,102 1,208,317 0 0 0 1,218,340 Georgia 0 0 -10,315 459,390 75,641 2,542 701 522,874 Gulf of Mexico 1,812,328 0 -82 -1,711,029 0

327

Microsoft Word - table_26.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Table 26. Percent distribution of natural gas supply and disposition by state, 2011 Alabama 0.8 2.5 Alaska 1.5 1.4 Arizona < 1.2 Arkansas 4.7 1.2 California 1.0 8.8 Colorado 6.8 1.9 Connecticut -- 0.9 Delaware -- 0.3 District of Columbia -- 0.1 Florida 0.1 5.0 Georgia -- 2.1 Gulf of Mexico 7.9 0.4 Hawaii -- < Idaho -- 0.3 Illinois < 4.0 Indiana < 2.6 Iowa -- 1.3 Kansas 1.2 1.1 Kentucky 0.5 0.9 Louisiana 12.8 5.7 Maine -- 0.3 Maryland < 0.8 Massachusetts -- 1.8 Michigan 0.6 3.2 Minnesota -- 1.7 Mississippi 0.3 1.8 Missouri -- 1.1 Montana 0.3 0.3 Nebraska < 0.7 Nevada < 1.0 New Hampshire -- 0.3 New Jersey -- 2.7 New Mexico 5.0 1.0 New York 0.1

328

Microsoft Word - table_23.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Table 23. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers by State and Sector, 2008 (Nominal Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 18.30 100.00 15.58 80.17 10.57 27.20 17.32 10.03 Alaska................................... 8.72 100.00 8.66 74.90 5.49 78.23 -- W Arizona ................................. 17.60 100.00 13.01 93.06 10.47 29.65 11.00 8.60 Arkansas............................... 14.09 100.00 11.32 64.49 10.56 3.87 -- 9.23 California .............................. 12.75 99.31 11.75 56.69 10.80 4.85 11.32 8.23 Colorado ............................... 9.77 100.00 9.01 95.24 8.76 0.56 13.57 7.02 Connecticut........................... 17.85 97.75 13.81 70.71 12.63 47.28 24.04 10.48 Delaware .............................. 16.07 100.00 14.24

329

Microsoft Word - table_18.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 18. Natural Gas Delivered to Industrial Consumers for the Account of Others by State, 2004-2008 (Volumes in Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 129,337 79.22 115,449 76.41 114,699 76.48 R 114,325 R 75.97 103,662 72.80 Alaska................................... 15,472 33.10 16,582 31.35 11,619 36.94 5,934 30.04 1,304 21.77 Arizona ................................. 9,290 44.85 9,569 56.37 11,457 62.11 13,292 68.67 14,200 70.35 Arkansas............................... 94,613 94.06 84,177 94.77 83,347 95.22 82,213 95.85 81,841 96.13 California .............................. 791,981 94.75 738,704 94.54 690,491 94.32 699,283 94.69 726,927 95.15 Colorado ............................... 111,316 99.23 125,618 99.41 110,565 99.38 116,699 99.55 119,032 99.44 Connecticut...........................

330

Microsoft Word - table_22.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Table 22. Average City Gate Price of Natural Gas in the United States, 2003-2007 (Nominal Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 6.06 6.65 8.47 10.26 8.78 Alaska................................... 2.33 3.05 3.74 5.25 6.75 Arizona ................................. 4.87 5.63 7.32 7.67 8.25 Arkansas............................... 6.07 7.12 8.83 7.96 8.55 California .............................. 5.16 6.04 7.88 6.76 6.82 Colorado ............................... 4.11 5.02 6.10 7.61 6.23 Connecticut........................... 5.59 7.56 9.74 9.11 8.67 Delaware .............................. 5.88 6.13 8.32 8.84 7.58 Florida................................... 5.87 6.60 9.30 8.32 7.97 Georgia................................. 6.25 6.81 9.85 9.37 8.15

331

Microsoft Word - table_14.doc  

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

4 4 Table 14. Underground natural gas storage capacity by state, December 31, 2012 (million cubic feet) Alabama 1 16,150 21,900 0 0 0 1 11,200 13,500 2 27,350 35,400 Arkansas 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 12,178 21,853 2 12,178 21,853 California 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 349,296 592,411 14 349,296 592,411 Colorado 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 60,582 124,253 10 60,582 124,253 Illinois 0 0 0 17 215,594 779,862 11 87,368 220,070 28 302,962 999,931 Indiana 0 0 0 12 19,215 80,746 10 13,809 30,003 22 33,024 110,749 Iowa 0 0 0 4 90,313 288,210 0 0 0 4 90,313 288,210 Kansas 1 375 931 0 0 0 18 122,968 283,974 19 123,343 284,905 Kentucky 0 0 0 3 6,629 9,567 20 100,971 212,184 23 107,600 221,751 Louisiana 11 200,702 297,020 0 0 0 7 211,780 402,626 18 412,482

332

Microsoft Word - table_18.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 18. Natural Gas Delivered to Industrial Consumers for the Account of Others by State, 2005-2009 (Volumes in Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 115,449 76.4 114,699 76.5 114,325 76.0 103,662 72.8 94,597 72.1 Alaska................................... 16,582 31.4 11,619 36.9 5,934 30.0 1,304 21.8 1,827 27.5 Arizona ................................. 9,569 56.4 11,457 62.1 13,292 68.7 14,200 70.4 12,730 70.9 Arkansas............................... 84,177 94.8 83,347 95.2 82,213 95.8 81,841 96.1 74,752 96.4 California .............................. 738,704 94.5 690,491 94.3 699,283 94.7 R 683,512 R 94.9 673,034 95.3 Colorado ............................... 125,618 99.4 110,565 99.4 116,699 99.5 119,032 99.4 112,995 99.5 Connecticut...........................

333

Microsoft Word - table_14.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Table 14. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity by State, December 31, 2006 (Capacity in Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 1 8,300 0 0 1 11,000 2 19,300 0.23 Arkansas............................... 0 0 0 0 2 22,000 2 22,000 0.26 California .............................. 0 0 0 0 12 484,711 12 484,711 5.82 Colorado ............................... 0 0 0 0 8 98,068 8 98,068 1.18 Illinois.................................... 0 0 18 881,037 11 103,731 29 984,768 11.82 Indiana.................................. 0 0 12 81,490 10 32,804 22 114,294 1.37 Iowa ...................................... 0 0 4 275,200 0 0 4 275,200 3.30 Kansas.................................. 1 1,088 0 0 18 287,295 19 288,383 3.46 Kentucky............................... 0 0 3 9,567 20 208,827 23 218,394

334

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 4. Offshore Gross Withdrawals of Natural Gas by State and the Gulf of Mexico, 2002-2006 (Million Cubic Feet) 2002 Total ................ 485,126 211,778 696,905 3,722,249 893,193 4,615,443 5,312,348 Alabama.................. 202,002 0 202,002 NA NA NA 202,002 Alaska..................... 102,972 190,608 293,580 0 0 0 293,580 California................. 0 7,068 7,068 3,080 64,735 67,816 74,884 Gulf of Mexico......... 0 0 0 3,719,169 828,458 4,547,627 4,547,627 Louisiana ................ 125,481 11,711 137,192 NA NA NA 137,192 Texas...................... 54,672 2,391 57,063 NA NA NA 57,063 2003 Total ................ 456,090 254,150 710,240 3,565,614 939,828 4,505,443 5,215,683 Alabama.................. 194,339 0 194,339 NA NA NA 194,339 Alaska..................... 85,606 236,404 322,010

335

Microsoft Word - table_22.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Table 22. Average City Gate Price of Natural Gas in the United States, 2004-2008 (Nominal Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 6.65 8.47 10.26 8.78 9.84 Alaska................................... 3.05 3.74 5.25 6.75 6.74 Arizona ................................. 5.63 7.32 7.67 8.25 8.49 Arkansas............................... 7.12 8.83 7.96 8.55 8.88 California .............................. 6.04 7.88 6.76 6.82 8.11 Colorado ............................... 5.02 6.10 7.61 6.23 6.98 Connecticut........................... 7.56 9.74 9.11 8.67 10.24 Delaware .............................. 6.13 8.32 8.84 7.58 8.32 Florida................................... 6.60 9.30 8.32 7.97 9.73 Georgia................................. 6.81 9.85 9.37 8.15 9.35

336

Microsoft Word - table_23.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Table 23. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers by State and Sector, 2007 (Nominal Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 18.13 100.00 15.07 79.82 8.70 24.02 -- 7.19 Alaska................................... 8.68 100.00 7.57 76.01 4.67 69.96 -- 3.58 Arizona ................................. 17.21 100.00 12.84 93.36 10.49 31.33 9.40 6.84 Arkansas............................... 13.08 100.00 10.07 70.38 9.51 4.15 8.39 7.04 California .............................. 11.57 99.50 10.20 60.63 9.07 5.31 7.71 6.72 Colorado ............................... 8.84 100.00 8.10 95.70 7.21 0.45 8.72 4.35 Connecticut........................... 16.39 98.20 12.61 71.49 10.54 50.04 20.57 7.81 Delaware .............................. 16.21 100.00 14.48

337

Microsoft Word - table_13.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4 4 Table 13. Additions to and Withdrawals from Gas Storage by State, 2005 (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ................... 15,572 15,356 216 493 606 -114 103 Alaska....................... 0 0 0 738 738 0 0 Arkansas................... 4,394 4,707 -313 72 51 20 -293 California .................. 190,055 179,359 10,696 82 50 31 10,727 Colorado ................... 38,588 39,442 -854 0 0 0 -854 Connecticut............... 0 0 0 1,383 682 701 701 Delaware .................. 0 0 0 138 145 -7 -7 Georgia..................... 0 0 0 4,179 2,660 1,520 1,520 Idaho......................... 0 0 0 46 189 -143 -143 Illinois........................ 260,515 259,288 1,226 3 405 -402 824 Indiana...................... 21,405 22,827 -1,422 831 1,066 -236 -1,658 Iowa .......................... 66,827 70,206 -3,379 2,626 2,845 -219

338

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 4. Offshore Gross Withdrawals of Natural Gas by State and the Gulf of Mexico, 2005-2009 (Million Cubic Feet) 2005 Total ................ 363,652 321,019 684,671 2,474,076 730,830 3,204,906 3,889,577 Alabama.................. 152,902 0 152,902 NA NA NA 152,902 Alaska..................... 74,928 305,641 380,568 0 0 0 380,568 California................. 0 6,685 6,685 684 53,404 54,088 60,773 Gulf of Mexico......... 0 0 0 2,473,392 677,426 3,150,818 3,150,818 Louisiana ................ 99,290 8,294 107,584 NA NA NA 107,584 Texas...................... 36,532 400 36,932 NA NA NA 36,932 2006 Total ................ 321,261 308,391 629,652 2,272,669 681,869 2,954,538 3,584,190 Alabama.................. 145,762 0 145,762 NA NA NA 145,762 Alaska..................... 62,156 292,660 354,816

339

Microsoft Word - table_20.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

8 8 Table 20. Number of natural gas residential consumers by type of service and state, 2011-2012 Alabama R 772,892 0 R 772,892 767,412 0 767,412 Alaska 121,736 0 121,736 122,983 0 122,983 Arizona 1,146,280 6 1,146,286 1,157,682 6 1,157,688 Arkansas 551,795 0 551,795 549,959 0 549,959 California R 10,545,585 R 79,605 10,625,190 10,547,706 134,210 10,681,916 Colorado 1,645,711 5 1,645,716 1,659,803 5 1,659,808 Connecticut 494,065 905 494,970 503,241 897 504,138 Delaware 152,005 0 152,005 153,307 0 153,307 District of Columbia 130,888 14,636 145,524 129,674 16,264 145,938 Florida 664,564 R 14,635 R 679,199 672,160 14,861 687,021 Georgia 321,515 1,418,491 1,740,006 319,179 1,420,364 1,739,543 Hawaii 25,305 0 25,305

340

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 4. Offshore Gross Withdrawals of Natural Gas by State and the Gulf of Mexico, 2006-2010 (Million Cubic Feet) 2006 Total ................ 321,261 308,391 629,652 2,272,669 681,869 2,954,538 3,584,190 Alabama.................. 145,762 0 145,762 NA NA NA 145,762 Alaska..................... 62,156 292,660 354,816 0 0 0 354,816 California................. 156 6,654 6,809 2,094 38,313 40,407 47,217 Gulf of Mexico......... 0 0 0 2,270,575 643,556 2,914,131 2,914,131 Louisiana ................ 88,657 8,822 97,479 NA NA NA 97,479 Texas...................... 24,529 255 24,785 NA NA NA 24,785 2007 Total ................ 276,117 341,925 618,042 2,204,379 654,334 2,858,713 3,476,755 Alabama.................. 134,451 0 134,451 NA NA NA 134,451 Alaska..................... 48,876 325,328 374,204

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


341

Microsoft Word - table_03.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table 3. Gross withdrawals and marketed production of natural gas by state and the Gulf of Mexico, 2008-2012 (million cubic feet) 2008 Total 15,134,644 5,609,425 2,022,228 2,869,960 25,636,257 3,638,622 166,909 718,674 21,112,053 953,451 20,158,602 2009 Total 14,414,287 5,674,120 2,010,171 3,958,315 26,056,893 3,522,090 165,360 721,507 21,647,936 1,024,082 20,623,854 2010 Total 13,247,498 5,834,703 1,916,762 5,817,122 26,816,085 3,431,587 165,928 836,698 22,381,873 1,066,366 21,315,507 2011 Total 12,291,070 5,907,919 1,779,055 8,500,983 28,479,026 3,365,313 209,439 867,922 24,036,352 1,134,473 22,901,879 2012 Total 12,736,678 4,969,668 1,539,395 10,296,572 29,542,313 3,259,680 212,848 761,836 25,307,949 1,250,340 24,057,609

342

Microsoft Word - table_14.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 14. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity by State, December 31, 2007 (Capacity in Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 1 8,300 0 0 1 11,000 2 19,300 0.23 Arkansas............................... 0 0 0 0 2 22,000 2 22,000 0.26 California .............................. 0 0 0 0 12 487,711 12 487,711 5.80 Colorado ............................... 0 0 0 0 8 98,068 8 98,068 1.17 Illinois.................................... 0 0 18 876,960 11 103,731 29 980,691 11.67 Indiana.................................. 0 0 12 81,490 10 32,804 22 114,294 1.36 Iowa ...................................... 0 0 4 278,238 0 0 4 278,238 3.31 Kansas.................................. 1 931 0 0 18 287,996 19 288,926 3.44 Kentucky............................... 0 0 3 9,567 20 210,792 23 220,359

343

Microsoft Word - table_03.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

8 8 Table 3. Gross Withdrawals and Marketed Production of Natural Gas by State and the Gulf of Mexico, 2004-2008 (Million Cubic Feet) 2004 Total ............. 17,885,247 6,084,431 NA 23,969,678 3,701,656 96,408 654,124 19,517,491 926,600 18,590,891 2005 Total ............. 17,471,847 5,984,975 NA 23,456,822 3,699,535 119,097 711,095 18,927,095 876,497 18,050,598 2006 Total ............. 17,995,554 5,539,464 NA 23,535,018 3,264,929 129,469 730,946 19,409,674 906,069 18,503,605 2007 Total ............. 17,065,375 R 5,818,405 1,779,875 R 24,663,656 R 3,662,685 R 143,457 R 661,168 R 20,196,346 930,320 R 19,266,026 2008 Total ............. 18,011,151 5,844,798 1,898,399 25,754,348 3,638,563 166,588 709,681 21,239,516 953,451 20,286,065 Alabama Total ...... 159,912 6,368 111,273 277,553 475 1,801 17,394

