National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for underground injection control

  1. Oregon Underground Injection Control Program Authorized Injection...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Oregon Underground Injection Control Program Authorized Injection Systems Webpage Author Oregon Department of...

  2. WPCF Underground Injection Control Disposal Permit Evaluation...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    WPCF Underground Injection Control Disposal Permit Evaluation and Fact Sheet Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Report: WPCF Underground Injection...

  3. Hawaii Underground Injection Control Permitting Webpage | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Permitting Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Hawaii Underground Injection Control Permitting Webpage Author State of Hawaii...

  4. Oregon Underground Injection Control Registration Geothermal...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Form: Oregon Underground Injection Control Registration Geothermal Heating Systems (DEQ Form UICGEO-1004(f)) Abstract Required...

  5. Oregon Underground Injection Control Registration Application...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Form: Oregon Underground Injection Control Registration Application Fees (DEQ Form UIC 1003-GIC) Abstract Required fees and form...

  6. EPA - Underground Injection Control Classes of Wells webpage...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Underground Injection Control Classes of Wells webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: EPA - Underground Injection Control Classes of...

  7. Idaho Underground Injection Control Program Webpage | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Underground Injection Control Program Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Idaho Underground Injection Control Program Webpage...

  8. Vermont Underground Injection Control Rule | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Underground Injection Control Rule Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: Vermont Underground Injection Control...

  9. Utah Underground Injection Control Program Webpage | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Injection Control Program Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Utah Underground Injection Control Program Webpage Abstract Provides...

  10. WAC - 173-218 Underground Injection Control Program | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    8 Underground Injection Control Program Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: WAC - 173-218 Underground Injection...

  11. Hawaii Underground Injection Control Program Webpage | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Program Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Hawaii Underground Injection Control Program Webpage Author State of Hawaii Department...

  12. Oregon Underground Injection Control Program Webpage | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Oregon Underground Injection Control Program Webpage Abstract Provides overview of regulations...

  13. Oregon Fees for Underground Injection Control Program Fact Sheet...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Fees for Underground Injection Control Program Fact Sheet Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library PermittingRegulatory Guidance - Supplemental Material:...

  14. Hawaii Underground Injection Control Permit Packet | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    PermittingRegulatory Guidance - Supplemental Material: Hawaii Underground Injection Control Permit PacketPermittingRegulatory GuidanceSupplemental Material Author State of...

  15. EPA - Ground Water Discharges (EPA's Underground Injection Control...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Ground Water Discharges (EPA's Underground Injection Control Program) webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: EPA - Ground Water...

  16. WSDE Underground Injection Control Well Registration Form | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Injection Control Well Registration Form Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- Permit ApplicationPermit Application: WSDE Underground...

  17. Title 40 CFR 144 Underground Injection Control Program | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    44 Underground Injection Control Program Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- Federal RegulationFederal Regulation: Title 40 CFR 144...

  18. H.A.R. 11-23 - Underground Injection Control | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    3 - Underground Injection Control Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: H.A.R. 11-23 - Underground Injection...

  19. UAC R371-7 - Underground Injection Control Program | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    71-7 - Underground Injection Control Program Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: UAC R371-7 - Underground...

  20. Underground Injection Control Permit Applications for FutureGen...

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

    ... Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration ... repowered with oxy-combustion and carbon capture technology. ... of CO 2 by buried pipeline, and injection of CO 2 for ...

  1. Washington Environmental Permit Handbook - Underground Injection...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Underground Injection Control Registration webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Washington Environmental Permit Handbook -...

  2. Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All...

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

    Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1...

  3. New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators...

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

    Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) New Jersey Natural Gas ... Injections of Natural Gas into Underground Storage - All Operators New Jersey Underground ...

  4. State and national energy environmental risk analysis systems for underground injection control. Final report, April 7, 1992--May 31, 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-05-01

    The purpose of this effort is to develop and demonstrate the concept of a national Energy and Environmental Risk Analysis System that could support DOE policy analysis and decision-making. That effort also includes the development and demonstration of a methodology for assessing the risks of groundwater contamination from underground injection operations. EERAS is designed to enhance DOE`s analytical capabilities by working with DOE`s existing resource analysis models for oil and gas. The full development of EERAS was not planned as part of this effort. The design and structure for the system were developed, along with interfaces that facilitate data input to DOE`s other analytical tools. The development of the database for EERAS was demonstrated with the input of data related to underground injection control, which also supported the risk assessment being performed. The utility of EERAS has been demonstrated by this effort and its continued development is recommended. Since the absolute risk of groundwater contamination due to underground injection is quite low, the risk assessment methodology focuses on the relative risk of groundwater contamination. The purpose of this methodology is to provide DOE with an enhanced understanding of the relative risks posed nationwide as input to DOE decision-making and resource allocation. Given data problems encountered, a broad assessment of all oil reservoirs in DOE`s resource database was not possible. The methodology was demonstrated using a sample of 39 reservoirs in 15 states. While data difficulties introduce substantial uncertainties, the results found are consistent with expectations and with prior analyses. Therefore the methodology for performing assessments appears to be sound. Recommendations on steps that can be taken to resolve uncertainties or obtain improved data are included in the report.

  5. Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators...

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

    Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1...

  6. Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators...

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

    Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1...

  7. North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All...

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

    Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) North Carolina Natural ... Injections of Natural Gas into Underground Storage - All Operators North Carolina ...

  8. Iowa Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million...

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

    Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Iowa Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov...

  9. State Assistance with Risk-Based Data Management: Inventory and needs assessment of 25 state Class II Underground Injection Control programs. Phase 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1992-07-01

    As discussed in Section I of the attached report, state agencies must decide where to direct their limited resources in an effort to make optimum use of their available manpower and address those areas that pose the greatest risk to valuable drinking water sources. The Underground Injection Practices Research Foundation (UIPRF) proposed a risk-based data management system (RBDMS) to provide states with the information they need to effectively utilize staff resources, provide dependable documentation to justify program planning, and enhance environmental protection capabilities. The UIPRF structured its approach regarding environmental risk management to include data and information from production, injection, and inactive wells in its RBDMS project. Data from each of these well types is critical to the complete statistical evaluation of environmental risk and selected automated functions. This comprehensive approach allows state Underground Injection Control (UIC) programs to effectively evaluate the risk of contaminating underground sources of drinking water, while alleviating the additional work and associated problems that often arise when separate data bases are used. CH2M Hill and Digital Design Group, through a DOE grant to the UIPRF, completed an inventory and needs assessment of 25 state Class II UIC programs. The states selected for participation by the UIPRF were generally chosen based on interest and whether an active Class II injection well program was in place. The inventory and needs assessment provided an effective means of collecting and analyzing the interest, commitment, design requirements, utilization, and potential benefits of implementing a in individual state UIC programs. Personal contacts were made with representatives from each state to discuss the applicability of a RBDMS in their respective state.

  10. Georgia Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Georgia Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 123 366 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 8/31/2016 Next Release Date: 9/30/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground

  11. Idaho Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Idaho Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 112 395 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 8/31/2016 Next Release Date: 9/30/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground

  12. Underground Injection Control Permit Applications for FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County Class VI UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4

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

    Tech/NETL Research | Department of Energy Underground CO2 Storage, Natural Gas Recovery Targeted by Virginia Tech/NETL Research Underground CO2 Storage, Natural Gas Recovery Targeted by Virginia Tech/NETL Research October 20, 2015 - 8:14am Addthis Researchers from Virginia Tech are injecting CO2 into coal seams in three locations in Buchanan County, Va., as part of an NETL-sponsored CO2 storage research project associated with enhanced gas recovery. Researchers from Virginia Tech are

  13. AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground...

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

    AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 2,449 542 13,722 29,089 ...

  14. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 16,327 13,253 15,555 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 8/31/2016 Next Release Date: 9/30/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into

  15. Connecticut Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Connecticut Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 683 740 746 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 8/31/2016 Next Release Date: 9/30/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of

  16. Delaware Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Delaware Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 1,274 1,500 179 1970's 391 189 255 2,012 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 8/31/2016 Next Release Date: 9/30/2016 Referring Pages: Injections

  17. Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 97 243 137 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 8/31/2016 Next Release Date: 9/30/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of

  18. South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 48 80 70 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 8/31/2016 Next Release Date: 9/30/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas

  19. Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 8/31/2016 Next Release Date: 9/30/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground Storage

  20. Pacific Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Pacific Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 4,011 3,540 14,172 43,546 58,466 51,172 32,264 32,879 23,448 31,224 15,841 14,871 2015 5,947 15,411 23,160 28,448 37,851 21,448 19,718 17,633 22,413 27,233 13,622 8,742 2016 7,399 8,534 16,892 23,819 27,387 15,868 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  1. AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 20,366 29,330 55,297 93,538 129,284 83,943 104,001 98,054 88,961 65,486 49,635 27,285 1995 24,645 25,960 57,833 78,043 101,019 100,926 77,411 54,611 94,759 84,671 40,182 33,836 1996 34,389 48,922 38,040 76,100 98,243 88,202 88,653 109,284 125,616 91,618 37,375

  2. South Central Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) South Central Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 43,713 72,210 68,273 129,736 166,816 139,578 127,533 106,014 152,936 188,366 105,938 79,339 2015 42,402 27,815 109,564 202,417 199,245 125,159 103,901 98,174 147,861 157,461 91,849 81,946 2016 39,777 68,898 128,188 129,929 126,477 69,075 - = No Data Reported; -- =

  3. System for remote control of underground device

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Brumleve, T.D.; Hicks, M.G.; Jones, M.O.

    1975-10-21

    A system is described for remote control of an underground device, particularly a nuclear explosive. The system includes means at the surface of the ground for transmitting a seismic signal sequence through the earth having controlled and predetermined signal characteristics for initiating a selected action in the device. Additional apparatus, located with or adjacent to the underground device, produces electrical signals in response to the seismic signals received and compares these electrical signals with the predetermined signal characteristics.

  4. ,"U.S. Natural Gas Salt Underground Storage Activity-Injects...

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

    ...dnavnghistn5440us2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ... 1: U.S. Natural Gas Salt Underground Storage Activity-Injects (MMcf)" ...

  5. ,"U.S. Natural Gas Salt Underground Storage Activity-Injects...

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

    ...dnavnghistn5440us2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ... 1: U.S. Natural Gas Salt Underground Storage Activity-Injects (MMcf)" ...

  6. ,"U.S. Natural Gas Non-Salt Underground Storage Injections (MMcf...

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

    ...dnavnghistn5540us2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ... 1: U.S. Natural Gas Non-Salt Underground Storage Injections (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5540US2" ...

  7. ,"U.S. Natural Gas Non-Salt Underground Storage Injections (MMcf...

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

    ...dnavnghistn5540us2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ... 1: U.S. Natural Gas Non-Salt Underground Storage Injections (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5540US2" ...

  8. Injection-controlled laser resonator

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Chang, J.J.

    1995-07-18

    A new injection-controlled laser resonator incorporates self-filtering and self-imaging characteristics with an efficient injection scheme. A low-divergence laser signal is injected into the resonator, which enables the injection signal to be converted to the desired resonator modes before the main laser pulse starts. This injection technique and resonator design enable the laser cavity to improve the quality of the injection signal through self-filtering before the main laser pulse starts. The self-imaging property of the present resonator reduces the cavity induced diffraction effects and, in turn, improves the laser beam quality. 5 figs.

  9. Injection-controlled laser resonator

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Chang, Jim J.

    1995-07-18

    A new injection-controlled laser resonator incorporates self-filtering and self-imaging characteristics with an efficient injection scheme. A low-divergence laser signal is injected into the resonator, which enables the injection signal to be converted to the desired resonator modes before the main laser pulse starts. This injection technique and resonator design enable the laser cavity to improve the quality of the injection signal through self-filtering before the main laser pulse starts. The self-imaging property of the present resonator reduces the cavity induced diffraction effects and, in turn, improves the laser beam quality.

  10. Mountain Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage...

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

    Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 3,332 3,794 5,368 10,280 21,621 24,914 25,040 22,154 20,026 18,254 8,894...

  11. ,"Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (MMcf)"

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

    Underground Storage Injections All Operators (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/1996" ,"Release Date:","8/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","9/30/2016"

  12. Geologic Carbon Sequestration: Mitigating Climate Change by Injecting CO2 Underground (LBNL Summer Lecture Series)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Oldenburg, Curtis M

    2009-07-21

    Summer Lecture Series 2009: Climate change provides strong motivation to reduce CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide capture and storage involves the capture, compression, and transport of CO2 to geologically favorable areas, where its injected into porous rock more than one kilometer underground for permanent storage. Oldenburg, who heads Berkeley Labs Geologic Carbon Sequestration Program, will focus on the challenges, opportunities, and research needs of this innovative technology.

  13. Geologic Carbon Sequestration: Mitigating Climate Change by Injecting CO2 Underground (LBNL Summer Lecture Series)

    ScienceCinema (OSTI)

    Oldenburg, Curtis M [LBNL Earth Sciences Division

    2011-04-28

    Summer Lecture Series 2009: Climate change provides strong motivation to reduce CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide capture and storage involves the capture, compression, and transport of CO2 to geologically favorable areas, where its injected into porous rock more than one kilometer underground for permanent storage. Oldenburg, who heads Berkeley Labs Geologic Carbon Sequestration Program, will focus on the challenges, opportunities, and research needs of this innovative technology.

  14. Control Surveys for Underground Construction of the Superconducting Super Collider

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Greening, W.J.Trevor; Robinson, Gregory L.; Robbins, Jeffrey S.; Ruland, Robert E.; /SLAC

    2005-08-16

    Particular care had to be taken in the design and implementation of the geodetic control systems for the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) due to stringent accuracy requirements, the demanding tunneling schedule, long duration and large size of the construction effort of the project. The surveying requirements and the design and implementation of the surface and underground control scheme for the precise location of facilities which include approximately 120 km of bored tunnel are discussed. The methodology used for the densification of the surface control networks, the technique used for the transfer of horizontal and vertical control into the underground facilities, and the control traverse scheme employed in the tunnels is described.

  15. Advanced underground Vehicle Power and Control: The locomotive Research Platform

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Vehicle Projects LLC

    2003-01-28

    Develop a fuelcell mine locomotive with metal-hydride hydrogen storage. Test the locomotive for fundamental limitations preventing successful commercialization of hydride fuelcells in underground mining. During Phase 1 of the DOE-EERE sponsored project, FPI and its partner SNL, completed work on the development of a 14.4 kW fuelcell power plant and metal-hydride energy storage. An existing battery-electric locomotive with similar power requirements, minus the battery module, was used as the base vehicle. In March 2001, Atlas Copco Wagner of Portland, OR, installed the fuelcell power plant into the base vehicle and initiated integration of the system into the vehicle. The entire vehicle returned to Sandia in May 2001 for further development and integration. Initial system power-up took place in December 2001. A revision to the original contract, Phase 2, at the request of DOE Golden Field Office, established Vehicle Projects LLC as the new prime contractor,. Phase 2 allowed industry partners to conduct surface tests, incorporate enhancements to the original design by SNL, perform an extensive risk and safety analysis, and test the fuelcell locomotive underground under representative production mine conditions. During the surface tests one of the fuelcell stacks exhibited reduced power output resulting in having to replace both fuelcell stacks. The new stacks were manufactured with new and improved technology resulting in an increase of the gross power output from 14.4 kW to 17 kW. Further work by CANMET and Hatch Associates, an engineering consulting firm specializing in safety analysis for the mining industry, both under subcontract to Vehicle Projects LLC, established minimum requirements for underground testing. CANMET upgraded the Programmable Logic Control (PLC) software used to monitor and control the fuelcell power plant, taking into account locomotive operator's needs. Battery Electric, a South Africa manufacturer, designed and manufactured (at no cost to

  16. Flow monitoring and control system for injection wells (Patent...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Flow monitoring and control system for injection wells Title: Flow monitoring and control system for injection wells The present invention relates to a system for monitoring and ...

  17. Flue gas injection control of silica in cooling towers. (Technical...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Technical Report: Flue gas injection control of silica in cooling towers. Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Flue gas injection control of silica in cooling towers. ...

  18. Diesel Combustion Control with Closed-Loop Control of the Injection...

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

    Combustion Control with Closed-Loop Control of the Injection Strategy Diesel Combustion Control with Closed-Loop Control of the Injection Strategy New control strategies are ...

