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. 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 -...

  1. 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.

  2. 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...

  3. 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)

    FG-RPT-017 Revision 1 Underground Injection Control Permit Applications for FutureGen 2.0 Morgan County Class VI UIC Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION March 2013 (Revised May 2013 in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Completeness Review) Acknowledgment: This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-FE0001882. Disclaimer: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States

  4. 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: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground

  5. 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: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground

  6. Wisconsin 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) Wisconsin 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 166 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground

  7. 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: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into

  8. North 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) North 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 97 2,626 2,019 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections

  9. 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: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of

  10. 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: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas

  11. 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: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of

  12. 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: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections

  13. Massachusetts 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) Massachusetts 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 293 769 314 1970's 770 937 1,496 413 403 3,912 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring

  14. New Jersey 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) New Jersey 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 805 975 1,281 1970's 1,447 1,626 1,765 1,867 3,953 6,378 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  15. 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: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground Storage

  16. AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground

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

    Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Eastern 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 7,862 17,834 34,190 160,946 247,849 262,039 269,285 244,910 208,853 134,234 47,094 16,471 1995 13,614 4,932 36,048 85,712 223,991 260,731 242,718 212,493 214,385 160,007 37,788 12,190 1996 12,276 39,022 32,753 130,232 233,717 285,798 303,416 270,223

  17. 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

  18. AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground

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

    Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) 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 48,055 33,801 35,146 27,858 45,903 22,113 5,766 6,401 1995 2,960 9,426 8,840 10,680 42,987 47,386 37,349 22,868 31,053 25,873 15,711 3,003 1996 2,819 8,696 9,595 20,495 41,216 36,086 25,987 20,787 24,773 17,795 13,530 9,122

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic 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

  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 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  1. Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Total Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 50,130 81,827 167,632 312,290 457,725 420,644 359,267 370,180 453,548 436,748 221,389 90,432 2012 74,854 56,243 240,351 263,896 357,965 323,026 263,910 299,798 357,109 327,767 155,554 104,953 2013 70,853 41,928 100,660 271,236 466,627 439,390 372,472

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

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

    12:20:34 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: U.S. Natural Gas Salt Underground Storage Activity-Injects (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5440US2" "Date","U.S. Natural Gas Salt Underground...

  3. Iowa Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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 Dec 1990 1,740 243 1,516 3,236 5,817 8,184 5,657 5,928 4,903 4,971 1,423 854 1991 1,166 155 231 1,829 4,897 8,985 6,518 8,058 11,039 10,758 2,782 860 1992 488 43 1,246 3,184 7,652 7,568 11,453 11,281 11,472 9,000 1,228 1,203 1993 0 0 733 5,547 6,489 7,776 10,550 10,150 12,351 8,152 2,437 0 1994 0 75 1,162 3,601 7,153

  4. U.S. Natural Gas Non-Salt Underground Storage Injections (Million...

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

    Injections (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Non-Salt Underground Storage Injections (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 23,610...

  5. 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.

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

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

    Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) 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...

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

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

    Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 9,107 10,259 22,569 71,857 144,145 132,960 120,491 118,493 122,207 94,669...

  8. South Central Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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...

  9. 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...

  10. ,"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:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016"

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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 the project) a new motor controller capable of operating the higher rpm motor and different power characteristics of the fuelcells. In early August 2002, CANMET, with the technical assistance of Nuvera Fuel Cells and Battery Electric, installed the new PLC software, installed the new motor controller, and installed the new fuelcell stacks. After minor adjustments, the fuelcell locomotive pulled its first fully loaded ore cars on a surface track. The fuelcell-powered locomotive easily matched the battery powered equivalent in its ability to pull tonnage and equaled the battery-powered locomotive in acceleration. The final task of Phase 2, testing the locomotive underground in a production environment, occurred in early October 2002 in a gold mine. All regulatory requirements to allow the locomotive underground were completed and signed off by Hatch Associates prior to going underground. During the production tests, the locomotive performed flawlessly with no failures or downtime. The actual tests occurred during a 2-week period and involved moving both gold ore and waste rock over a 1,000 meter track. Refueling, or recharging, of the metal-hydride storage took place on the surface. After each shift, the metal-hydride storage module was removed from the locomotive, transported to surface, and filled with hydrogen from high-pressure tanks. The beginning of each shift started with taking the fully recharged metal-hydride storage module down into the mine and re-installing it onto the locomotive. Each 8 hour shift consumed approximately one half to two thirds of the onboard hydrogen. This indicates that the fuelcell-powered locomotive can work longer than a similar battery-powered locomotive, which operates about 6 hours, before needing a recharge.

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

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

    2 -Brine Mixtures at Elevated Temperatures and Pressures: Application to CO 2 -Enhanced Geothermal Systems." Transport in Porous Media 82:173-196. doi:10.1007s11242-009-9425-y....

  16. 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 ...

  17. 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.

  18. Dynamic Feed Control For Injection Molding

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Kazmer, David O. (San Francisco, CA)

    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.

  19. 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...

  20. 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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Alkaline sorbent injection for mercury control

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Madden, Deborah A. (Boardman, OH); Holmes, Michael J. (Washington Township, Stark County, OH)

    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.

  4. Alkaline sorbent injection for mercury control

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Madden, Deborah A. (Boardman, OH); Holmes, Michael J. (Washington Township, Stark County, OH)

    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.

  5. 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.

  6. Method for controlling corrosion in thermal vapor injection gases

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Sperry, John S. (Houston, TX); Krajicek, Richard W. (Houston, TX)

    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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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 sensor.

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

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

    Strategy | Department of Energy 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 enabler for new combustion concepts for further reduction of engine out emission PDF icon deer09_tatur.pdf More Documents & Publications Future Directions in Engines and Fuels An Innovative Pressure Sensor Glow Plug Offers Improved Diesel Engine Closed-loop Control Partially Premixed

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. Vitrified underground structures

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Murphy, Mark T. (Kennewick, WA); Buelt, James L. (Richland, WA); Stottlemyre, James A. (Richland, WA); Tixier, Jr., John S. (Richland, WA)

    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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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 are executed.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. Workers Adjust Ventilation in WIPP Underground

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

    29, 2014 Workers Adjust Ventilation in WIPP Underground On May 28, WIPP workers entered the underground facility to adjust the ventilation system. While underground, they adjusted a regulator on a bulkhead door and closed and taped doors at another underground location to allow more air flow through Panel 7 and better ventilation control in preparation for the planned filter change. Geotechnical experts also conducted underground inspections at several locations to make sure the ground was still

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

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

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Meltser, Mark Alexander (Pittsford, NY); Gutowski, Stanley (Pittsford, NY); Weisbrod, Kirk (Los Alamos, NM)

    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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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 time that enhanced AC was injected, the average mercury removal for the month long test was approximately 74% across the test baghouse module. ACI was interrupted frequently during the month long test because the test baghouse module was bypassed frequently to relieve differential pressure. The high air-to-cloth ratio of operations at this unit results in significant differential pressure, and thus there was little operating margin before encountering differential pressure limits, especially at high loads. This limited the use of sorbent injection as the added material contributes to the overall differential pressure. This finding limits sustainable injection of AC without appropriate modifications to the plant or its operations. Handling and storage issues were observed for the TOXECON ash-AC mixture. Malfunctioning equipment led to baghouse dust hopper plugging, and storage of the stagnant material at flue gas temperatures resulted in self-heating and ignition of the AC in the ash. In the hoppers that worked properly, no such problems were reported. Economics of mercury control at Big Brown were estimated for as-tested scenarios and scenarios incorporating changes to allow sustainable operation. This project was funded under the U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory project entitled 'Large-Scale Mercury Control Technology Field Testing Program--Phase II'.

  17. 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

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. Mississippi Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage ...

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

    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...

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

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

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Reifman, Jaques (Western Springs, IL); Feldman, Earl E. (Willowbrook, IL); Wei, Thomas Y. C. (Downers Grove, IL); Glickert, Roger W. (Pittsburgh, PA)

    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.

  6. 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)

  7. 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.

  8. 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...

  9. 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)

  10. 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.

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

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Powell, James R. (Shoreham, NY); Reich, Morris (Kew Garden Hills, NY)

    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.

  12. 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...

  13. 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...

  14. 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....

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. Underground barrier construction apparatus with soil-retaining shield

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Gardner, Bradley M. (Idaho Falls, ID); Smith, Ann Marie (Pocatello, ID); Hanson, Richard W. (Spokane, WA); Hodges, Richard T. (Deer Park, WA)

    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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. Underground waste barrier structure

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Saha, Anuj J. (Hamburg, NY); Grant, David C. (Gibsonia, PA)

    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.

  1. 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.

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

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Daily, William D. (Livermore, CA); Ramirez, Abelardo L. (Pleasanton, CA); Newmark, Robin L. (Pleasanton, CA); Udell, Kent (Berkeley, CA); Buetnner, Harley M. (Livermore, CA); Aines, Roger D. (Livermore, CA)

    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.

  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. WIPP Begins Underground Decontamination Activities

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

    used underground to direct or block ventilation flow in open panels. It is a low permeability polyethylene (plastic) cloth. These activities will continue for the next several...

  5. 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)

  6. 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)

  7. Respiratory Protection Requirements Reduced in Parts of WIPP Underground

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

    WIPP UPDATE: January 29, 2016 Respiratory Protection Requirements Reduced in Parts of WIPP Underground As a result of radiological risk mitigation efforts by WIPP Radiological Control teams, this week requirements for respiratory protection were lifted for a significant portion of the WIPP underground. The change in respiratory protection requirements applies to all areas south of S-2520 and represents a significant milestone in the contamination mitigation efforts. While the use of protective

  8. 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...

  9. 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...

  10. 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...

  11. 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...

  12. 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...

  13. Integrated dry NO{sub x}/SO{sub 2} emissions control system calcium-based dry sorbent injection. Test report, April 30--November 2, 1993

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shiomoto, G.H.; Smith, R.A.; Muzio, L.J.; Hunt, T.

    1994-12-01

    The DOE sponsored Integrated Dry NO{sub x}SO{sub 2} Emissions Control System program, which is a Clean Coal Technology III demonstration, is being conducted by Public Service Company of Colorado. The test site is Arapahoe Generating Station Unit 4, which is a 100 MWe, down-fired utility boiler burning a low sulfur Western coal. The project goal is to demonstrate up to 70 percent reductions in NO{sub x} and SO{sub 2} emissions through the integration of: (1) down-fired low-NO{sub x} burners with overfire air; (2) Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) for additional NO{sub x} removal; and (3) dry sorbent injection and duct humidification for SO{sub 2} removal. The effectiveness of the integrated system on a high-sulfur coal will also be investigated. This report documents the fifth phase of the test program, where the performance of the dry sorbent injection of calcium was evaluated as an SO{sub 2} removal technique. Dry sorbent injection with humidification was performed downstream of the air heater (in-duct). Calcium injection before the economizer was also investigated. The in-duct calcium sorbent and humidification retrofit resulted in SO{sub 2} reductions of 28 to 40 percent, with a Ca/S of 2, and a 25 to 30{degrees}F approach to adiabatic saturation temperature. The results of the economizer calcium injection tests were disappointing with less than 10 percent SO{sub 2} removal at a Ca/S of 2. Poor sorbent distribution due to limited access into the injection cavity was partially responsible for the low overall removals. However, even in areas of high sorbent concentration (local Ca/S ratios of approximately 6), SO{sub 2} removals were limited to 30 percent. It is suspected that other factors (sorbent properties and limited residence times) also contributed to the poor performance.

