National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for underground injection wells

  1. 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...

  2. 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...

  3. 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...

  4. 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...

  5. 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

  6. 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...

  7. 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...

  8. 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...

  9. 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 -...

  10. 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...

  11. 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...

  12. 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...

  13. 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...

  14. 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...

  15. 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...

  16. 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...

  17. 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:...

  18. 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...

  19. 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...

  20. 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...

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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...

  5. 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...

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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:

  14. 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

  15. 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...

  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. 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...

  4. 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

  5. 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...

  6. GAS INJECTION/WELL STIMULATION PROJECT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    John K. Godwin

    2005-12-01

    Driver Production proposes to conduct a gas repressurization/well stimulation project on a six well, 80-acre portion of the Dutcher Sand of the East Edna Field, Okmulgee County, Oklahoma. The site has been location of previous successful flue gas injection demonstration but due to changing economic and sales conditions, finds new opportunities to use associated natural gas that is currently being vented to the atmosphere to repressurize the reservoir to produce additional oil. The established infrastructure and known geological conditions should allow quick startup and much lower operating costs than flue gas. Lessons learned from the previous project, the lessons learned form cyclical oil prices and from other operators in the area will be applied. Technology transfer of the lessons learned from both projects could be applied by other small independent operators.

  7. 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...

  8. 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...

  9. 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...

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

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

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

  11. Texas Water Code 27A General Provisions for Injection Wells ...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    WellsLegal Abstract These rules outline the requirements for construction and maintenance of injection wells in Texas. Published NA Year Signed or Took Effect 1977 Legal...

  12. ,"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"

  13. RRC - Injection/Disposal Well Permitting, Testing, and Monitoring...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    InjectionDisposal Well Permitting, Testing, and Monitoring manual Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library PermittingRegulatory Guidance - Guide...

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. Flow monitoring and control system for injection wells

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Corey, J.C.

    1991-01-01

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

  19. Fully Coupled Well Models for Fluid Injection and Production

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    White, Mark D.; Bacon, Diana H.; White, Signe K.; Zhang, Z. F.

    2013-08-05

    Wells are the primary engineered component of geologic sequestration systems with deep subsurface reservoirs. Wells provide a conduit for injecting greenhouse gases and producing reservoirs fluids, such as brines, natural gas, and crude oil, depending on the target reservoir. Well trajectories, well pressures, and fluid flow rates are parameters over which well engineers and operators have control during the geologic sequestration process. Current drilling practices provided well engineers flexibility in designing well trajectories and controlling screened intervals. Injection pressures and fluids can be used to purposely fracture the reservoir formation or to purposely prevent fracturing. Numerical simulation of geologic sequestration processes involves the solution of multifluid transport equations within heterogeneous geologic media. These equations that mathematically describe the flow of fluid through the reservoir formation are nonlinear in form, requiring linearization techniques to resolve. In actual geologic settings fluid exchange between a well and reservoir is a function of local pressure gradients, fluid saturations, and formation characteristics. In numerical simulators fluid exchange between a well and reservoir can be specified using a spectrum of approaches that vary from totally ignoring the reservoir conditions to fully considering reservoir conditions and well processes. Well models are a numerical simulation approach that account for local conditions and gradients in the exchange of fluids between the well and reservoir. As with the mathematical equations that describe fluid flow in the reservoir, variation in fluid properties with temperature and pressure yield nonlinearities in the mathematical equations that describe fluid flow within the well. To numerically simulate the fluid exchange between a well and reservoir the two systems of nonlinear multifluid flow equations must be resolved. The spectrum of numerical approaches for resolving these equations varies from zero coupling to full coupling. In this paper we describe a fully coupled solution approach for well model that allows for a flexible well trajectory and screened interval within a structured hexahedral computational grid. In this scheme the nonlinear well equations have been fully integrated into the Jacobian matrix for the reservoir conservation equations, minimizing the matrix bandwidth.