  19. Passive injection control for microfluidic systems

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Paul, Phillip H.; Arnold, Don W.; Neyer, David W.

    2004-12-21

    Apparatus for eliminating siphoning, "dead" regions, and fluid concentration gradients in microscale analytical devices. In its most basic embodiment, the present invention affords passive injection control for both electric field-driven and pressure-driven systems by providing additional fluid flow channels or auxiliary channels disposed on either side of a sample separation column. The auxiliary channels are sized such that volumetric fluid flow rate through these channels, while sufficient to move the sample away from the sample injection region in a timely fashion, is less than that through the sample separation channel or chromatograph.

  20. DISPOSAL OF FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTION ASH IN AN UNDERGROUND MINE TO CONTROL ACID MINE DRAINAGE AND SUBSIDENCE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Unknown

    2000-10-01

    This project evaluated the technical, economic and environmental feasibility of filling abandoned underground mine voids with coal combustion byproducts. Success was measured in terms of technical feasibility of the approach (i.e. % void filling), cost, environmental benefits (acid mine drainage and subsidence control) and environmental impacts (noxious ion release). Phase 1 of the project was completed in September 1995 and was concerned with the development of the grout and a series of predictive models. These models were verified through the Phase II field phase and will be further verified fin the large scale field demonstration of Phase III. The verification allows the results to be packaged in such a way that the technology can be easily adapted to different site conditions. Phase II was successfully completed with 1000 cubic yards of grout being injected into Anker Energy's Fairfax mine. The grout flowed over 600 feet from a single injection borehole. The grout achieved a compressive strength of over 1000 psi (twice the level that is needed to guarantee subsidence control). Phase III was a full scale test at Anker's eleven acre Longridge mine site. The CCB grout replaced what was an open mine void with a solid so that the groundwater tends to flow around and through the pillars rather than through the previously mined areas. The project has demonstrated that CCBs can be successfully disposed in underground mines. Additionally, the project has shown that filling an abandoned underground mine with CCBs can lead to the reduction and elimination of environmental problems associated with underground mining such as acid mine drainage and subsidence. The filling of the Longridge Mine with 43,000 cubic yards of CCB grout resulted in a 97% reduction in acid mine drainage coming from the mine.

  1. Effect of repository underground ventilation on emplacement drift temperature control

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yang, H.; Sun, Y.; McKenzie, D.G.; Bhattacharyya, K.K.

    1996-02-01

    The repository advanced conceptual design (ACD) is being conducted by the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System, Management & Operating Contractor. Underground ventilation analyses during ACD have resulted in preliminary ventilation concepts and design methodologies. This paper discusses one of the recent evaluations -- effects of ventilation on emplacement drift temperature management.

  2. RRC - Summary of Injection Control Rules | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Summary of Injection Control Rules Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: RRC - Summary of Injection Control Rules Abstract This webpage...

  3. Flue gas injection control of silica in cooling towers. (Technical...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Flue gas injection control of silica in cooling towers. Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Flue gas injection control of silica in cooling towers. You are accessing a ...

  4. Dynamic Feed Control For Injection Molding

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Kazmer, David O.

    1996-09-17

    The invention provides methods and apparatus in which mold material flows through a gate into a mold cavity that defines the shape of a desired part. An adjustable valve is provided that is operable to change dynamically the effective size of the gate to control the flow of mold material through the gate. The valve is adjustable while the mold material is flowing through the gate into the mold cavity. A sensor is provided for sensing a process condition while the part is being molded. During molding, the valve is adjusted based at least in part on information from the sensor. In the preferred embodiment, the adjustable valve is controlled by a digital computer, which includes circuitry for acquiring data from the sensor, processing circuitry for computing a desired position of the valve based on the data from the sensor and a control data file containing target process conditions, and control circuitry for generating signals to control a valve driver to adjust the position of the valve. More complex embodiments include a plurality of gates, sensors, and controllable valves. Each valve is individually controllable so that process conditions corresponding to each gate can be adjusted independently. This allows for great flexibility in the control of injection molding to produce complex, high-quality parts.

  5. Dynamic Underground Stripping Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Aines, R.; Newmark, R.; McConachie, W.; Udell, K.; Rice, D.; Ramirez, A.; Siegel, W.; Buettner, M.; Daily, W.; Krauter, P.; Folsom, E.; Boegel, A.J.; Bishop, D.; Udell, K.

    1992-01-01

    LLNL is collaborating with the UC Berkeley College of Engineering to develop and demonstrate a system of thermal remediation and underground imaging techniques for use in rapid cleanup of localized underground spills. Called ``Dynamic Stripping`` to reflect the rapid and controllable nature of the process, it will combine steam injection, direct electrical heating, and tomographic geophysical imaging in a cleanup of the LLNL gasoline spill. In the first 8 months of the project, a Clean Site engineering test was conducted to prove the field application of the techniques before moving the contaminated site in FY 92.

  6. Geomechanical effects on CO{sub 2} leakage through fault zones during large-scale underground injection

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rinaldi, A.P.; Rutqvist, J.; Cappa, F.

    2013-09-01

    The importance of geomechanics—including the potential for faults to reactivate during large scale geologic carbon sequestration operations—has recently become more widely recognized. However, notwithstanding the potential for triggering notable (felt) seismic events, the potential for buoyancy-driven CO{sub 2} to reach potable groundwater and the ground surface is actually more important from public safety and storage-efficiency perspectives. In this context, this work extends the previous studies on the geomechanical modeling of fault responses during underground carbon dioxide injection, focusing on the short-term integrity of the sealing caprock, and hence on the potential for leakage of either brine or CO{sub 2} to reach the shallow groundwater aquifers during active injection. We consider stress/strain-dependent permeability and study the leakage through the fault zone as its permeability changes during a reactivation, also causing seismicity. We analyze several scenarios related to the volume of CO{sub 2} injected (and hence as a function of the overpressure), involving both minor and major faults, and analyze the profile risks of leakage for different stress/strain-permeability coupling functions. We conclude that whereas it is very difficult to predict how much fault permeability could change upon reactivation, this process can have a significant impact on the leakage rate. Moreover, our analysis shows that induced seismicity associated with fault reactivation may not necessarily open up a new flow path for leakage. Results show a poor correlation between magnitude and amount of fluid leakage, meaning that a single event is generally not enough to substantially change the permeability along the entire fault length. Consequently, even if some changes in permeability occur, this does not mean that the CO{sub 2} will migrate up along the entire fault, breaking through the caprock to enter the overlying aquifer.

  7. Evaluation of Sorbent Injection for Mercury Control

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sharon Sjostrom

    2005-12-30

    The power industry in the U.S. is faced with meeting new regulations to reduce the emissions of mercury compounds from coal-fired plants. These regulations are directed at the existing fleet of nearly 1,100 boilers. These plants are relatively old with an average age of over 40 years. Although most of these units are capable of operating for many additional years, there is a desire to minimize large capital expenditures because of the reduced (and unknown) remaining life of the plant to amortize the project. Injecting a sorbent such as powdered activated carbon into the flue gas represents one of the simplest and most mature approaches to controlling mercury emissions from coal-fired boilers. This is the final site report for tests conducted at Laramie River Station Unit 3, one of five sites evaluated in this DOE/NETL program. The overall objective of the test program is to evaluate the capabilities of activated carbon injection at five plants: Sunflower Electric's Holcomb Station Unit 1, AmerenUE's Meramec Station Unit 2, Missouri Basin Power Project's Laramie River Station Unit 3, Detroit Edison's Monroe Power Plant Unit 4, and AEP's Conesville Station Unit 6. These plants have configurations that together represent 78% of the existing coal-fired generation plants. The goals for the program established by DOE/NETL are to reduce the uncontrolled mercury emissions by 50 to 70% at a cost 25 to 50% lower than the benchmark established by DOE of $60,000/lb mercury removed. The goals of the program were exceeded at Laramie River Station by achieving over 90% mercury removal at a sorbent cost of $3,980/lb ($660/oz) mercury removed for a coal mercury content of 7.9 lb/TBtu.

  8. Rapid Qualitative Risk Assessment for Contaminant Leakage From Coal Seams During Underground Coal Gasification and CO2 Injection

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Friedmann, S J

    2004-07-02

    One of the major risks associated with underground coal gasification is contamination of local aquifers with a variety of toxic compounds. It is likely that the rate, volume, extent, and concentrations of contaminant plumes will depend on the local permeability field near the point of gasification. This field depends heavily on the geological history of stratigraphic deposition and the specifics of stratigraphic succession. Some coals are thick and isolated, whereas others are thinner and more regionally expressed. Some coals are overlain by impermeable units, such as marine or lacustrine shales, whereas others are overlain by permeable zones associated with deltaic or fluvial successions. Rapid stratigraphic characterization of the succession provides first order information as to the general risk of contaminant escape, which provides a means of ranking coal contaminant risks by their depositional context. This risk categorization could also be used for ranking the relative risk of CO{sub 2} escape from injected coal seams. Further work is needed to verify accuracy and provide some quantification of risks.

  9. Evaluation of Sorbent Injection for Mercury Control

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sharon Sjostrom

    2008-06-30

    ADA-ES, Inc., with support from DOE/NETL, EPRI, and industry partners, studied mercury control options at six coal-fired power plants. The overall objective of the this test program was to evaluate the capabilities of activated carbon injection at six plants: Sunflower Electric's Holcomb Station Unit 1, AmerenUE's Meramec Station Unit 2, Missouri Basin Power Project's Laramie River Station Unit 3, Detroit Edison's Monroe Power Plant Unit 4, American Electric Power's Conesville Station Unit 6, and Labadie Power Plant Unit 2. These plants have configurations that together represent 78% of the existing coal-fired generation plants. The financial goals for the program established by DOE/NETL were to reduce the uncontrolled mercury emissions by 50 to 70% at a cost 25 to 50% lower than the target established by DOE of $60,000 per pound of mercury removed. Results from testing at Holcomb, Laramie, Meramec, Labadie, and Monroe indicate the DOE goal was successfully achieved. However, further improvements for plants with conditions similar to Conesville are recommended that would improve both mercury removal performance and economics.

  10. Alkaline sorbent injection for mercury control

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Madden, Deborah A.; Holmes, Michael J.

    2002-01-01

    A mercury removal system for removing mercury from combustion flue gases is provided in which alkaline sorbents at generally extremely low stoichiometric molar ratios of alkaline earth or an alkali metal to sulfur of less than 1.0 are injected into a power plant system at one or more locations to remove at least between about 40% and 60% of the mercury content from combustion flue gases. Small amounts of alkaline sorbents are injected into the flue gas stream at a relatively low rate. A particulate filter is used to remove mercury-containing particles downstream of each injection point used in the power plant system.

  11. Alkaline sorbent injection for mercury control

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Madden, Deborah A.; Holmes, Michael J.

    2003-01-01

    A mercury removal system for removing mercury from combustion flue gases is provided in which alkaline sorbents at generally extremely low stoichiometric molar ratios of alkaline earth or an alkali metal to sulfur of less than 1.0 are injected into a power plant system at one or more locations to remove at least between about 40% and 60% of the mercury content from combustion flue gases. Small amounts of alkaline sorbents are injected into the flue gas stream at a relatively low rate. A particulate filter is used to remove mercury-containing particles downstream of each injection point used in the power plant system.

  12. Teleoperated control system for underground room and pillar mining

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Mayercheck, William D. (New Stanton, PA); Kwitowski, August J. (Clairton, PA); Brautigam, Albert L. (Pittsburgh, PA); Mueller, Brian K. (Pittsburgh, PA)

    1992-01-01

    A teleoperated mining system is provided for remotely controlling the various machines involved with thin seam mining. A thin seam continuous miner located at a mining face includes a camera mounted thereon and a slave computer for controlling the miner and the camera. A plurality of sensors for relaying information about the miner and the face to the slave computer. A slave computer controlled ventilation sub-system which removes combustible material from the mining face. A haulage sub-system removes material mined by the continuous miner from the mining face to a collection site and is also controlled by the slave computer. A base station, which controls the supply of power and water to the continuous miner, haulage system, and ventilation systems, includes cable/hose handling module for winding or unwinding cables/hoses connected to the miner, an operator control module, and a hydraulic power and air compressor module for supplying air to the miner. An operator controlled host computer housed in the operator control module is connected to the slave computer via a two wire communications line.

  13. Method for controlling corrosion in thermal vapor injection gases

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Sperry, John S.; Krajicek, Richard W.

    1981-01-01

    An improvement in the method for producing high pressure thermal vapor streams from combustion gases for injection into subterranean oil producing formations to stimulate the production of viscous minerals is described. The improvement involves controlling corrosion in such thermal vapor gases by injecting water near the flame in the combustion zone and injecting ammonia into a vapor producing vessel to contact the combustion gases exiting the combustion chamber.

  14. Direct Probing of Charge Injection and Polarization-Controlled...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    LiNbO3 Surfaces Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Direct Probing of Charge Injection and Polarization-Controlled Ionic Mobility on Ferroelectric LiNbO3 Surfaces Mapping ...

  15. Dynamic Underground Stripping Demonstration Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Aines, R.; Newmark, R.; McConachie, W.; Rice, D.; Ramirez, A.; Siegel, W.; Buettner, M.; Daily, W.; Krauter, P.; Folsom, E.; Boegel, A.J.; Bishop, D. ); udel, K. . Dept. of Mechanical Engineering)

    1992-03-01

    LLNL is collaborating with the UC Berkeley College of Engineering to develop and demonstrate a system of thermal remediation and underground imaging techniques for use in rapid cleanup of localized underground spills. Called Dynamic Stripping'' to reflect the rapid and controllable nature of the process, it will combine steam injection, direct electrical heating, and tomographic geophysical imaging in a cleanup of the LLNL gasoline spill. In the first 8 months of the project, a Clean Site engineering test was conducted to prove the field application of the techniques before moving to the contaminated site in FY 92.

  16. NOx Sensor for Direct Injection Emission Control

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Betteridge, William J

    2006-02-28

    The Electricore/Delphi team continues to leverage the electrochemical planar sensor technology that has produced stoichiometric planar and wide range oxygen sensors as the basis for development of a NOx sensor. Zirconia cell technology with an integrated heater will provide the foundation for the sensor structure. Proven materials and packaging technology will help to ensure a cost-effective approach to the manufacture of this sensor. The electronics technique and interface is considered to be an area where new strategies need to be employed to produce higher S/N ratios of the NOx signal with emphasis on signal stability over time for robustness and durability Both continuous mode and pulse mode control techniques are being evaluated. Packaging the electronics requires careful design and circuit partitioning so that only the necessary signal conditioning electronics are coupled directly in the wiring harness, while the remainder is situated within the ECM for durability and costs reasons. This task continues to be on hold due to the limitation that the definition of the interface electronics was unavailable until very late in the project. The sense element is based on the amperometric method utilizing integrated alumina and zirconia ceramics. Precious metal electrodes are used to form the integrated heater, the cell electrodes and leads. Inside the actual sense cell structure, it is first necessary to separate NOx from the remaining oxygen constituents of the exhaust, without reducing the NOx. Once separated, the NOx will be measured using a measurement cell. Development or test coupons have been used to facilitate material selection and refinement, cell, diffusion barrier, and chamber development. The sense element currently requires elaborate interconnections. To facilitate a robust durable connection, mechanical and metallurgical connections are under investigation. Materials and process refinements continue to play an important role in the development of the

  17. Vitrified underground structures

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Murphy, Mark T.; Buelt, James L.; Stottlemyre, James A.; Tixier, Jr., John S.

    1992-01-01

    A method of making vitrified underground structures in which 1) the vitrification process is started underground, and 2) a thickness dimension is controlled to produce substantially planar vertical and horizontal vitrified underground structures. Structures may be placed around a contaminated waste site to isolate the site or may be used as aquifer dikes.

  18. Flow monitoring and control system for injection wells

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Corey, J.C.

    1991-01-01

    The present invention relates to a system for monitoring and controlling the rate of fluid flow from an injection well used for in-situ remediation of contaminated groundwater. The United States Government has rights in this invention pursuant to Contract No. DE-AC09-89SR18035 between the US Department of Energy and Westinghouse Savannah River Company.

  19. Flow monitoring and control system for injection wells

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Corey, J.C.