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

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

    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

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

    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 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 460,453 437,440 378,438 394,375 474,392 494,375

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

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

    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

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

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

    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

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

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

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 829 1,502 839 551 1,326 1,267 987 1980's 1,217 1,125 1,601 646 1,113 1,640 1,146 476 1,142 1,226 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

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

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

    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

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

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

    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

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

    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 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

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

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

    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

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

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

    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 8,05

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

    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 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

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

    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 95,877 127,670 160,232 154,3

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

    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 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 9,061

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

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

    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. Injections of Natural Gas into Underground Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 View History U.S. 378,490 394,079 435,352 401,063 201,400 138,069 1973-2015 Alaska 865 857 682 824 756 717 2013-2015 Lower 48 States 377,626 393,223 434,670 400,239 200,643 137,352 2011-2015 Alabama 2,339 1,330 3,800 1,746 3,084 1,867 1994-2015 Arkansas 437 403 150 225 372 538 1990-2015

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

    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 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...

  10. Missouri Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million...

    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 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...

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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 3,31

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

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

    Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 47,474 33,037 58,753 1970's 110,680 132,263 84,201 151,287 81,960 149,966 132,724 144,053 155,450 140,433 1980's 134,386...

  17. 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

  18. Maryland 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 239 2,623 1,788 2,614 1,243 2,126 2,822 2,513 2,065 403 535 1991 63 182 612 1,414 1,596 1,606 1,492 2,061 9,642 963 1,273 1,604 1992 1,487 148 759 573 3,542 2,886 2,153 2,566 2,310 1,780 732 565 1993 281 0 1,364 604 2,216 1,472 1,128 1,717 2,542 2,679 823 486 1994 2 890 1,570 1,256 2,111 1,537 2,113 1,468 1,654 1,781 196 736 1995 657 199 1,442 1,267 2,010 2,042 1,080 1,854 2,210 1,468 830 550 1996 732 1,205 1,514 1,155 2,219

  19. Michigan 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 9,245 1,582 10,686 31,603 52,870 66,300 76,718 72,178 53,824 26,587 11,504 2,212 1991 1,032 3,107 15,520 34,937 50,769 57,972 60,903 49,098 32,321 37,468 6,791 5,078 1992 1,016 711 1,745 17,659 47,567 67,131 73,573 69,301 68,599 37,430 3,947 1,784 1993 940 824 5,731 30,848 76,196 84,210 84,659 82,086 67,557 38,106 4,009 1,148 1994 1,753 2,710 5,746 48,993 74,457 74,862 76,199 76,055 66,415 34,456 5,582 2,992 1995 666 1,317 4,527

  20. Minnesota 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 0 69 477 330 112 133 48 61 27 0 0 1991 0 0 42 228 257 312 291 61 93 0 0 0 1992 0 0 0 0 391 307 299 250 126 0 0 0 1993 0 0 0 178 331 358 426 134 248 87 0 0 1994 0 0 0 46 342 374 371 273 150 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 27 331 262 306 301 241 9 0 0 1996 - - - 142 366 294 287 280 202 83 - - 1997 0 0 0 173 273 312 321 207 130 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 169 289 284 275 187 87 0 1999 0 0 0 0 0 172 308 320 272 175 136 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 132 343 343 266

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  5. California 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 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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  7. Colorado 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 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 2,611 2,153 1992 0 301 61 53 158 2,168 4,187 6,308 5,942 2,708 395 779 1993 1,476 514 1,328 277 3,434 5,426 4,400 5,097 4,898 19,867 1,773 2,642 1994 349 561 1,525 594 6,187 1,887 5,096 5,311 5,305 1,318 1,652 1,401 1995 1,508 1,548 1,831 1,379 3,769 6,416 6,446 4,716 4,341 2,877 3,680 1,206 1996 1,050 3,496

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  9. Indiana 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 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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 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 93,460 103,676 111,853 110,750

  11. Kansas 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 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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  13. Kentucky 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 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

  14. 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

  15. Minnesota 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 1970's 829 1,502 839 551 1,326 1,267 987 1980's 1,217 1,125 1,601 646 1,113 1,640 1,146 476 1,142 1,226 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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 8,05

  20. 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

  1. 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 88,447

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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 9,061

  5. 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

  6. West Virginia Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage...

    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 159,545 181,338 183,114 1970's 209,292 190,785 171,946 184,984 124,988 161,604 138,767 195,861...

  7. 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

  8. 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 460,453 437,440 378,438 394,375 474,392 494,375

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  13. Alabama 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 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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  15. Alaska 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 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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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 3,31

  17. Arkansas 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 1990 0 0 0 46 104 473 527 481 279 28 0 0 1991 0 0 0 72 132 339 487 14 0 0 0 0 1992 0 0 0 0 0 510 852 665 434 0 0 0 1993 0 0 0 0 0 272 0 0 0 0 0 0 1994 0 0 0 0 657 639 648 859 214 79 65 88 1995 0 0 0 0 307 1,384 1,567 1,461 230 83 182 154 1996 99 281 117 396 1,355 1,217 795 664 1,199 690 110 229 1997 144 82 148 138 651 1,374 1,509 1,278 1,091 93 157 0 1998 138 64 130 555 1,075 1,129 1,070 1,040 848 616 175 109 1999 0 31 0 792 1,053

  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

  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. New Mexico 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 502 1,137 1,088 2,198 1,190 1,665 3,674 3,203 2,048 3,187 1,857 602 1991 341 245 267 3,130 3,097 3,033 1,930 790 3,099 1,538 1,556 2,536 1992 1,345 741 1,159 197 1,538 1,940 1,147 2,411 2,287 2,932 1,133 2,132 1993 864 0 1,404 1 2,822 2,560 1,786 692 1,343 2,719 533 1,645 1994 412 604 1,464 275 2,297 1,630 1,349 986 4,132 2,343 1,241 1,817 1995 404 867 2,089 944 1,779 1,734 1,688 999 1,550 1,392 691 577 1996 690 567 167 587

  1. Ohio 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 2,095 2,783 8,487 12,731 23,624 20,221 19,895 19,615 18,355 13,780 9,089 3,777 1991 474 569 2,278 13,918 24,470 20,782 18,348 18,211 16,615 12,371 5,205 819 1992 46 383 775 11,319 27,233 30,305 29,147 24,617 16,672 14,358 4,364 790 1993 152 278 1,376 10,017 30,894 32,804 30,187 28,001 26,720 12,055 3,036 109 1994 1,075 1,772 2,164 19,428 30,107 32,303 33,898 27,173 22,437 13,196 7,269 837 1995 617 1,176 1,782 7,066 28,599 32,073 31,206

  2. Oklahoma 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 4,366 3,193 6,903 5,872 11,548 13,440 11,689 10,380 8,709 8,453 8,353 2,367 1991 26 3,253 7,982 15,800 16,462 10,864 4,815 6,272 10,749 9,706 3,437 4,853 1992 1,358 3,452 5,980 8,163 10,270 11,596 17,116 11,326 13,627 11,199 2,570 812 1993 1,709 2,183 3,139 17,592 30,401 25,865 16,422 17,249 15,631 12,044 1,415 7,600 1994 692 1,521 7,130 20,751 26,772 15,711 17,419 13,891 9,370 6,950 2,330 1,038 1995 1,144 1,218 4,867 9,018

  3. Oregon 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 0 0 0 1,181 1,508 1,244 764 636 372 188 0 0 1991 0 0 0 0 713 1,554 1,458 1,092 674 339 23 0 1992 0 0 0 0 1,572 1,540 1,194 1,010 453 195 0 149 1993 0 0 0 0 1,636 1,291 1,175 1,036 575 487 0 0 1994 0 0 0 0 1,216 1,506 1,202 1,081 688 264 0 0 1995 0 182 0 867 1,179 1,034 695 0 490 0 0 0 1996 - - - - 841 1,365 1,318 509 121 262 - - 1997 0 24 0 0 1,300 1,681 1,301 1,178 411 97 267 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 1,968 1,188 1,143 1,141 28 0 205 1999 0 0 0 0

  4. Pennsylvania 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 13,295 9,924 21,742 28,238 51,655 57,413 51,832 54,045 43,121 22,964 20,337 14,002 1991 73,993 63,063 44,655 46,683 64,031 52,754 59,771 61,123 70,362 55,270 57,416 58,249 1992 7,189 3,229 6,490 28,679 50,918 60,273 46,504 57,126 51,685 38,133 24,553 8,982 1993 5,815 1,906 9,046 31,461 62,602 58,643 54,419 47,350 54,543 27,811 19,970 8,144 1994 772 4,575 12,272 40,407 57,110 58,758 53,083 45,208 27,767 23,356 8,648 7,555 1995

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. Injections of Natural Gas into Underground Storage - All Operators

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

    3,291,395 3,421,813 2,825,427 3,155,661 3,838,826 3,638,954 1935-2015 Alaska 1973-1975 Alaska 15,054 11,675 9,161 2013-2015 Lower 48 States 3,421,813 2,825,427 3,047,153 3,827,150 3,629,792 2011-2015 Alabama 23,026 22,766 21,195 17,966 34,286 33,004 1968-2015 Arkansas 4,672 4,628 2,848 3,112 3,398 3,318 1967-2015 California 226,810 263,067 218,663 182,046 280,516 206,774 1967-2015 Colorado 43,250 51,469 59,096 66,935 72,510 69,983 1967-2015 Connecticut 1973-1996 Delaware 1967-1975 Georgia

  11. Iowa 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 49,603 57,082 43,037 1970's 46,301 53,186 53,137 57,011 56,505 59,065 55,005 71,002 68,772 70,967 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 66,202 67,017 70,097 66,827 68,750 70,329 70,022 79,012 2010's 76,407 77,783 66,774 71,793 80,866 71,767

  12. 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 93,460 103,676 111,853 110,750

  13. 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

  14. Louisiana 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 47,474 33,037 58,753 1970's 110,680 132,263 84,201 151,287 81,960 149,966 132,724 144,053 155,450 140,433 1980's 134,386 212,267 177,194 148,679 193,096 184,351 174,222 188,110 194,251 178,222 1990's 200,183 178,002 193,051 229,568 224,525 209,575 249,153 302,324 321,681 261,763 2000's 242,566 351,853 282,824 314,609 296,365 273,161 291,259 272,581 287,449 315,872 2010's 343,090 342,092 270,858 328,452

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. Virginia 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 303 22 31 220 304 296 185 322 301 225 78 84 1999 326 59 50 220 278 267 249 236 414 109 45 125 2000 127 269 47 282 291 224 222 222 350 299 62 60 2001 83 244 244 434 532 402 274 322 362 275 242 25 2002 95 92 0 186 683 339 344 283 434 327 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 599 566 319 458 699 560 923 747 783 834 2,614

  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. 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

  1. 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

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

    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 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...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 1,869 1,563 3,711 4,231 6,916 10,157 8,932 7,141 5,172 2,549 1,879 1991 539 1,202 1,845 5,002 7,611 7,983 9,509 8,881...