  20. Productivity and injectivity of horizontal wells. Quarterly report...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    99 MATHEMATICS, COMPUTERS, INFORMATION SCIENCE, MANAGEMENT, LAW, MISCELLANEOUS; OIL WELLS; DAMAGE; WELL DRILLING; WELL COMPLETION; EQUATIONS; PROGRESS REPORT This report...

  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. Final Report - Hydraulic Conductivity with Depth for Underground Test Area (UGTA) Wells

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    P. Oberlander; D. McGraw; C. Russell

    2007-10-31

    Hydraulic conductivity with depth has been calculated for Underground Test Area (UGTA) wells in volcanic tuff and carbonate rock. The following wells in volcanic tuff are evaluated: ER-EC-1, ER-EC-2a, ER-EC-4, ER-EC-5, ER-5-4#2, ER-EC-6, ER-EC-7, and ER-EC-8. The following wells in carbonate rock are evaluated: ER-7-1, ER-6-1, ER-6-1#2, and ER-12-3. There are a sufficient number of wells in volcanic tuff and carbonate rock to associate the conductivity values with the specific hydrogeologic characteristics such as the stratigraphic unit, hydrostratigraphic unit, hydrogeologic unit, lithologic modifier, and alteration modifier used to describe the hydrogeologic setting. Associating hydraulic conductivity with hydrogeologic characteristics allows an evaluation of the data range and the statistical distribution of values. These results are relevant to how these units are considered in conceptual models and represented in groundwater models. The wells in volcanic tuff illustrate a wide range of data values and data distributions when associated with specific hydrogeologic characteristics. Hydraulic conductivity data within a hydrogeologic characteristic can display normal distributions, lognormal distributions, semi-uniform distribution, or no identifiable distribution. There can be multiple types of distributions within a hydrogeologic characteristic such as a single stratigraphic unit. This finding has implications for assigning summary hydrogeologic characteristics to hydrostratigraphic and hydrogeologic units. The results presented herein are specific to the hydrogeologic characteristic and to the wells used to describe hydraulic conductivity. The wells in carbonate rock are associated with a fewer number of hydrogeologic characteristics. That is, UGTA wells constructed in carbonate rock have tended to be in similar hydrogeologic materials, and show a wide range in hydraulic conductivity values and data distributions. Associations of hydraulic conductivity and hydrogeologic characteristics are graphically presented even when there are only a few data. This approach benchmarks what is currently known about the association of depth-specific hydraulic conductivity and hydrogeologic characteristics.

  3. Carbon Sequestration Partner Initiates Drilling of CO2 Injection Well in

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

    Illinois Basin | Department of Energy Sequestration Partner Initiates Drilling of CO2 Injection Well in Illinois Basin Carbon Sequestration Partner Initiates Drilling of CO2 Injection Well in Illinois Basin February 17, 2009 - 12:00pm Addthis Washington, D.C. -- The Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC), one of seven regional partnerships created by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to advance carbon sequestration technologies nationwide, has begun drilling the injection well

  4. Modeling Single Well Injection-Withdrawal (SWIW) Tests for Characterization of Complex Fracture-Matrix Systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cotte, F.P.; Doughty, C.; Birkholzer, J.