    1993-02-16

    A system for monitoring and controlling the injection rate of fluid by an injection well of an in-situ remediation system for treating a contaminated groundwater plume. The well is fitted with a gated insert, substantially coaxial with the injection well. A plurality of openings, some or all of which are equipped with fluid flow sensors and gates, are spaced along the insert. The gates and sensors are connected to a surface controller. The insert may extend throughout part of, or substantially the entire length of the injection well. Alternatively, the insert may comprise one or more movable modules which can be positioned wherever desired along the well. The gates are opened part-way at the start of treatment. The sensors monitor and display the flow rate of fluid passing through each opening on a controller. As treatment continues, the gates are opened to increase flow in regions of lesser flow, and closed to decrease flow in regions of greater flow, thereby approximately equalizing the amount of fluid reaching each part of the plume.

  20. Flow monitoring and control system for injection wells

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Corey, John C.

    1993-01-01

    A system for monitoring and controlling the injection rate of fluid by an injection well of an in-situ remediation system for treating a contaminated groundwater plume. The well is fitted with a gated insert, substantially coaxial with the injection well. A plurality of openings, some or all of which are equipped with fluid flow sensors and gates, are spaced along the insert. The gates and sensors are connected to a surface controller. The insert may extend throughout part of, or substantially the entire length of the injection well. Alternatively, the insert may comprise one or more movable modules which can be positioned wherever desired along the well. The gates are opened part-way at the start of treatment. The sensors monitor and display the flow rate of fluid passing through each opening on a controller. As treatment continues, the gates are opened to increase flow in regions of lesser flow, and closed to decrease flow in regions of greater flow, thereby approximately equalizing the amount of fluid reaching each part of the plume.

  1. Pore Models Track Reactions in Underground Carbon Capture

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

    extract from saline aquifers deep underground. The goal is to learn what will happen when fluids pass through the material should power plants inject carbon dioxide underground. ...

  2. FURNACE INJECTION OF ALKALINE SORBENTS FOR SULFURIC ACID CONTROL

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gary M. Blythe

    2001-11-06

    This document summarizes progress on Cooperative Agreement DE-FC26-99FT40718, Furnace Injection of Alkaline Sorbents for Sulfuric Acid Control, during the time period April 1, 2001 through September 30, 2001. The objective of this project is to demonstrate the use of alkaline reagents injected into the furnace of coal-fired boilers as a means of controlling sulfuric acid emissions. The coincident removal of hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid is also being determined, as is the removal of arsenic, a known poison for NO{sub x} selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalysts. EPRI, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), FirstEnergy Corporation, and the Dravo Lime Company are project co-funders. URS Corporation is the prime contractor. During the current period, American Electric Power (AEP) joined the project as an additional co-funder and as a provider of a host site for testing. This is the fourth reporting period for the subject Cooperative Agreement. During this period, two long-term sorbent injection tests were conducted, one on Unit 3 at FirstEnergy's Bruce Mansfield Plant (BMP) and one on Unit 1 at AEP's Gavin Station. These tests determined the effectiveness of injecting alkaline slurries into the upper furnace of the boiler as a means of controlling sulfuric acid emissions from these units. The alkaline slurries tested included commercially available magnesium hydroxide slurry (Gavin Station), and a byproduct magnesium hydroxide slurry (both Gavin Station and BMP). The tests showed that injecting either the commercial or the byproduct magnesium hydroxide slurry could achieve up to 70 to 75% sulfuric acid removal. At BMP, the overall removal was limited by the need to maintain acceptable electrostatic precipitator (ESP) particulate control performance. At Gavin Station, the overall sulfuric acid removal was limited because the furnace injected sorbent was less effective at removing SO{sub 3} formed across the SCR system installed on the unit for NO{sub x

  3. Combustion control technologies for direct injection SI engine

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kume, T.; Iwamoto, Y.; Iida, K.; Murakami, M.; Akishino, K.; Ando, H.

    1996-09-01

    Novel combustion control technologies for the direct injection SI engine have been developed. By adopting upright straight intake ports to generate air tumble, an electromagnetic swirl injector to realize optimized spray dispersion and atomization and a compact piston cavity to maintain charge stratification, it has become possible to achieve super-lean stratified combustion for higher thermal efficiency under partial loads as well as homogeneous combustion to realize higher performance at full loads. At partial loads, fuel is injected into the piston cavity during the later stage of the compression stroke. Any fuel spray impinging on the cavity wall is directed to the spark plug. Tumbling air flow in the cavity also assists the conservation of the rich mixture zone around the spark plug. Stable combustion can be realized under a air fuel ratio exceeding 40. At higher loads, fuel is injected during the early stage of the intake stroke. Since air cooling by the latent heat of vaporization increases volumetric efficiency and reduces the octane number requirement, a high compression ratio of 12 to 1 can be adopted. As a result, engines utilizing these types of control technologies show a 10% increase in improved performance over conventional port injection engines.

  4. FURNACE INJECTION OF ALKALINE SORBENTS FOR SULFURIC ACID CONTROL

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gary M. Blythe

    2002-04-29

    This document summarizes progress on Cooperative Agreement DE-FC26-99FT40718, Furnace Injection of Alkaline Sorbents for Sulfuric Acid Control, during the time period October 1, 2001 through March 31, 2002. The objective of this project is to demonstrate the use of alkaline reagents injected into the furnace of coal-fired boilers as a means of controlling sulfuric acid emissions. The coincident removal of hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid is also being determined, as is the removal of arsenic, a known poison for NO{sub X} selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalysts. EPRI, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), FirstEnergy Corporation, American Electric Power (AEP) and the Dravo Lime Company are project co-funders. URS Corporation is the prime contractor. This is the fifth reporting period for the subject Cooperative Agreement. During the previous (fourth) period, two long-term sorbent injection tests were conducted, one on Unit 3 at FirstEnergy's Bruce Mansfield Plant (BMP) and one on Unit 1 at AEP's Gavin Plant. Those tests determined the effectiveness of injecting alkaline slurries into the upper furnace of the boiler as a means of controlling sulfuric acid emissions from these units. The alkaline slurries tested included commercially available magnesium hydroxide slurry (Gavin Plant) and a byproduct magnesium hydroxide slurry (at both Gavin and BMP). The tests showed that injecting either the commercial or the byproduct magnesium hydroxide slurry could achieve up to 70-75% overall sulfuric acid removal. At BMP, the overall removal was limited by the need to maintain acceptable electrostatic precipitator (ESP) particulate control performance. At Gavin Plant, the overall sulfuric acid removal was limited because the furnace injected sorbent was less effective at removing SO{sub 3} formed across the SCR system installed on the unit for NO{sub X} control than at removing SO{sub 3} formed in the furnace. The SO{sub 3} removal results were presented in the

  5. FURNACE INJECTION OF ALKALINE SORBENTS FOR SULFURIC ACID CONTROL

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gary M. Blythe

    2003-06-01

    This document summarizes progress on Cooperative Agreement DE-FC26-99FT40718, Furnace Injection of Alkaline Sorbents for Sulfuric Acid Control, during the time period October 1, 2002 through March 31, 2003. The objective of this project is to demonstrate the use of alkaline reagents injected into the furnace of coal-fired boilers as a means of controlling sulfuric acid emissions. The coincident removal of hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid is also being determined, as is the removal of arsenic, a known poison for NO{sub x} selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalysts. EPRI, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), FirstEnergy Corporation, American Electric Power (AEP) and the Dravo Lime Company are project co-funders. URS Group is the prime contractor. This is the seventh reporting period for the subject Cooperative Agreement. During previous reporting periods, two long-term sorbent injection tests were conducted, one on Unit 3 at FirstEnergy's Bruce Mansfield Plant (BMP) and one on Unit 1 at AEP's Gavin Plant. Those tests determined the effectiveness of injecting alkaline slurries into the upper furnace of the boiler as a means of controlling sulfuric acid emissions from these units. The alkaline slurries tested included commercially available magnesium hydroxide slurry (Gavin Plant), and a byproduct magnesium hydroxide slurry (both Gavin Plant and BMP). The tests showed that injecting either the commercial or the byproduct magnesium hydroxide slurry could achieve up to 70-75% overall sulfuric acid removal. At BMP, the overall removal was limited by the need to maintain acceptable electrostatic precipitator (ESP) particulate control performance. At Gavin Plant, the overall sulfuric acid removal was limited because the furnace injected sorbent was less effective at removing SO{sub 3} formed across the SCR system installed on the unit for NO{sub x} control than at removing SO{sub 3} formed in the furnace. The SO3 removal results were presented in the semi

  6. FURNACE INJECTION OF ALKALINE SORBENTS FOR SULFURIC ACID CONTROL

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gary M. Blythe

    2003-10-01

    This document summarizes progress on Cooperative Agreement DE-FC26-99FT40718, Furnace Injection of Alkaline Sorbents for Sulfuric Acid Control, during the time period April 1, 2003 through September, 2003. The objective of this project is to demonstrate the use of alkaline reagents injected into the furnace of coal-fired boilers as a means of controlling sulfuric acid emissions. The coincident removal of hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid is also being determined, as is the removal of arsenic, a known poison for NO{sub x} selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalysts. EPRI, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), FirstEnergy Corporation, American Electric Power (AEP) and the Dravo Lime Company are project co-funders. URS Group is the prime contractor. This is the eighth reporting period for the subject Cooperative Agreement. During previous reporting periods, two long-term sorbent injection tests were conducted, one on Unit 3 at FirstEnergy's Bruce Mansfield Plant (BMP) and one on Unit 1 at AEP's Gavin Plant. Those tests determined the effectiveness of injecting alkaline slurries into the upper furnace of the boiler as a means of controlling sulfuric acid emissions from these units. The alkaline slurries tested included commercially available magnesium hydroxide slurry (Gavin Plant), and a byproduct magnesium hydroxide slurry (both Gavin Plant and BMP). The tests showed that injecting either the commercial or the byproduct magnesium hydroxide slurry could achieve up to 70-75% overall sulfuric acid removal. At BMP, the overall removal was limited by the need to maintain acceptable electrostatic precipitator (ESP) particulate control performance. At Gavin Plant, the overall sulfuric acid removal was limited because the furnace injected sorbent was less effective at removing SO{sub 3} formed across the SCR system installed on the unit for NO{sub x} control than at removing SO{sub 3} formed in the furnace. The SO{sub 3} removal results were presented in the semi

  7. Apparatus and method for controlling the secondary injection of fuel

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Martin, Scott M.; Cai, Weidong; Harris, Jr., Arthur J.

    2013-03-05

    A combustor (28) for a gas turbine engine is provided comprising a primary combustion chamber (30) for combusting a first fuel to form a combustion flow stream (50) and a transition piece (32) located downstream from the primary combustion chamber (30). The transition piece (32) comprises a plurality of injectors (66) located around a circumference of the transition piece (32) for injecting a second fuel into the combustion flow stream (50). The injectors (66) are effective to create a radial temperature profile (74) at an exit (58) of the transition piece (32) having a reduced coefficient of variation relative to a radial temperature profile (64) at an inlet (54) of the transition piece (32). Methods for controlling the temperature profile of a secondary injection are also provided.

  8. Control of cooling losses at high pulverized coal injection rates

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bonte, L.; Nieuwerburgh, H. Van

    1996-12-31

    One of the problems which is encountered by many blast furnace operators is the appropriate control of the cooling losses of the blast furnace. This problem has been aggravated by the introduction of pulverized coal injection. Even with equal burden and coke composition, both Sidmar furnaces behave differently with respect to the cooling losses. This phenomenon is possibly attributable to the different profile and cooling circuitry of the furnaces. Among other parameters the angles of bosh and stack may favor the formation of scabs or not. Some operators experience a decrease of their cooling losses, other operators have problems to limit their cooling losses to an acceptable level. As a result, different operating practices exist with respect to the burden distribution. The increase of the ore to coke ratio with pulverized coal injection suggests that the coke and sinter quality has to be monitored very carefully in order to avoid permeability problems.

  9. Utility flue gas mercury control via sorbent injection

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chang, R.; Carey, T.; Hargrove, B.

    1996-12-31

    The potential for power plant mercury control under Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments generated significant interest in assessing whether cost effective technologies are available for removing the mercury present in fossil-fired power plant flue gas. One promising approach is the direct injection of mercury sorbents such as activated carbon into flue gas. This approach has been shown to be effective for mercury control from municipal waste incinerators. However, tests conducted to date on utility fossil-fired boilers show that it is much more difficult to remove the trace species of mercury present in flue gas. EPRI is conducting research in sorbent mercury control including bench-scale evaluation of mercury sorbent activity and capacity with simulated flue gas, pilot testing under actual flue gas conditions, evaluation of sorbent regeneration and recycle options, and the development of novel sorbents. A theoretical model that predicts maximum mercury removals achievable with sorbent injection under different operating conditions is also being developed. This paper presents initial bench-scale and model results. The results to date show that very fine and large amounts of sorbents are needed for mercury control unless long residence times are available for sorbent-mercury contact. Also, sorbent activity and capacity are highly dependent on flue gas composition, temperature, mercury species, and sorbent properties. 10 refs., 4 figs., 2 tabs.

  10. Overview of the Dynamic Underground Stripping demonstration project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Aines, R.; Newmark, R.; McConachie, W.; Rice, D.; Ramirez, A.; Siegel, W.; Buettner, M.; Daily, W.; Krauter, P.; Folsom, E.; Boegel, A.J.; Bishop, D.; Udell, K.

    1992-08-01

    Dynamic Underground Stripping is a limited-scope demonstration of a system of thermal remediation and underground imaging techniques for use in rapid cleanup of localized underground spills. Called ``Dynamic Stripping`` to reflect the rapid and controllable nature of the process, it combines steam injection, direct electrical heating, and tomographic geophysical imaging in a cleanup of the LLNL gasoline spill. The system is targeted toward the removal of free-phase organics of all kinds. The LLNL gasoline spill is a convenient test site because much of the gasoline has been trapped below the water table, mimicking the behavior of dense organic liquids.

  11. Dynamic underground stripping to remediate a deep hydrocarbon spill

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yow, J.L. Jr.; Aines, R.D.; Newmark, R.L.

    1995-09-01

    Dynamic Underground Stripping is a combination of in situ steam injection, electrical resistance heating, and fluid extraction for rapid removal and recovery of subsurface contaminants such as solvents or fuels. Underground imaging and other measurement techniques monitor the system in situ for process control. Field tests at a deep gasoline spill at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory recovered over 26,500 liters (7000 gallons) of gasoline during several months of field operations. Preliminary analysis of system cost and performance indicate that Dynamic Underground Stripping compares favorably with conventional pump-and-treat methods and vacuum extraction schemes for removing non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) such as gasoline from deep subsurface plumes.

  12. Overview of the Dynamic Underground Stripping demonstration project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Aines, R.; Newmark, R.; McConachie, W.; Rice, D.; Ramirez, A.; Siegel, W.; Buettner, M.; Daily, W.; Krauter, P.; Folsom, E.; Boegel, A.J.; Bishop, D. ); Udell, K. . Dept. of Mechanical Engineering)

    1992-08-01

    Dynamic Underground Stripping is a limited-scope demonstration of a system of thermal remediation and underground imaging techniques for use in rapid cleanup of localized underground spills. Called Dynamic Stripping'' to reflect the rapid and controllable nature of the process, it combines steam injection, direct electrical heating, and tomographic geophysical imaging in a cleanup of the LLNL gasoline spill. The system is targeted toward the removal of free-phase organics of all kinds. The LLNL gasoline spill is a convenient test site because much of the gasoline has been trapped below the water table, mimicking the behavior of dense organic liquids.

  13. ADMINISTRATIVE AND ENGINEERING CONTROLS FOR THE OPERATION OF VENTILATION SYSTEMS FOR UNDERGROUND RADIOACTIVE WASTE STORAGE TANKS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wiersma, B.; Hansen, A.