  4. New York Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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...

  5. Chemical tailoring of steam to remediate underground mixed waste contaminents

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Aines, Roger D. (Livermore, CA); Udell, Kent S. (Berkeley, CA); Bruton, Carol J. (Livermore, CA); Carrigan, Charles R. (Tracy, CA)

    1999-01-01

    A method to simultaneously remediate mixed-waste underground contamination, such as organic liquids, metals, and radionuclides involves chemical tailoring of steam for underground injection. Gases or chemicals are injected into a high pressure steam flow being injected via one or more injection wells to contaminated soil located beyond a depth where excavation is possible. The injection of the steam with gases or chemicals mobilizes contaminants, such as metals and organics, as the steam pushes the waste through the ground toward an extraction well having subatmospheric pressure (vacuum). The steam and mobilized contaminants are drawn in a substantially horizontal direction to the extraction well and withdrawn to a treatment point above ground. The heat and boiling action of the front of the steam flow enhance the mobilizing effects of the chemical or gas additives. The method may also be utilized for immobilization of metals by using an additive in the steam which causes precipitation of the metals into clusters large enough to limit their future migration, while removing any organic contaminants.

  6. Dynamic underground stripping demonstration project. Interim engineering report

    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.

  7. Direct Probing of Charge Injection and Polarization-Controlled Ionic Mobility on Ferroelectric LiNbO3 Surfaces

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Strelcov, Evgheni; Ievlev, Dr. Anton; Jesse, Stephen; Kravchenko, Ivan I; Shur, V.Y.; Kalinin, Sergei V

    2014-01-01

    Mapping surface potential with time-resolved Kelvin Probe Force Microscopy (tr-KPFM) in LiNbO3 periodically-poled single crystal revealed activation of the surface ionic subsystem. Electric fields higher than certain threshold value but lower than the switching field induce injection of charge from the biased electrode, formation of an active region in its vicinity and uneven distribution of screening charge on the opposite ferroelectric domains. Tr-KPFM technique allows investigating these phenomena in details.

  8. The WIPP Underground Ventilation System

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

    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...

  9. Underground pumped hydroelectric storage

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1984-07-01

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

  10. Method of locating underground mines fires

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Laage, Linneas (Eagam, MN); Pomroy, William (St. Paul, MN)

    1992-01-01

    An improved method of locating an underground mine fire by comparing the pattern of measured combustion product arrival times at detector locations with a real time computer-generated array of simulated patterns. A number of electronic fire detection devices are linked thru telemetry to a control station on the surface. The mine's ventilation is modeled on a digital computer using network analysis software. The time reguired to locate a fire consists of the time required to model the mines' ventilation, generate the arrival time array, scan the array, and to match measured arrival time patterns to the simulated patterns.

  11. Use of a Naphthalene-Based Binder in Injection Molding Net-Shape Titanium Components of Controlled Porosity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Weil, K. Scott; Nyberg, Eric A.; Simmons, Kevin L.

    2005-07-01

    We have recently developed a naphthalene-based binder system for use in powder injection molding (PIM) of ceramic and metallic materials. The use of a binder that can be removed via sublimation offers several unique advantages relative to the typical thermoplastic and/or thermoset binders employed in PIM. One of these is that essentially no volume change takes place during debindering. This offers a relatively facile method of introducing porosity into a net-shape part of potentially complex geometry. In the study described in this paper, the effects of powder loading and subsequent isostatic compaction on the size and amount of porosity in the components produced by this technique were investigated. In general, it was found that the amount of porosity is inversely proportional to the initial concentration of metal powder in the PIM feedstock. Likewise, average pore size displays a similar relationship with powder loading.

  12. Investigation and demonstration of dry carbon-based sorbent injection for mercury control. Quarterly technical report, April 1--June 30, 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hunt, T.; Sjostrom, S.; Smith, J.; Chang, R.

    1996-07-27

    The overall objective this two phase program is to investigate the use of dry carbon-based sorbents for mercury control. During Phase 1, a bench-scale field test device that can be configured as an electrostatic precipitator, a pulse-jet baghouse, or a reverse-gas baghouse has been designed and will be integrated with an existing pilot-scale facility at PSCo`s Comanche Station. Up to three candidate sorbents will then be injected into the flue gas stream upstream of the test device to determine the mercury removal efficiency for each sorbent. During the Phase 11 effort, component integration for the most promising dry sorbent technology (technically and economically feasible) shall be tested at the 5000 acfm pilot-scale. An extensive work plan has been developed for the project. Three sorbents will be selected for evaluation at the facility through investigation, presentation, and discussion among team members: PSCO, EPRI, ADA, and DOE. The selected sorbents will be tested in the five primary bench-scale configurations: pulse `et baghouse, TOXECON, reverse-gas baghouse, electrostatic precipitator, and an ESP or fabric filter `with no Comanche ash in the flue gas stream. In the EPRI TOXECON system, mercury sorbents will be injected downstream of a primary particulate control device, and collected in a pulse-jet baghouse operated at air-to-cloth ratios of 12 to 16 ft/min, thus separating the mercury and sorbent from the captured flyash. In the no-ash configuration, an external flyash sample will be injected into a clean gas stream to investigate possible variations in sorbent effectiveness in the presence of different ashes. The use of an existing test facility, a versatile design for the test fixture, and installation of a continuous mercury analyzer will allow for the completion of this ambitious test plan. The primary activity during the quarter was to complete fabrication and installation of the facility.

  13. Logistics background study: underground mining

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hanslovan, J. J.; Visovsky, R. G.

    1982-02-01

    Logistical functions that are normally associated with US underground coal mining are investigated and analyzed. These functions imply all activities and services that support the producing sections of the mine. The report provides a better understanding of how these functions impact coal production in terms of time, cost, and safety. Major underground logistics activities are analyzed and include: transportation and personnel, supplies and equipment; transportation of coal and rock; electrical distribution and communications systems; water handling; hydraulics; and ventilation systems. Recommended areas for future research are identified and prioritized.

  14. 2009 underground/longwall mining buyer's guide

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2009-06-15

    The guide lists US companies supplying equipment and services to underground mining operations. An index by product category is included.

  15. High Temperature Superconducting Underground Cable

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Farrell, Roger, A.

    2010-02-28

    The purpose of this Project was to design, build, install and demonstrate the technical feasibility of an underground high temperature superconducting (HTS) power cable installed between two utility substations. In the first phase two HTS cables, 320 m and 30 m in length, were constructed using 1st generation BSCCO wire. The two 34.5 kV, 800 Arms, 48 MVA sections were connected together using a superconducting joint in an underground vault. In the second phase the 30 m BSCCO cable was replaced by one constructed with 2nd generation YBCO wire. 2nd generation wire is needed for commercialization because of inherent cost and performance benefits. Primary objectives of the Project were to build and operate an HTS cable system which demonstrates significant progress towards commercial progress and addresses real world utility concerns such as installation, maintenance, reliability and compatibility with the existing grid. Four key technical areas addressed were the HTS cable and terminations (where the cable connects to the grid), cryogenic refrigeration system, underground cable-to-cable joint (needed for replacement of cable sections) and cost-effective 2nd generation HTS wire. This was the world’s first installation and operation of an HTS cable underground, between two utility substations as well as the first to demonstrate a cable-to-cable joint, remote monitoring system and 2nd generation HTS.

  16. Investigation and demonstration of dry carbon-based sorbent injection for mercury control. Quarterly technical report, July 1, 1996--September 31, 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hunt, T.; Sjostrom, S.; Smith, J.

    1996-11-06

    The overall objective of this two phase program is to investigate the use of dry carbon-based sorbents for mercury control. This information is important to the utility industry in anticipation of pending regulations. During Phase I, a bench-scale field test device that can be configured as an electrostatic precipitator, a pulse-jet baghouse, or a reverse-gas baghouse has been designed, built and integrated with an existing pilot-scale facility at PSCo`s Comanche Station. Up to three candidate sorbents will be injected into the flue gas stream upstream of the test device to and mercury concentration measurements will be made to determine the mercury removal efficiency for each sorbent. During the Phase II effort, component integration for the most promising dry sorbent technology shall be tested at the 5000 acfm pilot-scale.

  17. Feasibility study results for dry sorbent furnace injection for SO sub 2 control Prairie Creek No. 4 Iowa Electric Light and Power Company

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, P.V. ); Rehrauer, H.W. )

    1991-01-01

    As a result of the recent passage of new amendments to the Clean Air Act, many U.S. power plants will be required to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO{sub 2}) emissions. Iowa Electric Light and Power (IELP) was interested in investigating a number of options that will allow Prairie Creek Unit 4 to operate in compliance with these new regulations. One of these options was Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI), a relatively simple and low cost retrofit technique, useful for controlling SO{sub 2} concentrations in coal combustion flue gas. The purpose of the program was to obtain operational data necessary to aid in the identification and assessment of DSI options that have a high potential for successful application. This paper contains a summary and analysis of the data obtained during the test effort. It also contains a discussion of the results of each of the major tasks undertaken to accomplish this feasibility study.

  18. Fuel Formulation Effects on Diesel Fuel Injection, Combustion...

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

    Formulation Effects on Diesel Fuel Injection, Combustion, Emissions and Emission Control Fuel Formulation Effects on Diesel Fuel Injection, Combustion, Emissions and Emission ...

  19. Method and apparatus for constructing an underground barrier wall structure

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Dwyer, Brian P.; Stewart, Willis E.; Dwyer, Stephen F.

    2002-01-01

    A method and apparatus for constructing a underground barrier wall structure using a jet grout injector subassembly comprising a pair of primary nozzles and a plurality of secondary nozzles, the secondary nozzles having a smaller diameter than the primary nozzles, for injecting grout in directions other than the primary direction, which creates a barrier wall panel having a substantially uniform wall thickess. This invention addresses the problem of the weak "bow-tie" shape that is formed during conventional jet injection when using only a pair of primary nozzles. The improvement is accomplished by using at least four secondary nozzles, of smaller diameter, located on both sides of the primary nozzles. These additional secondary nozzles spray grout or permeable reactive materials in other directions optimized to fill in the thin regions of the bow-tie shape. The result is a panel with increased strength and substantially uniform wall thickness.

  20. Economic comparison of passively conditioned underground houses. Master's thesis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Guy, H.L.

    1981-05-01

    The availability of cheap energy sources and the perfection of inexpensive, convenient heating and cooling systems has made the 'climate controlled' environment an integral and irreversible part of American life. However, the current shortage and high cost of fuel is threatening the quality and perhaps the availability of the climate-controlled environment. To prolong the life of the climate controlled environment, the national policy has been one of promoting conservation of the fuels that are available and promoting alternative energy systems that are often of high technology or of energy intensive materials. Fortunately, a grass roots response to the lack of energy has been an increase in the interest and construction of underground or earth-sheltered housing. The underground house, featuring a covering of earth on walls and roof, offers a high degree of energy conservation through low technology construction and the use of low energy intensive materials.

  1. Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility

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

    Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility Biomass 2014 Demand-Developing Biomarkets Fostering Technology Adoption I: Building the Market for Renewables with High Octane Fuels July 29, 2014 Ryan Haerer EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks 1 Storing High Octane Fuels in Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)  Mid range E20-E30 high octane fuels being considered as possible path forward  Storing high octane ethanol blended fuels will require careful consideration of material

  2. Cryogenic slurry for extinguishing underground fires

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Chaiken, Robert F. (Pittsburgh, PA); Kim, Ann G. (Pittsburgh, PA); Kociban, Andrew M. (Wheeling, WV); Slivon, Jr., Joseph P. (Tarentum, PA)

    1994-01-01

    A cryogenic slurry comprising a mixture of solid carbon dioxide particles suspended in liquid nitrogen is provided which is useful in extinguishing underground fires.