    2010-11-01

    The ability to reliably predict flow and transport in fractured porous rock is an essential condition for performance evaluation of geologic (underground) nuclear waste repositories. In this report, a suite of programs (TRIPOLY code) for calculating and analyzing flow and transport in two-dimensional fracture-matrix systems is used to model single-well injection-withdrawal (SWIW) tracer tests. The SWIW test, a tracer test using one well, is proposed as a useful means of collecting data for site characterization, as well as estimating parameters relevant to tracer diffusion and sorption. After some specific code adaptations, we numerically generated a complex fracture-matrix system for computation of steady-state flow and tracer advection and dispersion in the fracture network, along with solute exchange processes between the fractures and the porous matrix. We then conducted simulations for a hypothetical but workable SWIW test design and completed parameter sensitivity studies on three physical parameters of the rock matrix - namely porosity, diffusion coefficient, and retardation coefficient - in order to investigate their impact on the fracture-matrix solute exchange process. Hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, is also modeled in this study, in two different ways: (1) by increasing the hydraulic aperture for flow in existing fractures and (2) by adding a new set of fractures to the field. The results of all these different tests are analyzed by studying the population of matrix blocks, the tracer spatial distribution, and the breakthrough curves (BTCs) obtained, while performing mass-balance checks and being careful to avoid some numerical mistakes that could occur. This study clearly demonstrates the importance of matrix effects in the solute transport process, with the sensitivity studies illustrating the increased importance of the matrix in providing a retardation mechanism for radionuclides as matrix porosity, diffusion coefficient, or retardation coefficient increase. Interestingly, model results before and after hydrofracking are insensitive to adding more fractures, while slightly more sensitive to aperture increase, making SWIW tests a possible means of discriminating between these two potential hydrofracking effects. Finally, we investigate the possibility of inferring relevant information regarding the fracture-matrix system physical parameters from the BTCs obtained during SWIW testing.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. Evaluation of injection well risk management potential in the Williston Basin

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1989-09-01

    The UIC regulations promulgated by the EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) provide the EPA, or an EPA approved state agency, with authority to regulate subsurface injection of fluids to protect USDWs. Oil and gas producing industry interests are concerned primarily with Class 2 wells whose uses as defined by UIC regulations are: disposal of fluids brought to the surface and liquids generated in connection with oil and gas production (SWD); injection of fluids for enhanced oil recovery (EOR); and storage of liquid hydrocarbons. The Williston Basin was chosen for the pilot study of the feasibility of using the risk approach in managing Class 2 injection operations for the following reasons: it is one of the nine geologic basins which was classified as having a significant potential for external casing corrosion, which permitted an evaluation of the effectiveness of the injection well corrosion control measures used by industry; there are 731 active, 22 shut in and 203 temporarily abandoned SWD and water injection wells in the basin; and the basin covers three states. The broad objective of the Williston Basin study is to define requirements and to investigate the feasibility of incorporating risk management into administration of the UIC program. The study does not address the reporting aspects of UIC regulatory and compliance activities but the data base does contain essentially all the information required to develop the reports needed to monitor those activities. 16 refs., 10 figs., 11 tabs.

  8. OAR 340-044 - Construction and Use of Waste Disposal Wells or...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    4 - Construction and Use of Waste Disposal Wells or Other Underground Injection Activities Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document-...

  9. Ultrafast spin tunneling and injection in coupled nanostructures of InGaAs quantum dots and quantum well

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yang, Xiao-Jie Kiba, Takayuki; Yamamura, Takafumi; Takayama, Junichi; Subagyo, Agus; Sueoka, Kazuhisa; Murayama, Akihiro

    2014-01-06

    We investigate the electron-spin injection dynamics via tunneling from an In{sub 0.1}Ga{sub 0.9}As quantum well (QW) to In{sub 0.5}Ga{sub 0.5}As quantum dots (QDs) in coupled QW-QDs nanostructures. These coupled nanostructures demonstrate ultrafast (5 to 20 ps) spin injection into the QDs. The degree of spin polarization up to 45% is obtained in the QDs after the injection, essentially depending on the injection time. The spin injection and conservation are enhanced with thinner barriers due to the stronger electronic coupling between the QW and QDs.

  10. Diffusion injected multi-quantum well light-emitting diode structure

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Riuttanen, L. Nykänen, H.; Svensk, O.; Suihkonen, S.; Sopanen, M.; Kivisaari, P.; Oksanen, J.; Tulkki, J.