    2013-11-13

    Liquid radioactive wastes from the Savannah River Site are stored in large underground carbon steel tanks. The majority of the waste is confined in double shell tanks, which have a primary shell, where the waste is stored, and a secondary shell, which creates an annular region between the two shells, that provides secondary containment and leak detection capabilities should leakage from the primary shell occur. Each of the DST is equipped with a purge ventilation system for the interior of the primary shell and annulus ventilation system for the secondary containment. Administrative flammability controls require continuous ventilation to remove hydrogen gas and other vapors from the waste tanks while preventing the release of radionuclides to the atmosphere. Should a leak from the primary to the annulus occur, the annulus ventilation would also serve this purpose. The functionality of the annulus ventilation is necessary to preserve the structural integrity of the primary shell and the secondary. An administrative corrosion control program is in place to ensure integrity of the tank. Given the critical functions of the purge and annulus ventilation systems, engineering controls are also necessary to ensure that the systems remain robust. The system consists of components that are constructed of metal (e.g., steel, stainless steel, aluminum, copper, etc.) and/or polymeric (polypropylene, polyethylene, silicone, polyurethane, etc.) materials. The performance of these materials in anticipated service environments (e.g., normal waste storage, waste removal, etc.) was evaluated. The most aggressive vapor space environment occurs during chemical cleaning of the residual heels by utilizing oxalic acid. The presence of NO{sub x} and mercury in the vapors generated from the process could potentially accelerate the degradation of aluminum, carbon steel, and copper. Once identified, the most susceptible materials were either replaced and/or plans for discontinuing operations

  14. Conceptual study of electron ripple injection for tokamak transport control

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Choe, W.; Ono, M.; Chang, C.S.

    1995-08-01

    A non-intrusive method for inducing radial electric field based on electron ripple injection is under development by the Princeton CDX-U group. The radial electric field is known to play an important role in the L-H and H-VH mode transition according to the recent theoretical and experimental research. It is therefore important to develop a non-intrusive tool to control the radial electric field profile in tokamak plasmas. The present technique utilizes externally-applied local magnetic ripple fields to trap electrons at the edge, allowing them to penetrate towards the plasma center via {gradient}B and curvature drifts, causing the flux surfaces to charge up negatively. Electron cyclotron resonance heating is utilized to increase the trapped population and the electron drift velocity by raising the perpendicular energy of trapped electrons. In order to quantify the effects of cyclotron resonance heating on electrons, the temperature anisotropy of resonant electrons in a tokamak plasma is calculated. For the calculation of anisotropic temperatures, energy moments of the bounce-averaged Fokker-Planck equation with a bi-Maxwellian distribution function for heated electrons are solved, assuming a moderate wave power and a constant quasilinear diffusion coefficient. Simulation using a guiding-center orbit model have been performed to understand the behavior of suprathermal electrons in the presence of ripple fields. Examples for CDX-U and ITER parameters are given.

  15. Controlled air injection for a fuel cell system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Fronk, Matthew H. (Honeove Falls, NY)

    2002-01-01

    A method and apparatus for injecting oxygen into a fuel cell reformate stream to reduce the level of carbon monoxide while preserving the level of hydrogen in a fuel cell system.

  16. Controlled air injection for a fuel cell system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Fronk, Matthew H.

    2003-06-10

    A method and apparatus for injecting oxygen into a fuel cell reformate stream to reduce the level of carbon monoxide while preserving the level of hydrogen in a fuel cell system.

  17. Corrosion Effects of Calcium Chloride Injection for Mercury Control on the Pollution Control Equipment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Vijay Sethi; M.P. Sharma

    2009-02-28

    In response to the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) of 2005, Black Hills Power (BHP) initiated testing of a calcium chloride (CaCl{sub 2}) injection method in their Wygen 1 (Gillette, WY) coal-fired power plant to help lower mercury emissions. In 2006, Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) was contracted to test their CaCl{sub 2} technology in-situ by adding a CaCl{sub 2} solution onto the raw, pre-pulverized coal during normal operation of Wygen 1. Follow-up tests were conducted by BHP in 2007. Data were collected from these two time periods and analyzed by a collaborative investigation team from Western Research Institute (WRI) and the University of Wyoming (UW) to see if there were any effects on the current air pollution control systems. During a CaCl{sub 2} injection period in 2007, corrosion was monitored in the flue and recycle ash system by placing corrosion coupons in strategic locations to test if corrosion was enhanced by the CaCl{sub 2} injection. While the CaCl{sub 2} produced a reduction in stack mercury levels, there was some evidence of beneficial impacts on the removal of SO{sub 2} from the flue gas during CaCl{sub 2} injection. Data on NOx remained inconclusive. It was also discovered that corrosion was enhanced significantly in the Spray Drier Absorber (SDA) vessel and corresponding outlet ductwork during CaCl{sub 2} injections. Further studies are being carried out in the field and lab to better understand the corrosive effects of CaCl{sub 2} to help formulate operation controls to manage the increased corrosion rates.

  18. An underground nuclear power station using self-regulating heat-pipe controlled reactors

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Hampel, V.E.

    1988-05-17

    A nuclear reactor for generating electricity is disposed underground at the bottom of a vertical hole that can be drilled using conventional drilling technology. The primary coolant of the reactor core is the working fluid in a plurality of thermodynamically coupled heat pipes emplaced in the hole between the heat source at the bottom of the hole and heat exchange means near the surface of the earth. Additionally, the primary coolant (consisting of the working fluid in the heat pipes in the reactor core) moderates neutrons and regulates their reactivity, thus keeping the power of the reactor substantially constant. At the end of its useful life, the reactor core may be abandoned in place. Isolation from the atmosphere in case of accident or for abandonment is provided by the operation of explosive closures and mechanical valves emplaced along the hole. This invention combines technology developed and tested for small, highly efficient, space-based nuclear electric power plants with the technology of fast- acting closure mechanisms developed and used for underground testing of nuclear weapons. This invention provides a nuclear power installation which is safe from the worst conceivable reactor accident, namely, the explosion of a nuclear weapon near the ground surface of a nuclear power reactor. 5 figs.

  19. Underground nuclear power station using self-regulating heat-pipe controlled reactors

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Hampel, Viktor E.

    1989-01-01

    A nuclear reactor for generating electricity is disposed underground at the bottom of a vertical hole that can be drilled using conventional drilling technology. The primary coolant of the reactor core is the working fluid in a plurality of thermodynamically coupled heat pipes emplaced in the hole between the heat source at the bottom of the hole and heat exchange means near the surface of the earth. Additionally, the primary coolant (consisting of the working flud in the heat pipes in the reactor core) moderates neutrons and regulates their reactivity, thus keeping the power of the reactor substantially constant. At the end of its useful life, the reactor core may be abandoned in place. Isolation from the atmosphere in case of accident or for abandonment is provided by the operation of explosive closures and mechanical valves emplaced along the hole. This invention combines technology developed and tested for small, highly efficient, space-based nuclear electric power plants with the technology of fast-acting closure mechanisms developed and used for underground testing of nuclear weapons. This invention provides a nuclear power installation which is safe from the worst conceivable reactor accident, namely, the explosion of a nuclear weapon near the ground surface of a nuclear power reactor.

  20. Activated carbon injection - a mercury control success story

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2008-07-01

    Almost 100 full-scale activated carbon injection (ACI) systems have been ordered by US electric utilities. These systems have the potential to remove over 90% of the mercury in flue, at a cost below $10,000 per pound of mercury removal. Field trials of ACI systems arm outlined. 1 fig.

  1. Dynamic Underground Stripping Demonstration Project. Interim progress report, 1991

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Aines, R.; Newmark, R.; McConachie, W.; Rice, D.; Ramirez, A.; Siegel, W.; Buettner, M.; Daily, W.; Krauter, P.; Folsom, E.; Boegel, A.J.; Bishop, D.; udel, K.

    1992-03-01

    LLNL is collaborating with the UC Berkeley College of Engineering to develop and demonstrate a system of thermal remediation and underground imaging techniques for use in rapid cleanup of localized underground spills. Called ``Dynamic Stripping`` to reflect the rapid and controllable nature of the process, it will combine steam injection, direct electrical heating, and tomographic geophysical imaging in a cleanup of the LLNL gasoline spill. In the first 8 months of the project, a Clean Site engineering test was conducted to prove the field application of the techniques before moving to the contaminated site in FY 92.

  2. Dynamic Underground Stripping: In situ steam sweeping and electrical heating to remediate a deep hydrocarbon spill

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yow, J.L. Jr.; Aines, R.D.; Newmark, R.L.; Udell, K.S.; Ziagos, J.P.

    1994-07-01

    Dynamic Underground Stripping is a combination of in situ steam injection, electrical resistance heating, and fluid extraction for rapid removal and recovery of subsurface contaminants such as solvents or fuels. Underground imaging and other measurement techniques monitor the system in situ for process control. Field tests at a deep gasoline spill at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory recovered over 7000 gallons of gasoline during several months of field operations. Preliminary analysis of system cost and performance indicate that Dynamic Underground Stripping compares favorably with conventional pump-and-treat and vacuum extraction schemes for removing non-aqueous phase liquids such as gasoline from deep subsurface plumes.

  3. Evaluation of a continuous miner half-curtain dust control system in a South African underground coal mine

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Belle, B.K.; Plessis, J.J.L. du

    1999-07-01

    The issues of public health and safety in the mining industry have been dealt with around the world through the intervention of governments. In 1997 the South African Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) sent out a directive to reduce the dust concentration level to <5 mg/m{sup 3} at the operator's position for the sampling period. The reasons for the difficulty with compliance are: long headings up to 35 m, inherently high dust generation rates of coal, and the increased use of highly mechanized equipment. A project was formulated under SIMRAC auspices with the title of Underground Mechanical Miner Environmental Control to address the dust problem. The project was planned in two phases. The first phase involved laboratory tests on a continuous miner model for different ventilation and spray systems at the newly built ventilation simulation tunnel at the Kloppersbos research center. In the second phase of the project, tests were carried out underground, based on the findings and recommendations from the simulated tests. This paper focuses on the results and findings for the half-curtain system which has been encouraging. The average dust concentration for the sampling period at the operator's position for the half-curtain system was 3.20 mg/m{sup 3}. On the other hand, the equivalent average dust concentration (TWA-CONC) for the half-curtain system for an 8-h period was 2.04 mg/m{sup 3}. The outcome of this project has shown that the regulatory dust level of <5 mg/m{sup 3} can be achieved through close collaboration with all the interested parties.

  4. Method of controlling injection of oxygen into hydrogen-rich fuel cell feed stream

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Meltser, Mark Alexander; Gutowski, Stanley; Weisbrod, Kirk

    2001-01-01

    A method of operating a H.sub.2 --O.sub.2 fuel cell fueled by hydrogen-rich fuel stream containing CO. The CO content is reduced to acceptable levels by injecting oxygen into the fuel gas stream. The amount of oxygen injected is controlled in relation to the CO content of the fuel gas, by a control strategy that involves (a) determining the CO content of the fuel stream at a first injection rate, (b) increasing the O.sub.2 injection rate, (c) determining the CO content of the stream at the higher injection rate, (d) further increasing the O.sub.2 injection rate if the second measured CO content is lower than the first measured CO content or reducing the O.sub.2 injection rate if the second measured CO content is greater than the first measured CO content, and (e) repeating steps a-d as needed to optimize CO consumption and minimize H.sub.2 consumption.

  5. Control of light polarization using optically spin-injected vertical external cavity surface emitting lasers

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Frougier, J. Jaffrès, H.; Deranlot, C.; George, J.-M.; Baili, G.; Dolfi, D.; Alouini, M.; Sagnes, I.; Garnache, A.

    2013-12-16

    We fabricated and characterized an optically pumped (100)-oriented InGaAs/GaAsP multiple quantum well Vertical External Cavity Surface Emitting Laser (VECSEL). The structure is designed to allow the integration of a Metal-Tunnel-Junction ferromagnetic spin-injector for future electrical injection. We report here the control at room temperature of the electromagnetic field polarization using optical spin injection in the active medium of the VECSEL. The switching between two highly circular polarization states had been demonstrated using an M-shaped extended cavity in multi-modes lasing. This result witnesses an efficient spin-injection in the active medium of the LASER.

  6. Rotating stall control of an axial flow compressor using pulsed air injection

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    D`Andrea, R.; Behnken, R.L.

    1997-10-01

    This paper presents the use of pulsed air injection to control rotating stall in a low-speed, axial flow compressor. In the first part of the paper, the injection of air is modeled as an unsteady shift of the compressor characteristic, and incorporated into a low dimensional model of the compressor. By observing the change in the bifurcation behavior of this model subject to nonlinear feedback, the viability of various air injection orientations is established. An orientation consistent with this analysis is then used for feedback control. By measuring the unsteady pressures near the rotor face, a control algorithm determines the magnitude and phase of the first mode of rotating stall and controls the injection of air in the front of the rotor face. Experimental results show that this technique eliminates the hysteresis loop normally associated with rotating stall. A parametric study is used to determine the optimal control parameters for suppression of stall. The resulting control strategy is also shown to suppress surge when a plenum is present. Using a high-fidelity model, the main features of the experimental results are duplicated via simulations.

  7. Pore Models Track Reactions in Underground Carbon Capture

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

    Pore Models Track Reactions in Underground Carbon Capture Pore Models Track Reactions in Underground Carbon Capture September 25, 2014 trebotich2 Computed pH on calcite grains at 1 micron resolution. The iridescent grains mimic crushed material geoscientists extract from saline aquifers deep underground to study with microscopes. Researchers want to model what happens to the crystals' geochemistry when the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is injected underground for sequestration. Image courtesy of

  8. Field Testing of Activated Carbon Injection Options for Mercury Control at TXU's Big Brown Station

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    John Pavlish; Jeffrey Thompson; Christopher Martin; Mark Musich; Lucinda Hamre

    2009-01-07

    The primary objective of the project was to evaluate the long-term feasibility of using activated carbon injection (ACI) options to effectively reduce mercury emissions from Texas electric generation plants in which a blend of lignite and subbituminous coal is fired. Field testing of ACI options was performed on one-quarter of Unit 2 at TXU's Big Brown Steam Electric Station. Unit 2 has a design output of 600 MW and burns a blend of 70% Texas Gulf Coast lignite and 30% subbituminous Powder River Basin coal. Big Brown employs a COHPAC configuration, i.e., high air-to-cloth baghouses following cold-side electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), for particulate control. When sorbent injection is added between the ESP and the baghouse, the combined technology is referred to as TOXECON{trademark} and is patented by the Electric Power Research Institute in the United States. Key benefits of the TOXECON configuration include better mass transfer characteristics of a fabric filter compared to an ESP for mercury capture and contamination of only a small percentage of the fly ash with AC. The field testing consisted of a baseline sampling period, a parametric screening of three sorbent injection options, and a month long test with a single mercury control technology. During the baseline sampling, native mercury removal was observed to be less than 10%. Parametric testing was conducted for three sorbent injection options: injection of standard AC alone; injection of an EERC sorbent enhancement additive, SEA4, with ACI; and injection of an EERC enhanced AC. Injection rates were determined for all of the options to achieve the minimum target of 55% mercury removal as well as for higher removals approaching 90%. Some of the higher injection rates were not sustainable because of increased differential pressure across the test baghouse module. After completion of the parametric testing, a month long test was conducted using the enhanced AC at a nominal rate of 1.5 lb/Macf. During the

  9. Dynamic underground stripping demonstration project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Newmark, R.L.

    1992-04-01

    LLNL is collaborating with the UC Berkeley College of Engineering to develop and demonstrate a system of thermal remediation techniques for rapid cleanup of localized underground spills. Called dynamic stripping to reflect the rapid and controllable nature of the process, it will combine steam injection, direct electrical heating, and tomographic geophysical imaging in a cleanup of the LLNL gasoline spill. In the first eight months of the project, a Clean Site engineering test was conducted to prove the field application of the techniques. Tests then began on the contaminated site in FY 1992. This report describes the work at the Clean Site, including design and performance criteria, test results, interpretations, and conclusions. We fielded 'a wide range of new designs and techniques, some successful and some not. In this document, we focus on results and performance, lessons learned, and design and operational changes recommended for work at the contaminated site. Each section focuses on a different aspect of the work and can be considered a self-contained contribution.