344

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 4. Offshore Gross Withdrawals of Natural Gas by State and the Gulf of Mexico, 2004-2008 (Million Cubic Feet) 2004 Total ................ 401,662 279,249 680,911 3,214,488 840,852 4,055,340 4,736,252 Alabama.................. 165,630 0 165,630 NA NA NA 165,630 Alaska..................... 73,457 260,667 334,125 0 0 0 334,125 California................. 0 6,966 6,966 850 53,805 54,655 61,622 Gulf of Mexico......... 0 0 0 3,213,638 787,047 4,000,685 4,000,685 Louisiana ................ 117,946 11,299 129,245 NA NA NA 129,245 Texas...................... 44,630 316 44,946 NA NA NA 44,946 2005 Total ................ 363,652 321,019 684,671 2,474,076 730,830 3,204,906 3,889,577 Alabama.................. 152,902 0 152,902 NA NA NA 152,902 Alaska..................... 74,928 305,641 380,568

345

Microsoft Word - table_02.doc  

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

5 5 Created on: 12/12/2013 1:57:32 PM Table 2. Natural gas consumption in the United States, 2008-2013 (billion cubic feet) Delivered to Consumers Year and Month Lease and Plant Fuel a Pipeline and Distribution Use b Residential Commercial Industrial Electric Power Vehicle Fuel Total Total Consumption 2008 Total 1,220 648 4,892 3,153 6,670 6,668 26 21,409 23,277 2009 Total 1,275 670 4,779 3,119 6,167 6,873 27 20,965 22,910 2010 Total 1,286 674 4,782 3,103 6,826 7,387 29 22,127 24,087 2011 January 107 R 83 970 528 R 659 540 3 R 2,699 R 2,889 February 97 70 R 768 432 R 600 484 2 R 2,285 R 2,452 March 111 63 R 595 R 361 R 616 482 3 R 2,056 R 2,230 April 109 51 R 341 R 232 R 569 521 R 2 R 1,665 R 1,825 May 112 46 R 205 R 166 R

346

Microsoft Word - table_14.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 14. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity by State, December 31, 2008 (Capacity in Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ............. 1 11,900 15,900 0 0 0 1 9,000 11,000 2 20,900 26,900 Arkansas............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 14,500 22,000 2 14,500 22,000 California ............ 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 283,796 498,705 12 283,796 498,705 Colorado ............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 42,579 95,068 8 42,579 95,068 Illinois.................. 0 0 0 18 244,900 874,384 10 51,418 103,606 28 296,318 977,989 Indiana................ 0 0 0 12 19,978 81,991 10 12,791 32,946 22 32,769 114,937 Iowa .................... 0 0 0 4 87,350 284,747 0 0 0 4 87,350 284,747 Kansas................ 1 375 931 0 0 0 18 118,885 281,291 19 119,260 282,221 Kentucky............. 0 0 0 3 6,629 9,567 20 94,598 210,792 23 101,227 220,359 Louisiana ............

347

Microsoft Word - table_13.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4 4 Table 13. Additions to and Withdrawals from Gas Storage by State, 2006 (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ................... 20,604 12,127 8,477 704 698 7 8,484 Arkansas................... 4,789 4,081 707 45 57 -12 695 California .................. 168,957 182,247 -13,290 92 76 16 -13,274 Colorado ................... 35,836 38,506 -2,670 0 0 0 -2,670 Connecticut............... 0 0 0 532 246 286 286 Delaware .................. 0 0 0 68 68 * * Georgia..................... 0 0 0 7,705 1,963 5,742 5,742 Idaho......................... 0 0 0 415 275 140 140 Illinois........................ 242,754 235,590 7,163 238 358 -119 7,044 Indiana...................... 23,598 20,707 2,891 1,447 1,172 275 3,165 Iowa .......................... 68,750 65,187 3,563 2,438 1,540 899 4,462 Kansas...................... 103,105 99,698 3,407

348

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table 4. Offshore Gross Withdrawals of Natural Gas by State and the Gulf of Mexico, 2001-2005 (Million Cubic Feet) 2001 Total ................ 508,374 170,206 678,580 4,146,993 989,969 5,136,962 5,815,542 Alabama.................. 200,862 0 200,862 NA NA NA 200,862 Alaska..................... 113,870 149,067 262,937 0 0 0 262,937 California................. 0 7,262 7,262 3,913 67,034 70,947 78,209 Gulf of Mexico......... 0 0 0 4,143,080 922,935 5,066,015 5,066,015 Louisiana ................ 140,358 13,513 153,871 NA NA NA 153,871 Texas...................... 53,285 364 53,649 NA NA NA 53,649 2002 Total ................ 485,126 211,778 696,905 3,722,249 893,193 4,615,443 5,312,348 Alabama.................. 202,002 0 202,002 NA NA NA 202,002 Alaska..................... 102,972 190,608 293,580

349

Microsoft Word - table_25.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table 25. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Residential and Commercial Sector Consumers by Local Distribution and Marketers in Selected States, 2009-2010 (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Florida................................... 20.22 R 18.41 20.18 97.7 17.85 19.44 17.89 97.9 Georgia................................. 13.20 16.81 16.30 14.1 12.18 15.67 15.17 14.3 Maryland ............................... 13.09 R 16.80 13.73 82.8 12.20 13.51 12.44 81.7 New Jersey ........................... 14.49 R 16.52 14.54 97.7 12.77 14.87 12.84 96.6 New York .............................. 14.96 R 15.38 15.05 77.1 13.87 14.55 14.04 74.6 Ohio ...................................... 11.64 13.64 12.68 47.8 10.28 11.80 11.13 43.7 Pennsylvania ........................ 14.56 R 16.46 14.74 90.9

350

Microsoft Word - table_22.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

3 3 Table 22. Average City Gate Price of Natural Gas in the United States, 2002-2006 (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 4.74 6.06 6.65 8.47 10.26 Alaska................................... 2.36 2.33 3.05 3.74 5.25 Arizona ................................. 3.77 4.87 5.63 7.32 7.67 Arkansas............................... 5.17 6.07 7.12 8.83 7.96 California .............................. 3.20 5.16 6.04 7.88 6.76 Colorado ............................... 2.72 4.11 5.02 6.10 7.61 Connecticut........................... 6.42 5.59 7.56 R 9.74 9.11 Delaware .............................. 5.37 5.88 6.13 8.32 8.84 Florida................................... 3.90 5.87 6.60 9.30 8.32 Georgia................................. 4.55 6.25 6.81 9.85 9.37 Hawaii...................................

351

Microsoft Word - table_20.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 Table 20. Number of Natural Gas Residential Consumers by Type of Service and State, 2009-2010 Alabama ...................... R 785,005 0 R 785,005 768,921 0 768,921 Alaska.......................... 120,124 0 120,124 121,166 0 121,166 Arizona ........................ 1,130,047 0 1,130,047 1,138,448 0 1,138,448 Arkansas...................... 557,355 0 557,355 549,970 0 549,970 California ..................... R 10,454,747 R 56,203 R 10,510,950 10,469,734 72,850 10,542,584 Colorado ...................... 1,622,429 5 1,622,434 1,634,582 5 1,634,587 Connecticut.................. 488,614 735 489,349 489,380 805 490,185 Delaware ..................... 149,006 0 149,006 150,458 0 150,458 District of Columbia...... 129,738 13,698 143,436 130,048 14,103 144,151 Florida.......................... 659,725 14,365

352

Microsoft Word - table_20.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table 20. Number of Natural Gas Commercial Consumers by Type of Service and State, 2008-2009 Alabama ...................... R 65,193 120 R 65,313 67,468 128 67,596 Alaska.......................... 12,267 497 12,764 12,854 363 13,217 Arizona ........................ 57,481 105 57,586 57,022 169 57,191 Arkansas...................... 68,943 201 69,144 68,794 249 69,043 California ..................... 417,531 29,629 447,160 406,270 35,225 441,495 Colorado ...................... 144,543 176 144,719 145,455 169 145,624 Connecticut.................. 50,023 3,880 53,903 50,106 4,404 54,510 Delaware ..................... 12,619 84 12,703 12,726 113 12,839 District of Columbia...... 6,838 3,186 10,024 6,706 3,582 10,288 Florida.......................... 41,164 16,961 58,125 41,748 17,801 59,549

353

Microsoft Word - table_23.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Table 23. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers by State and Sector, 2009 (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 18.12 100.0 14.93 78.7 6.48 27.9 19.17 4.30 Alaska................................... 10.23 100.0 9.51 85.3 4.02 72.5 -- W Arizona ................................. 17.65 100.0 12.15 88.0 8.19 29.1 14.96 4.16 Arkansas............................... 13.39 100.0 10.71 59.4 8.47 3.6 -- 4.14 California .............................. 9.43 98.9 7.75 54.9 6.57 4.7 7.61 4.44 Colorado ............................... 8.80 100.0 7.56 94.8 6.57 0.5 9.12 4.27 Connecticut........................... 14.81 97.5 9.92 69.0 8.44 37.5 15.26 4.89 Delaware .............................. 17.79 100.0 15.87 53.5 13.99 2.1 14.12 W District of Columbia...............

354

Microsoft Word - table_13.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 13. Additions to and Withdrawals from Gas Storage by State, 2010 (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ................... 23,026 16,740 6,286 946 968 -21 6,264 Arkansas................... 4,672 4,368 304 42 40 2 306 California .................. 226,810 203,653 23,157 56 54 2 23,159 Colorado ................... 43,250 45,010 -1,760 0 0 0 -1,760 Connecticut............... 0 0 0 651 473 178 178 Delaware .................. 0 0 0 73 76 -2 -2 Georgia..................... 0 0 0 2,693 2,314 379 379 Idaho......................... 0 0 0 142 72 70 70 Illinois........................ 247,458 245,135 2,323 398 325 74 2,397 Indiana...................... 21,943 22,454 -511 1,983 1,148 835 324 Iowa .......................... 76,407 78,444 -2,037 1,458 1,312 146 -1,891 Kansas...................... 113,253 121,737 -8,484

355

Microsoft Word - table_24.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 24. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Residential and Commercial Sector Consumers by Local Distribution and Marketers in Selected States, 2006-2007 (Nominal Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Florida................................... 21.48 24.62 21.54 97.95 20.55 23.23 20.61 97.79 Georgia................................. 15.84 18.81 R 18.37 14.70 14.64 18.02 17.53 14.35 Maryland ............................... 16.14 17.41 16.36 82.27 14.95 16.26 15.17 83.26 New Jersey ........................... 14.87 17.69 R 14.91 98.66 14.45 16.50 14.48 98.35 New York .............................. 15.09 16.99 15.35 86.06 15.50 15.46 15.49 84.07 Ohio ...................................... 14.41 14.36 14.39 58.77 13.05 13.95 13.47 53.01 Pennsylvania ........................ 16.48 16.06 16.45

356

Microsoft Word - table_06.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

2 2 Table 6. Wellhead Value and Marketed Production of Natural Gas, 2001-2005, and by State, 2005 2001 Total ............................ 19,577,660 -- 4.00 20,570,295 82,202,805 2002 Total ............................ 14,467,289 -- 2.95 19,884,780 58,596,868 2003 Total ............................ 14,589,545 -- 4.88 19,974,360 97,555,375 2004 Total ............................ 15,223,749 -- 5.46 R 19,517,491 R 106,521,974 2005 Total ............................ 15,525,771 -- 7.33 18,950,734 138,987,902 Alabama ............................... 285,237 2,645,780 9.28 296,528 2,750,513 Alaska................................... 502,887 2,387,581 4.75 487,282 2,313,492 Arizona ................................. 211 1,445 6.86 233 1,599 Arkansas............................... 190,533 1,383,193 7.26

357

Microsoft Word - table_14.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

8 8 Table 14. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity by State, December 31, 2010 (Capacity in Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ............. 1 16,150 21,900 0 0 0 1 9,000 11,000 2 25,150 32,900 Arkansas............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 13,898 21,760 2 13,898 21,760 California ............ 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 311,096 542,511 13 311,096 542,511 Colorado ............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 49,119 105,768 9 49,119 105,768 Illinois.................. 0 0 0 17 216,132 772,381 11 87,368 218,106 28 303,500 990,487 Indiana................ 0 0 0 13 19,437 81,268 9 13,545 30,003 22 32,982 111,271 Iowa .................... 0 0 0 4 90,613 288,010 0 0 0 4 90,613 288,010 Kansas................ 1 375 931 0 0 0 18 122,814 283,891 19 123,190 284,821 Kentucky............. 0 0 0 3 6,629 9,567 20 100,971 212,184 23 107,600 221,751 Louisiana ............

358

Microsoft Word - table_24.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 24. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Residential and Commercial Sector Consumers by Local Distribution and Marketers in Selected States, 2007-2008 (Nominal Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Florida................................... 20.55 23.23 20.61 97.79 21.11 25.00 21.19 97.78 Georgia................................. 14.64 18.02 17.53 14.35 15.46 18.73 18.26 14.43 Maryland ............................... 14.95 16.26 15.17 83.26 15.98 16.54 16.08 83.15 New Jersey ........................... 14.45 16.50 14.48 98.35 15.15 18.07 15.21 97.98 New York .............................. R 15.79 15.46 R 15.73 R 82.34 16.79 16.57 16.75 80.64 Ohio ...................................... 13.05 13.95 13.47 53.01 14.60 14.45 14.52 52.47 Pennsylvania ........................

359

Microsoft Word - table_14.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 14. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity by State, December 31, 2009 (Capacity in Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ............. 1 11,900 15,900 0 0 0 1 9,000 11,000 2 20,900 26,900 Arkansas............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 13,898 21,760 2 13,898 21,760 California ............ 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 296,096 513,005 13 296,096 513,005 Colorado ............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 48,129 105,768 9 48,129 105,768 Illinois.................. 0 0 0 18 252,344 885,848 10 51,418 103,606 28 303,761 989,454 Indiana................ 0 0 0 12 19,367 81,328 10 12,791 32,946 22 32,157 114,274 Iowa .................... 0 0 0 4 87,414 284,811 0 0 0 4 87,414 284,811 Kansas................ 1 375 931 0 0 0 18 118,964 281,370 19 119,339 282,300 Kentucky............. 0 0 0 3 6,629 9,567 20 96,855 210,801 23 103,484 220,368 Louisiana ............