    2014-02-24

    The attention towards light-emitting diode (LED) structures based on nanowires, surface plasmon coupled LEDs, and large-area high-power LEDs has been increasing for their potential in increasing the optical output power and efficiency of LEDs. In this work we demonstrate an alternative way to inject charge carriers into the active region of an LED, which is based on completely different current transport mechanism compared to conventional current injection approaches. The demonstrated structure is expected to help overcoming some of the challenges related to current injection with conventional structures. A functioning III-nitride diffusion injected light-emitting diode structure, in which the light-emitting active region is located outside the pn-junction, is realized and characterized. In this device design, the charge carriers are injected into the active region by bipolar diffusion, which could also be utilized to excite otherwise challenging to realize light-emitting structures.

  11. Nitride based quantum well light-emitting devices having improved current injection efficiency

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Tansu, Nelson; Zhao, Hongping; Liu, Guangyu; Arif, Ronald

    2014-12-09

    A III-nitride based device provides improved current injection efficiency by reducing thermionic carrier escape at high current density. The device includes a quantum well active layer and a pair of multi-layer barrier layers arranged symmetrically about the active layer. Each multi-layer barrier layer includes an inner layer abutting the active layer; and an outer layer abutting the inner layer. The inner barrier layer has a bandgap greater than that of the outer barrier layer. Both the inner and the outer barrier layer have bandgaps greater than that of the active layer. InGaN may be employed in the active layer, AlInN, AlInGaN or AlGaN may be employed in the inner barrier layer, and GaN may be employed in the outer barrier layer. Preferably, the inner layer is thin relative to the other layers. In one embodiment the inner barrier and active layers are 15 .ANG. and 24 .ANG. thick, respectively.

  12. Nevada Production and Injection Well Data for Facilities with Flash Steam Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mines, Greg

    2014-03-26

    Files contain a summary of the production and injection data submitted by the geothermal operators to the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology over the period from 1985 thru 2009

  13. Nevada Production and Injection Well Data for Facilities with Flash Steam Plants

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

    Mines, Greg

    Files contain a summary of the production and injection data submitted by the geothermal operators to the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology over the period from 1985 thru 2009

  14. Measuring resistivity changes from within a first cased well to monitor fluids injected into oil bearing geological formations from a second cased well while passing electrical current between the two cased wells

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Vail, III, William B.

    1993-01-01

    A.C. current is conducted through geological formations separating two cased wells in an oil field undergoing enhanced oil recovery operations such as water flooding operations. Methods and apparatus are disclosed to measure the current leakage conducted into a geological formation from within a first cased well that is responsive to fluids injected into formation from a second cased well during the enhanced oil production activities. The current leakage and apparent resistivity measured within the first cased well are responsive to fluids injected into formation from the second cased well provided the distance of separation between the two cased wells is less than, or on the order of, a Characteristic Length appropriate for the problem.

  15. Measuring resistivity changes from within a first cased well to monitor fluids injected into oil bearing geological formations from a second cased well while passing electrical current between the two cased wells

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Vail, W.B. III.

    1993-02-16

    A.C. current is conducted through geological formations separating two cased wells in an oil field undergoing enhanced oil recovery operations such as water flooding operations. Methods and apparatus are disclosed to measure the current leakage conducted into a geological formation from within a first cased well that is responsive to fluids injected into formation from a second cased well during the enhanced oil production activities. The current leakage and apparent resistivity measured within the first cased well are responsive to fluids injected into formation from the second cased well provided the distance of separation between the two cased wells is less than, or on the order of, a Characteristic Length appropriate for the problem.

  16. Polymer treatments for D Sand water injection wells: Sooner D Sand Unit Weld County, Colorado. Final report, April 1997

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cannon, T.J.

    1998-10-01

    Polymer-gel treatments in injection wells were evaluated for improving sweep efficiency in the D Sandstone reservoir at the Sooner Unit, Weld County, Colorado. Polymer treatments of injection wells at the Sooner Unit were expected to improve ultimate recovery by 1.0 percent of original-oil-in-place of 70,000 bbl of oil. The Sooner D Sand Unit was a demonstration project under the US Department of Energy Class I Oil Program from which extensive reservoir data and characterization were obtained. Thus, successful application of polymer-gel treatments at the Sooner Unit would be a good case-history example for other operators of waterfloods in Cretaceous sandstone reservoirs in the Denver Basin.