  10. Diesel Combustion Control with Closed-Loop Control of the Injection Strategy

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    New control strategies are enabler for new combustion concepts for further reduction of engine out emission

  11. Sorbent Injection for Small ESP Mercury Control in Low Sulfur Eastern Bituminous Coal Flue Gas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Carl Richardson; Katherine Dombrowski; Douglas Orr

    2006-12-31

    This project Final Report is submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) as part of Cooperative Agreement DE-FC26-03NT41987, 'Sorbent Injection for Small ESP Mercury Control in Low Sulfur Eastern Bituminous Coal Flue Gas.' Sorbent injection technology is targeted as the primary mercury control process on plants burning low/medium sulfur bituminous coals equipped with ESP and ESP/FGD systems. About 70% of the ESPs used in the utility industry have SCAs less than 300 ft2/1000 acfm. Prior to this test program, previous sorbent injection tests had focused on large-SCA ESPs. This DOE-NETL program was designed to generate data to evaluate the performance and economic feasibility of sorbent injection for mercury control at power plants that fire bituminous coal and are configured with small-sized electrostatic precipitators and/or an ESP-flue gas desulfurization (FGD) configuration. EPRI and Southern Company were co-funders for the test program. Southern Company and Reliant Energy provided host sites for testing and technical input to the project. URS Group was the prime contractor to NETL. ADA-ES and Apogee Scientific Inc. were sub-contractors to URS and was responsible for all aspects of the sorbent injection systems design, installation and operation at the different host sites. Full-scale sorbent injection for mercury control was evaluated at three sites: Georgia Power's Plant Yates Units 1 and 2 [Georgia Power is a subsidiary of the Southern Company] and Reliant Energy's Shawville Unit 3. Georgia Power's Plant Yates Unit 1 has an existing small-SCA cold-side ESP followed by a Chiyoda CT-121 wet scrubber. Yates Unit 2 is also equipped with a small-SCA ESP and a dual flue gas conditioning system. Unit 2 has no SO2 control system. Shawville Unit 3 is equipped with two small-SCA cold-side ESPs operated in series. All ESP systems tested in this program had SCAs less than 250 ft2/1000 acfm. Short-term parametric tests were conducted on Yates Units 1 and 2 to evaluate

  12. Underground Coal Gasification Program

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    1994-12-01

    CAVSIM is a three-dimensional, axisymmetric model for resource recovery and cavity growth during underground coal gasification (UCG). CAVSIM is capable of following the evolution of the cavity from near startup to exhaustion, and couples explicitly wall and roof surface growth to material and energy balances in the underlying rubble zones. Growth mechanisms are allowed to change smoothly as the system evolves from a small, relatively empty cavity low in the coal seam to a large,more » almost completely rubble-filled cavity extending high into the overburden rock. The model is applicable to nonswelling coals of arbitrary seam thickness and can handle a variety of gas injection flow schedules or compositions. Water influx from the coal aquifer is calculated by a gravity drainage-permeation submodel which is integrated into the general solution. The cavity is considered to consist of up to three distinct rubble zones and a void space at the top. Resistance to gas flow injected from a stationary source at the cavity floor is assumed to be concentrated in the ash pile, which builds up around the source, and also the overburden rubble which accumulates on top of this ash once overburden rock is exposed at the cavity top. Char rubble zones at the cavity side and edges are assumed to be highly permeable. Flow of injected gas through the ash to char rubble piles and the void space is coupled by material and energy balances to cavity growth at the rubble/coal, void/coal and void/rock interfaces. One preprocessor and two postprocessor programs are included - SPALL calculates one-dimensional mean spalling rates of coal or rock surfaces exposed to high temperatures and generates CAVSIM input: TAB reads CAVSIM binary output files and generates ASCII tables of selected data for display; and PLOT produces dot matrix printer or HP printer plots from TAB output.« less

  13. INVESTIGATION AND DEMONSTRATION OF DRY CARBON-BASED SORBENT INJECTION FOR MERCURY CONTROL

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Terry Hunt; Mark Fox; Lillian Stan; Sheila Haythornthwaite; Justin Smith; Jason Ruhl

    1998-10-01

    This quarterly report describes the activities that have taken place during the first full quarter of the Phase II project ''Investigation and Demonstration of Dry Carbon-Based Sorbent Injection for Mercury Control''. Modifications were completed and sampling began at the 600 acfm pilot-scale particulate control module (PCM) located at the Comanche Station in Pueblo, CO. The PCM was configured as an electrostatic precipitator for these tests. A Perkin-Elmer flue gas mercury analyzer was installed on-site and operated. Initial test results using both manual sampling methodology and the mercury analyzer are presented herein. Preparations were made during this period for full-scale mercury testing of several PSCo units. A site visit was made to Arapahoe and Cherokee Generating Stations to determine sample locations and to develop a test plan.

  14. FUEL FORMULATION EFFECTS ON DIESEL FUEL INJECTION, COMBUSTION, EMISSIONS AND EMISSION CONTROL

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boehman, A; Alam, M; Song, J; Acharya, R; Szybist, J; Zello, V; Miller, K

    2003-08-24

    This paper describes work under a U.S. DOE sponsored Ultra Clean Fuels project entitled ''Ultra Clean Fuels from Natural Gas,'' Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC26-01NT41098. In this study we have examined the incremental benefits of moving from low sulfur diesel fuel and ultra low sulfur diesel fuel to an ultra clean fuel, Fischer-Tropsch diesel fuel produced from natural gas. Blending with biodiesel, B100, was also considered. The impact of fuel formulation on fuel injection timing, bulk modulus of compressibility, in-cylinder combustion processes, gaseous and particulate emissions, DPF regeneration temperature and urea-SCR NOx control has been examined. The primary test engine is a 5.9L Cummins ISB, which has been instrumented for in-cylinder combustion analysis and in-cylinder visualization with an engine videoscope. A single-cylinder engine has also been used to examine in detail the impacts of fuel formulation on injection timing in a pump-line-nozzle fueling system, to assist in the interpretation of results from the ISB engine.

  15. Going underground. [Review

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1980-10-01

    Underground space is increasingly used for energy-saving and secure storage that is often less expensive and more aesthetically pleasing than conventional facilities. Petroleum, pumped hydro, water, and sewage are among the large-scale needs that can be met by underground storage. Individual buildings can store chilled water underground for summer cooling. Windowless aboveground buildings are suitable and even more efficient if they are underground. The discovery of ancient underground cities indicates that the concept can be reapplied to relieve urban centers and save energy as is already done to a large extent in China and elsewhere. A national commitment to solar energy will benefit from increased use of underground space. Kansas City is among several cities which are developing the subsurface with success, businesses and schools having found the underground environment to have many benefits. More construction experience is needed, however, to help US lenders overcome their reluctance to finance earth-sheltered projects. (DCK)

  16. Precision vector control of a superconducting RF cavity driven by an injection locked magnetron

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chase, Brian; Pasquinelli, Ralph; Cullerton, Ed; Varghese, Philip

    2015-03-01

    The technique presented in this paper enables the regulation of both radio frequency amplitude and phase in narrow band devices such as a Superconducting RF (SRF) cavity driven by constant power output devices i.e. magnetrons [1]. The ability to use low cost high efficiency magnetrons for accelerator RF power systems, with tight vector regulation, presents a substantial cost savings in both construction and operating costs - compared to current RF power system technology. An operating CW system at 2.45 GHz has been experimentally developed. Vector control of an injection locked magnetron has been extensively tested and characterized with a SRF cavity as the load. Amplitude dynamic range of 30 dB, amplitude stability of 0.3% r.m.s, and phase stability of 0.26 degrees r.m.s. has been demonstrated.

  17. Precision vector control of a superconducting RF cavity driven by an injection locked magnetron

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

    Chase, Brian; Pasquinelli, Ralph; Cullerton, Ed; Varghese, Philip

    2015-03-01

    The technique presented in this paper enables the regulation of both radio frequency amplitude and phase in narrow band devices such as a Superconducting RF (SRF) cavity driven by constant power output devices i.e. magnetrons [1]. The ability to use low cost high efficiency magnetrons for accelerator RF power systems, with tight vector regulation, presents a substantial cost savings in both construction and operating costs - compared to current RF power system technology. An operating CW system at 2.45 GHz has been experimentally developed. Vector control of an injection locked magnetron has been extensively tested and characterized with a SRFmore » cavity as the load. Amplitude dynamic range of 30 dB, amplitude stability of 0.3% r.m.s, and phase stability of 0.26 degrees r.m.s. has been demonstrated.« less

  18. Filter-based control of particulate matter from a lean gasoline direct injection engine

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Parks, II, James E; Lewis Sr, Samuel Arthur; DeBusk, Melanie Moses; Prikhodko, Vitaly Y; Storey, John Morse

    2016-01-01

    New regulations requiring increases in vehicle fuel economy are challenging automotive manufacturers to identify fuel-efficient engines for future vehicles. Lean gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines offer significant increases in fuel efficiency over the more common stoichiometric GDI engines already in the marketplace. However, particulate matter (PM) emissions from lean GDI engines, particularly during stratified combustion modes, are problematic for lean GDI technology to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tier 3 and other future emission regulations. As such, the control of lean GDI PM with wall-flow filters, referred to as gasoline particulate filter (GPF) technology, is of interest. Since lean GDI PM chemistry and morphology differ from diesel PM (where more filtration experience exists), the functionality of GPFs needs to be studied to determine the operating conditions suitable for efficient PM removal. In addition, lean GDI engine exhaust temperatures are generally higher than diesel engines which results in more continuous regeneration of the GPF and less presence of the soot cake layer common to diesel particulate filters. Since the soot layer improves filtration efficiency, this distinction is important to consider. Research on the emission control of PM from a lean GDI engine with a GPF was conducted on an engine dynamometer. PM, after dilution, was characterized with membrane filters, organic vs. elemental carbon characterization, and size distribution techniques at various steady state engine speed and load points. The engine was operated in three primary combustion modes: stoichiometric, lean homogeneous, and lean stratified. In addition, rich combustion was utilized to simulate PM from engine operation during active regeneration of lean NOx control technologies. High (>95%) PM filtration efficiencies were observed over a wide range of conditions; however, some PM was observed to slip through the GPF at high speed and load conditions. The

  19. Underground laboratories in Asia

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lin, Shin Ted; Yue, Qian

    2015-08-17

    Deep underground laboratories in Asia have been making huge progress recently because underground sites provide unique opportunities to explore the rare-event phenomena for the study of dark matter searches, neutrino physics and nuclear astrophysics as well as the multi-disciplinary researches based on the low radioactive environments. The status and perspectives of Kamioda underground observatories in Japan, the existing Y2L and the planned CUP in Korea, India-based Neutrino Observatory (INO) in India and China JinPing Underground Laboratory (CJPL) in China will be surveyed.

  20. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 16,327 13,253 15,555 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 8/31/2016 Next Release Date: 9/30/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into

  1. Intelligent emissions controller for substance injection in the post-primary combustion zone of fossil-fired boilers

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Reifman, Jaques; Feldman, Earl E.; Wei, Thomas Y. C.; Glickert, Roger W.

    2003-01-01

    The control of emissions from fossil-fired boilers wherein an injection of substances above the primary combustion zone employs multi-layer feedforward artificial neural networks for modeling static nonlinear relationships between the distribution of injected substances into the upper region of the furnace and the emissions exiting the furnace. Multivariable nonlinear constrained optimization algorithms use the mathematical expressions from the artificial neural networks to provide the optimal substance distribution that minimizes emission levels for a given total substance injection rate. Based upon the optimal operating conditions from the optimization algorithms, the incremental substance cost per unit of emissions reduction, and the open-market price per unit of emissions reduction, the intelligent emissions controller allows for the determination of whether it is more cost-effective to achieve additional increments in emission reduction through the injection of additional substance or through the purchase of emission credits on the open market. This is of particular interest to fossil-fired electrical power plant operators. The intelligent emission controller is particularly adapted for determining the economical control of such pollutants as oxides of nitrogen (NO.sub.x) and carbon monoxide (CO) emitted by fossil-fired boilers by the selective introduction of multiple inputs of substances (such as natural gas, ammonia, oil, water-oil emulsion, coal-water slurry and/or urea, and combinations of these substances) above the primary combustion zone of fossil-fired boilers.

  2. Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure

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

    Gas in Underground Storage Figure Working Gas in Underground Storage Compared with 5-Year Range Graph...

  3. Builders go underground

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McGrath, D.J.

    1982-01-01

    The appeal of earth-sheltered housing increased last year when 1000 new underground houses brought the national total to about 5000. Innovative construction and management techniques help, such as the Terra-Dome's moldset and equipment, which the company sells to builders under a license arrangement. Attention is given to aesthetic appeal as well as to energy savings. The Everstrong company builds all-wood underground houses to cut down on humidity and increase resistance to natural disasters. Tight mortgage money has been a serious problem for underground as well as conventional builders. (DCK)

  4. Investigation and Demonstration of Dry Carbon-Based Sorbent Injection for Mercury Control

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jason Ruhl; Justin Smith; Sharon Sjostrom; Sheila Haythorthwaite; Terry Hunt

    1997-08-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCO) a cost sharing contract to evaluate carbon-based sorbents for mercury control on a 600 acfm laboratory-scale particulate control module (PCM). The PCM can be configured as simulate an electrostatic precipitator, a pulse-jet fabric filter, or a reverse-gas fabric filter and is installed on an operating coal-fired power plant. Three different dry carbon-based sorbents were tested this quarter to determine their mercury removal capability in the different configurations. The project is currently in the seventh quarter of an eight-quarter Phase I project. Testing in all configurations is nearly complete. Original plans included the use of an on-line mercury analyzer to collect test data. However, due to very low baseline mercury concentration, on-line measurement did not provide accurate data. The project used a modified MESA method grab sample technique to determine inlet and outlet mercury concentrations. A major concern during sorbent evaluations was the natural ability of the flyash at the test site to remove mercury. This often made determination of sorbent only mercury removal difficult. The PCM was configured as a reverse-gas baghouse and brought online with "clean" flue gas on March 10* at an A/C of 2.0 ft/min. The dustcake forms the filtering media in a reverse gas baghouse. In the absence of flyash, the bags were precoated with a commercially available alumina silicate material to form an inert dustcake. Some baseline tests were completed with clean gas for comparison to clean gas pulse jet tests. The PCM was reconfigured as a TOXECON unit in April 1997 with testing completed in May 1997. TOXECON, an EPIU patented technology, is a pulse-jet baghouse operating at a high A/C ratio downstream of a primary particulate colIector with sorbent injection upstream of the baghouse for air toxics removal. Mercury removals of O to 97o/0 were obtained depending on test conditions.

  5. Underground and Ventilation System

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

    Tour Oct. 16th CBFO's Joe Franco and EM's Mark Whitney discuss WIPP underground layout NWP's John Vandekraats describes roof bolting www.energy.govEM 7 Message from DOE...

  6. Science @WIPP: Underground Laboratory

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

    WIPP Underground Laboratory Double Beta Decay Dark Matter Biology Repository Science Renewable Energy Underground Laboratory The deep geologic repository at WIPP provides an ideal environment for experiments in many scientific disciplines, including particle astrophysics, waste repository science, mining technology, low radiation dose physics, fissile materials accountability and transparency, and deep geophysics. The designation of the Carlsbad Department of Energy office as a "field"

  7. Magnetic detection of underground pipe using timed-release marking droplets

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Powell, James R.; Reich, Morris

    1996-12-17

    A system 10 and method of detecting an underground pipe 12 injects magnetic marking droplets 16 into the underground pipe 12 which coat the inside of the pipe 12 and may be detected from aboveground by a magnetometer 28. The droplets 16 include a non-adhesive cover 32 which allows free flow thereof through the pipe 12, with the cover 32 being ablatable for the timed-release of a central core 30 containing magnetic particles 30a which adhere to the inside of the pipe 12 and are detectable from aboveground. The rate of ablation of the droplet covers 32 is selectively variable to control a free flowing incubation zone 12a for the droplets 16 and a subsequent deposition zone 12b in which the magnetic particles 30a are released for coating the pipe 12.

  8. Magnetic detection of underground pipe using timed-release marking droplets

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Powell, J.R.; Reich, M.

    1996-12-17

    A system and method are disclosed of detecting an underground pipe by injecting magnetic marking droplets into the underground pipe which coat the inside of the pipe and may be detected from aboveground by a magnetometer. The droplets include a non-adhesive cover which allows free flow through the pipe, with the cover being ablatable for the timed-release of a central core containing magnetic particles which adhere to the inside of the pipe and are detectable from aboveground. The rate of ablation of the droplet covers is selectively variable to control a free flowing incubation zone for the droplets and a subsequent deposition zone in which the magnetic particles are released for coating the pipe. 6 figs.

  9. Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure

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

    Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure Working Gas in Underground Storage Compared with 5-Year Range Graph....

  10. Midwest Underground Technology | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Underground Technology Jump to: navigation, search Name Midwest Underground Technology Facility Midwest Underground Technology Sector Wind energy Facility Type Small Scale Wind...