  3. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  4. ,"Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  7. ,"Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  8. ,"California Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  9. ,"Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

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

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  11. ,"Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  12. ,"Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  13. ,"Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals ...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  14. ,"Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

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

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

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

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  17. ,"Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  18. ,"Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  19. ,"Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  20. ,"Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  1. ,"Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

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

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

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

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  4. ,"Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

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

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

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

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  7. ,"Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  8. ,"Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  9. ,"Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  10. ,"Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  11. ,"Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  12. Weekly Working Gas in Underground Storage

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

    company data. Notes: This table tracks U.S. natural gas inventories held in underground storage facilities. The weekly stocks generally are the volumes of working gas as...

  13. Westinghouse Again Recognized For Safe Underground Operations...

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

    and operating contractor for DOE at WIPP. The company's underground operations include mining, hoisting, maintenance, engineering and other related activities. The Certificate of...

  14. ,"Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity "

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

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

  15. Underground storage tank management plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1994-09-01

    The Underground Storage Tank (UST) Management Program at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant was established to locate UST systems in operation at the facility, to ensure that all operating UST systems are free of leaks, and to establish a program for the removal of unnecessary UST systems and upgrade of UST systems that continue to be needed. The program implements an integrated approach to the management of UST systems, with each system evaluated against the same requirements and regulations. A common approach is employed, in accordance with Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) regulations and guidance, when corrective action is mandated. This Management Plan outlines the compliance issues that must be addressed by the UST Management Program, reviews the current UST inventory and compliance approach, and presents the status and planned activities associated with each UST system. The UST Management Plan provides guidance for implementing TDEC regulations and guidelines for petroleum UST systems. (There are no underground radioactive waste UST systems located at Y-12.) The plan is divided into four major sections: (1) regulatory requirements, (2) implementation requirements, (3) Y-12 Plant UST Program inventory sites, and (4) UST waste management practices. These sections describe in detail the applicable regulatory drivers, the UST sites addressed under the Management Program, and the procedures and guidance used for compliance with applicable regulations.

  16. RAPID/Roadmap/14-NM-c | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Geothermal Hydropower Solar Tools Contribute Contact Us Underground Injection Control Permit (14-NM-c) The Underground Injection Control (UIC) Permit process in New Mexico...

  17. Light duty remote manipulator for underground storage tank inspection and characterization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kruse, P.W.; Carteret, B.A.

    1994-12-31

    The Light Duty Utility Arm (LDUA) is a remote manipulator which is being designed and fabricated to perform surveillance and characterization activities in support of the remediation of underground storage tanks at the Hanford site as well as other DOE sites. The LDUA is a highly dexterous manipulator which utilizes an advanced control system to safely and reliably deploy a series of sensors to characterize underground storage tanks.

  18. DOE - Office of Legacy Management -- Hoe Creek Underground Coal...

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    Hoe Creek Underground Coal Gasification Site - 045 FUSRAP Considered Sites Site: Hoe Creek Underground Coal Gasification Site (045) Designated Name: Alternate Name: Location: ...

  19. Montana Underground Storage Tanks Webpage | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Underground Storage Tanks Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Montana Underground Storage Tanks Webpage Abstract Provides overview...

  20. Alaska Underground Storage Tanks Website | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Underground Storage Tanks Website Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Alaska Underground Storage Tanks Website Author Division of Spill...

  1. Hawaii Department of Health Underground Storage Tank Webpage...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Underground Storage Tank Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Hawaii Department of Health Underground Storage Tank Webpage Abstract...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  3. Nevada National Security Site Underground Test Area (UGTA) Flow...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Nevada National Security Site Underground Test Area (UGTA) Flow and Transport Modeling - ... Video Presentation PDF icon Nevada National Security Site Underground Test Area (UGTA) ...

  4. Nevada Underground Tank Program Webpage | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Underground Tank Program Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Nevada Underground Tank Program Webpage Abstract Provides overview of...

  5. New model more accurately tracks gases for underground nuclear...

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

    underground nuclear explosion detection Scientists have developed a new, more thorough method for detecting underground nuclear explosions by coupling two fundamental...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

    Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  16. Eastern Consuming Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net...

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

    Eastern Consuming Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Eastern Consuming Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  5. South Central Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume ...

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

    South Central Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) South Central Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar...

  6. Western Consuming Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net...

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

    Western Consuming Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Western Consuming Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  13. AGA Producing Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

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

    AGA Producing Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Producing Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic...

  14. South Central Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

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

    Central Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) South Central Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  16. NAC - 534 Underground Water and Wells | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    - 534 Underground Water and Wells Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: NAC - 534 Underground Water and...

  17. Foams and surfactants for improved underground storage of natural gas by blockage of water cooling

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, D.H.; Jikich, S.A.

    1993-12-31

    Foam blockage to alleviate water coning during the retrieval stage appears to be the simplest, least expensive, and most easily commercialized foam-based technology for improving the underground storage of natural gas. This paper describes effects of injection rate, surfactant concentration, NaCl salinity, and divalent ions on measured aqueous-phase and gaseous-phase relative permeabilities, as well as why these data are needed for modeling the process and designing single-well field tests.

  18. Geophysical monitoring of active hydrologic processes as part of the Dynamic Underground Stripping Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Newmark, R.L.

    1992-05-01

    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, in collaboration with University of California at Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, is conducting the Dynamic Underground Stripping Project (DUSP), an integrated project demonstrating the use of active thermal techniques to remove subsurface organic contamination. Complementary techniques address a number of environmental restoration problems: (1) steam flood strips organic contaminants from permeable zones, (2) electrical heating drives contaminants from less permeable zones into the more permeable zones from which they can be extracted, and (3) geophysical monitoring tracks and images the progress of the thermal fronts, providing feedback and control of the active processes. The first DUSP phase involved combined steam injection and vapor extraction in a ``clean`` site in the Livermore Valley consisting of unconsolidated alluvial interbeds of clays, sands and gravels. Steam passed rapidly through a high-permeability gravel unit, where in situ temperatures reached 117{degree}C. An integrated program of geophysical monitoring was carried out at the Clean Site. We performed electrical resistance tomography (ERT), seismic tomography (crossborehole), induction tomography, passive seismic monitoring, a variety of different temperature measurement techniques and conventional geophysical well logging.

  19. Geophysical monitoring of active hydrologic processes as part of the Dynamic Underground Stripping Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Newmark, R.L.

    1992-05-01

    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, in collaboration with University of California at Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, is conducting the Dynamic Underground Stripping Project (DUSP), an integrated project demonstrating the use of active thermal techniques to remove subsurface organic contamination. Complementary techniques address a number of environmental restoration problems: (1) steam flood strips organic contaminants from permeable zones, (2) electrical heating drives contaminants from less permeable zones into the more permeable zones from which they can be extracted, and (3) geophysical monitoring tracks and images the progress of the thermal fronts, providing feedback and control of the active processes. The first DUSP phase involved combined steam injection and vapor extraction in a clean'' site in the Livermore Valley consisting of unconsolidated alluvial interbeds of clays, sands and gravels. Steam passed rapidly through a high-permeability gravel unit, where in situ temperatures reached 117{degree}C. An integrated program of geophysical monitoring was carried out at the Clean Site. We performed electrical resistance tomography (ERT), seismic tomography (crossborehole), induction tomography, passive seismic monitoring, a variety of different temperature measurement techniques and conventional geophysical well logging.

  20. The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage

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

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

  1. False Radiological Alarm in WIPP Underground

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

    At approximately 7:40 a.m. Mountain Time today, a portable continuous air monitor (CAM) alarm activated in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) underground. Shortly after...

  2. Underground infrastructure damage for a Chicago scenario

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dey, Thomas N; Bos, Rabdall J

    2011-01-25

    Estimating effects due to an urban IND (improvised nuclear device) on underground structures and underground utilities is a challenging task. Nuclear effects tests performed at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) during the era of nuclear weapons testing provides much information on how underground military structures respond. Transferring this knowledge to answer questions about the urban civilian environment is needed to help plan responses to IND scenarios. Explosions just above the ground surface can only couple a small fraction of the blast energy into an underground shock. The various forms of nuclear radiation have limited penetration into the ground. While the shock transmitted into the ground carries only a small fraction of the blast energy, peak stresses are generally higher and peak ground displacement is lower than in the air blast. While underground military structures are often designed to resist stresses substantially higher than due to the overlying rocks and soils (overburden), civilian structures such as subways and tunnels would generally only need to resist overburden conditions with a suitable safety factor. Just as we expect the buildings themselves to channel and shield air blast above ground, basements and other underground openings as well as changes of geology will channel and shield the underground shock wave. While a weaker shock is expected in an urban environment, small displacements on very close-by faults, and more likely, soils being displaced past building foundations where utility lines enter could readily damaged or disable these services. Immediately near an explosion, the blast can 'liquefy' a saturated soil creating a quicksand-like condition for a period of time. We extrapolate the nuclear effects experience to a Chicago-based scenario. We consider the TARP (Tunnel and Reservoir Project) and subway system and the underground lifeline (electric, gas, water, etc) system and provide guidance for planning this scenario.

  3. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  4. Silicone injection restores failing submarine cables

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tilstra, M.

    1995-12-01

    Faced with the prospect of replacing nearly 10 miles of aging undersea cables, Orcas Power & Light Co (Opalco) elected instead to inject silicone into as many of the cables as possible. Silicone injection has been used extensively on underground residential distribution (URD) and feeder cables, but only two underwater cables had previously been injected: a feeder cable for Florida Power Corp under an intercoastal waterway and a cable for Washington Water Power Co under a lake in western Idaho. The compound restores power cables damaged by water treeing and prevents further water damage. Selection criteria included age, type, and whether the cables had ever been spliced. Older, soldered, hand-wrapped splices were avoided as they block the CableCure fluid from flowing through. This makes the cable uninjectable unless the splices are replaced with the molded type. The first cables chosen for injection were between 15 and 30 years old and clear of soldered splices. They also were free from faults. 4 figs.

  5. Rich catalytic injection

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Veninger, Albert (Coventry, CT)

    2008-12-30

    A gas turbine engine includes a compressor, a rich catalytic injector, a combustor, and a turbine. The rich catalytic injector includes a rich catalytic device, a mixing zone, and an injection assembly. The injection assembly provides an interface between the mixing zone and the combustor. The injection assembly can inject diffusion fuel into the combustor, provides flame aerodynamic stabilization in the combustor, and may include an ignition device.

  6. Creating fluid injectivity in tar sands formations

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Stegemeier, George Leo; Beer, Gary Lee; Zhang, Etuan

    2012-06-05

    Methods for treating a tar sands formation are described herein. Methods for treating a tar sands may include heating a portion of a hydrocarbon layer in the formation from one or more heaters located in the portion. The heat may be controlled to increase the permeability of at least part of the portion to create an injection zone in the portion with an average permeability sufficient to allow injection of a fluid through the injection zone. A drive fluid and/or an oxidizing fluid may be provided into the injection zone. At least some hydrocarbons including mobilized hydrocarbons are produced from the portion.

  7. Creating fluid injectivity in tar sands formations

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Stegemeier, George Leo; Beer, Gary Lee; Zhang, Etuan

    2010-06-08

    Methods for treating a tar sands formation are described herein. Methods for treating a tar sands may include heating a portion of a hydrocarbon layer in the formation from one or more heaters located in the portion. The heat may be controlled to increase the permeability of at least part of the portion to create an injection zone in the portion with an average permeability sufficient to allow injection of a fluid through the injection zone. A drive fluid and/or an oxidizing fluid may be provided into the injection zone. At least some hydrocarbons are produced from the portion.