  17. Protocol for laboratory research on degradation, interaction, and fate of wastes disposed by deep-well injection: Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Collins, A.G.; Crocker, M.E.

    1987-12-01

    The objective of this research investigation was to develop a laboratory protocol for use in determining degradation, interaction, and fate of organic wastes disposed in deep subsurface reservoirs via disposal wells. Knowledge of the ultimate fate of deep-well disposed wastes is important because provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) require that by August 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must show that the disposal of specified wastes by deep-well injection is safe to human health and the environment, or the practice must be stopped. The National Institute for Petroleum and Energy Research (NIPER) developed this protocol primarily by transferring some of its expertise and knowledge of laboratory protocol relevant to improved recovery of petroleum. Phenol, because it is injected into deep, subsurface reservoirs for disposal, was selected for study by the EPA. Phenol is one waste product that has been injected into the Frio formation; therefore, a decision was made to use phenol and sedimentary rock from the Frio formation for a series of laboratory experiments to demonstrate the protocol. This study investigates the adsorption properties of a specific reservoir rock which is representative of porous sedimentary geologic formations used as repositories for hazardous organic wastes. The developed protocol can be used to evaluate mobility, adsorption, and degradation of an organic hazardous waste under simulated subsurface reservoir conditions. 22 refs., 13 figs., 16 tabs.

  18. The dependence of potential well formation on the magnetic field strength and electron injection current in a polywell device

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cornish, S. Gummersall, D.; Carr, M.; Khachan, J.

    2014-09-15

    A capacitive probe has been used to measure the plasma potential in a polywell device in order to observe the dependence of potential well formation on magnetic field strength, electron injection current, and polywell voltage bias. The effectiveness of the capacitive probe in a high energy electron plasma was determined by measuring the plasma potential of a planar diode with an axial magnetic field. The capacitive probe was translated along the axis of one of the field coils of the polywell, and the spatial profile of the potential well was measured. The confinement time of electrons in the polywell was estimated with a simple analytical model which used the experimentally observed potential well depths, as well as a simulation of the electron trajectories using particle orbit theory.

  19. 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)

  20. Insight from simulations of single-well injection-withdrawal tracer tests on simple and complex fractures

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tsang, C.-F.; Doughty, C.

    2009-08-06

    The single-well injection withdrawal (SWIW) test, a tracer test utilizing only one well, is proposed as a useful contribution to site characterization of fractured rock, as well as providing parameters relevant to tracer diffusion and sorption. The usual conceptual model of flow and solute transport through fractured rock with low matrix permeability involves solute advection and dispersion through a fracture network coupled with diffusion and sorption into the surrounding rock matrix. Unlike two-well tracer tests, results of SWIW tests are ideally independent of advective heterogeneity, channeling and flow dimension, and, instead, focus on diffusive and sorptive characteristics of tracer (solute) transport. Thus, they can be used specifically to study such characteristics and evaluate the diffusive parameters associated with tracer transport through fractured media. We conduct simulations of SWIW tests on simple and complex fracture models, the latter being defined as having two subfractures with altered rock blocks in between and gouge material in their apertures. Using parameters from the Aspo site in Sweden, we calculate and study SWIW tracer breakthrough curves (BTCs) from a test involving four days of injection and then withdrawal. By examining the peak concentration C{sub pk} of the SWIW BTCs for a variety of parameters, we confirm that C{sub pk} is largely insensitive to the fracture advective flow properties, in particular to permeability heterogeneity over the fracture plane or to subdividing the flow into two subfractures in the third dimension orthogonal to the fracture plane. The peak arrival time t{sub pk} is not a function of fracture or rock properties, but is controlled by the time schedule of the SWIW test. The study shows that the SWIW test is useful for the study of tracer diffusion-sorption processes, including the effect of the so-called flow-wetted surface (FWS) of the fracture. Calculations with schematic models with different FWS values are conducted and the possibility of direct in situ measurement of FWS with SWIW tests is demonstrated.