  11. Underground physics with DUNE

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

    Kudryavtsev, Vitaly A.

    2016-06-09

    The Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) is a project to design, construct and operate a next-generation long-baseline neutrino detector with a liquid argon (LAr) target capable also of searching for proton decay and supernova neutrinos. It is a merger of previous efforts of the LBNE and LBNO collaborations, as well as other interested parties to pursue a broad programme with a staged 40-kt LAr detector at the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) 1300 km from Fermilab. This programme includes studies of neutrino oscillations with a powerful neutrino beam from Fermilab, as well as proton decay and supernova neutrino burst searches.more » In this paper we will focus on the underground physics with DUNE.« less

  12. The WIPP Underground Ventilation System

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

    , 2014 The WIPP Underground Ventilation System Since February, there has been considerable coverage about the WIPP Underground Ventilation System. On February 14, the ventilation system worked as designed, protecting human health and the environment. In normal exhaust mode, the ventilation system provides a continuous flow of fresh air to the underground tunnels and rooms that make up the disposal facility at WIPP. Air is supplied to the underground facility, located 2,150 feet below the

  13. Underground barrier construction apparatus with soil-retaining shield

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Gardner, B.M.; Smith, A.M.; Hanson, R.W.; Hodges, R.T.

    1998-08-04

    An apparatus is described for building a horizontal underground barrier by cutting through soil and depositing a slurry, preferably one which cures into a hardened material. The apparatus includes a digging means for cutting and removing soil to create a void under the surface of the ground, a shield means for maintaining the void, and injection means for inserting barrier-forming material into the void. In one embodiment, the digging means is a continuous cutting chain. Mounted on the continuous cutting chain are cutter teeth for cutting through soil and discharge paddles for removing the loosened soil. This invention includes a barrier placement machine, a method for building an underground horizontal containment barrier using the barrier placement machine, and the underground containment system. Preferably the underground containment barrier goes underneath and around the site to be contained in a bathtub-type containment. 17 figs.

  14. Underground barrier construction apparatus with soil-retaining shield

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Gardner, Bradley M.; Smith, Ann Marie; Hanson, Richard W.; Hodges, Richard T.

    1998-01-01

    An apparatus for building a horizontal underground barrier by cutting through soil and depositing a slurry, preferably one which cures into a hardened material. The apparatus includes a digging means for cutting and removing soil to create a void under the surface of the ground, a shield means for maintaining the void, and injection means for inserting barrier-forming material into the void. In one embodiment, the digging means is a continuous cutting chain. Mounted on the continuous cutting chain are cutter teeth for cutting through soil and discharge paddles for removing the loosened soil. This invention includes a barrier placement machine, a method for building an underground horizontal containment barrier using the barrier placement machine, and the underground containment system. Preferably the underground containment barrier goes underneath and around the site to be contained in a bathtub-type containment.

  15. Underground Storage of Carbon Dioxide-as a Solid | U.S. DOE Office...

    Office of Science (SC) Website

    captured from power plant exhaust and other sources and injected underground into porous rock formations where it mixes with ambient salt water and may remain for 1000's of years. ...

  16. Economical wind protection - underground

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kiesling, E.W.

    1980-01-01

    Earth-sheltered buildings inherently posess near-absolute occupant protection from severe winds. They should sustain no structural damage and only minimal facial damage. Assuming that the lower-hazard risk attendant to this type of construction results in reduced insurance-premium rates, the owner accrues economic benefits from the time of construction. Improvements to aboveground buildings, in contrast, may not yield early economic benefits in spite of a favorable benefit-to-cost ratio. This, in addition to sensitivity to initial costs, traditionalism in residential construction, and lack of professional input to design, impede the widespread use of underground improvements and the subsequent economic losses from severe winds. Going underground could reverse the trend. 7 references.

  17. LUNA: Nuclear astrophysics underground

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Best, A.

    2015-02-24

    Underground nuclear astrophysics with LUNA at the Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso spans a history of 20 years. By using the rock overburden of the Gran Sasso mountain chain as a natural cosmic-ray shield very low signal rates compared to an experiment on the surface can be tolerated. The cross sectons of important astrophysical reactions directly in the stellar energy range have been successfully measured. In this proceeding we give an overview over the key accomplishments of the experiment and an outlook on its future with the expected addition of an additional accelerator to the underground facilities, enabling the coverage of a wider energy range and the measurement of previously inaccessible reactions.

  18. Underground waste barrier structure

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Saha, Anuj J.; Grant, David C.

    1988-01-01

    Disclosed is an underground waste barrier structure that consists of waste material, a first container formed of activated carbonaceous material enclosing the waste material, a second container formed of zeolite enclosing the first container, and clay covering the second container. The underground waste barrier structure is constructed by forming a recessed area within the earth, lining the recessed area with a layer of clay, lining the clay with a layer of zeolite, lining the zeolite with a layer of activated carbonaceous material, placing the waste material within the lined recessed area, forming a ceiling over the waste material of a layer of activated carbonaceous material, a layer of zeolite, and a layer of clay, the layers in the ceiling cojoining with the respective layers forming the walls of the structure, and finally, covering the ceiling with earth.

  19. Coal-water slurry sprays from an electronically controlled accumulator fuel injection system: Break-up distances and times

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Caton, J.A.; Payne, S.E.; Terracina, D.P.; Kihm, K.D.

    1993-12-31

    Experiments have been completed to characterize coal-water slurry sprays from an electronically-controlled accumulator fuel injection system of a diesel engine. The sprays were injected into a pressurized chamber equipped with windows. High speed movies, fuel pressures and needle lifts were obtained as a function of time, orifice diameter, coal loading, gas density in the chamber, and accumulator fuel pressure. For the base conditions (50% (by man) coal loading, 0.4 mm diameter nozzle hole, coal-water slurry pressure of 82 MPa (12,000 psi), and a chamber density of 25 kg/m{sup 3}), the break-up time was 0.30 ms. An empirical correlation for spray tip penetration, break-up time and initial jet velocity was developed. For the conditions of this study, the spray tip penetration and initial jet velocity were 15% greater for coal-water slurry than for diesel fuel or water. Results of this study and the correlation are specific to the tested coal-water slurry and are not general for other coal-water slurry fuels.

  20. Alkali injection system with controlled CO.sub.2 /O.sub.2 ratios for combustion of coal

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Berry, Gregory F. (Naperville, IL)

    1988-01-01

    A high temperature combustion process for an organic fuel containing sulfur n which the nitrogen of air is replaced by carbon dioxide for combination with oxygen with the ratio of CO.sub.2 /O.sub.2 being controlled to generate combustion temperatures above 2000 K. for a gas-gas reaction with SO.sub.2 and an alkali metal compound to produce a sulfate and in which a portion of the carbon-dioxide rich gas is recycled for mixing with oxygen and/or for injection as a cooling gas upstream from heating exchangers to limit fouling of the exchangers, with the remaining carbon-dioxide rich gas being available as a source of CO.sub.2 for oil recovery and other purposes.

  1. Dynamic underground stripping: steam and electric heating for in situ decontamination of soils and groundwater

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Daily, William D.; Ramirez, Abelardo L.; Newmark, Robin L.; Udell, Kent; Buetnner, Harley M.; Aines, Roger D.

    1995-01-01

    A dynamic underground stripping process removes localized underground volatile organic compounds from heterogeneous soils and rock in a relatively short time. This method uses steam injection and electrical resistance heating to heat the contaminated underground area to increase the vapor pressure of the contaminants, thus speeding the process of contaminant removal and making the removal more complete. The injected steam passes through the more permeable sediments, distilling the organic contaminants, which are pumped to the surface. Large electrical currents are also applied to the contaminated area, which heat the impermeable subsurface layers that the steam has not penetrated. The condensed and vaporized contaminants are withdrawn by liquid pumping and vacuum extraction. The steam injection and electrical heating steps are repeated as necessary. Geophysical imaging methods can be used to map the boundary between the hot, dry, contamination-free underground zone and the cool, damp surrounding areas to help monitor the dynamic stripping process.

  2. Dynamic underground stripping: steam and electric heating for in situ decontamination of soils and groundwater

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Daily, W.D.; Ramirez, A.L.; Newmark, R.L.; Udell, K.; Buetnner, H.M.; Aines, R.D.

    1995-09-12

    A dynamic underground stripping process removes localized underground volatile organic compounds from heterogeneous soils and rock in a relatively short time. This method uses steam injection and electrical resistance heating to heat the contaminated underground area to increase the vapor pressure of the contaminants, thus speeding the process of contaminant removal and making the removal more complete. The injected steam passes through the more permeable sediments, distilling the organic contaminants, which are pumped to the surface. Large electrical currents are also applied to the contaminated area, which heat the impermeable subsurface layers that the steam has not penetrated. The condensed and vaporized contaminants are withdrawn by liquid pumping and vacuum extraction. The steam injection and electrical heating steps are repeated as necessary. Geophysical imaging methods can be used to map the boundary between the hot, dry, contamination-free underground zone and the cool, damp surrounding areas to help monitor the dynamic stripping process. 4 figs.

  3. Underground CO2 Storage, Natural Gas Recovery Targeted by Virginia

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

    Tech/NETL Research | Department of Energy Underground CO2 Storage, Natural Gas Recovery Targeted by Virginia Tech/NETL Research Underground CO2 Storage, Natural Gas Recovery Targeted by Virginia Tech/NETL Research October 20, 2015 - 8:14am Addthis Researchers from Virginia Tech are injecting CO2 into coal seams in three locations in Buchanan County, Va., as part of an NETL-sponsored CO2 storage research project associated with enhanced gas recovery. Researchers from Virginia Tech are

  4. New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

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

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) New York Natural Gas Underground Storage ... Underground Natural Gas in Storage - All Operators New York Underground Natural Gas ...

  5. New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

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

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage ... Underground Natural Gas in Storage - All Operators New Mexico Underground Natural Gas ...

  6. Characterization of Reactivity Controlled Compression Ignition (RCCI) Using Premixed Gasoline and Direct-Injected Gasoline with a Cetane Improver on a Multi-Cylinder Engine

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dempsey, Adam B.; Curran, Scott; Reitz, Rolf D.

    2015-04-14

    The focus of the present paper was to characterize Reactivity Controlled Compression Ignition (RCCI) using a single-fuel approach of gasoline and gasoline mixed with a commercially available cetane improver on a multi-cylinder engine. RCCI was achieved by port-injecting a certification grade 96 research octane gasoline and direct-injecting the same gasoline mixed with various levels of a cetane improver, 2-ethylhexyl nitrate (EHN). The EHN volume percentages investigated in the direct-injected fuel were 10, 5, and 2.5%. The combustion phasing controllability and emissions of the different fueling combinations were characterized at 2300 rpm and 4.2 bar brake mean effective pressure over a variety of parametric investigations including direct injection timing, premixed gasoline percentage, and intake temperature. Comparisons were made to gasoline/diesel RCCI operation on the same engine platform at nominally the same operating condition. The experiments were conducted on a modern four cylinder light-duty diesel engine that was modified with a port-fuel injection system while maintaining the stock direct injection fuel system. The pistons were modified for highly premixed operation and feature an open shallow bowl design. The results indicate that the authority to control the combustion phasing through the fuel delivery strategy (e.g., direct injection timing or premixed gasoline percentage) is not a strong function of the EHN concentration in the direct-injected fuel. It was also observed that NOx emissions are a strong function of the global EHN concentration in-cylinder and the combustion phasing. Finally, in general, NOx emissions are significantly elevated for gasoline/gasoline+EHN operation compared with gasoline/diesel RCCI operation at a given operating condition.

  7. Characterization of Reactivity Controlled Compression Ignition (RCCI) Using Premixed Gasoline and Direct-Injected Gasoline with a Cetane Improver on a Multi-Cylinder Engine

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

    Dempsey, Adam B.; Curran, Scott; Reitz, Rolf D.

    2015-04-14

    The focus of the present paper was to characterize Reactivity Controlled Compression Ignition (RCCI) using a single-fuel approach of gasoline and gasoline mixed with a commercially available cetane improver on a multi-cylinder engine. RCCI was achieved by port-injecting a certification grade 96 research octane gasoline and direct-injecting the same gasoline mixed with various levels of a cetane improver, 2-ethylhexyl nitrate (EHN). The EHN volume percentages investigated in the direct-injected fuel were 10, 5, and 2.5%. The combustion phasing controllability and emissions of the different fueling combinations were characterized at 2300 rpm and 4.2 bar brake mean effective pressure over amore » variety of parametric investigations including direct injection timing, premixed gasoline percentage, and intake temperature. Comparisons were made to gasoline/diesel RCCI operation on the same engine platform at nominally the same operating condition. The experiments were conducted on a modern four cylinder light-duty diesel engine that was modified with a port-fuel injection system while maintaining the stock direct injection fuel system. The pistons were modified for highly premixed operation and feature an open shallow bowl design. The results indicate that the authority to control the combustion phasing through the fuel delivery strategy (e.g., direct injection timing or premixed gasoline percentage) is not a strong function of the EHN concentration in the direct-injected fuel. It was also observed that NOx emissions are a strong function of the global EHN concentration in-cylinder and the combustion phasing. Finally, in general, NOx emissions are significantly elevated for gasoline/gasoline+EHN operation compared with gasoline/diesel RCCI operation at a given operating condition.« less

  8. Underground house book

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Campbell, S.

    1980-01-01

    Aesthetics, attitudes, and acceptance of earth-covered buildings are examined initially, followed by an examination of land, money, water, earth, design, heat, and interior factors. Contributions made by architect Frank Lloyd Wright are discussed and reviewed. Contemporary persons, mostly designers, who contribute from their experiences with underground structures are Andy Davis; Rob Roy; Malcolm Wells; John Barnard, Jr.; Jeff Sikora; and Don Metz. A case study to select the site, design, and prepare to construct Earthtech 6 is described. Information is given in appendices on earth-protected buildings and existing basements; financing earth-sheltered housing; heating-load calculations and life-cycle costing; and designer names and addresses. (MCW)

  9. Underground coal gasification. Presentations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2007-07-01

    The 8 presentations are: underground coal gasification (UCG) and the possibilities for carbon management (J. Friedmann); comparing the economics of UCG with surface gasification technologies (E. Redman); Eskom develops UCG technology project (C. Gross); development and future of UCG in the Asian region (L. Walker); economically developing vast deep Powder River Basin coals with UCG (S. Morzenti); effectively managing UCG environmental issues (E. Burton); demonstrating modelling complexity of environmental risk management; and UCG research at the University of Queensland, Australia (A.Y. Klimenko).

  10. Multinational underground nuclear parks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Myers, C.W.; Giraud, K.M.

    2013-07-01

    Newcomer countries expected to develop new nuclear power programs by 2030 are being encouraged by the International Atomic Energy Agency to explore the use of shared facilities for spent fuel storage and geologic disposal. Multinational underground nuclear parks (M-UNPs) are an option for sharing such facilities. Newcomer countries with suitable bedrock conditions could volunteer to host M-UNPs. M-UNPs would include back-end fuel cycle facilities, in open or closed fuel cycle configurations, with sufficient capacity to enable M-UNP host countries to provide for-fee waste management services to partner countries, and to manage waste from the M-UNP power reactors. M-UNP potential advantages include: the option for decades of spent fuel storage; fuel-cycle policy flexibility; increased proliferation resistance; high margin of physical security against attack; and high margin of containment capability in the event of beyond-design-basis accidents, thereby reducing the risk of Fukushima-like radiological contamination of surface lands. A hypothetical M-UNP in crystalline rock with facilities for small modular reactors, spent fuel storage, reprocessing, and geologic disposal is described using a room-and-pillar reference-design cavern. Underground construction cost is judged tractable through use of modern excavation technology and careful site selection. (authors)

  11. Underground Facility at Nevada National Security Site | National Nuclear

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Security Administration | (NNSA) Underground Facility at Nevada National Security Site The U1a Complex is an underground laboratory at the Nevada National Security Site used for dynamic experiments with special nuclear material (SNM) and other weapon materials. The Complex provides an infrastructure of high-bandwidth diagnostics, data acquisition, timing and firing, control and monitor systems capable of supporting experiments designed to acquire information on fundamental materials

  12. ,"Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:41 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Minnesota Natural Gas in ...

  13. ,"Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:40 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Michigan Natural Gas in ...