  8. Underground pipe inspection device and method

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Germata, Daniel Thomas (Wadsworth, IL)

    2009-02-24

    A method and apparatus for inspecting the walls of an underground pipe from inside the pipe in which an inspection apparatus having a circular planar platform having a plurality of lever arms having one end pivotably attached to one side of the platform, having a pipe inspection device connected to an opposite end, and having a system for pivoting the lever arms is inserted into the underground pipe, with the inspection apparatus oriented with the planar platform disposed perpendicular to the pipe axis. The plurality of lever arms are pivoted toward the inside wall of the pipe, contacting the inside wall with each inspection device as the apparatus is conveyed along a length of the underground pipe.

  9. Method for making generally cylindrical underground openings

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Routh, J.W.

    1983-05-26

    A rapid, economical and safe method for making a generally cylindrical underground opening such as a shaft or a tunnel is described. A borehole is formed along the approximate center line of where it is desired to make the underground opening. The borehole is loaded with an explodable material and the explodable material is detonated. An enlarged cavity is formed by the explosive action of the detonated explodable material forcing outward and compacting the original walls of the borehole. The enlarged cavity may be increased in size by loading it with a second explodable material, and detonating the second explodable material. The process may be repeated as required until the desired underground opening is made. The explodable material used in the method may be free-flowing, and it may be contained in a pipe.

  10. Potential underground risks associated with CAES.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kirk, Matthew F.; Webb, Stephen Walter; Broome, Scott Thomas; Pfeifle, Thomas W.; Grubelich, Mark Charles; Bauer, Stephen J.

    2010-10-01

    CAES in geologic media has been proposed to help 'firm' renewable energy sources (wind and solar) by providing a means to store energy when excess energy was available, and to provide an energy source during non-productive renewable energy time periods. Such a storage media may experience hourly (perhaps small) pressure swings. Salt caverns represent the only proven underground storage used for CAES, but not in a mode where renewable energy sources are supported. Reservoirs, both depleted natural gas and aquifers represent other potential underground storage vessels for CAES, however, neither has yet to be demonstrated as a functional/operational storage media for CAES.

  11. Cost and code study of underground buildings

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sterling, R.L.

    1981-01-01

    Various regulatory and financial implications for earth-sheltered houses and buildings are discussed. Earth-sheltered houses are covered in the most detail including discussions of building-code restrictions, HUD Minimum Property Standards, legal aspects, zoning restrictions, taxation, insurance, and home financing. Examples of the initial-cost elements in earth-sheltered houses together with projected life-cycle costs are given and compared to more-conventional energy-conserving houses. For larger-scale underground buildings, further information is given on building code, fire protection, and insurance provisions. Initial-cost information for five large underground buildings is presented together with energy-use information where available.

  12. Activated Carbon Injection

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2014-07-16

    History of the Clean Air Act and how the injection of carbon into a coal power plant's flu smoke can reduce the amount of mercury in the smoke.

  13. Liquid Propane Injection Applications

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Liquid propane injection technology meets manufacturing/assembly guidelines, maintenance/repair strategy, and regulations, with same functionality, horsepower, and torque as gasoline counterpart.

  14. Activated Carbon Injection

    ScienceCinema (OSTI)

    None

    2014-07-22

    History of the Clean Air Act and how the injection of carbon into a coal power plant's flu smoke can reduce the amount of mercury in the smoke.

  15. RCW - 90.76 Underground Storage Tanks | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    - 90.76 Underground Storage Tanks Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: RCW - 90.76 Underground Storage...

  16. Notification for Underground Storage Tanks (EPA Form 7530-1)...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Notification for Underground Storage Tanks (EPA Form 7530-1) Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Form: Notification for Underground Storage Tanks...

  17. WAC - 173-360 Underground Storage Tank Regulations | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    60 Underground Storage Tank Regulations Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: WAC - 173-360 Underground Storage...

  18. Visit to the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2009-03-31

    U.S. Department of Energy scientists and administrators join members of the National Science Foundation and South Dakotas Sanford Underground Laboratory for the deepest journey yet to the proposed site of the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL).

  19. Visit to the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2009-01-01

    U.S. Department of Energy scientists and administrators join members of the National Science Foundation and South Dakotas Sanford Underground Laboratory for the deepest journey yet to the proposed site of the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL).

  20. Visit to the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory

    ScienceCinema (OSTI)

    None

    2010-01-08

    U.S. Department of Energy scientists and administrators join members of the National Science Foundation and South Dakotas Sanford Underground Laboratory for the deepest journey yet to the proposed site of the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL).

  1. NM Underground Storage Tank Registration | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Underground Storage Tank Registration Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- OtherOther: NM Underground Storage Tank RegistrationLegal...

  2. Accident Investigation of the February 5, 2014, Underground Salt...

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

    5, 2014, Underground Salt Haul Truck Fire at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Carlsbad NM Accident Investigation of the February 5, 2014, Underground Salt Haul Truck Fire at the...

  3. Lower 48 States Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million...

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

    Lower 48 States Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  4. NMSA 72-12 Underground Waters | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    12 Underground Waters Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- StatuteStatute: NMSA 72-12 Underground WatersLegal Abstract New Mexico...

  5. NRS Chapter 534 - Underground Water and Wells | Open Energy Informatio...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    - Underground Water and Wells Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- StatuteStatute: NRS Chapter 534 - Underground Water and WellsLegal...

  6. Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility | Department of

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

    Energy Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility Breakout Session 1C-Fostering Technology Adoption I: Building the Market for Renewables with High Octane Fuels Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility Ryan Haerer, Program Analyst, Alternative Fuels, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Environmental Protection Agency PDF icon haerer_biomass_2014.pdf More Documents & Publications Regulatory and Commercial

  7. Sandia Energy - Storing Hydrogen Underground Could Boost Transportatio...

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

    Storing Hydrogen Underground Could Boost Transportation, Energy Security Home Infrastructure Security Energy Transportation Energy Facilities Capabilities News News & Events...

  8. Underground natural gas storage reservoir management

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ortiz, I.; Anthony, R.

    1995-06-01

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

  9. Near-surface groundwater responses to injection of geothermal wastes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Arnold, S.C.

    1984-06-01

    This report assesses the feasibility of injection as an alternative for geothermal wastewater disposal and analyzes hydrologic controls governing the upward migration of injected fluids. Injection experiences at several geothermal developments are presented including the following: Raft River Valley, Salton Sea, East Mesa, Otake, Hatchobaru, and Ahuachapan geothermal fields.

  10. Ground Control Progress Continues at WIPP

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

    December 4, 2015 Ground Control Progress Continues at WIPP Underground Operations Personnel at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) have made significant progress since resuming...

  11. Integrated injection-locked semiconductor diode laser

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Hadley, G. Ronald (Albuquerque, NM); Hohimer, John P. (Albuquerque, NM); Owyoung, Adelbert (Albuquerque, NM)

    1991-01-01

    A continuous wave integrated injection-locked high-power diode laser array is provided with an on-chip independently-controlled master laser. The integrated injection locked high-power diode laser array is capable of continuous wave lasing in a single near-diffraction limited output beam at single-facet power levels up to 125 mW (250 mW total). Electronic steering of the array emission over an angle of 0.5 degrees is obtained by varying current to the master laser. The master laser injects a laser beam into the slave array by reflection of a rear facet.

  12. Integrated injection-locked semiconductor diode laser

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Hadley, G.R.; Hohimer, J.P.; Owyoung, A.

    1991-02-19

    A continuous wave integrated injection-locked high-power diode laser array is provided with an on-chip independently-controlled master laser. The integrated injection locked high-power diode laser array is capable of continuous wave lasing in a single near-diffraction limited output beam at single-facet power levels up to 125 mW (250 mW total). Electronic steering of the array emission over an angle of 0.5 degrees is obtained by varying current to the master laser. The master laser injects a laser beam into the slave array by reflection of a rear facet. 18 figures.

  13. Georgia Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    1974 1975 View History Net Withdrawals -90 -339 1974-1975 Injections 123 366 1974-1975 Withdrawals 33 27 1974...

  14. Connecticut Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    1994 1995 1996 View History Net Withdrawals 0 0 1973-1996 Injections 0 0 0 1973-1996 Withdrawals 0 0 0 1973-1996...

  15. Premixed direct injection disk

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    York, William David; Ziminsky, Willy Steve; Johnson, Thomas Edward; Lacy, Benjamin; Zuo, Baifang; Uhm, Jong Ho

    2013-04-23

    A fuel/air mixing disk for use in a fuel/air mixing combustor assembly is provided. The disk includes a first face, a second face, and at least one fuel plenum disposed therebetween. A plurality of fuel/air mixing tubes extend through the pre-mixing disk, each mixing tube including an outer tube wall extending axially along a tube axis and in fluid communication with the at least one fuel plenum. At least a portion of the plurality of fuel/air mixing tubes further includes at least one fuel injection hole have a fuel injection hole diameter extending through said outer tube wall, the fuel injection hole having an injection angle relative to the tube axis. The invention provides good fuel air mixing with low combustion generated NOx and low flow pressure loss translating to a high gas turbine efficiency, that is durable, and resistant to flame holding and flash back.

  16. The Sanford underground research facility at Homestake

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Heise, J.

    2014-06-24

    The former Homestake gold mine in Lead, South Dakota is being transformed into a dedicated laboratory to pursue underground research in rare-process physics, as well as offering research opportunities in other disciplines such as biology, geology and engineering. A key component of the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) is the Davis Campus, which is in operation at the 4850-foot level (4300 m.w.e) and currently hosts three projects: the LUX dark matter experiment, the MAJORANA DEMONSTRATOR neutrinoless double-beta decay experiment and the CUBED low-background counter. Plans for possible future experiments at SURF are well underway and include long baseline neutrino oscillation experiments, future dark matter experiments as well as nuclear astrophysics accelerators. Facility upgrades to accommodate some of these future projects have already started. SURF is a dedicated facility with significant expansion capability.

  17. Reliability assessment of underground shaft closure

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fossum, A.F.

    1994-12-31

    The intent of the WIPP, being constructed in the bedded geologic salt deposits of Southeastern New Mexico, is to provide the technological basis for the safe disposal of radioactive Transuranic (TRU) wastes generated by the defense programs of the United States. In determining this technological basis, advanced reliability and structural analysis techniques are used to determine the probability of time-to-closure of a hypothetical underground shaft located in an argillaceous salt formation and filled with compacted crushed salt. Before being filled with crushed salt for sealing, the shaft provides access to an underground facility. Reliable closure of the shaft depends upon the sealing of the shaft through creep closure and recompaction of crushed backfill. Appropriate methods are demonstrated to calculate cumulative distribution functions of the closure based on laboratory determined random variable uncertainty in salt creep properties.

  18. Tevatron injection timing

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Saritepe, S.; Annala, G.

    1993-06-01

    Bunched beam transfer from one accelerator to another requires coordination and synchronization of many ramped devices. During collider operation timing issues are more complicated since one has to switch from proton injection devices to antiproton injection devices. Proton and antiproton transfers are clearly distinct sequences since protons and antiprotons circulate in opposite directions in the Main Ring (MR) and in the Tevatron. The time bumps are different, the kicker firing delays are different, the kickers and lambertson magnets are different, etc. Antiprotons are too precious to be used for tuning purposes, therefore protons are transferred from the Tevatron back into the Main Ring, tracing the path of antiprotons backwards. This tuning operation is called ``reverse injection.`` Previously, the reverse injection was handled in one supercycle. One batch of uncoalesced bunches was injected into the Tevatron and ejected after 40 seconds. Then the orbit closure was performed in the MR. In the new scheme the lambertson magnets have to be moved and separator polarities have to be switched, activities that cannot be completed in one supercycle. Therefore, the reverse injection sequence was changed. This involved the redefinition of TVBS clock event $D8 as MRBS $D8 thus making it possible to inject 6 proton batches (or coalesced bunches) and eject them one at a time on command, performing orbit closure each time in the MR. Injection devices are clock event driven. The TCLK is used as the reference clock. Certain TCLK events are triggered by the MR beam synchronized clock (MRBS) events. Some delays are measured in terms of MRBS ticks and MR revolutions. See Appendix A for a brief description of the beam synchronized clocks.