360

Microsoft Word - table_19.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Table 19. Number of Natural Gas Residential Consumers by Type of Service and State, 2004-2005 Alabama ...................... R 806,660 R 0 R 806,660 799,256 0 799,256 Alaska.......................... 104,360 0 104,360 108,401 0 108,401 Arizona ........................ 993,885 0 993,885 1,042,662 0 1,042,662 Arkansas...................... R 554,844 0 R 554,844 555,861 0 555,861 California ..................... 9,921,331 R 36,081 R 9,957,412 10,092,466 31,967 10,124,433 Colorado ...................... R 1,496,873 3 R 1,496,876 1,524,810 3 1,524,813 Connecticut.................. 468,918 414 469,332 474,807 414 475,221 District of Columbia...... 120,709 17,425 138,134 127,139 13,873 141,012 Delaware ..................... 133,197 0 133,197 137,115 0 137,115 Florida.......................... R 628,104 10,910

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


361

Microsoft Word - table_20.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table 20. Number of Natural Gas Commercial Consumers by Type of Service and State, 2006-2007 Alabama ...................... R 66,222 115 R 66,337 65,738 118 65,856 Alaska.......................... 12,858 1,526 14,384 12,491 917 13,408 Arizona ........................ 56,955 136 57,091 57,047 122 57,169 Arkansas...................... 69,318 157 69,475 69,319 176 69,495 California ..................... 426,379 15,673 442,052 421,449 24,671 446,120 Colorado ...................... 139,566 180 139,746 141,201 219 141,420 Connecticut.................. 49,056 3,926 52,982 48,522 3,867 52,389 Delaware ..................... 12,288 57 12,345 12,507 69 12,576 District of Columbia...... 7,004 3,406 10,410 6,867 3,048 9,915 Florida.......................... 41,190 14,069 55,259 41,325 15,995 57,320

362

Microsoft Word - table_23.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4 4 Table 23. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers by State and Sector, 2005 (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 15.82 100.00 13.13 81.65 9.51 23.59 -- 9.67 Alaska................................... 5.73 100.00 4.93 51.19 2.59 68.65 -- 3.42 Arizona ................................. 13.54 100.00 9.85 93.29 8.53 43.63 7.91 8.24 Arkansas............................... 13.65 100.00 10.20 74.07 9.44 5.23 10.16 8.59 California .............................. 11.86 99.66 10.69 68.67 9.84 5.46 8.80 8.09 Colorado ............................... 10.29 99.99 9.39 95.15 8.68 0.59 8.17 7.41 Connecticut........................... 16.24 98.75 13.00 70.34 11.68 46.41 14.60 9.31 District of Columbia............... 16.87 79.76 13.17 100.00 --

363

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

2 2 Table 4. Offshore gross withdrawals of natural gas by state and the Gulf of Mexico, 2007-2011 (million cubic feet) 2007 Total 276,117 341,925 618,042 2,204,379 654,334 2,858,713 3,476,755 Alabama 134,451 0 134,451 NA NA NA 134,451 Alaska 48,876 325,328 374,204 0 0 0 374,204 California 312 6,977 7,289 2,137 43,379 45,516 52,805 Gulf of Mexico 0 0 0 2,202,242 610,955 2,813,197 2,813,197 Louisiana 63,357 9,512 72,868 NA NA NA 72,868 Texas 29,121 108 29,229 NA NA NA 29,229 2008 Total 297,565 356,139 653,704 1,849,891 524,965 2,374,857 3,028,561 Alabama 125,502 0 125,502 NA NA NA 125,502 Alaska 43,079 345,109 388,188 0 0 0 388,188 California 266 6,764 7,029 1,601 43,300 44,902

364

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 4. Offshore Gross Withdrawals of Natural Gas by State and the Gulf of Mexico, 2003-2007 (Million Cubic Feet) 2003 Total ................ 456,090 254,150 710,240 3,565,614 939,828 4,505,443 5,215,683 Alabama.................. 194,339 0 194,339 NA NA NA 194,339 Alaska..................... 85,606 236,404 322,010 0 0 0 322,010 California................. 0 6,866 6,866 1,731 56,363 58,095 64,961 Gulf of Mexico......... 0 0 0 3,563,883 883,465 4,447,348 4,447,348 Louisiana ................ 123,939 9,517 133,456 NA NA NA 133,456 Texas...................... 52,206 1,363 53,569 NA NA NA 53,569 2004 Total ................ 401,662 279,249 680,911 3,214,488 840,852 4,055,340 4,736,252 Alabama.................. 165,630 0 165,630 NA NA NA 165,630 Alaska..................... 73,457 260,667 334,125

365

Tax aggressiveness, R&D spending, and firms claims for R&D tax deductions.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??Using proprietary data obtained from a local tax office in China, I examine how tax aggressiveness affects a firms incentive to claim for R&D tax (more)

Wang, Zitian.

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

366

Carbon Fund for Spanish Firms FC2E | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

for Spanish Firms FC2E Jump to: navigation, search Name: Carbon Fund for Spanish Firms (FC2E) Place: Spain Sector: Carbon Product: String representation "Instituto de Cr ... from...

367

Who benefits from investment in universities? : institutions, university spillovers, and firm performance  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

This study examines the impact of local institutional arrangements on firm level spillover effects from universities. Specifically, I test the proposition of co-location with universities affecting firm performance, taking ...

Ching, Kenny Hwee Seong

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

368

Energy Department Advances Market Access for U.S. Firms in Chinese...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Energy Department Advances Market Access for U.S. Firms in Chinese Energy Efficiency Sector Energy Department Advances Market Access for U.S. Firms in Chinese Energy Efficiency...

369

Are Foreign Firms Privileged By Their Host Governments? Evidence From The 2000 World Business Environment Survey  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Using the data from World Business Environment Survey (WBES) on over 10,000 firms across eighty one countries, this paper finds preliminary evidence that foreign firms enjoy significant regulatory advantages - as perceived ...

Huang, Yasheng

2005-06-03T23:59:59.000Z

370

table14.xls  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 14. Natural Gas Wellhead Prices, Actual vs. Reference Case Projections Table 14. Natural Gas Wellhead Prices, Actual vs. Reference Case Projections (current dollars per thousand cubic feet) 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 AEO 1982 4.32 5.47 6.67 7.51 8.04 8.57 AEO 1983 2.93 3.11 3.46 3.93 4.56 5.26 12.74 AEO 1984 2.77 2.90 3.21 3.63 4.13 4.79 9.33 AEO 1985 2.60 2.61 2.66 2.71 2.94 3.35 3.85 4.46 5.10 5.83 6.67 AEO 1986 1.73 1.96 2.29 2.54 2.81 3.15 3.73 4.34 5.06 5.90 6.79 7.70 8.62 9.68 10.80 AEO 1987 1.83 1.95 2.11 2.28 2.49 2.72 3.08 3.51 4.07 7.54 AEO 1989* 1.62 1.70 1.91 2.13 2.58 3.04 3.48 3.93 4.76 5.23 5.80 6.43 6.98 AEO 1990 1.78 1.88 2.93 5.36 AEO 1991 1.77 1.90 2.11 2.30 2.42 2.51 2.60 2.74 2.91 3.29 3.75 4.31 5.07 5.77 6.45 AEO 1992 1.69 1.85 2.03 2.15 2.35 2.51 2.74 3.01 3.40 3.81 4.24 4.74 5.25 5.78 AEO 1993 1.85 1.94 2.09 2.30 2.44 2.60 2.85 3.12 3.47 3.84 4.31 4.81 5.28

371

Code Tables | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

System NMMSS Information, Reports & Forms Code Tables Code Tables U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Materials Management & Safeguards...

372

Racial Bias in the Manager-Employee Relationship: An Analysis of Quits, Dismissals, and Promotions at a Large Retail Firm  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

and Promotions at a Large Retail Firm Laura Giulianodata from a large U.S. retail firm, we examine how raciala large national U.S. retail firm, we examine how racial

Giuliano, Laura; Levine, David I.; Leonard, Jonathan

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

373

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

2 2 State Energy Data 2011: Consumption Table C9. Electric Power Sector Consumption Estimates, 2011 (Trillion Btu) State Coal Natural Gas a Petroleum Nuclear Electric Power Hydroelectric Power b Biomass Geothermal Solar/PV d Wind Net Electricity Imports e Total f Distillate Fuel Oil Petroleum Coke Residual Fuel Oil Total Wood and Waste c Alabama ............. 586.1 349.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 411.8 86.3 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,439.3 Alaska ................. 6.0 42.3 3.3 0.0 1.5 4.8 0.0 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 (s) 66.3 Arizona ............... 449.9 183.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 327.3 89.1 2.4 0.0 0.8 2.5 1.5 1,057.9 Arkansas ............. 300.5 109.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.6 148.5 28.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 588.9 California ............ 19.7 630.1 0.4 11.1 (s) 11.5 383.6 413.4 69.0 122.0 8.4 75.3 20.1 1,753.1 Colorado ............. 362.4 88.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 20.2 0.9

374

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 State Energy Data 2011: Consumption Table C7. Industrial Sector Energy Consumption Estimates, 2011 (Trillion Btu) State Coal Natural Gas a Petroleum Hydro- electric power e Biomass Geo- thermal Retail Electricity Sales Net Energy h,i Electrical System Energy Losses j Total h,i Distillate Fuel Oil LPG b Motor Gasoline c Residual Fuel Oil Other d Total Wood and Waste f Losses and Co- products g Alabama ............. 65.0 179.1 23.9 3.7 3.3 6.7 46.3 83.9 0.0 147.2 0.0 (s) 115.1 590.4 219.5 810.0 Alaska ................. 0.1 253.8 19.2 0.1 1.0 0.0 27.1 47.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.5 306.0 9.4 315.4 Arizona ............... 10.0 22.0 33.2 1.4 4.6 (s) 18.4 57.6 0.0 1.4 3.1 0.2 42.1 136.5 84.7 221.2 Arkansas ............. 5.6 93.1 31.1 2.6 4.0 0.1 17.4 55.1 0.0 72.7 0.0 (s) 58.0 284.5 120.5 405.0 California ............ 35.6 767.4 77.2 23.9 29.6 (s) 312.5

375

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

8 8 State Energy Data 2011: Consumption Table C5. Residential Sector Energy Consumption Estimates, 2011 (Trillion Btu) State Coal a Natural Gas b Petroleum Biomass Geothermal Solar/PV e Retail Electricity Sales Net Energy f Electrical System Energy Losses g Total f Distillate Fuel Oil Kerosene LPG c Total Wood d Alabama ............. 0.0 37.2 0.1 0.1 6.0 6.2 6.0 0.1 0.2 112.6 162.2 214.7 376.9 Alaska ................. 0.0 20.5 8.1 0.1 0.5 8.8 1.9 0.1 (s) 7.3 38.6 15.1 53.7 Arizona ............... 0.0 39.1 (s) (s) 5.5 5.5 2.6 (s) 7.9 112.9 168.0 226.8 394.7 Arkansas ............. 0.0 34.2 0.1 (s) 5.2 5.3 8.6 0.7 0.2 64.1 113.1 133.2 246.3 California ............ 0.0 522.4 0.6 0.6 30.9 32.2 33.3 0.2 43.2 301.6 932.9 583.1 1,516.1 Colorado ............. 0.0 134.2 0.1 (s) 12.3 12.4 8.3 0.2 0.7 62.4 216.5 136.5 353.0 Connecticut ......... 0.0 46.0 59.6

376

Incentive Price Revision Firm Target UT-B Contracts Div Page 1 of 2  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Incentive Price Revision ­ Firm Target UT-B Contracts Div Jan 2006 Page 1 of 2 incent-price-rev-firm-ext-utbx-jan06.doc INCENTIVE PRICE REVISION - FIRM TARGET (Jan 2006) (a) General. The supplies or services identified in the Agreement as item numbers __________ are subject to price revision in accordance

Pennycook, Steve

377

MECS Fuel Oil Tables  

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

: Actual, Minimum and Maximum Use Values for Fuel Oils and Natural Gas : Actual, Minimum and Maximum Use Values for Fuel Oils and Natural Gas Year Distillate Fuel Oil (TBtu) Actual Minimum Maximum Discretionary Rate 1985 185 148 1224 3.4% 1994 152 125 1020 3.1% Residual Fuel Oil (TBtu) Actual Minimum Maximum Discretionary Rate 1985 505 290 1577 16.7% 1994 441 241 1249 19.8% Natural Gas (TBtu) Actual Minimum Maximum Discretionary Rate 1985 4656 2702 5233 77.2% 1994 6141 4435 6758 73.4% Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, 1985 and 1994 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Surveys. Table 2: Establishments That Actually Switched Between Natural Gas and Residual Fuel Oil Type of Switch Number of Establishments in Population Number That Use Original Fuel Percentage That Use Original Fuel Number That Can Switch to Another Fuel Percentage That Can Switch to Another Fuel Number That Actually Made a Switch Percentage That Actually Made a Switch

378

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

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

Turbines The Gas Turbine Handbook The Gas Turbine Handbook TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements Updated Author Contact Information Introduction - Rich Dennis, Turbines Technology Manager 1.1 Simple and Combined Cycles - Claire Soares 1.1-1 Introduction 1.1-2 Applications 1.1-3 Applications versatility 1.1-4 The History of the Gas Turbine 1.1-5 Gas Turbine, Major Components, Modules, and systems 1.1-6 Design development with Gas Turbines 1.1-7 Gas Turbine Performance 1.1-8 Combined Cycles 1.1-9 Notes 1.2 Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) - Massod Ramezan and Gary Stiegel 1.2-1 Introduction 1.2-2 The Gasification Process 1.2-3 IGCC Systems 1.2-4 Gasifier Improvements 1.2-5 Gas Separation Improvements 1.2-6 Conclusions 1.2-7 Notes 1.2.1 Different Types of Gasifiers and Their Integration with Gas Turbines - Jeffrey Phillips

379

Investment and capitalisation of firms in the USA  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

In the USA today, the precipitous rise of new financial mechanisms for capitalisation of firms as well as the merger and acquisition of others, especially risk equity capital through venture capitalist and investment banking, has sparked growth and helped to bring the economy out of the 1990s recession into a robust continuous growth pattern well positioned for the next century. The scenario is not new. For the venture capitalists of ''Silicon Valley'' in California, the experience is not new. They have seen the new industries arise before, like a phoenix from ashes of ruin, despair and even failure. Venture capital poured into high tech start-up companies has been an enormous source of financial support for the entrepreneurs who head new and growing companies. The mid-1990s marked the most dramatic increase yet recorded. Indicators, such as the NASDAQ document, outlined the solid and continuous growth in high tech industries. The paper discusses investment in US corporations within the context of governance and management of the company. Discussion about the various forms of finance are related to the organisation and management of the US corporation. Critical to any firm today are its ability to find innovative, new products or services. A growing literature on resource-base framework for analysis will be discussed as part of the firm's development of research for commercialisation. The results of a recent survey further shed light on the relationship between corporate financial management and allocated resources for research and development as the ''engine'' for new product development and therefore corporate market share and growth. The conclusion is that more financial mechanisms will be created and changed within US corporate systems to adjust, grow, and expand companies in the global economic arena, as the inevitable economic pattern leads to mergers, consolidations, and increasing cooperation and alliances among firms.

Woodrow W. Clark II; Istemi Demrig

2002-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

380

MECS 1991 Publications and Tables  

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

Publication and Tables Publication and Tables Publication and Tables Figure showing the Largest Energy Consumers in the Manufacturing Sector You have the option of downloading the entire report or selected sections of the report. Full Report - Manufacturing Consumption of Energy 1991 (file size 17.2 MB) pages:566 Selected Sections Main Text (file size 380,153 bytes) pages: 33, includes the following: Contacts Contents Executive Summary Introduction Energy Consumption in the Manufacturing Sector: An Overview Energy Consumption in the Manufacturing Sector, 1991 Manufacturing Capability To Switch Fuels Appendices Appendix A. Detailed Tables Appendix B. Survey Design, Implementation, and Estimates (file size 141,211 bytes) pages: 22. Appendix C. Quality of the Data (file size 135,511 bytes) pages: 8.

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


381

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

............................................... 12 Water-Source Heat Pump Performance ............................ 18 Air-Source Heat Pump OF PERFORMANCE OF WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMP .............................. ................. 23 FIGURE 2. NODAL. MONTHLY HEAT GAIN/LOSS FACTORS ........................... 5 TABLE 2. BASE TEMPERATURES

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

382

Table of Contents  

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

SECTION III: NUCLEAR THEORY Low-Energy Behavior of the Astrophysical S Factor in Radiative Captures to Loosely Bound Final States A. M. Mukhamedzhanov, F. Nunes ANCs and Radiation...