  14. ,"Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:38 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Louisiana Natural Gas in ...

  15. ,"Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:50 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Oklahoma Natural Gas in ...

  16. ,"Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:54 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Tennessee Natural Gas in ...

  17. ,"Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:26 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Alaska Natural Gas in ...

  18. ,"Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:43 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Missouri Natural Gas in ...

  19. ,"Arkansas Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:28 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Arkansas Natural Gas in ...

  20. ,"Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:40 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Maryland Natural Gas in ...

  1. ,"Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:49 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Ohio Natural Gas in ...

  2. ,"Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:34 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Illinois Natural Gas in ...

  3. ,"Nebraska Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:46 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Nebraska Natural Gas in ...

  4. ,"Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:30:00 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Wyoming Natural Gas in ...

  5. ,"Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:56 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Utah Natural Gas in ...

  6. ,"Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:37 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Kentucky Natural Gas in ...

  7. ,"Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:57 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Virginia Natural Gas in ...

  8. ,"California Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators...

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

    ...282016 11:29:29 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","California Natural Gas in ...

  9. ,"Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators...

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

    ...282016 11:29:44 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Mississippi Natural Gas in ...

  10. ,"Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage ... 11:44:01 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage ...

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

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ... 11:44:43 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

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

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ... 7:00:56 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

  13. ,"Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)...

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage ... 7:00:36 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage ...

  14. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ... 7:01:01 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

  17. ,"Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage ... 7:00:40 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage ...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ... 11:44:46 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

  2. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals...

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage ... AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage ...

  3. ,"Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage ... 11:44:05 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage ...

  4. ,"Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals ...

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Net ... 7:00:48 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Net ...

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

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ... 7:00:58 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

  6. ,"Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage ... 7:00:37 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage ...

  7. Louisiana Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 17,712 15,346 15,364 11,228 15,333 18,647 19,527 17,703 19,665 19,333 15,705 14,621 1991 2,280 4,842 12,957 13,291 22,317 22,447 17,260 17,261 23,603 27,512 9,950 4,281 1992 7,699 4,109 13,109 16,478 29,243 21,440 20,695 21,713 23,276 24,685 7,374 3,230 1993 4,314 1,638 8,805 14,315 34,776 33,317 27,192 28,570 32,062 21,236 21,232 2,111 1994 3,737 9,288 9,922 26,592 34,270 23,811 30,757 28,317 24,211 15,673 13,387 4,560 1995

  8. Mississippi Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 1,750 3,607 4,330 6,127 5,544 4,224 6,928 5,497 4,867 4,368 3,234 2,683 1991 2,109 2,492 4,207 6,639 5,633 3,362 3,437 4,256 5,869 4,885 3,369 1,795 1992 1,096 3,138 2,980 2,951 5,887 9,079 6,978 4,305 7,046 4,637 4,536 2,471 1993 1,673 667 3,918 4,615 8,370 7,306 6,934 4,554 6,921 3,167 5,034 2,746 1994 3,660 5,153 6,296 6,337 5,829 3,779 7,746 7,154 4,569 5,564 4,790 4,095 1995 4,471 3,625 5,571 7,565 8,877 4,334 6,975 6,763

  9. Missouri Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 1,544 12 1,155 1,115 0 0 0 287 512 228 21 442 1991 669 0 0 2,142 701 120 299 306 216 222 225 70 1992 0 0 0 1,579 439 155 273 224 214 197 0 0 1993 0 0 0 1,558 1,054 462 108 323 211 221 556 218 1994 528 57 98 0 1,549 1,361 322 318 276 219 240 29 1995 0 191 610 59 669 0 0 376 484 144 180 65 1996 358 1,295 1,377 410 1,326 268 247 213 212 218 161 484 1997 1,025 621 88 466 1,207 121 440 387 248 223 254 0 1998 303 167 471 36 595 0 0

  10. Montana Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 137 138 399 945 1,030 1,589 2,636 2,459 2,918 1,868 224 305 1991 49 400 337 661 1,912 1,830 2,316 2,077 1,390 1,069 208 144 1992 94 209 651 983 2,344 1,142 1,727 1,673 1,209 1,045 508 123 1993 282 135 618 768 1,156 889 1,969 1,580 1,608 1,404 175 310 1994 267 118 585 1,090 1,929 2,511 1,794 1,632 2,256 1,750 409 348 1995 225 467 966 1,330 1,775 2,542 3,316 3,925 2,132 871 325 180 1996 171 319 392 1,087 1,169 3,866 3,549 3,819

  11. Nebraska Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 0 29 194 1,042 1,483 1,696 30 778 1,165 695 281 4 1991 5 0 112 1,421 2,977 2,197 163 265 1,023 340 412 0 1992 0 108 275 703 1,637 2,634 2,118 1,220 1,200 360 0 0 1993 0 0 162 1,050 2,814 4,060 2,435 1,851 1,518 586 0 10 1994 0 0 582 1,280 2,156 1,045 2,245 933 2,230 1,100 938 15 1995 27 148 490 478 727 920 346 207 408 120 0 0 1996 - 101 14 530 1,650 1,984 1,325 1,416 875 213 289 25 1997 302 267 721 615 796 885 271 1,005 1,123

  12. Utah Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 609 640 580 1970's 547 883 906 2,320 999 1,340 1,069 1,446 1,180 1,193 1980's 2,381 11,107 12,089 19,948 17,291 20,386 9,542 14,359 19,426 16,885 1990's 27,196 32,248 31,222 34,488 42,508 32,201 32,368 42,803 23,744 37,380 2000's 40,179 47,942 42,159 44,227 46,829 38,478 39,761 41,284 42,304 38,618 2010's 35,519 44,170 28,146 26,724 41,548 36,027

  13. Virginia Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 158 272 2,143 1970's 2,175 2,286 278 320 112 1,079 1980's 22 1990's 0 2,369 2,378 2000's 2,455 3,440 3,012 4,008 7,073 9,696 6,997 8,796 10,467 9,464 2010's 10,315 12,006 10,593 11,361 12,602 12,930

  14. Washington Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 1,270 974 1,827 1970's 6,688 7,442 9,608 8,598 7,993 12,009 13,858 15,540 7,358 14,332 1980's 14,408 11,083 5,344 6,218 12,002 7,847 6,269 6,884 5,415 12,921 1990's 14,296 14,214 13,294 19,575 18,705 17,815 20,124 20,018 23,136 19,227 2000's 24,424 25,176 25,378 26,357 22,194 22,562 21,997 26,184 25,304 26,411 2010's 25,968 27,946 25,183 28,208 29,058 25,789

  15. West Virginia Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 159,545 181,338 183,114 1970's 209,292 190,785 171,946 184,984 124,988 161,604 138,767 195,861 177,263 173,060 1980's 128,443 127,788 144,153 87,355 128,717 129,134 134,394 98,311 106,318 115,421 1990's 126,217 104,251 138,647 160,450 171,216 145,958 200,612 164,299 172,191 160,166 2000's 155,359 198,730 140,907 197,794 176,486 171,199 163,026 184,167 192,729 188,539 2010's 171,179 197,202 153,479

  16. Indiana Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 25,027 26,679 26,483 1970's 35,065 33,816 40,220 46,617 36,070 43,845 18,252 32,090 25,903 27,177 1980's 24,509 24,301 25,489 20,160 22,069 21,885 22,118 15,844 24,423 24,816 1990's 23,054 23,654 25,770 25,928 24,656 24,335 27,263 23,403 22,034 21,533 2000's 19,486 24,647 20,425 23,563 23,451 21,405 23,598 22,686 22,874 24,399 2010's 21,943 23,864 19,878 22,435 22,067 20,542

  17. Kansas Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 41,661 44,524 50,772 1970's 52,966 49,267 46,810 42,910 45,642 52,045 48,582 51,344 52,242 59,148 1980's 87,788 101,892 128,737 70,412 104,782 96,153 97,214 87,570 107,182 104,735 1990's 108,143 109,627 84,249 116,284 106,069 105,693 104,871 114,848 118,404 103,396 2000's 104,007 127,342 93,675 112,643 101,386 99,621 103,105 113,399 115,669 102,406 2010's 113,253 119,823 93,460 103,676 111,853 110,950

  18. Kentucky Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 26,084 28,993 31,726 1970's 38,968 46,139 51,437 54,392 50,903 70,609 69,954 69,097 72,674 68,961 1980's 49,142 67,518 64,789 42,090 63,617 62,202 43,698 42,388 55,774 55,277 1990's 66,195 47,425 49,367 48,117 59,831 58,561 69,498 57,073 65,267 55,134 2000's 55,348 75,165 49,577 70,497 66,037 61,190 65,956 70,682 77,503 71,972 2010's 85,167 77,526 64,483 60,782 80,129 80,247

  19. Maryland Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 12,465 10,520 5,281 1970's 10,421 11,746 7,920 11,328 11,016 6,830 19,012 16,820 19,121 19,715 1980's 16,907 18,753 19,476 16,298 16,154 17,362 16,330 16,539 14,653 18,548 1990's 19,431 22,508 19,502 15,314 15,316 15,610 17,448 15,510 14,627 18,802 2000's 15,341 19,786 15,445 19,166 16,347 18,026 14,947 20,309 16,517 15,088 2010's 14,384 15,592 10,582 14,165 20,362 17,373

  20. Michigan Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 222,800 255,365 257,737 1970's 344,524 296,475 275,460 299,766 287,776 322,960 342,010 372,262 390,610 424,176 1980's 290,497 354,911 371,216 227,107 379,036 325,729 366,672 268,325 341,649 414,819 1990's 415,309 354,996 390,465 476,312 470,220 377,121 503,138 424,651 391,041 343,675 2000's 402,150 543,881 312,348 519,235 475,423 404,258 386,208 410,421 467,589 462,022 2010's 393,814 457,240 307,948

  1. Mississippi Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 4,701 6,904 7,493 1970's 12,489 8,149 83,548 29,089 25,439 27,345 50,545 65,693 63,032 60,597 1980's 59,653 42,916 43,834 44,467 54,186 54,105 38,678 43,550 41,780 50,478 1990's 53,161 48,054 55,105 55,903 64,972 74,821 88,684 63,216 69,268 48,217 2000's 63,917 68,987 72,418 79,014 90,316 114,658 108,823 148,487 160,388 127,212 2010's 145,854 124,165 129,889 145,082 199,696 202,642

  2. Missouri Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 10,206 8,919 9,044 1970's 10,957 11,741 10,188 10,847 9,413 8,658 6,634 8,074 8,836 8,836 1980's 5,305 4,727 4,407 924 4,431 4,537 2,835 1,337 4,240 2,911 1990's 5,316 4,972 3,080 4,711 4,997 2,777 6,570 5,081 2,670 3,159 2000's 2,619 3,794 2,977 2,963 3,213 2,455 1,689 2,423 2,634 2,684 2010's 2,437 2,114 1,647 3,388 4,188 2,973

  3. Montana Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 19,919 17,398 20,409 1970's 20,891 18,668 8,801 16,969 19,791 13,090 12,507 15,908 16,351 23,254 1980's 29,751 30,147 25,180 33,262 39,814 36,786 22,084 22,894 13,782 10,479 1990's 14,648 12,392 11,708 10,894 14,690 18,054 19,871 18,219 23,876 20,232 2000's 15,571 33,998 39,809 35,082 31,339 29,118 42,492 26,512 18,394 57,631 2010's 35,577 17,582 26,813 21,426 15,290 19,826

  4. Ohio Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2008 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2009 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2010 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2011 1 1 1 50 50 48 333 333 328 458 458 480 2012 414 374 414 818 845 818 1,262 1,262 1,221 1,802 1,743 1,802 2013 2,858 2,581 2,858 4,967 5,132 4,967 11,332 11,332 10,967 14,531 14,062 14,531 2014 21,359 19,292 21,359 27,630 28,551 27,630 42,842 42,842 41,460 52,080 50,400 52,080 2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2016 NA

  5. Oregon Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2016 NA NA NA NA NA NA

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 90,403 102,770 107,984 2000's 76,273 69,866 70,510 67,519 71,687

  6. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2008 826 773 826 800 826 800 826 826 800 826 800 826 2009 7,565 6,833 7,565 7,321 7,565 7,321 7,565 7,565 7,321 7,565 7,321 7,565 2010 15,835 14,303 15,835 26,860 27,756 26,860 38,452 38,452 37,211 53,202 51,485 53,202 2011 68,692 62,045 68,692 77,725 80,316 77,725 93,126 93,126 90,121 120,199 116,321 120,199 2012 143,632 134,365 143,632 156,230 161,438 156,230 180,639 180,639 174,812 205,886 199,244

  7. Tennessee Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2016 NA NA NA NA NA NA

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 138,863 144,560 144,542 2000's 129,716 118,566 118,241 112,446

  8. Texas Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 107,415 97,020 107,415 103,950 107,415 103,950 107,415 107,415 103,950 107,415 103,950 107,415 2008 149,885 140,215 149,885 145,050 149,885 145,050 149,885 149,885 145,050 149,885 145,050 149,885 2009 171,430 154,840 171,430 165,900 171,430 165,900 171,430 171,430 165,900 171,430 165,900 171,430 2010 174,342 160,128 180,419 168,880 177,313 169,232 203,930 205,113 200,365 220,938 217,327 224,963 2011 233,045 201,629 239,067 245,578 257,399

  9. Utah Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2012 119 115 123 117 121 119 108 107 105 104 97 96 2013 85 81 90 82 84 80 82 83 81 85 80 78 2014 93 84 93 90 93 90 93 93 90 62 60 62 2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2016 NA NA NA NA NA NA

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 44,162 45,501

  10. West Virginia Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 3,441 3,108 3,441 3,330 3,441 3,330 3,441 3,441 3,330 3,441 3,330 3,441 2008 4,526 4,234 4,526 4,380 4,526 4,380 4,526 4,526 4,380 4,526 4,380 4,526 2009 6,076 5,488 6,076 5,880 6,076 5,880 6,076 6,076 5,880 6,076 5,880 6,076 2010 7,544 6,900 7,606 8,245 8,558 8,405 10,065 10,068 9,859 12,372 12,016 12,136 2011 13,764 13,153 15,203 16,974 17,785 18,022 21,093 20,783 21,788 22,896 21,994 23,558 2012 25,375 24,058 25,054 25,441

  11. Wyoming Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 331 299 331 320 331 320 331 331 320 331 320 331 2008 405 378 405 392 405 392 405 405 392 405 392 405 2009 344 311 344 333 344 333 344 344 333 344 333 344 2010 457 414 460 474 480 444 475 484 460 461 451 457 2011 397 353 395 443 449 440 415 380 393 366 362 361 2012 743 675 723 637 648 622 867 859 827 904 888 861 2013 1,059 971 1,078 1,040 1,029 1,023 1,481 1,472 1,331 1,951 1,884 1,857 2014 2,046 1,848 2,046 1,710 1,767 1,710 2,294 2,294

  12. Iowa Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million...

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

    1980's 61,413 48,918 61,121 49,523 44,355 64,993 52,084 45,128 55,076 58,386 1990's 44,471 57,278 65,818 64,184 70,926 70,785 61,060 61,132 70,001 73,398 2000's 69,893 80,546 ...

  13. Minnesota Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million...

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

    1990's 1,256 1,285 1,372 1,762 1,556 1,478 1,655 1,417 1,291 1,384 2000's 1,375 1,669 1,218 1,521 1,471 1,418 1,255 1,380 1,493 1,405 2010's 1,046 1,454 1,010 1,451 1,549 1,044

  14. Washington Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million...

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 1,270 974 1,827 1970's 6,688 7,442 9,608 8,598 7,993 12,009 13,858 15,540 7,358 14,332 1980's...

  15. Washington Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million...

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 929 289 499 863 0 2,707 2,937 2,937 1,101 622 906 507 1991 833 586 299 3,139 1,705 2,716 2,138 291 308 0 1,447 753 1992...