  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. Use of data obtained from core tests in the design and operation of spent brine injection wells in geopressured or geothermal systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jorda, R.M.

    1980-03-01

    The effects of formation characteristics on injection well performance are reviewed. Use of data acquired from cores taken from injection horizons to predict injectivity is described. And methods for utilizing data from bench scale testing of brine and core samples to optimize injection well design are presented. Currently available methods and equipment provide data which enable the optimum design of injection wells through analysis of cores taken from injection zones. These methods also provide a means of identifying and correcting well injection problems. Methods described in this report are: bulk density measurement; porosity measurement; pore size distribution analysis; permeability measurement; formation grain size distribution analysis; core description (lithology) and composition; amount, type and distribution of clays and shales; connate water analysis; consolidatability of friable reservoir rocks; grain and pore characterization by scanning electron microscopy; grain and pore characterization by thin section analysis; permeability damage and enhancement tests; distribution of water-borne particles in porous media; and reservoir matrix acidizing effectiveness. The precise methods of obtaining this information are described, and their use in the engineering of injection wells is illustrated by examples, where applicable. (MHR)

  3. Single well field injection test of humate to enhance attenuation of uranium and other radionuclides in an acidic plume

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Denham, M.

    2014-09-30

    This report documents the impact of the injected humate on targeted contaminants over a period of 4 months and suggests it is a viable attenuation-based remedy for uranium, potentially for I-129, but not for Sr-90. Future activities will focus on issues pertinent to scaling the technology to full deployment.

  4. 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.

  5. DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A CO2 FLOOD UTILIZING ADVANCED RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION AND HORIZONTAL INJECTION WELLS IN A SHALLOW SHELF CARBONATE APPROACHING WATERFLOOD DEPLETION

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    K.J. Harpole; Ed G. Durrett; Susan Snow; J.S. Bles; Carlon Robertson; C.D. Caldwell; D.J. Harms; R.L. King; B.A. Baldwin; D. Wegener; M. Navarrette

    2002-09-01

    The purpose of this project was to economically design an optimum carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) flood for a mature waterflood nearing its economic abandonment. The original project utilized advanced reservoir characterization and CO{sub 2} horizontal injection wells as the primary methods to redevelop the South Cowden Unit (SCU). The development plans; project implementation and reservoir management techniques were to be transferred to the public domain to assist in preventing premature abandonment of similar fields. The Unit was a mature waterflood with water cut exceeding 95%. Oil must be mobilized through the use of a miscible or near-miscible fluid to recover significant additional reserves. Also, because the unit was relatively small, it did not have the benefit of economies of scale inherent in normal larger scale projects. Thus, new and innovative methods were required to reduce investment and operating costs. Two primary methods used to accomplish improved economics were use of reservoir characterization to restrict the flood to the higher quality rock in the unit and use of horizontal injection wells to cut investment and operating costs. The project consisted of two budget phases. Budget Phase I started in June 1994 and ended late June 1996. In this phase Reservoir Analysis, Characterization Tasks and Advanced Technology Definition Tasks were completed. Completion enabled the project to be designed, evaluated, and an Authority for Expenditure (AFE) for project implementation submitted to working interest owners for approval. Budget Phase II consisted of the implementation and execution of the project in the field. Phase II was completed in July 2001. Performance monitoring, during Phase II, by mid 1998 identified the majority of producing wells which under performed their anticipated withdrawal rates. Newly drilled and re-activated wells had lower offtake rates than originally forecasted. As a result of poor offtake, higher reservoir pressure was a concern for the project as it limited CO{sub 2} injectivity. To reduce voidage balance, and reservoir pressure, a disposal well was therefore drilled. Several injection surveys indicated the CO{sub 2} injection wells had severe conformance issues. After close monitoring of the project to the end of 1999, it was evident the project would not recover the anticipated tertiary reserves. The main reasons for under-performance were poor in zone CO{sub 2} injection into the upper San Andres layers, poorer offtake rates from newly drilled replacement wells and a higher than required reservoir pressure. After discussion internally within Phillips, externally with the Department of Energy (DOE) and SCU partners, a redevelopment of South Cowden was agreed upon to commence in year 2000. The redevelopment essentially abandoned the original development for Budget Phase II in favor of a revised approach. This involved conformance techniques to resolve out of zone CO{sub 2} injection and use of horizontal wells to improve in zone injectivity and productivity. A phased approach was used to ensure short radius lateral drilling could be implemented effectively at South Cowden. This involved monitoring drilling operations and then production response to determine if larger investments during the second phase were justified. Redevelopment Phase 1 was completed in May 2000. It was deemed a success in regard to finding suitable/cost-effective technology for drilling horizontal laterals and finding a technique that could sustain long-term productivity from the upper layers of the San Andres reservoir. Four existing vertical producing wells were isolated from their existing completions and sidetracked with horizontal laterals into the upper layers of the San Andres. Overall average offtake rates for the four wells increased by a factor of 12 during the first four months after completion of Phase 1. Phase 2 of the redevelopment focused on current CO{sub 2} vertical injection wells. Techniques were applied to resolve near well conformance concerns and then either single or dual laterals were dril