383

Microsoft Word - table_03.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table 3. Gross withdrawals and marketed production of natural gas by state and the Gulf of Mexico, 2007-2011 (million cubic feet) 2007 Total R 14,991,891 R 5,681,871 R 1,999,748 1,990,145 24,663,656 3,662,685 143,457 661,168 20,196,346 930,320 19,266,026 2008 Total R 15,134,644 R 5,609,425 R 2,022,228 R 2,869,960 25,636,257 3,638,622 166,909 718,674 21,112,053 953,451 20,158,602 2009 Total R 14,414,287 R 5,674,120 R 2,010,171 R 3,958,315 26,056,893 3,522,090 165,360 721,507 21,647,936 1,024,082 20,623,854 2010 Total R 13,247,498 R 5,834,703 1,916,762 5,817,122 R 26,816,085 3,431,587 165,928 836,698 R 22,381,873 R 1,066,366 R 21,315,507 2011 Total 12,291,070 5,907,919 1,779,055 8,500,983 28,479,026 3,365,313 209,439 867,922 24,036,352 1,134,473 22,901,879

384

Microsoft Word - table_18.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Table 18. Natural gas delivered to commercial consumers for the account of others by state, 2008-2012 (volumes in million cubic feet) Alabama 4,999 19.8 5,160 21.2 5,494 20.3 5,313 21.1 5,126 23.8 Alaska 4,274 25.1 2,448 14.7 1,951 12.3 2,208 R 11.4 1,005 5.1 Arizona 2,258 6.9 3,866 12.0 3,605 11.3 3,988 12.2 4,213 13.4 Arkansas 13,112 35.5 14,776 40.6 17,862 44.4 19,402 48.5 24,772 59.8 California 108,738 43.3 111,702 45.1 113,903 45.9 R 112,448 45.7 126,571 50.0 Colorado 3,132 4.8 3,240 5.2 3,118 5.4 3,457 6.2 4,061 7.8 Connecticut 11,032 29.3 12,324 31.0 14,068 34.6 15,519 34.6 14,774 34.9 Delaware 2,611 29.4 5,438 46.5 6,117 50.2 4,879 46.6 5,647 56.3 District of Columbia 15,110 82.1 15,550 83.1 15,507 83.6 14,029

385

Microsoft Word - table_18.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Table 18. Natural gas delivered to commercial consumers for the account of others by state, 2007-2011 (volumes in million cubic feet) Alabama 4,722 20.2 4,999 19.8 5,160 21.2 5,494 R 20.3 5,313 21.1 Alaska 4,499 24.0 4,274 25.1 2,448 14.7 1,951 12.3 2,208 13.3 Arizona 2,172 6.6 2,258 6.9 3,866 12.0 3,605 11.3 3,988 12.2 Arkansas 9,534 29.6 13,112 35.5 14,776 40.6 17,862 44.4 19,402 48.5 California 98,776 39.3 108,738 43.3 111,702 45.1 113,903 45.9 112,561 45.7 Colorado 2,721 4.3 3,132 4.8 3,240 5.2 R 3,118 5.4 3,457 6.2 Connecticut 10,252 28.5 11,032 29.3 12,324 31.0 14,068 34.6 15,519 34.6 Delaware 2,178 25.2 2,611 29.4 5,438 46.5 6,117 50.2 4,879 46.6 District of Columbia 15,703 81.4 15,110 82.1 15,550 83.1 15,507 83.6 14,029

386

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table C6. Commercial Sector Energy Consumption Estimates, 2011 (Trillion Btu) State Coal Natural Gas a Petroleum Hydro- electric Power e Biomass Geothermal Retail Electricity Sales Net Energy g Electrical System Energy Losses h Total g Distillate Fuel Oil Kerosene LPG b Motor Gasoline c Residual Fuel Oil Total d Wood and Waste f Alabama ............. 0.0 25.5 7.0 (s) 2.7 0.2 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 75.9 112.4 144.8 257.2 Alaska ................. 9.4 16.9 10.1 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.0 11.5 0.0 0.3 0.1 9.7 48.0 20.2 68.2 Arizona ............... 0.0 33.1 6.8 (s) 1.5 0.7 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.5 (s) 100.7 143.2 202.3 345.5 Arkansas ............. 0.0 40.6 3.6 (s) 1.2 0.4 0.0 5.2 0.0 1.3 0.0 41.4 88.6 86.1 174.7 California ............ 0.0 250.9 47.9 0.1 8.7 1.4 0.0 58.1 (s) 17.4 0.7 418.9 746.2 809.9 1,556.1 Colorado ............. 3.2 57.6 5.9 (s) 2.9 0.2 0.0 9.1 0.0 1.2 0.2

387

Microsoft Word - table_24.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 24. Average price of natural gas delivered to consumers by state and sector, 2011 (dollars per thousand cubic feet) Alabama 15.09 100.0 12.37 78.9 5.56 23.4 11.45 4.36 Alaska 8.77 100.0 8.77 86.7 3.84 60.8 -- 5.04 Arizona 15.04 100.0 9.99 87.8 6.86 24.2 7.73 5.02 Arkansas 11.46 100.0 8.90 51.5 7.44 2.1 -- 4.73 California 9.93 98.3 8.28 54.3 7.04 4.5 7.32 4.71 Colorado 8.25 100.0 7.84 93.8 6.42 7.6 9.56 4.97 Connecticut 13.83 96.8 8.48 65.4 9.16 31.4 18.59 5.09 Delaware 15.38 100.0 13.58 53.4 11.69 1.6 28.76 W District of Columbia 13.06 75.0 12.24 16.9 -- -- 4.17 -- Florida 18.16 98.1 11.11 39.8 8.07 3.0 4.93 5.86 Georgia 15.72 100.0 10.51 100.0 5.90 18.2 5.57 4.72 Hawaii 55.28 100.0 45.58

388

Microsoft Word - table_24.doc  

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

7 7 Table 24. Average price of natural gas delivered to consumers by state and sector, 2012 (dollars per thousand cubic feet) Alabama 16.20 100.0 12.55 76.2 4.35 22.1 17.99 3.09 Alaska 8.47 100.0 8.09 94.9 5.11 100.0 -- 4.32 Arizona 15.75 100.0 9.35 86.6 5.78 21.4 13.19 3.51 Arkansas 11.82 100.0 7.99 40.2 6.38 1.9 9.04 3.19 California 9.14 97.5 7.05 50.0 5.77 4.2 7.01 3.68 Colorado 8.31 100.0 7.58 92.2 5.79 6.8 11.65 W Connecticut 14.17 96.7 8.40 65.1 8.83 32.3 13.70 3.99 Delaware 15.24 100.0 13.31 43.7 11.61 0.3 30.97 -- District of Columbia 12.10 73.9 11.19 17.9 -- -- 9.38 -- Florida 18.31 97.7 10.41 37.0 6.96 2.7 9.83 4.80 Georgia 16.23 100.0 9.74 100.0 4.60 20.0 14.51 3.40 Hawaii 52.86 100.0 47.03

389

Table of Contents  

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

Oil & Natural Gas Technology Oil & Natural Gas Technology DOE Award No.: DE-NT0005638 Quarterly Report January-March 2010 Remote Sensing and Sea-Truth Measurements of Methane Flux to the Atmosphere (HYFLUX project) Submitted by: Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi 6300 Ocean Dr. Corpus Christi, TX 78412 Principal Authors: Ian R. MacDonald and Thomas Naehr Prepared for: United States Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory April 30, 2010 Office of Fossil Energy Acknowledgment: "This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-NT0005638." Disclaimer: "This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor

390

EIA - Appendix A - Reference Case Projection Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Tables (2005-2035) Tables (2005-2035) International Energy Outlook 2010 Reference Case Projections Tables (2005-2035) Formats Data Table Titles (1 to 14 complete) Reference Case Projections Tables (1990-2030). Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Appendix A. Reference Case Projections Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table A1 World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region Table A1. World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table A2 World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel Table A2. World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800.

391

Offshore Wind Potential Tables  

Wind Powering America (EERE)

Offshore wind resource by state and wind speed interval within 50 nm of shore. Wind Speed at 90 m (ms) 7.0 - 7.5 7.5 - 8.0 8.0 - 8.5 8.5 - 9.0 9.0 - 9.5 9.5 - 10.0 >10.0 Total...

392

ATOMIC DATA AND NUCLEAR DATA TABLES 68, 183201 (1998) ARTICLE NO. DT970760  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

ATOMIC DATA AND NUCLEAR DATA TABLES 68, 183­201 (1998) ARTICLE NO. DT970760 OSCILLATOR STRENGTHS State University Columbus, Ohio 43210 An extensive dataset of oscillator strengths, line strengths by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol

Nahar, Sultana Nurun

393

RSE Table 7.4 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.4  

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

4 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.4;" 4 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.4;" " Unit: Percents." " ",," "," ",," "," " "Economic",,"Residual","Distillate","Natural ","LPG and" "Characteristic(a)","Electricity","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil(b)","Gas(c)","NGL(d)","Coal" ,"Total United States" "Value of Shipments and Receipts" "(million dollars)" " Under 20",8,21,14,7,9,13 " 20-49",4,6,15,4,13,4 " 50-99",3,6,4,3,6,8 " 100-249",3,8,17,2,5,7 " 250-499",4,1,9,7,1,37 " 500 and Over",1,7,4,1,1,1 "Total",2,3,7,2,1,11

394

Table 35. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

W W 78.6 W 85.7 81.8 W 69.3 73.8 See footnotes at end of table. 35. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District and State 176 Energy Information...

395

Table 35. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

W 70.5 78.9 W 76.0 83.6 W 69.2 75.2 See footnotes at end of table. 35. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District and State 176 Energy Information...

396

Annual Coal Distribution Tables  

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

and Foreign Distribution of U.S. Coal by State of Origin, 2001 and Foreign Distribution of U.S. Coal by State of Origin, 2001 State / Region Domestic Foreign Total Alabama 14,828 4,508 19,336 Alaska 825 698 1,524 Arizona 13,143 - 13,143 Arkansas 13 - 13 Colorado 32,427 894 33,321 Illinois 33,997 285 34,283 Indiana 36,714 - 36,714 Kansas 176 - 176 Kentucky Total 131,546 2,821 134,367 East 107,000 2,707 109,706 West 24,547 114 24,660 Louisiana 3,746 - 3,746 Maryland 4,671 319 4,990 Mississippi 475 - 475 Missouri 366 - 366 Montana 38,459 485 38,944 New Mexico 28,949 - 28,949 North Dakota 30,449 - 30,449 Ohio 25,463 12 25,475 Oklahoma 1,710 - 1,710 Pennsylvania Total 64,392 6,005 70,397 Anthracite 2,852 205 3,057 Bituminous 61,540 5,800 67,340 Tennessee 3,346 28 3,374 Texas 45,019 31 45,050 Utah 24,761 2,144 26,905 Virginia 25,685 7,071 32,756 Washington 4,623 - 4,623 West Virginia Total 144,584

397

Annual Coal Distribution Tables  

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

Foreign Distribution of U.S. Coal by Major Coal-Exporting States and Foreign Distribution of U.S. Coal by Major Coal-Exporting States and Destination, 2001 Coal-Exporting State and Destination Metallurgical Steam Total Alaska - 761 761 South Korea - 761 761 Alabama 4,667 167 4,834 Argentina 155 - 155 Belgium 989 - 989 Brazil 1,104 - 1,104 Bulgaria 82 - 82 Egypt 518 - 518 Italy 115 - 115 Netherlands 56 83 139 Spain 412 84 496 Turkey 581 - 581 United Kingdom 654 - 654 Kentucky 2,130 - 2,130 Canada 920 - 920 France 22 - 22 Iceland 9 - 9 Italy 430 - 430 Netherlands 417 - 417 Spain 9 - 9 United Kingdom 323 - 323 Pennsylvania 1,086 14,326 15,722 Belgium - 203 203 Brazil 372 - 373 Canada - 12,141 12,418 France - 84 84 Germany 495 165 661 Ireland - 136 136 Netherlands 219 879 1,097 Norway - - 7 Peru - - 21 Portugal - 634 634 United Kingdom - 85 85 Venezuela - - 3 Utah - 1,420 1,420 Japan - 1,334 1,334 Taiwan - 86 86 Virginia 4,531

398

Annual Coal Distribution Tables  

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

Domestic Distribution of U.S. Coal by Destination State, Domestic Distribution of U.S. Coal by Destination State, Consumer, Destination and Method of Transportation, 2001 (Thousand Short Tons) DESTINATION: Alabama State of Origin by Method of Transportation Electricity Generation Coke Plants Industrial Plants (Except Coke) Residential and Commercial Total Alabama 7,212 375 6,032 3 13,622 Railroad 2,613 170 4,607 - 7,390 River 3,867 - - - 3,867 Truck 732 205 1,424 3 2,365 Illinois 1,458 - - * 1,458 Railroad 167 - - - 167 River 1,291 - - - 1,291 Truck - - - * * Kentucky Total 2,277 - 262 - 2,539 Railroad 1,928 - 165 - 2,093 River 349 - 83 - 432 Truck - - 14 - 14 Eastern 843 - 262 - 1,105 Railroad 843 - 165 - 1,008 River - - 83 - 83 Truck - - 14 - 14 Western 1,435 - - - 1,435 Railroad 1,086 - - - 1,086 River 349 - - - 349 Pennsylvania Total 242 - 62 - 304 Great Lakes - - 60 - 60 Railroad - - * - * River 242 - -

399

'Building on our own abilities' : Suriname's State Oil Company as a development agent.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??abstractThis paper analyses the conditions under which the Surinamese State Oil Company (Staatsolie) has been consolidated, not only as a firm oriented at the production (more)

W. Hout (Wil)

2007-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

400

The Logic of Violence in Criminal War: Cartel-State Conflict in Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

from the state-owned firm PEMEX. Despite growing criticismstate-owned oil monopoly PEMEX (Guerrero, 2011b:32-34). By

Lessing, Benjamin

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


401

Nature Bulletin Table of Contents  

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

Table of Contents: Table of Contents: Here is our table of contents for the Forset Preserve District of Cook Country Nature Bulletins. To search, go to the Natuere Bulletin's Search Engine and type in your topic. You can also use your browser's "FIND" command to search the 750+ article titles here for a specific subject! Fish Smother Under Ice Coyotes in Cook County Tough Times for the Muskrats Wild Geese and Ducks Fly North Squirrels Spring Frogs Snapping Turtles A Phenomenal Spring Good People Do Not Pick Wildflowers Fire is the Enemy of Field and Forest Crows Earthworms Bees Crayfish Floods Handaxes and Knives in the Forest Preserves Ant Sanctuary Conservation Mosquitoes More About Mosquitoes Fishing in the Forest Preserve Our River Grasshoppers Chiggers Ticks Poison Ivy Fireflies

402

COST AND QUALITY TABLES 95  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 Tables 5 Tables July 1996 Energy Information Administration Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels U.S. Department of Energy Washington DC 20585 This report was prepared by the Energy Information Administration, the independent statistical and analytical agency within the Department of Energy. The information contained herein should not be construed as advocating or reflecting any policy position of the Department of Energy or any other organization. Contacts The annual publication Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Utility Plants (C&Q) will no longer be pub- lished by the EIA. The tables presented in this docu- ment are intended to replace that annual publication. Questions regarding the availability of these data should be directed to: Coal and Electric Data and Renewables Division

403

MTS Table Top Load frame  

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

MTS Table Top Load frame MTS Table Top Load frame The Non-destructive Evaluation group operates an MTS Table Top Load frame for ultimate strength and life cycle testing of various ceramic, ceramic-matrix (FGI), carbon, carbon fiber, cermet (CMC) and metal alloy engineering samples. The load frame is a servo-hydraulic type designed to function in a closed loop configuration under computer control. The system can perform non-cyclic, tension, compression and flexure testing and cyclic fatigue tests. The system is comprised of two parts: * The Load Frame and * The Control System. Load Frame The Load Frame (figure 1) is a cross-head assembly which includes a single moving grip, a stationary grip and LVDT position sensor. It can generate up to 25 kN (5.5 kip) of force in the sample under test and can

404

CBECS 1992 - Building Characteristics, Detailed Tables  

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

Detailed Tables Detailed Tables Detailed Tables Percent of Buildings and Floorspace by Census Region, 1992 Percent of Buildings and Floorspace by Census Region, 1992 The following 70 tables present extensive cross-tabulations of commercial buildings characteristics. These data are from the Buildings Characteristics Survey portion of the 1992 CBECS. The "Quick-Reference Guide," indicates the major topics of each table. Directions for calculating an approximate relative standard error (RSE) for each estimate in the tables are presented in Figure A1, "Use of RSE Row and Column Factor." The Glossary contains the definitions of the terms used in the tables. See the preceding "At A Glance" section for highlights of the detailed tables. Table Organization