  19. Rotary steerable motor system for underground drilling

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Turner, William E.; Perry, Carl A.; Wassell, Mark E.; Barbely, Jason R.; Burgess, Daniel E.; Cobern, Martin E.

    2010-07-27

    A preferred embodiment of a system for rotating and guiding a drill bit in an underground bore includes a drilling motor and a drive shaft coupled to drilling motor so that drill bit can be rotated by the drilling motor. The system further includes a guidance module having an actuating arm movable between an extended position wherein the actuating arm can contact a surface of the bore and thereby exert a force on the housing of the guidance module, and a retracted position.

  20. Rotary steerable motor system for underground drilling

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Turner, William E.; Perry, Carl A.; Wassell, Mark E.; Barbely, Jason R.; Burgess, Daniel E.; Cobern, Martin E.

    2008-06-24

    A preferred embodiment of a system for rotating and guiding a drill bit in an underground bore includes a drilling motor and a drive shaft coupled to drilling motor so that drill bit can be rotated by the drilling motor. The system further includes a guidance module having an actuating arm movable between an extended position wherein the actuating arm can contact a surface of the bore and thereby exert a force on the housing of the guidance module, and a retracted position.

  1. Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    2013 2014 2015 View History Net Withdrawals 1973-1975 Net Withdrawals -7,796 -5,152 782 2013-2015 Injections 1973-1975 Injections 15,054 11,675 9,161 2013-2015 Withdrawals 7,259 6,523 9,943 2013

  2. Transonic Combustion ’ - Injection Strategy Development for...

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

    Transonic Combustion - Injection Strategy Development for Supercritical Gasoline Injection-Ignition in a Light Duty Engine Transonic Combustion - Injection Strategy ...

  3. Method of pressurizing and stabilizing rock by periodic and repeated injections of a settable fluid of finite gel strength

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Colgate, Stirling A. (4616 Ridgeway, Los Alamos, NM 87544)

    1983-01-01

    A finite region of overpressure can be created in solid underground formations by the periodic injection of a fluid that has finite gel strength that subsequently, after each injection, partially sets--i.e., equivalently becomes a very much stronger gel. A region of overpressure is a region in which the static, locked in pressure is larger than what was there before. A region of overpressure can be used to prevent a roof of a tunnel from caving by adding compressive stresses in the roof. A sequence of regions of overpressure can be used to lift an arch or dome underground, squeeze off water or gas flows, stabilize dams, foundations, large underground rooms, etc. In general, the stress or pressure distribution in rock can be altered and engineered in a fashion that is more advantageous than what would have been the case without overstressing.

  4. Method of pressurizing and stabilizing rock by periodic and repeated injections of a settable fluid of finite gel strength

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Colgate, S.A.

    1983-01-25

    A finite region of overpressure can be created in solid underground formations by the periodic injection of a fluid that has finite gel strength that subsequently, after each injection, partially sets--i.e., equivalently becomes a very much stronger gel. A region of overpressure is a region in which the static, locked in pressure is larger than what was there before. A region of overpressure can be used to prevent a roof of a tunnel from caving by adding compressive stresses in the roof. A sequence of regions of overpressure can be used to lift an arch or dome underground, squeeze off water or gas flows, stabilize dams, foundations, large underground rooms, etc. In general, the stress or pressure distribution in rock can be altered and engineered in a fashion that is more advantageous than what would have been the case without overstressing. 3 figs.

  5. U.S. Natural Gas Salt Underground Storage Activity-Injects (Million...

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 10,956 12,444 13,738 13,524 14,931 10,472 12,153 9,236 12,757 10,248 10,991 10,792 1995 13,745 13,232 15,992 17,283 17,654...

  6. U.S. Total 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 1973 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1974 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1975 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 220,000 190,000 98,000 38,000 1976 15,000 59,000 71,000 166,000 220,000 273,000 271,000 268,000 233,000 121,000 36,000 21,000 1977 17,000 97,000 181,000 247,000 318,000 306,000 336,000 280,000 253,000 152,000 81,000 40,000 1978 21,000 21,000 90,000 175,000 285,000 357,000 341,000 351,000 322,000 204,000 80,000 32,000 1979

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

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

    Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5540us2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5540us2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"2/26/2016 2:28:58 PM" "Back to

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

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

    Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5540us2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5540us2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"2/26/2016 2:28:57 PM" "Back to

  9. ,"U.S. Natural Gas Salt Underground Storage Activity-Injects (MMcf)"

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

    Annual",2015 ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5440us2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5440us2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"2/26/2016 2:28:55 PM" "Back to

  10. U.S. Natural Gas Non-Salt Underground Storage Injections (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 1990's 2,654,035 2,371,697 2,647,124 2,532,986 2,607,787 2,337,857 2000's 2,388,369 3,123,178 2,312,532 2,934,751 2,809,465 2,623,097 2,553,493 2,732,676 2,900,103 2,855,667 2010's 2,780,703 2,888,920 2,360,422 2,663,518 3,204,781 3,031,794

  11. U.S. Natural Gas Salt Underground Storage Activity-Injects (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 1990's 142,243 194,185 258,468 267,309 296,968 259,652 2000's 295,916 341,084 358,397 356,964 340,537 378,485 370,756 400,244 440,262 459,330 2010's 510,691 532,893 465,005 492,143 634,045 607,160

  12. U.S. Total 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 1930's 11,294 10,998 13,706 14,981 8,032 1940's 14,995 16,251 21,024 18,953 43,502 61,502 75,458 96,316 136,406 172,051 1950's 229,752 347,690 398,593 404,838 432,283 505,185 589,232 672,377 704,172 787,485 1960's 844,352 843,666 940,823 1,047,492 1,014,814 1,077,980 1,210,469 1,317,363 1,425,075 1,496,407 1970's 1,856,767 1,839,398 1,892,952 1,974,324 1,784,209 2,103,619 1,918,541 2,303,268 2,270,961

  13. New model more accurately tracks gases for underground nuclear explosion

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

    detection Model tracks gases for underground nuclear explosion detection New model more accurately tracks gases for underground nuclear explosion detection Scientists have developed a new, more thorough method for detecting underground nuclear explosions by coupling two fundamental elements-seismic models with gas-flow models. December 17, 2015 Los Alamos National Laboratory sits on top of a once-remote mesa in northern New Mexico with the Jemez mountains as a backdrop to research and

  14. DOE - NNSA/NFO -- Photo Library Underground Testing

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

    Underground Testing NNSA/NFO Language Options U.S. DOE/NNSA - Nevada Field Office Photo Library - Underground Testing Between 1951 and 1992, 828 underground nuclear tests were conducted in specially drilled shafts, horizontal tunnels and craters at the Nevada National Security Site. Most vertical shaft tests assisted in the development of new weapon systems. Horizontal tunnel tests occurred to evaluate the effects (radiation, ground shock) of various weapons on military hardware and systems.

  15. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Underground Natural Gas Storage

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

    Facilities Map Storage > U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Facilities Map About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Facilities, Close of 2007 more recent map U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Facilities, 2008 The EIA has determined that the informational map displays here do not raise security concerns, based on the application of the Federal Geographic Data Committee's

  16. Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (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 331 428 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators Wisconsin Underground Natural Gas

  17. DOE - Office of Legacy Management -- Hoe Creek Underground Coal

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    Gasification Site - 045 Hoe Creek Underground Coal Gasification Site - 045 FUSRAP Considered Sites Site: Hoe Creek Underground Coal Gasification Site (045) Designated Name: Alternate Name: Location: Evaluation Year: Site Operations: Site Disposition: Radioactive Materials Handled: Primary Radioactive Materials Handled: Radiological Survey(s): Site Status: The Hoe Creek Underground Gasification site occupies 80 acres of land located in Campbell County, Wyoming. The site was used to

  18. Investigation and demonstration of dry carbon-based sorbent injection for mercury control. Quarterly technical report, October 1--December 31, 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hunt, T.; Sjostrom, S.; Ruhl, J.; Smith, J.

    1997-01-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has 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 simulate an electrostatic precipitator, a pulse-jet fabric filter, and a reverse air fabric filter and uses actual flue gas from an operating coal-fired power plant. Up to 3 different dry carbon-based sorbents will be tested to determine the mercury removal capability in the different configurations. The project is currently in the fifth quarter of an eight quarter Phase I project. The PCM has been fabricated and mercury removal testing with the ESP configuration has been completed. Original plans included the use on an on-line meercury analyzer to collect the test data. However, due to very low baseline mercury concentration, on-line measurement did not provide accurate data. The project has continued using a modified MESA method grab sample technique to determine inlet and outlet mercury concentrations. A major concern during sorbent evaluations has been the natural ability of the flyash at the test site to remove mercury. This has made determination of sorbent only mercury removal difficult. Overall vapor-phase mercury removals of 15 to 70% have been obtained but this includes mercury removals in the range of 30% by the flyash. It is believed that a maximum of approximately 40% removal due to the sorbent only has been obtained. A number of test and sampling modifications are in progress to increase the data confidence and many questions remain. Startup of the pulse jet configuration began in early November but results of this testing are not available at this time. The project team has decided to proceed with pulse jet testing using flue gas that does not contain significant flyash quantities to further investigate the sorbent only mercury removal.

  19. Injection Laser System

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

    Injection Laser System For each of NIF's 192 beams: The pulse shape as a function of time must be generated with a high degree of precision The energy delivered to the target must be precise The energy must be delivered to the target at exactly the specified time NIF's injection laser system (ILS) plays a key role in meeting these three requirements. The ILS system is responsible for generating a prescribed pulse shape, adjusting the energy in each of the 192 beams, and adjusting the time it

  20. Fuel injection apparatus

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Suzuki, Y.; Kuroda, Y.; Ogata, K.

    1988-07-12

    A fuel injection apparatus is described for injecting fuel responsive to a rotary speed of an engine by utilizing the pressure of compressed air, the apparatus comprising means for regulating the supplying time of the compressed air responsive to at least one of the rotary speed of the engine and the load of the engine, and the regulating means including means for supplying the compressed air for a longer time at least one of low rotary speed and low load of the engine than at least one of high rotary speed and high load of the engine.

  1. Reaching Underground Sources (from MIT Energy Initiative's Energy...

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

    Reaching Underground Sources (from MIT Energy Initiative's Energy Futures, Spring 2012) American Fusion News Category: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Link: Reaching ...

  2. WSDE Underground Storage Tank Program webpage | Open Energy Informatio...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: WSDE Underground Storage Tank Program webpage Author Washington State Department of Ecology Published...

  3. Caging the dragon: the containment of underground nuclear explosions

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Carothers, J.

    1995-06-01

    The science of the containment of U.S. underground tests is documented through a series of interviews of leading containment scientists and engineers.

  4. EA-1943: Long Baseline Neutrino Facility/Deep Underground Neutrino...

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

    May 27, 2015 EA-1943: Draft Environmental Assessment Long Baseline Neutrino FacilityDeep Underground Neutrino Experiment (LBNFDUNE) at Fermilab, Batavia, Illinois and the...

  5. Utah Underground Storage Tank Installation Permit | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Storage Tank Installation Permit Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Form: Utah Underground Storage Tank Installation Permit Form Type Application...