  16. Wyoming Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 3,748 5,337 6,695 1970's 8,305 11,325 11,996 9,854 7,025 13,276 10,404 10,061 8,812 11,193 1980's 11,194 12,695 21,860 11,546 6,110 7,565 7,701 2,932 9,719 12,546 1990's 12,146 10,872 5,340 13,605 10,596 9,448 10,422 14,080 15,212 11,458 2000's 6,144 19,510 19,547 18,304 26,689 18,665 19,820 22,213 19,194 24,183 2010's 14,762 14,102 37,107 18,868 15,440 10,236

  17. Utah Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 217 15 3 133 1,503 1,503 7,253 6,393 5,871 3,255 768 282 1991 85 0 2,099 2,224 2,645 5,554 6,015 3,813 3,940 2,080 1,316 2,475 1992 389 1,210 2,719 3,032 3,970 3,612 3,759 4,834 3,898 3,111 506 182 1993 0 6 93 168 6,607 6,471 5,034 5,017 4,968 5,083 501 541 1994 45 195 3,861 2,050 6,133 4,069 5,508 6,269 8,509 4,218 1,026 624 1995 71 1,029 918 1,645 4,350 6,226 7,254 3,681 2,323 1,721 2,729 256 1996 7 276 904 1,589 5,596 6,757 6,824 4,746

  18. Washington Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 929 289 499 863 0 2,707 2,937 2,937 1,101 622 906 507 1991 833 586 299 3,139 1,705 2,716 2,138 291 308 0 1,447 753 1992 436 149 945 1,205 1,824 1,543 1,336 1,618 1,578 979 785 895 1993 750 383 2,192 1,363 4,359 1,112 2,036 1,280 2,258 340 326 3,176 1994 1,579 318 1,268 3,455 2,882 2,005 1,945 965 1,330 503 1,263 1,192 1995 541 827 1,671 1,661 2,601 2,020 1,565 829 2,494 464 1,696 1,447 1996 808 2,027 1,081 1,609 2,176 3,349

  19. West Virginia Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 2,636 3,056 7,714 11,094 19,622 17,419 16,104 16,323 13,930 7,415 6,785 4,120 1991 843 2,207 5,193 12,543 15,471 16,359 15,601 10,248 9,551 8,573 5,375 2,288 1992 1,013 1,191 1,116 9,299 25,331 21,514 19,498 21,430 15,698 16,466 5,155 936 1993 467 42 1,620 11,145 39,477 28,118 20,621 18,991 20,910 11,087 7,110 863 1994 331 2,543 4,529 21,836 25,960 28,392 28,083 23,234 21,272 9,826 3,695 1,516 1995 1,637 1,663 6,487 10,136

  20. Wyoming Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 22 16 140 1,047 1,248 1,648 2,162 1,899 2,415 1,135 222 191 1991 56 467 479 368 908 1,922 2,233 1,628 1,090 1,135 423 164 1992 0 73 211 356 439 605 1,402 465 861 525 208 194 1993 8 15 557 1,247 1,443 2,426 2,423 1,875 1,433 1,533 482 163 1994 145 16 930 1,339 1,692 771 1,125 1,524 1,444 1,060 412 138 1995 17 76 89 67 863 1,452 1,588 1,896 1,849 1,265 236 52 1996 13 0 66 974 2,862 1,764 2,169 836 641 540 243 312 1997 157 0 47 372

  1. Nebraska Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 5,012 2,959 4,838 1970's 3,074 5,982 8,837 5,280 5,667 5,459 4,508 7,053 9,995 10,087 1980's 6,557 7,198 7,455 3,869 5,628 6,848 5,748 6,241 7,615 6,952 1990's 7,395 8,916 10,254 14,485 12,524 3,872 8,423 6,659 5,264 5,802 2000's 3,763 8,303 5,735 5,334 8,454 8,412 7,760 10,860 9,155 8,936 2010's 8,146 10,482 6,349 9,578 9,998 8,058

  2. New Mexico Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 383 74 383 1970's 398 5,067 12,589 4,160 1,005 2,378 472 39 1980's 2,871 2,801 19,894 2,500 4,033 14,552 11,531 14,892 19,407 14,036 1990's 22,352 21,563 18,963 16,369 18,551 14,712 11,953 12,936 16,821 17,459 2000's 16,529 18,263 12,032 13,544 13,422 16,131 18,011 22,390 16,132 21,094 2010's 18,643 19,738 22,732 14,077 14,010 26,085

  3. New York Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 42,344 44,978 41,874 1970's 45,802 48,026 32,777 40,277 56,403 43,207 42,565 53,768 51,620 46,439 1980's 41,857 57,610 55,213 43,106 59,702 48,748 49,185 42,616 56,332 53,490 1990's 63,690 63,411 62,265 68,532 66,627 60,947 76,475 67,135 63,298 57,442 2000's 61,763 66,179 64,381 79,757 71,554 69,022 68,290 75,186 69,946 89,822 2010's 99,802 92,660 75,635 79,917 94,858 87,575

  4. Ohio Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 142,717 169,955 168,142 1970's 182,405 188,916 163,884 179,078 152,580 183,032 146,228 188,721 199,851 193,251 1980's 169,268 177,387 193,275 129,541 156,006 138,801 163,093 143,588 162,801 132,898 1990's 154,452 134,060 160,009 175,630 191,660 161,350 198,642 200,327 191,831 182,142 2000's 179,728 206,841 174,175 193,194 186,313 176,524 150,608 180,397 185,095 175,526 2010's 178,746 182,167 146,552 166,098

  5. Oklahoma Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 47,438 46,871 53,945 1970's 57,142 66,666 59,061 88,000 70,076 87,459 88,577 104,347 109,076 110,354 1980's 112,403 111,148 104,572 75,872 105,055 87,860 84,072 84,031 95,241 98,370 1990's 95,274 94,221 97,468 151,249 123,576 94,809 117,067 132,489 165,631 121,312 2000's 136,287 179,459 110,539 152,536 128,902 125,362 140,895 130,927 162,457 115,885 2010's 145,951 140,729 95,877 127,670 160,232

  6. Oregon Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 189 5 46 1980's 4,148 4,944 1990's 5,894 5,853 6,114 6,202 5,956 4,447 4,416 6,259 5,673 7,605 2000's 8,892 10,487 16,746 10,194 9,101 13,138 12,449 13,195 15,088 10,570 2010's 8,658 11,976 8,732 12,176 15,858 9,06

  7. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 219,010 235,415 244,892 1970's 335,966 303,286 315,183 321,757 265,901 332,183 293,596 364,262 372,402 357,234 1980's 212,048 360,752 405,477 284,948 362,878 350,022 249,028 335,166 377,046 572,180 1990's 388,569 707,371 383,762 381,711 339,512 332,608 376,290 312,787 328,118 319,041 2000's 370,957 398,034 318,381 413,078 368,897 385,186 337,341 372,938 377,401 380,986 2010's 335,068 371,341 291,507

  8. Alabama Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 8 12 26 71 106 95 103 93 85 55 25 14 1995 0 122 0 0 44 42 41 252 592 156 24 101 1996 231 185 141 192 390 670 318 395 440 166 63 160 1997 297 101 63 168 271 161 108 286 262 251 27 27 1998 26 0 81 245 188 623 25 203 139 613 76 0 1999 0 0 14 645 547 213 333 202 459 0 166 67 2000 48 534 44 51 232 606 166 0 0 42 12 286 2001 411 304 85 323 207 618 250 293 370 414 529 109 2002 711 278 182 349 240 54 357 139 106 318 515 536 2003 242 818

  9. Alaska Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 1,120 2,185 1,860 933 1,065 1,131 977 1,518 1,981 1,627 367 291 2014 701 337 1,062 1,084 903 2,078 831 997 774 678 976 1,255 2015 1,039 982 589 621 618 611 865 857 682 824 756 717 2016 496 748 752 1,540 2,065 1,970

  10. Alabama Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 536 577 1970's 1,153 992 568 1,070 410 434 1990's 694 1,375 3,349 2,022 2,220 2,646 2000's 2,022 3,913 3,785 10,190 12,734 15,572 20,604 20,009 31,208 21,020 2010's 23,026 22,766 21,195 17,966 34,286 33,004

  11. Virginia Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million...

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

    339 344 283 434 327 44 183 2003 51 220 70 276 458 504 482 823 671 147 102 203 2004 325 454 190 347 1,013 415 611 1,104 894 1,138 303 279 2005 599 566 319 458 699 560 923 747 783 ...

  12. California Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 2,676 4,631 11,774 22,230 26,798 17,079 11,773 10,071 10,383 17,080 11,528 1,051 1991 1,964 7,531 6,205 21,709 28,179 25,042 16,510 8,436 6,788 7,412 4,368 2,289 1992 1,926 6,570 5,706 17,569 17,167 26,308 19,985 14,876 21,087 11,679 3,331 1,835 1993 915 3,429 15,021 19,520 27,830 15,806 23,522 15,977 16,113 13,773 1,939 1,289 1994 870 494 6,150 20,903 28,804 21,822 18,914 11,381 26,575 14,221 2,254 3,522 1995 1,383 6,220 3,765

  13. Illinois Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 2,189 271 2,720 9,668 32,390 37,507 29,406 35,531 34,922 20,388 6,532 1,553 1991 4,412 442 309 9,233 31,471 30,144 30,332 35,249 33,602 26,760 7,536 2,741 1992 778 229 589 6,696 32,026 31,485 31,568 35,782 32,858 28,319 7,586 6,487 1993 219 53 1,527 13,439 36,040 35,265 34,281 36,399 41,709 28,438 11,331 1,815 1994 4,339 3,538 3,911 8,670 26,460 31,342 35,109 37,133 40,143 29,292 13,367 2,475 1995 208 379 3,672 9,006 36,015

  14. Indiana Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 997 821 771 1,207 1,916 1,673 2,268 3,772 4,202 2,896 1,993 539 1991 91 245 158 710 1,849 1,107 2,920 3,845 4,606 4,490 3,131 501 1992 98 349 429 1,076 1,611 2,638 5,174 4,168 5,309 3,579 926 413 1993 681 526 882 1,587 2,170 2,733 4,564 4,464 4,276 2,659 911 475 1994 328 565 519 609 934 2,541 5,229 4,565 4,175 3,340 1,546 305 1995 439 80 786 1,211 1,057 1,831 2,892 3,751 4,791 4,578 2,437 483 1996 262 870 948 968 1,028 2,560

  15. Kansas Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 7,635 3,835 6,654 5,480 4,038 7,424 13,042 13,023 16,981 12,047 11,053 6,933 1991 5,647 10,096 7,403 7,023 8,901 9,815 5,663 9,450 12,006 14,791 7,219 11,614 1992 6,014 7,237 5,144 3,501 8,711 5,088 6,556 12,676 12,171 9,476 3,696 3,978 1993 3,474 3,941 5,856 10,399 23,758 12,175 7,172 10,616 15,593 14,770 2,712 5,817 1994 3,919 3,957 8,082 8,386 13,732 9,332 12,132 14,307 11,682 8,641 4,889 7,010 1995 3,561 3,694 6,319 7,908 11,537

  16. Kentucky Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 3,591 7,852 5,644 4,269 4,991 5,462 7,829 7,379 7,268 5,324 3,591 2,996 1991 1,910 2,777 4,468 4,883 2,671 3,345 5,395 4,818 4,660 4,074 4,315 4,110 1992 5,509 3,635 2,314 2,151 1,697 2,787 4,724 4,202 5,539 10,882 3,272 2,656 1993 1,967 990 928 2,687 7,049 7,985 7,838 5,873 7,014 3,907 1,397 482 1994 431 928 1,526 6,100 10,571 9,346 9,742 7,138 4,696 4,684 3,438 1,230 1995 1,189 478 2,868 4,780 13,288 7,749 8,687 5,375 6,889

  17. Oklahoma Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million...

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

    Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 47,438 46,871 53,945 1970's 57,142 66,666 59,061 88,000 70,076 87,459 88,577 104,347 109,076 110,354 1980's 112,403 111,148...

  18. Tennessee Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 112 102 103 2 0 1999 6 0 0 0 143 107 76 104 105 57 0 0 2000 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 114 86 21 2001 0 0 0 103 113 32 63 47 62 100 32 4 2002 50 3 6 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 42 76 75 95 2 46 0 0 2004 2 0 0 33 32 46 63 55 6 25 0 0 2005 0 2015 4 3 26 56 61 57 69 67 72 93 102 55 2016 3 25 37 19 27 38

  19. Texas Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 17,004 8,785 10,204 19,677 17,706 20,683 10,352 12,126 22,756 13,644 6,455 1991 15,296 7,922 10,668 19,418 15,195 17,722 9,489 19,572 16,485 9,703 16,161 13,277 1992 28,613 14,959 26,061 25,971 36,754 40,361 32,383 37,832 33,591 24,896 15,309 23,871 1993 10,338 4,336 10,991 24,985 30,856 19,793 22,155 23,862 26,751 20,149 16,519 10,678 1994 9,151 9,187 22,843 31,648 45,809 29,041 34,716 32,744 34,998 26,664 23,258 10,215 1995 12,078

  20. Alaska Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 15,054 11,675 9,161

  1. Arkansas Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 1,317 1,210 1,168 1970's 1,467 1,674 1,316 2,218 1,783 1,555 1,033 1,462 1,572 2,081 1980's 1,107 1,690 1,854 241 1,817 4,359 1,871 398 1,522 1,299 1990's 1,938 1,044 2,461 272 3,249 5,368 7,152 6,665 6,951 5,784 2000's 3,943 5,806 3,210 5,757 4,457 4,394 4,789 5,695 5,023 4,108 2010's 4,672 4,628 2,848 3,112 3,398 3,318

  2. California Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 71,148 58,085 77,617 1970's 80,260 89,373 118,758 92,331 129,945 105,167 107,749 109,760 108,432 100,522 1980's 93,556 99,397 112,916 97,424 103,983 124,099 89,891 130,990 120,167 140,933 1990's 147,074 136,433 148,039 155,135 155,910 144,312 104,238 145,511 172,343 128,420 2000's 110,172 189,640 124,641 166,879 211,010 190,055 168,957 214,469 237,364 199,763 2010's 226,810 263,067 218,663 182,046

  3. Colorado Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 6,391 6,849 8,663 1970's 8,757 5,839 8,502 10,673 11,444 13,420 16,987 21,717 20,630 25,334 1980's 32,974 25,291 32,861 26,361 26,228 26,722 24,313 24,083 25,898 28,165 1990's 27,674 30,584 23,061 51,132 31,185 39,717 37,808 39,389 39,789 37,828 2000's 31,601 36,951 37,980 40,146 38,320 38,588 35,836 38,619 39,034 45,861 2010's 43,250 51,469 59,096 66,935 72,510 69,983

  4. Illinois Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 119,125 143,180 153,497 1970's 190,661 214,871 237,098 233,112 232,284 294,689 235,310 293,311 236,669 253,320 1980's 197,385 141,824 217,536 122,620 194,327 165,688 156,754 125,066 166,713 199,165 1990's 213,076 212,232 214,404 240,515 235,778 263,409 241,129 227,785 225,089 238,325 2000's 225,524 231,097 246,574 249,228 246,747 260,515 242,754 243,789 260,333 259,421 2010's 247,458 258,690 249,953

  5. Tennessee Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 2,140 1970's 1,606 1,750 2,325 1990's 0 453 599 2000's 273 556 63 336 262 0 2010's 665

  6. Texas Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 34,836 31,597 33,943 1970's 36,805 36,850 87,251 46,592 54,705 54,333 61,110 85,913 91,373 82,325 1980's 109,242 124,439 141,811 135,309 145,916 125,560 121,631 121,245 146,758 161,181 1990's 175,039 170,908 340,602 221,412 310,273 274,724 305,914 312,254 344,461 291,802 2000's 311,995 482,270 363,682 415,541 395,115 345,945 356,273 362,593 401,600 435,089 2010's 460,453 437,440 378,438 394,375 474,392 494,37

  7. Midwest Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage...

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 7,437 14,235 22,615 66,408 136,813 155,687 156,839 166,332 149,212 119,162 35,641 16,420 2015 7,171 4,815 20,994 74,813 ...

  8. Colorado Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million...

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 538 235 252 265 1,274 4,266 6,279 5,212 5,012 1,957 1,734 650 1991 992 654 483 61 2,494 3,876 4,219 4,449 5,296 3,296 ...

  9. Michigan Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million...

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

    76,718 72,178 53,824 26,587 11,504 2,212 1991 1,032 3,107 15,520 34,937 50,769 ... 55,631 32,359 9,649 4,881 2009 2,827 3,212 12,072 48,476 76,810 78,890 79,555 63,194 ...

  10. AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground...

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

    36,048 85,712 223,991 260,731 242,718 212,493 214,385 160,007 37,788 12,190 1996 ... 1999 18,032 8,946 26,228 111,081 229,212 205,889 185,349 217,043 223,192 146,647 ...