405

Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Supplement Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 1 to 116 Complete set of Supplemental Tables Complete set of Supplemental Tables. Need help, please contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Regional Energy Consumption and Prices by Sector Energy Consumption by Sector Table 1. New England Consumption & Prices by Sector & Census Division Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table 2. Middle Atlantic Consumption & Prices by Sector & Census Division Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table 3. East North Central Consumption & Prices by Sector & Census Division Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table 4. West North Central

406

Offshore Wind Potential Tables  

Wind Powering America (EERE)

Offshore wind resource by state and wind speed interval within 50 nm of shore. Offshore wind resource by state and wind speed interval within 50 nm of shore. Wind Speed at 90 m (m/s) 7.0 - 7.5 7.5 - 8.0 8.0 - 8.5 8.5 - 9.0 9.0 - 9.5 9.5 - 10.0 >10.0 Total >7.0 State Area km 2 (MW) Area km 2 (MW) Area km 2 (MW) Area km 2 (MW) Area km 2 (MW) Area km 2 (MW) Area km 2 (MW) Area km 2 (MW) California 11,439 (57,195) 24,864 (124,318) 23,059 (115,296) 22,852 (114,258) 13,185 (65,924) 15,231 (76,153) 6,926 (34,629) 117,555 (587,773) Connecticut 530 (2,652) 702 (3,508) 40 (201) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1,272 (6,360) Delaware 223 (1,116) 724 (3,618) 1,062 (5,310) 931 (4,657) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2,940 (14,701) Georgia 3,820 (19,102) 7,741 (38,706) 523 (2,617) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 12,085 (60,425) Hawaii 18,873 (94,363) 42,298 (211,492)

407

Table of Contents  

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

0.01.00 - 2000 0.01.00 - 2000 Software Configuration Management (SCM) A Practical Guide April 25, 2000 United States Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office Abstract This document provides a practical guide for integrating software configuration management disciplines into the management of software engineering projects. Software configuration management is the process of identifying and defining the software configuration items in a system, controlling the release and change of these items throughout the system lifecycle, recording and reporting the status of configuration items and change requests, and verifying the completeness and correctness of configuration items. Software Configuration Management: A Practical Guide 04/25/00 ii Acknowledgements

408

Table Definitions, Sources, and Explanatory Notes  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Motor Gasoline Motor Gasoline Definitions Key Terms Definition Bulk Sales Wholesale sales of gasoline in individual transactions which exceed the size of a truckload. Dealer Tank Wagon Sales (DTW) Wholesale sales of gasoline priced on a delivered basis to a retail outlet. Gas Plant Operator Any firm, including a gas plant owner, which operates a gas plant and keeps the gas plant records. A gas plant is a facility in which natural gas liquids are separated from natural gas or in which natural gas liquids are fractionated or otherwise separated into natural gas liquid products or both. For the purposes of this survey, gas plant operator data are contained in the refiner categories. Gasoline Grades The classification of gasoline by octane ratings. Each type of gasoline (conventional and reformulated) is classified by three grades - regular, midgrade, and premium. Note: gasoline sales are reported by grade in accordance with their classification at the time of sale. In general, automotive octane requirements are lower at high altitudes. Therefore, in some areas of the United States, such as the Rocky Mountain States, the octane ratings for the gasoline grades may be 2 or more octane points lower.

409

Table Definitions, Sources, and Explanatory Notes  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade and Sales Type Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade and Sales Type Definitions Key Terms Definition Bulk Sales Wholesale sales of gasoline in individual transactions which exceed the size of a truckload. Dealer Tank Wagon Sales (DTW) Wholesale sales of gasoline priced on a delivered basis to a retail outlet. Gas Plant Operator Any firm, including a gas plant owner, which operates a gas plant and keeps the gas plant records. A gas plant is a facility in which natural gas liquids are separated from natural gas or in which natural gas liquids are fractionated or otherwise separated into natural gas liquid products or both. For the purposes of this survey, gas plant operator data are contained in the refiner categories. Gasoline Grades The classification of gasoline by octane ratings. Each type of gasoline (conventional and reformulated) is classified by three grades - regular, midgrade, and premium. Note: gasoline sales are reported by grade in accordance with their classification at the time of sale. In general, automotive octane requirements are lower at high altitudes. Therefore, in some areas of the United States, such as the Rocky Mountain States, the octane ratings for the gasoline grades may be 2 or more octane points lower.

410

Capital budgeting methods, management control systems and the R&D intensity of the firm  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

This paper investigates the effect of the Research and Development (R&D) intensity of the firm on the use of management control systems, capital budgeting methods and the methods to determine the cost of capital. Based on earlier literature, we develop several hypotheses that we test empirically, using survey data of the 101 Finnish firms operating in the capital area. The results indicate that the use of management control systems such as control and bonus systems, budgeting and strategic alliances increases with the degree of the R&D intensity of the firm. The results also indicate that high-R&D-intensity firms use formal capital budgeting methods within large and strategic projects. Finally, our results show that the use of sophisticated capital budgeting methods such as Net Present Value (NPV) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) methods increases with the R&D intensity of the firm. Our results remain materially the same after controlling for several firm characteristics.

Hanna Silvola

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

411

The debt agency costs of family ownership in small and micro firms  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

This study investigates the impact that family ownership has on loan availability and credit terms. It differs from existing literature by investigating the impact of family ownership on loan availability and credit terms in small and micro firms. Our results suggest that loan availability becomes weaker when family ownership increases. Collateral requirements increase with family ownership, but contrary to previous studies we find no effect on interest rates. These results suggest that there are agency costs involved with family ownership. We also find that the impact of other attributes that affect loan availability or credit terms is different for family firms. Our results suggest that an increase in firm age improves loan availability and reduces collateral requirements only for the non-family firms. We also find that while an increase in profitability improves loan availability for all firms, it reduces interest rates and collateral requirements only for family firms.

Mervi Niskanen; Jyrki Niskanen; Virpi Laukkanen

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

412

"RSE Table E13.2. Relative Standard Errors for Table E13.2;"  

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

2. Relative Standard Errors for Table E13.2;" 2. Relative Standard Errors for Table E13.2;" " Unit: Percents." " ",,,"Renewable Energy" ,,,"(excluding Wood" "Economic","Total Onsite",,"and" "Characteristic(a)","Generation","Cogeneration(b)","Other Biomass)(c)","Other(d)" ,"Total United States" "Value of Shipments and Receipts" "(million dollars)" " Under 20",15,15,58,37 " 20-49",17,19,27,7 " 50-99",6,6,5,9 " 100-249",7,7,25,4 " 250-499",2,2,0,0 " 500 and Over",1,1,0,1 "Total",2,2,15,1 "Employment Size" " Under 50",16,16,90,35

413

"RSE Table C9.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C9.1;"  

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

C9.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C9.1;" C9.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C9.1;" " Unit: Percents." " "," "," " " "," ",,,"General","Amount of ","Establishment-Paid","Activity Cost" "NAICS"," "," " "Code(a)","Energy-Management Activity","No Participation","Participation(b)","All","Some","None","Don't Know" ,,"Total United States" " 311 - 339","ALL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES" ,"Participation in One or More of the Following Types of Activities",1,2,0,0,0,0 ," Energy Audits",1,3,5,6,5,7 ," Electricity Load Control",1,3,4,7,6,7

414

"RSE Table N13.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table N13.1;"  

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

1. Relative Standard Errors for Table N13.1;" 1. Relative Standard Errors for Table N13.1;" " Unit: Percents." " "," " " "," ",,,,"Sales and","Net Demand" "NAICS"," ",,,"Total Onsite","Transfers","for" "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Purchases","Transfers In(b)","Generation(c)","Offsite","Electricity(d)" ,,"Total United States" , 311,"Food",1,1,1,8,1 311221," Wet Corn Milling",0,0,0,0,0 312,"Beverage and Tobacco Products",4,0,1,0,4 313,"Textile Mills",2,8,7,0,2 313210," Broadwoven Fabric Mills",3,0,22,0,3 314,"Textile Product Mills",11,73,8,90,11

415

"RSE Table E7.2. Relative Standard Errors for Table E7.2;"  

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

2. Relative Standard Errors for Table E7.2;" 2. Relative Standard Errors for Table E7.2;" " Unit: Percents." " "," ",,,"Consumption" " "," ",,"Consumption","per Dollar" "NAICS",,"Consumption","per Dollar","of Value" "Code(a)","Economic Characteristic(b)","per Employee","of Value Added","of Shipments" ,,"Total United States" " 311 - 339","ALL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES" ,"Value of Shipments and Receipts" ,"(million dollars)" ," Under 20",2,2,2 ," 20-49",2,3,2 ," 50-99",3,3,2 ," 100-249",2,3,2 ," 250-499",3,3,3

416

"RSE Table E2.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table E2.1;"  

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

E2.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table E2.1;" E2.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table E2.1;" " Unit: Percents." " "," "," "," ",," "," ",," " "Economic",,"Residual","Distillate",,"LPG and",,"Coke and"," " "Characteristic(a)","Total","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil(b)","Natural Gas(c)","NGL(d)","Coal","Breeze","Other(e)" ,"Total United States" "Value of Shipments and Receipts" "(million dollars)" " Under 20",9,87,48,26,1,85,16,25 " 20-49",11,32,28,5,63,20,3,21 " 50-99",8,23,38,2,22,49,42,4

417

"RSE Table N1.3. Relative Standard Errors for Table N1.3;"  

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

.3. Relative Standard Errors for Table N1.3;" .3. Relative Standard Errors for Table N1.3;" " Unit: Percents." " "," " ,"Total" "Energy Source","First Use" ,"Total United States" "Coal ",3 "Natural Gas",1 "Net Electricity",1 " Purchases",1 " Transfers In",9 " Onsite Generation from Noncombustible Renewable Energy",15 " Sales and Transfers Offsite",3 "Coke and Breeze",2 "Residual Fuel Oil",4 "Distillate Fuel Oil",5 "Liquefied Petroleum Gases and Natural Gas Liquids",1 "Other",2 " Asphalt and Road Oil (a)",0 " Lubricants (a)",0 " Naphtha < 401 Degrees (a)",0

418

"RSE Table N13.3. Relative Standard Errors for Table N13.3;"  

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

3. Relative Standard Errors for Table N13.3;" 3. Relative Standard Errors for Table N13.3;" " Unit: Percents." " "," ","Total of" "NAICS"," ","Sales and","Utility","Nonutility" "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Transfers Offsite","Purchaser(b)","Purchaser(c)" ,,"Total United States" , 311,"Food",8,9,0 311221," Wet Corn Milling",0,0,0 312,"Beverage and Tobacco Products",0,0,0 313,"Textile Mills",0,0,0 313210," Broadwoven Fabric Mills",0,0,0 314,"Textile Product Mills",90,90,0 315,"Apparel",0,0,0 316,"Leather and Allied Products",0,0,0

419

"RSE Table E13.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table E13.1;"  

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

1. Relative Standard Errors for Table E13.1;" 1. Relative Standard Errors for Table E13.1;" " Unit: Percents." " ",," "," ",," " ,,,,"Sales and","Net Demand" "Economic",,,"Total Onsite","Transfers","for" "Characteristic(a)","Purchases","Transfers In(b)","Generation(c)","Offsite","Electricity(d)" ,"Total United States" "Value of Shipments and Receipts" "(million dollars)" " Under 20",4,52,15,4,4 " 20-49",2,14,17,33,2 " 50-99",2,31,6,10,2 " 100-249",1,13,7,9,1 " 250-499",2,2,2,1,2 " 500 and Over",1,2,1,1,1

420

"RSE Table N7.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table N7.1;"  

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

N7.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table N7.1;" N7.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table N7.1;" " Unit: Percents." " "," ",,,"Consumption" " "," ",,"Consumption","per Dollar" "NAICS"," ","Consumption","per Dollar","of Value" "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","per Employee","of Value Added","of Shipments" ,,"Total United States" , 311,"Food",1,1,1 311221," Wet Corn Milling",0,0,0 312,"Beverage and Tobacco Products",8,4,5 313,"Textile Mills",3,2,3 313210," Broadwoven Fabric Mills",3,4,3 314,"Textile Product Mills",7,5,5

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


421

"RSE Table C12.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C12.1;"  

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

2.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C12.1;" 2.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C12.1;" " Units: Percents." ,,"Approximate",,,"Approximate","Average" ,,"Enclosed Floorspace",,"Average","Number","Number" "NAICS"," ","of All Buildings",,"Enclosed Floorspace","of All Buildings","of Buildings Onsite" "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Onsite","Establishments(b)","per Establishment","Onsite","per Establishment" ,,"Total United States" , 311,"Food",2,0,2,1,1 311221," Wet Corn Milling",0,0,0,0,0 312,"Beverage and Tobacco Products",11,0,15,14,14

422

Vegetable and Melons Yearbook Data Tables | Data.gov  

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

Vegetable and Melons Yearbook Data Tables Vegetable and Melons Yearbook Data Tables Agriculture Community Menu DATA APPS EVENTS DEVELOPER STATISTICS COLLABORATE ABOUT Agriculture You are here Data.gov » Communities » Agriculture » Data Vegetable and Melons Yearbook Data Tables Dataset Summary Description Production, acreage, value, prices, imports, exports, per capita use, and beginning stocks for major fresh market and processed vegetables, 1970 onward. Also includes data for potatoes, sweet potatoes, dry beans and peas, and fresh and processed mushrooms. Tags {"United States","Economic Research Service",prices,value,imports,exports,"per capita use","beginning stocks",vegetables,"fresh market",processed,potatoes,"sweet potatoes","dry beans",peas,"fresh muschrooms","processed mushrooms",mushrooms}

423

OECD Input-Output Tables | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

OECD Input-Output Tables OECD Input-Output Tables Jump to: navigation, search Tool Summary LAUNCH TOOL Name: Input-Output Tables Agency/Company /Organization: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development Topics: Co-benefits assessment, Market analysis, Co-benefits assessment, Pathways analysis Resource Type: Dataset Website: www.oecd.org/document/3/0,3343,en_2649_34445_38071427_1_1_1_1,00.html Country: Sweden, Finland, Japan, South Korea, Argentina, Australia, China, Israel, United Kingdom, Portugal, Romania, Greece, Poland, Slovakia, Chile, India, Canada, New Zealand, United States, Denmark, Norway, Spain, Austria, Italy, Netherlands, Ireland, France, Belgium, Brazil, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Mexico, Slovenia, South Africa, Turkey, Indonesia, Switzerland, Taiwan, Russia

424

Shear wave seismic velocity profiling and depth to water table earthquake site  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

..................................................................................................... 6 Summary of seismic refraction/reflection methodsShear wave seismic velocity profiling and depth to water table ­ earthquake site response measurements for Valley County, Idaho Lee M. Liberty and Gabriel M. Gribler, Boise State University Center

Barrash, Warren

425

Table 46. Refiner No. 2 Distillate, Diesel Fuel, and Fuel Oil...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

W 839.2 135.0 1,251.9 See footnotes at end of table. 46. Refiner No. 2 Distillate, Diesel Fuel, and Fuel Oil Volumes by PAD District and State Energy Information Administration...

426

Table 46. Refiner No. 2 Distillate, Diesel Fuel, and Fuel Oil...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

W 1,039.3 132.9 1,418.3 See footnotes at end of table. 46. Refiner No. 2 Distillate, Diesel Fuel, and Fuel Oil Volumes by PAD District and State Energy Information Administration...

427

Table 40. No. 2 Diesel Fuel Prices by Sales Type, PAD District...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

74.6 77.3 90.7 86.5 77.3 68.4 See footnotes at end of table. 40. No. 2 Diesel Fuel Prices by Sales Type, PAD District, and Selected States Energy Information...

428

Table 40. No. 2 Diesel Fuel Prices by Sales Type, PAD District...  

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

70.4 69.1 87.1 75.2 71.6 61.0 See footnotes at end of table. 40. No. 2 Diesel Fuel Prices by Sales Type, PAD District, and Selected States Energy Information...