  6. Utah Division of Environmental Response and Remediation Underground...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Environmental Response and Remediation Underground Storage Tank Branch Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Utah Division of...

  7. Analysis of Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Underground and...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) Analysis of Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Underground and MgO Samples by the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) This...

  8. Last U.S. Underground Nuclear Test Conducted | National Nuclear...

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    U.S. Underground Nuclear Test Conducted | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing...

  9. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

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

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

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

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

  11. ,"U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    Total Underground Storage",6,"Monthly","72015","01151973" ,"Data 2","Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year",2,"Monthly","72015","01151973" ,"Release...

  12. ,"U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators",3,"Annual",2014,"06301935" ,"Release Date:","09302015" ,"Next Release Date:","10302015" ,"Excel File...

  13. Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

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

    Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  14. ,"New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","102015" ,"Release Date:","12312015"...

  15. South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

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

    Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  16. ,"Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","102015" ,"Release Date:","12312015"...

  17. ,"Midwest Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

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

    Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest...

  18. North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  19. ,"East Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

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

    Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest...

  20. ,"New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","102015" ,"Release Date:","12312015" ,"Next...

  1. ,"Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","102015" ,"Release Date:","12312015"...

  2. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf...

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","102015" ,"Release Date:","12312015" ,"Next...

  3. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","102015" ,"Release Date:","12312015"...

  4. ,"Mountain Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

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

    Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest...

  5. ,"U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","102015" ,"Release Date:","12312015" ,"Next...

  6. ,"Pacific Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

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

    Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest...

  7. EM Takes Safe, Unique Approach to Underground Demolition at Hanford...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    largest of Hanford's experimental reactors used for developing and testing alternative fuels for the commercial nuclear power industry. Preparations to remove the underground...

  8. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Regional/State Underground...

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

    ... Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Source: Energy Information Administration, GasTran Natural Gas Transportation Information System, Underground Natural Gas Storage ...

  9. Additions to natural gas in underground storage to be nearly...

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

    Additions to natural gas in underground storage to be nearly 50% higher this summer Although it's still spring, natural gas supply companies and utilities are already preparing for ...

  10. Mixed Mode Fuel Injector And Injection System

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Stewart, Chris Lee; Tian, Ye; Wang, Lifeng; Shafer, Scott F.

    2005-12-27

    A fuel injector includes a homogenous charge nozzle outlet set and a conventional nozzle outlet set that are controlled respectively by first and second three way needle control valves. Each fuel injector includes first and second concentric needle valve members. One of the needle valve members moves to an open position for a homogenous charge injection event, while the other needle valve member moves to an open position for a conventional injection event. The fuel injector has the ability to operate in a homogenous charge mode with a homogenous charge spray pattern, a conventional mode with a conventional spray pattern or a mixed mode.

  11. $50 and up underground house book

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Oehler, M.

    1981-01-01

    Earth-sheltered housing can be livable, compatible with nature, and inexpensive. Plans and designs for low-cost houses that are integrated with their environment make up most of this book. The author begins by outlining 23 advantages of underground housing and describing the histories of several unconventional buildings in the $50 to $500 price range. He also suggests where building materials can be bought and scrounged, describes construction techniques, and explains how to cope with building codes. Sketches, floorplans, and photographs illustrate the text. 8 references, 4 tables. (DCK)

  12. Method and apparatus for injecting particulate media into the ground

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Dwyer, Brian P.; Dwyer, Stephen F.; Vigil, Francine S.; Stewart, Willis E.

    2004-12-28

    An improved method and apparatus for injecting particulate media into the ground for constructing underground permeable reactive barriers, which are used for environmental remediation of subsurface contaminated soil and water. A media injector sub-assembly attached to a triple wall drill string pipe sprays a mixture of active particulate media suspended in a carrier fluid radially outwards from the sub-assembly, at the same time that a mixing fluid is sprayed radially outwards. The media spray intersects the mixing spray at a relatively close distance from the point of injection, which entrains the particulate media into the mixing spray and ensures a uniform and deep dispersion of the active media in the surrounding soil. The media injector sub-assembly can optionally include channels for supplying compressed air to an attached down-the-hole hammer drive assembly for use during drilling.

  13. Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    01 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 View History Net Withdrawals -337 131 9 -42 426 16 1968-2006 Injections 556 63 336 262 0 1968-2005 Withdrawals 219 194 344 220 426 16 1968-2006

  14. Delaware Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    1969 1970 1971 1973 1975 View History Net Withdrawals 699 211 -189 -255 -549 1967-1975 Injections 179 391 189 255 2,012 1967-1975 Withdrawals 878 602 1,463 1967...

  15. Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    340 340 340 340 340 340 1997-2015 Base Gas 340 340 340 340 340 340 1997-2015 Working Gas 1997-2011 Net Withdrawals 1998-2006 Injections 1997-2005 Withdrawals 1997-2006 Change in...

  16. Electrically Injected UV-Visible Nanowire Lasers

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wang, George T.; Li, Changyi; Li, Qiming; Liu, Sheng; Wright, Jeremy Benjamin; Brener, Igal; Luk, Ting -Shan; Chow, Weng W.; Leung, Benjamin; Figiel, Jeffrey J.; Koleske, Daniel D.; Lu, Tzu-Ming

    2015-09-01

    There is strong interest in minimizing the volume of lasers to enable ultracompact, low-power, coherent light sources. Nanowires represent an ideal candidate for such nanolasers as stand-alone optical cavities and gain media, and optically pumped nanowire lasing has been demonstrated in several semiconductor systems. Electrically injected nanowire lasers are needed to realize actual working devices but have been elusive due to limitations of current methods to address the requirement for nanowire device heterostructures with high material quality, controlled doping and geometry, low optical loss, and efficient carrier injection. In this project we proposed to demonstrate electrically injected single nanowire lasers emitting in the important UV to visible wavelengths. Our approach to simultaneously address these challenges is based on high quality III-nitride nanowire device heterostructures with precisely controlled geometries and strong gain and mode confinement to minimize lasing thresholds, enabled by a unique top-down nanowire fabrication technique.

  17. Summary of the LLNL gasoline spill demonstration - dynamic underground stripping project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Newmark, R.L.; Aines, R.D.

    1995-04-03

    Underground spills of volatile hydrocarbons (solvents or fuels) can be difficult to clean up when the hydrocarbons are present both above and below the water table and are found in relatively impermeable clays. Years of groundwater pumping may not completely remove the contamination. Researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and the College of Engineering at the University of California at Berkeley (UCB) have collaborated to develop a technique called Dynamic Underground Stripping to remove localized underground spills in a relatively short time. The U.S. Department of Energy`s Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management has sponsored a full-scale demonstration of this technique at the LLNL gasoline spill site. When highly concentrated contamination is found above the standing water table, vacuum extraction has been very effective at both removing the contaminant and enhancing biological remediation through the addition of oxygen. Below the water table, however, these advantages cannot be obtained. For such sites where the contamination is too deep for excavation, there are currently no widely applicable cleanup methods. Dynamic Underground Stripping removes separate-phase organic contaminants below the water table by heating the subsurface above the boiling point of water, and then removing both contaminant and water by vacuum extraction. The high temperatures both convert the organic to vapor and enhance other removal paths by increasing diffusion and eliminating sorption. Because this method uses rapid, high-energy techniques in cleaning the soil, it requires an integrated system of underground monitoring and imaging methods to control and evaluate the process in real time.

  18. Permanent Closure of the TAN-664 Underground Storage Tank

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bradley K. Griffith

    2011-12-01

    This closure package documents the site assessment and permanent closure of the TAN-664 gasoline underground storage tank in accordance with the regulatory requirements established in 40 CFR 280.71, 'Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements for Owners and Operators of Underground Storage Tanks: Out-of-Service UST Systems and Closure.'

  19. MODELING UNDERGROUND STRUCTURE VULNERABILITY IN JOINTED ROCK

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    R. SWIFT; D. STEEDMAN

    2001-02-01

    The vulnerability of underground structures and openings in deep jointed rock to ground shock attack is of chief concern to military planning and security. Damage and/or loss of stability to a structure in jointed rock, often manifested as brittle failure and accompanied with block movement, can depend significantly on jointed properties, such as spacing, orientation, strength, and block character. We apply a hybrid Discrete Element Method combined with the Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics approach to simulate the MIGHTY NORTH event, a definitive high-explosive test performed on an aluminum lined cylindrical opening in jointed Salem limestone. Representing limestone with discrete elements having elastic-equivalence and explicit brittle tensile behavior and the liner as an elastic-plastic continuum provides good agreement with the experiment and damage obtained with finite-element simulations. Extending the approach to parameter variations shows damage is substantially altered by differences in joint geometry and liner properties.

  20. Hazard index for underground toxic material

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, C.F.; Cohen, J.J.; McKone, T.E.

    1980-06-01

    To adequately define the problem of waste management, quantitative measures of hazard must be used. This study reviews past work in the area of hazard indices and proposes a geotoxicity hazard index for use in characterizing the hazard of toxic material buried underground. Factors included in this index are: an intrinsic toxicity factor, formulated as the volume of water required for dilution to public drinking-water levels; a persistence factor to characterize the longevity of the material, ranging from unity for stable materials to smaller values for shorter-lived materials; an availability factor that relates the transport potential for the particular material to a reference value for its naturally occurring analog; and a correction factor to accommodate the buildup of decay progeny, resulting in increased toxicity.

  1. Fuel Formulation Effects on Diesel Fuel Injection, Combustion, Emissions

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

    and Emission Control | Department of Energy Formulation Effects on Diesel Fuel Injection, Combustion, Emissions and Emission Control Fuel Formulation Effects on Diesel Fuel Injection, Combustion, Emissions and Emission Control 2003 DEER Conference Presentation: The Pennsylvania State University PDF icon 2003_deer_boehman.pdf More Documents & Publications Fuel Impacts on Soot Nanostructure and Reactivity Effect of Alternative Fuels on Soot Properties and Regeneration of Diesel Particulate

  2. Alabama Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    6,286 -7,357 2,456 5,002 -5,603 -3,817 1968-2015 Injections 23,026 22,766 21,195 17,966 34,286 33,004 1968-2015 Withdrawals 16,740 15,408 23,651 22,968 28,683 29,187 1968

  3. Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    2,292 -1,721 2,383 -811 556 -1,304 1967-2015 Injections 14,384 15,592 10,582 14,165 20,362 17,373 1967-2015 Withdrawals 16,676 13,871 12,965 13,354 20,919 16,068

  4. Nebraska Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    1,043 -2,925 1,897 440 -278 -786 1967-2015 Injections 8,146 10,482 6,349 9,578 9,998 8,058 1967-2015 Withdrawals 9,189 7,557 8,247 10,018 9,720 7,272

  5. Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    263 -2,089 812 -317 6 -468 1967-2015 Injections 10,315 12,006 10,593 11,361 12,602 12,930 1967-2015 Withdrawals 11,578 9,917 11,405 11,044 12,608 12,462

  6. Washington Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    -2,099 -2,362 653 2,912 -3,458 4,545 1967-2015 Injections 25,968 27,946 25,183 28,208 29,058 25,789 1967-2015 Withdrawals 23,869 25,583 25,836 31,120 25,600 30,335

  7. Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    -2,323 -1,186 1,001 17,324 -10,730 -10,603 1967-2015 Injections 247,458 258,690 249,953 265,175 270,831 247,839 1967-2015 Withdrawals 245,135 257,504 250,955 282,499 260,100 237,236