429

Alfalfa water use pinpointed in saline, shallow water tables of Imperial Valley  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

shallow water tables of Imperial Valley Khaled M. Bali Qin water user in the Imperial Valley several western states.shallow, use in the Imperial Valley, where it moderately

Bali, Khaled M.; Grismer, Mark E.; Snyder, Richard L.

2001-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

430

Table A1. Refiner/Reseller Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, PAD...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

78.2 101.8 83.6 87.5 74.7 See footnotes at end of table. A1. RefinerReseller Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, PAD District, and State, 1984-Present 452 Energy Information...

431

FRAUD POLICY Table of Contents  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

FRAUD POLICY Table of Contents Section 1 - General Statement Section 2 - Management's Responsibility for Preventing Fraud Section 3 - Consequences for Fraudulent Acts Section 4 - Procedures for Reporting Fraud Section 5 - Procedures for the Investigation of Alleged Fraud Section 6 - Protection Under

Shihadeh, Alan

432

CHP NOTEBOOK Table of Contents  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

-Specific Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) Section 8 Employee Training Section 9 Inspections and Exposure1 CHP NOTEBOOK Table of Contents Section 1 Safety Program Key Personnel Section 2 Laboratory Protective Equipment (PPE) Assessment Section 18 Hazard Assessment Information and PPE Selection Information

Braun, Paul

433

PARENT HANDBOOK TABLE OF CONTENTS  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

PARENT HANDBOOK 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS The Parent's Role 3 Academics 7 Academic Advising 7 Academic Services 26 Athletics, Physical Education and Recreation 28 Campus Resources and Student Services 30 to seeing you in person and connecting with you online! PARENT HANDBOOK THEPARENT'SROLE PARENT HANDBOOK 3

Adali, Tulay

434

Automatic Construction of Diagnostic Tables  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......more usual, at least in microbiology.) Keys and diagnostic tables...Mechanization and Data Handling in Microbiology, Society for Applied Bacteriology...by A. Baillie and R. J. Gilbert, London: Academic Press...cultures, Canadian Journal of Microbiology, Vol. 14, pp. 271-279......

W. R. Willcox; S. P. Lapage

1972-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

435

A framework for an innovative knowledge management system in knowlegde-based firms.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??This study examined how a knowledge management system can bring innovative behaviour to a knowledge based firm. The study developed a framework for such a (more)

Lindner, Eli

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

436

The association between research and development expenditure and firm performance: testing a life cycle hypothesis  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Although prior studies provide evidence that investment in research and development (R&D) expenditure enhances a firm's performance, very little evidence is available on the impact of a firm's life cycle stages on the association between R&D expenditures and firm performance. We classify firms into three-life cycle stages, namely, growth, mature and stagnant, and choose four-life cycle classification variables which are dividends, sales growth, capital expenditure and firm age. Using 769-firm-year observations over a period of 11-years in Australia, we find that the abnormal returns to unexpected expensed R&D amounts are significantly negative. Further, our results suggest that market reaction to expensed R&D is more negatively pronounced during the stagnant phase of a firm's life cycle, suggesting that the market perceives that firms have limited prospects to derive benefits arising out of expensed R&D expenditures. The results suggest that the relationship between performance and investment in R&D is not linear but is moderated by a firm's life cycle which should be taken into account when making policy that is based on stock-based performance.

Kamran Ahmed; Mohammed Jinan

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

437

Financial liberalisation and the capital structure of firms listed on the Johannesburg stock exchange.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??This thesis examines the impact of financial liberalisation on the capital structure of non-financial firms listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE). The research hypotheses (more)

Chipeta, Chimwemwe

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

438

The returns to bidding firms in corporate takeovers: splitting up the pie  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

In this paper, we examined the impact of ownership concentration in target firms on the returns to shareholders of bidding firms. In this research, we found that shareholders of bidding earn statistically significant positive abnormal returns surrounding takeover announcements. In addition, we found bidder returns of 4% over the event-window [?20, +20]. We showed that the degree of ownership concentration in target firms measured by the Herfindahl-concentration index significantly and positively affects the returns to bidding firms. These findings are consistent with the predictions of Grossman and Hart (1980), Bagnoli and Lipman (1988) and Holmstrom and Nalebuff (1992) takeover models.

Han Donker; Saif Zahir

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

439

Offshore Wind Power - Opportunity and strategy for a small engineering consultants firm.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??GVA is a small engineering consultancy firm, with specialized focus in design of floating structures such as oil production platforms. The key business is at (more)

Jobson Sellstrm, Carin

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

440

Strategic view of alliance strategy: the impact of alliance type on firm profitability.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??This study attempts to determine how strategic alliances impact firm performance. The degree of alliance impact is theorized to be dependent on the type of (more)

Marsh, Laurence A

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


441

table3.2  

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

Fuel Consumption, 2002; Fuel Consumption, 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources; Unit: Trillion Btu. Total United States RSE Column Factors: 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.6 0.9 1.8 0.7 0.7 1.1 311 Food 1,116 230 13 19 575 5 184 1 90 7.6 311221 Wet Corn Milling 217 23 * * 61 * 121 0 11 1.2 31131 Sugar 111 2 2 1 22 * 37 1 46 1 311421 Fruit and Vegetable Canning 47 7 1 1 36 Q 0 0 1 12.5 312 Beverage and Tobacco Products 104 26 2 2 46 1 17 0 10 4.4 3121 Beverages 85 22 1 2 42 1 8 0 10 5.9 3122 Tobacco 19 4 1 * 4 * 10 0 * 1 313 Textile Mills 205 86 4 2 74 2 22 0 15 15.7 314 Textile Product Mills 60 17 2 Q 29 1 Q 0 Q 21.7 315 Apparel 30 12 * 1 16 * 0 0 * 23.2 316 Leather and Allied Products 7 2 * * 4 * 0 0 * 8.5 321 Wood Products 375 72 1 10 57 5 1 0 229 4.5 321113 Sawmills

442

table3.1  

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

Fuel Consumption, 2002; Fuel Consumption, 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources; Unit: Physical Units or Btu. Total United States RSE Column Factors: 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.6 0.9 1.8 0.7 0.7 1.1 311 Food 1,116 67,521 2 3 560 1 8 * 90 7.6 311221 Wet Corn Milling 217 6,851 * * 59 * 5 0 11 1.2 31131 Sugar 111 725 * * 22 * 2 * 46 1 311421 Fruit and Vegetable Canning 47 1,960 * * 35 * 0 0 1 12.5 312 Beverage and Tobacco Products 104 7,639 * * 45 * 1 0 10 4.4 3121 Beverages 85 6,426 * * 41 * * 0 10 5.9 3122 Tobacco 19 1,213 * * 4 * * 0 * 1 313 Textile Mills 205 25,271 1 * 72 * 1 0 15 15.7 314 Textile Product Mills 60 4,875 * Q 28 * * 0 Q 21.7 315 Apparel 30 3,588 * * 16 * 0 0 * 23.2 316 Leather and Allied Products 7 716 * * 4 * 0 0 * 8.5 321 Wood Products

443

International energy indicators. [Statistical tables and graphs  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

International statistical tables and graphs are given for the following: (1) Iran - Crude Oil Capacity, Production and Shut-in, June 1974-April 1980; (2) Saudi Arabia - Crude Oil Capacity, Production, and Shut-in, March 1974-Apr 1980; (3) OPEC (Ex-Iran and Saudi Arabia) - Capacity, Production and Shut-in, June 1974-March 1980; (4) Non-OPEC Free World and US Production of Crude Oil, January 1973-February 1980; (5) Oil Stocks - Free World, US, Japan, and Europe (Landed, 1973-1st Quarter, 1980); (6) Petroleum Consumption by Industrial Countries, January 1973-December 1979; (7) USSR Crude Oil Production and Exports, January 1974-April 1980; and (8) Free World and US Nuclear Generation Capacity, January 1973-March 1980. Similar statistical tables and graphs included for the United States include: (1) Imports of Crude Oil and Products, January 1973-April 1980; (2) Landed Cost of Saudi Oil in Current and 1974 Dollars, April 1974-January 1980; (3) US Trade in Coal, January 1973-March 1980; (4) Summary of US Merchandise Trade, 1976-March 1980; and (5) US Energy/GNP Ratio, 1947 to 1979.

Bauer, E.K. (ed.)

1980-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

444

Microsoft Word - table_01_1.doc  

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

Table 1. Summary statistics for natural gas in the United States, 2008-2012 See footnotes at end of table. Number of Wells Producing at End of Year 476,652 493,100 487,627 514,637 482,822 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 15,134,644 14,414,287 13,247,498 12,291,070 12,736,678 From Oil Wells 5,609,425 5,674,120 5,834,703 5,907,919 4,969,668 From Coalbed Wells 2,022,228 2,010,171 1,916,762 1,779,055 1,539,395 From Shale Gas Wells 2,869,960 3,958,315 5,817,122 8,500,983 10,296,572 Total 25,636,257 26,056,893 26,816,085 28,479,026 29,542,313 Repressuring 3,638,622 3,522,090 3,431,587 3,365,313 3,259,680 Vented and Flared 166,909 165,360 165,928 209,439 212,848

445

An optimal filtering algorithm for table constraints  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Filtering algorithms for table constraints are constraint-based, which means that the propagation queue only contains information on the constraints that must be reconsidered. This paper proposes four efficient value-based algorithms for table constraints, ...

Jean-Baptiste Mairy; Pascal Van Hentenryck; Yves Deville

2012-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

446

Table Name query? | OpenEI Community  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Table Name query? Home > Groups > Databus Is there an API feature which returns the names of tables? Submitted by Hopcroft on 28 October, 2013 - 15:37 1 answer Points: 0 if you are...

447

SF6432-FP (02-01-12) Firm Fixed Price  

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

2/01/12 2/01/12 Page 1 of 21 Printed copies of this document are uncontrolled. Retrieve latest version electronically. SANDIA CORPORATION SF 6432-FP (02/01/12) Section II STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR FIRM-FIXED PRICE CONTRACTS THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES APPLY TO THIS CONTRACT AS INDICATED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DELETED, OR EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY SUPPLEMENTED OR AMENDED IN WRITING IN THE COVER PAGE OR SECTION I. (CTRL+CLICK ON A LINK BELOW TO ADVANCE DIRECTLY TO THAT SECTION) ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS (Ts&Cs) APPLICABLE LAW ASSIGNMENT BANKRUPTCY DEFINITIONS DISPUTES EXCESS FREIGHT CHARGES EXCUSABLE DELAYS EXPORT CONTROL EXTRAS AND VARIATION IN QUANTITY GOVERNMENT PROPERTY MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURING AND TESTING STANDARDS

448

Chemistry Department Assessment Table of Contents  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

0 Chemistry Department Assessment May, 2006 Table of Contents Page Executive Summary 1 Prelude 1 Mission Statement and Learning Goals 1 Facilities 2 Staffing 3 Students: Chemistry Majors and Student Taking Service Courses Table: 1997-2005 graduates profile Table: GRE Score for Chemistry Majors, 1993

Bogaerts, Steven

449

Microsoft Word - table_A1.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

78 78 Table A1. Natural Gas Losses and Unaccounted for by State, 2010 (Volumes in Million Cubic Feet) Alabama .................................. 946 914 531,243 0.4 Alaska...................................... 534 5,228 333,316 1.7 Arizona .................................... 787 -124 331,257 0.2 Arkansas.................................. 666 4,170 271,512 1.8 California ................................. 4,217 31,286 2,273,958 1.6 Colorado .................................. 831 1,599 501,438 0.5 Connecticut.............................. 1,595 -1,192 199,440 0.2 Delaware ................................. 113 887 54,825 1.8 District of Columbia.................. 67 1,329 33,302 4.2 Florida...................................... 11,007 2,365 1,158,522 1.2 Georgia....................................

450

Microsoft Word - table_11.doc  

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

25 25 Table 11 Created on: 12/12/2013 2:10:53 PM Table 11. Underground natural gas storage - storage fields other than salt caverns, 2008-2013 (volumes in billion cubic feet) Natural Gas in Underground Storage at End of Period Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Storage Activity Year and Month Base Gas Working Gas Total Volume Percent Injections Withdrawals Net Withdrawals a 2008 Total b -- -- -- -- -- 2,900 2,976 76 2009 Total b -- -- -- -- -- 2,856 2,563 -293 2010 Total b -- -- -- -- -- 2,781 2,822 41 2011 January 4,166 2,131 6,298 -63 -2.9 27 780 753 February 4,166 1,597 5,763 -10 -0.6 51 586 535 March 4,165 1,426 5,591 -114 -7.4 117 288 172

451

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

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

1 1 Table 8 Created on: 12/12/2013 2:07:39 PM Table 8. Underground natural gas storage - all operators, 2008-2013 (million cubic feet) Natural Gas in Underground Storage at End of Period Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Storage Activity Year and Month Base Gas Working Gas Total a Volume Percent Injections Withdrawals Net Withdrawals b 2008 Total c -- -- -- -- -- 3,340 3,374 34 2009 Total c -- -- -- -- -- 3,315 2,966 -349 2010 Total c -- -- -- -- -- 3,291 3,274 -17 2011 January 4,303 2,306 6,609 2 0.1 50 849 799 February 4,302 1,722 6,024 39 2.3 82 666 584 March 4,302 1,577 5,879 -75 -4.6 168 314 146 April 4,304 1,788 6,092 -223 -11.1 312 100

452

The growth of Quebec's biotechnology firms and the implications of underinvestment in strategic competencies  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

This paper examines the problem of human resources access for biotechnology firms in Quebec. The results of a survey conducted with 124 biotechnology firm managers document that access to human resources is a sizable challenge, the second most important issue facing these firms, after financing. The results further indicate that while firm managers are preoccupied by the skills and competencies of human resources and recognise its importance, the scarcity of available headcount in the market, coupled with firm growth management imperatives, are a key limiting factor in the development of the firms' competencies. In this study, a strategic competence model is applied to understand the contribution of human resources to the management process of biotechnology firms. In particular, we formulate the working hypothesis that firms engage in fierce competition in the input market for scientific, technological, and management competencies. A systems archetype is used to illustrate the tradeoff between short-term financial priorities and the need for capacity building, whose ''tangible'' benefits will only be measured in the long term.

Michel Delorme; L. Martin Cloutier

2005-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

453

THE BLIND SPOT OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: CHANGING THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF THE FIRM  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

and their corporate purposes. Such innovations suggest that management science research should study how to improve OF THE FIRM Kevin LEVILLAIN, Blanche SEGRESTIN Center for Management Research, MINES Paris behaviour is compatible with the legal framework of the firm and its standard strategic approaches. Could

Paris-Sud XI, Université de

454

Financial Constraints and Firm Export hal-00973114,version1-3Apr2014  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

to overcome the sunk entry costs into export markets and expand their activities abroad. Keywords: Export; Firm heterogeneity; Financial constraints; Sunk costs JEL Classification: F14; G32; L25; D92 1 both firm heterogeneity and the relevance of sunk entry costs into export markets.1 Once extended

Paris-Sud XI, Université de

455

Action Codes Table | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Action Codes Table | National Nuclear Security Administration Action Codes Table | National Nuclear Security Administration Our Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Continuing Management Reform Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Us Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Media Room Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Speeches Events Social Media Video Gallery Photo Gallery NNSA Archive Federal Employment Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog Action Codes Table Home > About Us > Our Programs > Nuclear Security > Nuclear Materials Management & Safeguards System > NMMSS Information, Reports & Forms > Code Tables > Action Codes Table

456

Building up a firm's commercialisation competence: from product concept to the first reference  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

This study examines the build-up of commercialisation competence when a firm moves from concept development to the first customer reference. During this period, substantial learning on commercialisation occurs as the firm develops an understanding of the fit between the business environment and the new product, which helps the firm improve its strategic marketing decisions. This process builds the innovator firm's commercialisation competence which makes it possible for the firm to succeed in acquiring the first reference. The study draws on the literature on innovation management concerning innovation competence, commercialisation of innovations, and reference marketing. Employing qualitative multiple case analysis, this study generates a dynamic model for commercialisation competence build-up and identifies strategic marketing, market preparation/creation and sales creation as key competence groups for commercialisation with a total of 14 sub-competences. The developed framework serves as a managerial tool to determine critical steps in commercialisation and the required commercialisation competences.

Leena Aarikka-Stenroos; Tuula Lehtimäki

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

457

Description of Energy Intensity Tables (12)  

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

3. Description of Energy Intensity Data Tables 3. Description of Energy Intensity Data Tables There are 12 data tables used as references for this report. Specifically, these tables are categorized as tables 1 and 2 present unadjusted energy-intensity ratios for Offsite-Produced Energy and Total Inputs of Energy for 1985, 1988, 1991, and 1994; along with the percentage changes between 1985 and the three subsequent years (1988, 1991, and 1994) tables 3 and 4 present 1988, 1991, and 1994 energy-intensity ratios that have been adjusted to the mix of products shipped from manufacturing establishments in 1985 tables 5 and 6 present unadjusted energy-intensity ratios for Offsite-Produced Energy and Total Inputs of Energy for 1988, 1991, and 1994; along with the percentage changes between 1988 and the two subsequent

458

Sandia National Labs: PCNSC: IBA Table  

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

Home Home About Us Departments Radiation, Nano Materials, & Interface Sciences > Radiation & Solid Interactions > Nanomaterials Sciences > Surface & Interface Sciences Semiconductor & Optical Sciences Energy Sciences Small Science Cluster Business Office News Partnering Research Ion Beam Analysis (IBA) Periodic Table (HTML) IBA Table (HTML) | IBA Table (135KB GIF) | IBA Table (1.2MB PDF) | IBA Table (33MB TIF) | Heavy Ion Backscattering Spectrometry (HIBS) | Virtual Lab Tour (6MB) The purpose of this table is to quickly give the visitor to this site information on the sensitivity, depth of analysis and depth resolution of most of the modern ion beam analysis techniques in a single easy to use format: a periodic table. Note that you can click on each panel of this

459

Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Supplement Tables - Supplemental  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2006 The AEO Supplemental tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 2006 (AEO2006) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 2003 to 2030. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO2006, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO2006 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of one hundred and seventeen tables is presented. The data for tables 10 and 20 match those published in AEO2006 Appendix tables A2 and A3, respectively. Forecasts for 2004-2006 may differ slightly from values published in the Short Term Energy Outlook, which are the official EIA short-term forecasts and are based on more current information than the AEO.

460

Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Supplement Tables - Supplemental  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2007 The AEO Supplemental tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 2007 (AEO2007) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 2005 to 2030. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO2007, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO2007 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of one hundred and eighteen tables is presented. The data for tables 10 and 20 match those published in AEO2007 Appendix tables A2 and A3, respectively. Projections for 2006 and 2007 may differ slightly from values published in the Short Term Energy Outlook, which are the official EIA short-term projections and are based on more current information than the AEO.

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


461

C:\\ANNUAL\\Vol2chps.v8\\ANNUAL2.VP  

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

7 24. Natural Gas Deliveries to Electric Utilities by State, 1993-1998 (Million Cubic Feet) Table State Firm Interruptible Total Volume Sales Volume Transported Volume Total Volume...

462

Annual Energy Outlook 2007 - Low Price Case Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4-2030) 4-2030) Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030 MS Excel Viewer Spreadsheets are provided in Excel Low Price Case Tables (2004-2030) Table Title Formats Summary Low Price Case Tables Low Price Case Tables Table 1. Total Energy Supply and Disposition Summary Table 2. Energy Consumption by Sector and Source Table 3. Energy Prices by Sector and Source Table 4. Residential Sector Key Indicators and Consumption Table 5. Commercial Sector Indicators and Consumption Table 6. Industrial Sector Key Indicators and Consumption Table 7. Transportation Sector Key Indicators and Delivered Energy Consumption Table 8. Electricity Supply, Disposition, Prices, and Emissions Table 9. Electricity Generating Capacity Table 10. Electricity Trade Table 11. Petroleum Supply and Disposition Balance

463

Annual Energy Outlook 2007 - Low Economic Growth Case Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Low Macroeconomic Growth Case Tables (2004-2030) Low Macroeconomic Growth Case Tables (2004-2030) Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030 MS Excel Viewer Spreadsheets are provided in Excel Low Economic Growth Case Tables (2004-2030) Table Title Formats Summary Low Economic Growth Case Tables Low Economic Growth Case Tables Table 1. Total Energy Supply and Disposition Summary Table 2. Energy Consumption by Sector and Source Table 3. Energy Prices by Sector and Source Table 4. Residential Sector Key Indicators and Consumption Table 5. Commercial Sector Indicators and Consumption Table 6. Industrial Sector Key Indicators and Consumption Table 7. Transportation Sector Key Indicators and Delivered Energy Consumption Table 8. Electricity Supply, Disposition, Prices, and Emissions Table 9. Electricity Generating Capacity

464

State Energy Program Strategic Plan: February 2007  

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

State Energy Program Strategic Plan )HEUXDU SEP Strategic Plan February 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword iii Mission and Operations 1 Current Energy Trends 1 Key Drivers 3 Setting...

465

Electric Power Monthly - Monthly Data Tables | OpenEI  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Power Monthly - Monthly Data Tables Power Monthly - Monthly Data Tables Dataset Summary Description Monthly electricity generation figures (and the fuel consumed to produce it). Source information available at EIA. Source EIA Date Released July 20th, 2010 (4 years ago) Date Updated July 20th, 2010 (4 years ago) Keywords consumption EIA Electricity Electricity Consumption Electricity Generation Data application/vnd.ms-excel icon generation_state_mon.xls (xls, 32.5 MiB) application/vnd.ms-excel icon consumption_state_mon.xls (xls, 14.7 MiB) Quality Metrics Level of Review Some Review Comment Temporal and Spatial Coverage Frequency Monthly Time Period License License Other or unspecified, see optional comment below Comment Work of the U.S. Federal Government Rate this dataset Usefulness of the metadata

466

Table  

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

Muons Muons in B-100 Bone-equivalent plastic Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.52740 1.450 85.9 0.05268 3.7365 0.1252 3.0420 3.4528 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.435 7.435 7.443 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.803 5.803 1.360 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.535 4.535 2.543 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.521 3.521 5.080 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 3.008 3.008 8.173 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.256 2.256 2.401 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.115 2.115 3.319 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.971 1.971 5.287 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.889 1.889 8.408 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.859 0.000 1.859 1.376 × 10 2 314. MeV 4.065 × 10 2 1.859 0.000 1.859 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.866 0.000 1.866 1.913 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.940 0.000 0.000 1.940 4.016 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.973 0.000 0.000 1.974 5.037 × 10 2 1.40

467

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Sodium monoxide Na 2 O Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.48404 2.270 148.8 0.07501 3.6943 0.1652 2.9793 4.1892 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 6.330 6.330 8.793 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 4.955 4.956 1.601 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 3.883 3.884 2.984 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.024 3.024 5.943 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.588 2.588 9.541 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.954 1.954 2.789 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.840 1.840 3.846 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.725 1.725 6.102 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.663 1.664 9.656 × 10 1 283. MeV 3.738 × 10 2 1.646 0.000 1.647 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.647 0.000 1.647 1.571 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.659 0.000 1.660 2.177 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.738 0.000 0.000 1.738 4.531 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.771 0.000 0.000 1.772 5.670 × 10 2 1.40 GeV 1.502

468

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Tissue-equivalent gas (Propane based) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.55027 1.826 × 10 -3 59.5 0.09802 3.5159 1.5139 3.9916 9.3529 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 8.132 8.132 6.782 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 6.337 6.337 1.241 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.943 4.944 2.326 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.831 3.831 4.656 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 3.269 3.269 7.500 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.450 2.450 2.209 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.303 2.303 3.053 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 2.158 2.158 4.855 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 2.084 2.084 7.695 × 10 1 263. MeV 3.527 × 10 2 2.068 0.000 2.069 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 2.071 0.000 2.072 1.252 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 2.097 0.000 2.097 1.732 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 2.232 0.000 0.000 2.232 3.580 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 2.289 0.000 0.000 2.290

469

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Lead oxide (PbO) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.40323 9.530 766.7 0.19645 2.7299 0.0356 3.5456 6.2162 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 4.046 4.046 1.411 × 10 0 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 3.207 3.207 2.532 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 2.542 2.542 4.656 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 2.003 2.003 9.146 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 1.727 1.727 1.455 × 10 1 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.327 1.327 4.176 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.256 1.256 5.729 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.188 1.189 9.017 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.158 1.158 1.415 × 10 2 236. MeV 3.250 × 10 2 1.155 0.000 1.155 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.161 0.000 0.000 1.161 2.279 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.181 0.000 0.000 1.181 3.133 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.266 0.001 0.000 1.267 6.398 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.299 0.001 0.000 1.301 7.955 × 10 2 1.40

470

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Liquid argon (Ar) Z A [g/mol] ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 18 (Ar) 39.948 (1) 1.396 188.0 0.19559 3.0000 0.2000 3.0000 5.2146 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 5.687 5.687 9.833 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 4.461 4.461 1.786 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 3.502 3.502 3.321 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 2.731 2.731 6.598 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.340 2.340 1.058 × 10 1 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.771 1.771 3.084 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.669 1.670 4.250 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.570 1.570 6.732 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.518 1.519 1.063 × 10 2 266. MeV 3.567 × 10 2 1.508 0.000 1.508 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.509 0.000 1.510 1.725 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.526 0.000 0.000 1.526 2.385 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.610 0.000 0.000 1.610 4.934 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.644 0.000 0.000 1.645 6.163

471

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Freon-13 (CF 3 Cl) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.47966 0.950 126.6 0.07238 3.5551 0.3659 3.2337 4.7483 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 6.416 6.416 8.659 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.019 5.019 1.578 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 3.930 3.930 2.945 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.057 3.057 5.870 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.615 2.615 9.430 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.971 1.971 2.760 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.857 1.857 3.809 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.745 1.745 6.041 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.685 1.685 9.551 × 10 1 283. MeV 3.738 × 10 2 1.668 0.000 1.668 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.668 0.000 1.668 1.553 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.681 0.000 1.681 2.151 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.762 0.000 0.000 1.763 4.473 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.796 0.000 0.000 1.797 5.596 × 10 2 1.40 GeV 1.502

472

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Lutetium silicon oxide [Lu 2 SiO 5 ] Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.42793 7.400 472.0 0.20623 3.0000 0.2732 3.0000 5.4394 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 4.679 4.679 1.209 × 10 0 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 3.692 3.693 2.181 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 2.916 2.916 4.029 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 2.287 2.287 7.953 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 1.968 1.968 1.270 × 10 1 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.503 1.503 3.666 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.421 1.422 5.038 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.344 1.344 7.944 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.308 1.308 1.248 × 10 2 242. MeV 3.316 × 10 2 1.304 1.304 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.309 0.000 0.000 1.309 2.014 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.329 0.000 0.000 1.329 2.773 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.415 0.001 0.000 1.416 5.684 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.449 0.001 0.000 1.450 7.080

473

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Boron oxide (B 2 O 3 ) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.49839 1.812 99.6 0.11548 3.3832 0.1843 2.7379 3.6027 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 6.889 6.889 8.045 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.381 5.381 1.468 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.208 4.208 2.744 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.269 3.269 5.477 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.794 2.794 8.807 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.102 2.103 2.583 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.975 1.975 3.567 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.843 1.843 5.674 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.768 1.768 9.010 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.742 0.000 1.742 1.472 × 10 2 307. MeV 3.990 × 10 2 1.742 0.000 1.742 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.750 0.000 1.750 2.045 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.822 0.000 0.000 1.823 4.285 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.854 0.000 0.000 1.855 5.373 × 10 2 1.40 GeV 1.502

474

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Liquid H-note density shift (H 2 ) Z A [g/mol] ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 1 (H) 1.00794 (7) 7.080 × 10 -2 21.8 0.32969 3.0000 0.1641 1.9641 2.6783 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 16.508 16.508 3.316 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 12.812 12.812 6.097 × 10 -1 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 9.956 9.956 1.147 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 7.684 7.684 2.307 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 6.539 6.539 3.727 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 4.870 4.870 1.105 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 4.550 4.550 1.531 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 4.217 4.217 2.448 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 4.018 0.000 4.018 3.912 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 3.926 0.000 3.926 6.438 × 10 1 356. MeV 4.497 × 10 2 3.919 0.000 3.919 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 3.922 0.000 3.922 8.988 × 10 1 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 4.029 0.000 4.030 1.906 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 4.084 0.001

475

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Cortical bone (ICRP) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.52130 1.850 106.4 0.06198 3.5919 0.1161 3.0919 3.6488 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.142 7.142 7.765 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.581 5.581 1.417 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.366 4.366 2.646 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.393 3.393 5.281 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.900 2.901 8.489 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.179 2.179 2.489 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.044 2.044 3.440 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.907 1.907 5.475 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.830 1.830 8.700 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.803 0.000 1.803 1.422 × 10 2 303. MeV 3.950 × 10 2 1.803 0.000 1.803 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.812 0.000 1.812 1.976 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.888 0.000 0.000 1.889 4.138 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.922 0.000 0.000 1.923 5.187 × 10 2 1.40 GeV 1.502

476

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Freon-13B1 (CF 3 Br) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.45665 1.500 210.5 0.03925 3.7194 0.3522 3.7554 5.3555 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 5.678 5.678 9.844 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 4.454 4.454 1.788 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 3.498 3.498 3.325 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 2.729 2.729 6.606 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.339 2.339 1.059 × 10 1 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.771 1.771 3.086 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.671 1.671 4.251 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.574 1.574 6.729 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.524 1.524 1.062 × 10 2 266. MeV 3.567 × 10 2 1.513 0.000 1.513 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.515 0.000 1.515 1.721 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.531 0.000 0.000 1.532 2.378 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.616 0.000 0.000 1.616 4.919 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.650 0.001 0.000 1.651 6.142 × 10 2 1.40 GeV

477

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Sodium carbonate (Na 2 CO 3 ) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.49062 2.532 125.0 0.08715 3.5638 0.1287 2.8591 3.7178 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 6.575 6.575 8.449 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.142 5.142 1.540 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.026 4.026 2.874 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.131 3.131 5.729 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.679 2.679 9.204 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.017 2.017 2.695 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.895 1.895 3.721 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.771 1.772 5.914 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.703 1.703 9.381 × 10 1 298. MeV 3.894 × 10 2 1.681 0.000 1.681 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.681 0.000 1.681 1.531 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.690 0.000 1.691 2.125 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.764 0.000 0.000 1.764 4.440 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.796 0.000 0.000 1.797 5.563 × 10 2 1.40

478

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Tungsten hexafluoride (WF 6 ) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.42976 2.400 354.4 0.03658 3.5134 0.3020 4.2602 5.9881 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 4.928 4.928 1.143 × 10 0 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 3.880 3.880 2.067 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 3.057 3.057 3.828 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 2.393 2.393 7.574 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.056 2.056 1.211 × 10 1 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.565 1.565 3.509 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.479 1.479 4.827 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.396 1.396 7.623 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.353 1.353 1.200 × 10 2 253. MeV 3.431 × 10 2 1.346 0.000 1.346 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.349 0.000 0.000 1.349 1.942 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.367 0.000 0.000 1.367 2.679 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.451 0.001 0.000 1.452 5.516 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.485 0.001 0.000 1.486 6.877