  8. Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    511 -2,401 1,097 1,591 -841 -4,411 1967-2015 Injections 21,943 23,864 19,878 22,435 22,067 20,542 1967-2015 Withdrawals 22,454 21,463 20,975 24,026 21,226 16,130

  9. Iowa Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    2,037 -4,244 10,517 3,074 -7,424 -4,955 1967-2015 Injections 76,407 77,783 66,774 71,793 80,866 71,767 1967-2015 Withdrawals 78,444 73,538 77,291 74,867 73,442 66,812

  10. Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    8,484 -20,296 11,916 21,416 -15,614 -10,954 1967-2015 Injections 113,253 119,823 93,460 103,676 111,853 110,750 1967-2015 Withdrawals 121,737 99,527 105,376 125,092 96,239 99,796

  11. Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    2,159 -12,704 1,982 21,264 -5,015 -17,554 1967-2015 Injections 85,167 77,526 64,483 60,782 80,129 80,247 1967-2015 Withdrawals 87,326 64,822 66,464 82,045 75,114 62,694

  12. Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    8,293 6,636 -25,015 6,513 -569 -1,237 1967-2015 Injections 14,762 14,102 37,107 18,868 15,440 10,236 1967-2015 Withdrawals 23,055 20,737 12,092 25,382 14,871 8,998

  13. Underground nuclear energy complexes - technical and economic advantages

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Myers, Carl W; Kunze, Jay F; Giraud, Kellen M; Mahar, James M

    2010-01-01

    Underground nuclear power plant parks have been projected to be economically feasible compared to above ground instalIations. This paper includes a thorough cost analysis of the savings, compared to above ground facilities, resulting from in-place entombment (decommissioning) of facilities at the end of their life. reduced costs of security for the lifetime of the various facilities in the underground park. reduced transportation costs. and reduced costs in the operation of the waste storage complex (also underground). compared to the fair share of the costs of operating a national waste repository.

  14. Section 53: Consideration of Underground Sources of Drinking Water

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

    Underground Sources of Drinking Water (40 CFR § 194.53) United States Department of Energy Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, New Mexico Compliance Recertification Application 2014 Consideration of Underground Sources of Drinking Water (40 CFR § 194.53) Table of Contents 53.0 Consideration of Underground Sources of Drinking Water (40 CFR § 194.53) 53.1 Requirements 53.2 Background 53.3 1998 Certification Decision 53.4 Changes in the CRA-2004 53.5 EPA's Evaluation of

  15. Georgia Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Georgia Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (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 33 27 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators Georgia Underground Natural Gas Storage -

  16. Fact #720: March 26, 2012 Eleven Percent of New Light Trucks Sold have Gasoline Direct Injection

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Gasoline direct fuel injection (GDI) allows fuel to be injected directly into the cylinder so the timing and shape of the fuel mist can be controlled more precisely. The improved combustion and...

  17. Category:Injectivity Test | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Injectivity Test Jump to: navigation, search Geothermalpower.jpg Looking for the Injectivity Test page? For detailed information on Injectivity Test, click here....

  18. Waterflooding injectate design systems and methods (Patent) ...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Waterflooding injectate design systems and methods Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Waterflooding injectate design systems and methods A method of designing an injectate...

  19. An analysis of weep holes as a product detection device for underground compensated LPG storage systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sarica, C.; Demir, H.M.; Brill, J.P.

    1996-09-01

    Weep holes have been used widely to detect the presence of Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG) in brine for underground compensated storage systems. When the brine level drops below the weep hole, LPG product enters the brine production system causing an increase in both tubing head pressure and flow rate. To prevent cavern overfill, a cavern shutdown is initiated upon detection of LPG in the surface brine system by pressure or flow instruments at the tubing head. In this study, we have investigated the multiphase flow characteristics of weep hole LPG detection systems to correctly estimate the operating limits. A simple and easy to use model has been developed to predict the tubing head pressure and flow rate increases. The model can be used to implement safer and more efficient operation procedures for underground compensated LPG storage systems. The model predictions for a typical field case are presented. An analysis of weep holes as product detection devices for LPG storage reservoirs has been carried out. It was found that the increases in pressure and flow rates at the tubing head change as a function of injection flow rate of the product. Therefore, a thorough consideration of cavern operating parameters is necessary to evaluate the use constant pressure and flow rate values to initiate emergency shut down of the cavern.

  20. Nevada National Security Site Underground Test Area (UGTA) Flow and Transport Modeling – Approach and Example

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Nevada National Security Site Underground Test Area (UGTA) Flow and Transport Modeling – Approach and Example

  1. DUS II SOIL GAS SAMPLING AND AIR INJECTION TEST RESULTS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Noonkester, J.; Jackson, D.; Jones, W.; Hyde, W.; Kohn, J.; Walker, R.

    2012-09-20

    Soil vapor extraction (SVE) and air injection well testing was performed at the Dynamic Underground Stripping (DUS) site located near the M-Area Settling Basin (referred to as DUS II in this report). The objective of this testing was to determine the effectiveness of continued operation of these systems. Steam injection ended on September 19, 2009 and since this time the extraction operations have utilized residual heat that is present in the subsurface. The well testing campaign began on June 5, 2012 and was completed on June 25, 2012. Thirty-two (32) SVE wells were purged for 24 hours or longer using the active soil vapor extraction (ASVE) system at the DUS II site. During each test five or more soil gas samples were collected from each well and analyzed for target volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The DUS II site is divided into four parcels (see Figure 1) and soil gas sample results show the majority of residual VOC contamination remains in Parcel 1 with lesser amounts in the other three parcels. Several VOCs, including tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE), were detected. PCE was the major VOC with lesser amounts of TCE. Most soil gas concentrations of PCE ranged from 0 to 60 ppmv with one well (VEW-22A) as high as 200 ppmv. Air sparging (AS) generally involves the injection of air into the aquifer through either vertical or horizontal wells. AS is coupled with SVE systems when contaminant recovery is necessary. While traditional air sparging (AS) is not a primary component of the DUS process, following the cessation of steam injection, eight (8) of the sixty-three (63) steam injection wells were used to inject air. These wells were previously used for hydrous pyrolysis oxidation (HPO) as part of the DUS process. Air sparging is different from the HPO operations in that the air was injected at a higher rate (20 to 50 scfm) versus HPO (1 to 2 scfm). . At the DUS II site the air injection wells were tested to determine if air sparging affected VOC soil gas concentrations during ASVE. Five (5) SVE wells that were located closest to the air injection wells were used as monitoring points during the air sparging tests. The air sparging tests lasted 48 hours. Soil gas sample results indicate that sparging did not affect VOC concentrations in four of the five sparging wells, while results from one test did show an increase in soil gas concentrations.

  2. Underground Natural Gas Storage by Storage Type

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

    2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History All Operators Net Withdrawals -17,009 -347,562 -7,279 545,848 -252,958 -538,735 1967-2015 Injections 3,291,395 3,421,813 2,825,427 3,155,661 3,838,826 3,638,954 1935-2015 Withdrawals 3,274,385 3,074,251 2,818,148 3,701,510 3,585,867 3,100,219 1944-2015 Salt Cavern Storage Fields Net Withdrawals -58,295 -92,413 -19,528 28,713 -81,890 -56,095 1994-2015 Injections 510,691 532,893 465,005 492,143 634,045 607,160 1994-2015 Withdrawals 452,396 440,480 445,477

  3. Title 18 Alaska Administrative Code Chapter 78 Underground Storage...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    8 Underground Storage Tanks Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: Title 18 Alaska Administrative Code Chapter 78...

  4. ARM 17-56 - Underground Storage Tanks Petroleum and Chemical...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    6 - Underground Storage Tanks Petroleum and Chemical Substance Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: ARM 17-56 -...

  5. 30 TAC, part 1, chapter 334 Underground storage tanks general...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    34 Underground storage tanks general provisions Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: 30 TAC, part 1, chapter 334...

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

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

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

  7. ,"Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"1012015 11:00:54 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5070TX2"...

  8. ,"Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"01292016 2:35:48 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5070KS2"...

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

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

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

  10. Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0 0...

  11. Tennessee Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0...

  12. Texas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 134,707 134,707...

  13. Washington Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Washington Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 21,300 21,300...

  14. Alaska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 7,622 14,197...

  15. Utah Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 46,944 46,944...

  16. Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0...

  17. Missouri Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 21,600 21,600...

  18. Maryland Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 46,677 46,677...

  19. Indiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 74,572 74,572...

  20. Kentucky Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 105,889 105,889...

  1. Washington Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) ...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Washington Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 8,882...

  2. Missouri Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 8,081...

  3. Michigan Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 395,529 395,529...

  4. Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 115,418...

  5. Minnesota Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 4,655 4,655...

  6. North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million...

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

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7...

  7. New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All...

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

    Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3...

  8. Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 27,491...

  9. Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990...

  10. South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million...

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

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7...

  11. Ohio Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 338,916 338,916...

  12. New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8...

  13. Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8...

  14. Alabama Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1995 499 497...

  15. Wyoming Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 31,205 31,205...

  16. Ohio Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 100,467...

  17. Arkansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 19,202 19,202...

  18. Arkansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 8,676...

  19. Oklahoma Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 167,385 163,458...

  20. Oregon Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 3,291 3,291 3,291...

  1. Utah Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 12,862 9,993...

  2. Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 46,050...

  3. Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 262,136...

  4. Alabama Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1995 880 880 880 880...

  5. Nebraska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 55,226...

  6. Nebraska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 27,312 27,312...

  7. Iowa Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Iowa Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 153,933 153,933...

  8. Oklahoma Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 129,245...

  9. Oregon Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 3,705 2,366...

  10. Maryland Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 4,303...

  11. Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 39,062 39,062...

  12. Alaska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 8,956...

  13. Tennessee Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0...

  14. Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas)...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 33,234...

  15. Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working...

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

    Percent) Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 -4.5...

  16. New York Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) New York Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 88,911 88,911...

  17. New York Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working...

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

    Percent) New York Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 9.4...

  18. Premixed direct injection nozzle

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Zuo, Baifang (Simpsonville, SC); Johnson, Thomas Edward (Greer, SC); Lacy, Benjamin Paul (Greer, SC); Ziminsky, Willy Steve (Simpsonville, SC)

    2011-02-15

    An injection nozzle having a main body portion with an outer peripheral wall is disclosed. The nozzle includes a plurality of fuel/air mixing tubes disposed within the main body portion and a fuel flow passage fluidly connected to the plurality of fuel/air mixing tubes. Fuel and air are partially premixed inside the plurality of the tubes. A second body portion, having an outer peripheral wall extending between a first end and an opposite second end, is connected to the main body portion. The partially premixed fuel and air mixture from the first body portion gets further mixed inside the second body portion. The second body portion converges from the first end toward said second end. The second body portion also includes cooling passages that extend along all the walls around the second body to provide thermal damage resistance for occasional flame flash back into the second body.

  19. Underground Flow Measurement and Particle Release Test | Department of

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Energy Underground Flow Measurement and Particle Release Test Underground Flow Measurement and Particle Release Test This document was used to determine facts and conditions during the Department of Energy Accident Investigation Board's investigation into the radiological release event at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Additional documents referenced and listed in the Phase 2 Radiological Release Event at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant on February 14, 2014, report in Attachment F.

  20. Underground radio technology saves miners and emergency response personnel

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

    Underground radio technology saves miners and emergency response personnel Underground radio technology saves miners and emergency response personnel Founded through LANL, Vital Alert Technologies, Inc. (Vital Alert) has launched a wireless, two-way real-time voice communication system that is effective through 1,000+ feet of solid rock. April 3, 2012 Vital Alert's C1000 mine and tunnel radios use magnetic induction, advanced digital communications techniques and ultra-low frequency transmission