479

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Standard rock Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.50000 2.650 136.4 0.08301 3.4120 0.0492 3.0549 3.7738 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 6.619 6.619 8.400 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.180 5.180 1.530 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.057 4.057 2.854 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.157 3.157 5.687 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.701 2.702 9.133 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.028 2.029 2.675 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.904 1.904 3.695 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.779 1.779 5.878 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.710 1.710 9.331 × 10 1 297. MeV 3.884 × 10 2 1.688 0.000 1.688 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.688 0.000 1.688 1.523 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.698 0.000 1.698 2.114 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.774 0.000 0.000 1.775 4.418 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.808 0.000 0.000 1.808 5.534 × 10 2 1.40 GeV 1.502 × 10

480

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Ceric sulfate dosimeter solution Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.55279 1.030 76.7 0.07666 3.5607 0.2363 2.8769 3.5212 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.909 7.909 6.989 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 6.170 6.170 1.278 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.819 4.819 2.391 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.739 3.739 4.779 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 3.193 3.193 7.693 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.398 2.398 2.261 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.255 2.255 3.123 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 2.102 2.102 4.968 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 2.013 2.014 7.896 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.980 0.000 1.980 1.292 × 10 2 317. MeV 4.096 × 10 2 1.979 0.000 1.979 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.986 0.000 1.986 1.797 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 2.062 0.000 0.000 2.062 3.774 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 2.096 0.000 0.000 2.097 4.735 × 10

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state firm" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


481

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Silicon Z A [g/mol] ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 14 (Si) 28.0855 (3) 2.329 173.0 0.14921 3.2546 0.2015 2.8716 4.4355 0.14 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 6.363 6.363 8.779 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 4.987 4.987 1.595 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 3.912 3.912 2.969 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.047 3.047 5.905 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.608 2.608 9.476 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.965 1.965 2.770 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.849 1.849 3.822 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.737 1.737 6.064 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.678 1.678 9.590 × 10 1 273. MeV 3.633 × 10 2 1.664 0.000 1.664 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.665 0.000 1.666 1.559 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.681 0.000 1.681 2.157 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.767 0.000 0.000 1.768 4.475 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.803 0.000 0.000 1.804 5.595 × 10 2 1.40 GeV

482

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Polyethylene terephthalate (Mylar) (C 10 H 8 O 4 ) n Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.52037 1.400 78.7 0.12679 3.3076 0.1562 2.6507 3.3262 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.420 7.420 7.451 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.789 5.789 1.362 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.522 4.522 2.548 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.509 3.509 5.093 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.997 2.997 8.197 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.250 2.250 2.409 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.108 2.108 3.329 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.963 1.964 5.305 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.880 1.880 8.440 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.849 0.000 1.849 1.382 × 10 2 317. MeV 4.096 × 10 2 1.848 0.000 1.849 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.855 0.000 1.855 1.922 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.926 0.000 0.000 1.926 4.039 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.958 0.000 0.000 1.959

483

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Dichlorodiethyl ether C 4 Cl 2 H 8 O Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.51744 1.220 103.3 0.06799 3.5250 0.1773 3.1586 4.0135 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.117 7.117 7.789 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.561 5.561 1.421 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.349 4.349 2.655 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.380 3.380 5.300 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.889 2.889 8.521 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.174 2.174 2.499 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.042 2.042 3.450 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.907 1.907 5.486 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.832 1.832 8.708 × 10 1 298. MeV 3.894 × 10 2 1.807 0.000 1.807 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.807 0.000 1.807 1.422 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.817 0.000 1.817 1.974 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.895 0.000 0.000 1.896 4.129 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.930 0.000 0.000 1.931 5.174 × 10

484

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Lead Z A [g/mol] ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 82 (Pb) 207.2 (1) 11.350 823.0 0.09359 3.1608 0.3776 3.8073 6.2018 0.14 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 3.823 3.823 1.524 × 10 0 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 3.054 3.054 2.705 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 2.436 2.436 4.927 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 1.928 1.928 9.600 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 1.666 1.666 1.521 × 10 1 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.283 1.283 4.338 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.215 1.215 5.943 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.151 1.152 9.339 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.124 1.124 1.463 × 10 2 226. MeV 3.145 × 10 2 1.122 0.000 1.123 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.130 0.000 0.000 1.131 2.352 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.151 0.000 0.000 1.152 3.228 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.237 0.001 0.000 1.238 6.572 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.270 0.001 0.000 1.272 8.165 × 10 2 1.40

485

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Sodium iodide (NaI) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.42697 3.667 452.0 0.12516 3.0398 0.1203 3.5920 6.0572 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 4.703 4.703 1.202 × 10 0 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 3.710 3.710 2.169 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 2.928 2.928 4.009 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 2.297 2.297 7.917 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 1.975 1.975 1.264 × 10 1 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.509 1.509 3.652 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.427 1.427 5.019 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.347 1.348 7.916 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.310 1.310 1.245 × 10 2 243. MeV 3.325 × 10 2 1.305 1.305 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.310 0.000 0.000 1.310 2.010 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.329 0.000 0.000 1.330 2.768 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.417 0.001 0.000 1.418 5.677 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.452 0.001 0.000 1.453 7.070 × 10 2 1.40 GeV

486

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Polyvinyl alcohol (C 2 H3-O-H) n Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.54480 1.300 69.7 0.11178 3.3893 0.1401 2.6315 3.1115 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.891 7.891 6.999 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 6.153 6.153 1.280 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.804 4.804 2.396 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.726 3.726 4.793 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 3.181 3.181 7.717 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.383 2.384 2.270 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.231 2.232 3.140 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 2.076 2.076 5.007 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.986 1.986 7.974 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.950 0.000 1.950 1.307 × 10 2 324. MeV 4.161 × 10 2 1.949 0.000 1.949 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.955 0.000 1.955 1.820 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 2.026 0.000 0.000 2.026 3.830 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 2.059 0.000 0.000 2.059 4.809 × 10 2 1.40

487

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Cesium Z A [g/mol] ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 55 (Cs)132.9054519 (2) 1.873 488.0 0.18233 2.8866 0.5473 3.5914 6.9135 0.14 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 4.464 4.464 1.277 × 10 0 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 3.532 3.532 2.294 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 2.794 2.794 4.224 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 2.195 2.195 8.315 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 1.890 1.890 1.325 × 10 1 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.444 1.444 3.820 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.366 1.366 5.248 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.291 1.291 8.274 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.257 1.257 1.300 × 10 2 236. MeV 3.250 × 10 2 1.254 1.254 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.261 0.000 0.000 1.261 2.096 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.284 0.000 0.000 1.285 2.882 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.378 0.001 0.000 1.380 5.881 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.415 0.001 0.000 1.417 7.311 × 10 2

488

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Propane (C 3 H 8 ) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.58962 1.868 × 10 -3 47.1 0.09916 3.5920 1.4339 3.8011 8.7939 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 8.969 8.969 6.137 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 6.982 6.982 1.125 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 5.441 5.441 2.109 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 4.212 4.213 4.228 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 3.592 3.592 6.815 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.688 2.688 2.010 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.525 2.526 2.780 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 2.365 2.365 4.424 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 2.281 2.281 7.018 × 10 1 267. MeV 3.577 × 10 2 2.262 0.000 2.263 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 2.265 0.000 2.265 1.143 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 2.291 0.000 2.291 1.582 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 2.434 0.000 0.000 2.435 3.275 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 2.495 0.000 0.000 2.496 4.086 × 10 2 1.40 GeV 1.502

489

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Polystyrene ([C 6 H 5 CHCH 2 ] n ) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.53768 1.060 68.7 0.16454 3.2224 0.1647 2.5031 3.2999 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.803 7.803 7.077 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 6.084 6.084 1.294 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.749 4.749 2.424 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.683 3.683 4.848 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 3.144 3.144 7.806 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.359 2.359 2.296 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.210 2.211 3.174 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 2.058 2.058 5.059 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.970 1.971 8.049 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.937 0.000 1.937 1.318 × 10 2 318. MeV 4.105 × 10 2 1.936 0.000 1.936 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.942 0.000 1.943 1.834 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 2.015 0.000 0.000 2.015 3.856 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 2.048 0.000 0.000 2.049 4.841 × 10 2 1.40

490

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Air (dry, 1 atm) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.49919 1.205 × 10 -3 85.7 0.10914 3.3994 1.7418 4.2759 10.5961 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.039 7.039 7.862 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.494 5.495 1.436 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.294 4.294 2.686 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.333 3.333 5.366 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.847 2.847 8.633 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.140 2.140 2.535 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.013 2.014 3.501 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.889 1.889 5.562 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.827 1.827 8.803 × 10 1 257. MeV 3.471 × 10 2 1.815 0.000 1.816 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.819 0.000 1.819 1.430 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.844 0.000 1.844 1.977 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.968 0.000 0.000 1.968 4.074 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 2.020 0.000 0.000 2.021 5.077 × 10 2 1.40 GeV 1.502

491

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Lead tungstate (PbWO 4 ) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.41315 8.300 600.7 0.22758 3.0000 0.4068 3.0023 5.8528 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 4.333 4.333 1.311 × 10 0 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 3.426 3.426 2.360 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 2.710 2.711 4.350 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 2.131 2.131 8.566 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 1.835 1.835 1.365 × 10 1 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.406 1.406 3.931 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.331 1.331 5.397 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.261 1.261 8.498 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.231 1.231 1.333 × 10 2 227. MeV 3.154 × 10 2 1.229 1.230 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.237 0.000 0.000 1.238 2.145 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.260 0.000 0.000 1.260 2.946 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.349 0.001 0.000 1.350 6.007 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.383 0.001 0.000 1.385 7.469 × 10 2 1.40

492

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Carbon (compact) Z A [g/mol] ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 6 (C) [12.0107 (8)] 2.265 78.0 0.26142 2.8697 -0.0178 2.3415 2.8680 0.12 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.116 7.116 7.772 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.549 5.549 1.420 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.331 4.331 2.658 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.355 3.355 5.318 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.861 2.861 8.567 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.126 2.127 2.531 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.991 1.992 3.505 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.854 1.854 5.597 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.775 1.775 8.917 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.745 0.000 1.745 1.462 × 10 2 317. MeV 4.096 × 10 2 1.745 0.000 1.745 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.751 0.000 1.751 2.034 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.819 0.000 0.000 1.820 4.275 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.850 0.000 0.000 1.851 5.365 × 10

493

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Methanol (CH 3 OH) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.56176 0.791 67.6 0.08970 3.5477 0.2529 2.7639 3.5160 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 8.169 8.169 6.759 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 6.369 6.369 1.236 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.972 4.972 2.315 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.855 3.855 4.631 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 3.291 3.291 7.457 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.469 2.469 2.194 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.321 2.322 3.032 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 2.166 2.166 4.823 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 2.074 2.074 7.664 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 2.039 0.000 2.039 1.254 × 10 2 318. MeV 4.105 × 10 2 2.038 0.000 2.039 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 2.045 0.000 2.045 1.744 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 2.121 0.000 0.000 2.122 3.665 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 2.156 0.000 0.000 2.157 4.600 × 10 2 1.40 GeV 1.502 ×

494

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Carbon (amorphous) Z A [g/mol] ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 6 (C) 12.0107 (8) 2.000 78.0 0.20240 3.0036 -0.0351 2.4860 2.9925 0.10 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.117 7.117 7.771 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.550 5.551 1.420 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.332 4.332 2.658 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.357 3.357 5.317 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.862 2.862 8.564 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.129 2.129 2.529 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.994 1.994 3.502 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.857 1.857 5.591 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.778 1.779 8.905 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.749 0.000 1.749 1.459 × 10 2 313. MeV 4.055 × 10 2 1.749 0.000 1.749 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.755 0.000 1.756 2.030 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.824 0.000 0.000 1.825 4.266 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.855 0.000 0.000 1.856 5.353 × 10

495

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Mix D wax Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.56479 0.990 60.9 0.07490 3.6823 0.1371 2.7145 3.0780 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 8.322 8.322 6.628 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 6.485 6.486 1.213 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 5.060 5.060 2.273 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.922 3.922 4.549 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 3.347 3.347 7.327 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.505 2.506 2.158 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.346 2.346 2.985 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 2.182 2.182 4.761 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 2.087 2.087 7.584 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 2.049 0.000 2.049 1.243 × 10 2 328. MeV 4.201 × 10 2 2.048 0.000 2.048 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 2.053 0.000 2.053 1.731 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 2.125 0.000 0.000 2.125 3.647 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 2.158 0.000 0.000 2.159 4.581 × 10 2 1.40 GeV 1.502 × 10 3 2.213

496

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Sodium nitrate NaNO 3 Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.49415 2.261 114.6 0.09391 3.5097 0.1534 2.8221 3.6502 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 6.702 6.702 8.281 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.239 5.239 1.510 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.100 4.100 2.820 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.187 3.187 5.624 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.726 2.726 9.039 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.053 2.053 2.648 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.927 1.927 3.656 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.800 1.800 5.814 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.729 1.729 9.228 × 10 1 298. MeV 3.894 × 10 2 1.705 0.000 1.705 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.705 0.000 1.705 1.507 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.714 0.000 1.714 2.092 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.787 0.000 0.000 1.787 4.377 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.819 0.000 0.000 1.819 5.486 × 10 2 1.40 GeV 1.502

497

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Freon-12B2 (CF 2 Br 2 ) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.44901 1.800 284.9 0.05144 3.5565 0.3406 3.7956 5.7976 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 5.330 5.330 1.053 × 10 0 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 4.190 4.190 1.908 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 3.297 3.297 3.540 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 2.577 2.577 7.017 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.212 2.212 1.123 × 10 1 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.680 1.680 3.263 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.586 1.586 4.491 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.496 1.496 7.099 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.452 1.452 1.118 × 10 2 252. MeV 3.421 × 10 2 1.445 0.000 1.445 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.448 0.000 1.449 1.809 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.467 0.000 0.000 1.468 2.496 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.556 0.000 0.000 1.557 5.139 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.592 0.001 0.000 1.593 6.409 × 10 2 1.40 GeV

498

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Eye lens (ICRP) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.54977 1.100 73.3 0.09690 3.4550 0.2070 2.7446 3.3720 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.912 7.912 6.984 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 6.171 6.171 1.277 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.819 4.819 2.390 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.738 3.738 4.779 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 3.192 3.192 7.693 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.396 2.396 2.262 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.251 2.251 3.125 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 2.095 2.096 4.976 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 2.006 2.006 7.914 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.971 0.000 1.971 1.296 × 10 2 318. MeV 4.105 × 10 2 1.971 0.000 1.971 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.977 0.000 1.977 1.803 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 2.051 0.000 0.000 2.051 3.790 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 2.085 0.000 0.000 2.085 4.756 × 10 2 1.40 GeV 1.502 × 10

499

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Compact bone (ICRU) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.53010 1.850 91.9 0.05822 3.6419 0.0944 3.0201 3.3390 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.406 7.406 7.477 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.783 5.783 1.365 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.521 4.521 2.552 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.511 3.511 5.097 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 3.000 3.000 8.199 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.247 2.247 2.408 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.106 2.106 3.330 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.962 1.962 5.307 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.880 1.880 8.444 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.849 0.000 1.850 1.382 × 10 2 314. MeV 4.065 × 10 2 1.849 0.000 1.849 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.856 0.000 1.857 1.922 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.930 0.000 0.000 1.930 4.036 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.963 0.000 0.000 1.964 5.063 × 10 2 1.40 GeV 1.502

500

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Polyimide film (C 22 H 10 N 2 O 5 ) n Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.51264 1.420 79.6 0.15972 3.1921 0.1509 2.5631 3.3497 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.299 7.299 7.576 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.695 5.695 1.385 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.449 4.449 2.590 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.453 3.453 5.177 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.949 2.949 8.332 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.214 2.214 2.448 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.074 2.074 3.384 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.932 1.932 5.392 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.851 1.851 8.577 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.820 0.000 1.820 1.404 × 10 2 314. MeV 4.065 × 10 2 1.820 0.000 1.820 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.826 0.000 1.827 1.953 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.897 0.000 0.000 1.898 4.102 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.929 0.000 0.000 1.930 5.147 × 10 2 1.40