  6. 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

  7. 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.

  8. Design and Implementation of a CO2 Flood Utilizing Advanced Reservoir Characterization and Horizontal Injection Wells In a Shallow Shelf Carbonate Approaching Waterflood Depletion, Class II

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wier, Don R. Chimanhusky, John S.; Czirr, Kirk L.; Hallenbeck, Larry; Gerard, Matthew G.; Dollens, Kim B.; Owen, Rex; Gaddis, Maurice; Moshell, M.K.

    2002-11-18

    The purpose of this project was to economically design an optimum carbon dioxide (CO2) flood for a mature waterflood nearing its economic abandonment. The original project utilized advanced reservoir characterization and CO2 horizontal injection wells as the primary methods to redevelop the South Cowden Unit (SCU). The development plans; project implementation and reservoir management techniques were to be transferred to the public domain to assist in preventing premature abandonment of similar fields.

  9. Electrical spin injection into InGaAs/GaAs quantum wells: A comparison between MgO tunnel barriers grown by sputtering and molecular beam epitaxy methods

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Barate, P.; Zhang, T. T.; Vidal, M.; Renucci, P.; Marie, X.; Amand, T.; Liang, S.; Devaux, X.; Hehn, M.; Mangin, S.; Lu, Y.; Frougier, J.; Jaffrès, H.; George, J. M.; Zheng, Y.; Tao, B.; Han, X. F.

    2014-07-07

    An efficient electrical spin injection into an InGaAs/GaAs quantum well light emitting diode is demonstrated thanks to a CoFeB/MgO spin injector. The textured MgO tunnel barrier is fabricated by two different techniques: sputtering and molecular beam epitaxy. The maximal spin injection efficiency is comparable for both methods. Additionally, the effect of annealing is also investigated for the two types of samples. Both samples show the same trend: an increase of the electroluminescence circular polarization (P{sub c}) with the increase of annealing temperature, followed by a saturation of P{sub c} beyond 350?°C annealing. Since the increase of P{sub c} starts well below the crystallization temperature of the full CoFeB bulk layer, this trend could be mainly due to an improvement of chemical structure at the top CoFeB/MgO interface. This study reveals that the control of CoFeB/MgO interface is essential for an optimal spin injection into semiconductor.

  10. A Study of Production/Injection Data from Slim Holes and Large-Diameter Wells at the Okuaizu Geothermal Field, Tohoku, Japan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Renner, Joel Lawrence; Garg, Sabodh K.; Combs, Jim

    2002-06-01

    Discharge from the Okuaizu boreholes is accompanied by in situ boiling. Analysis of cold-water injection and discharge data from the Okuaizu boreholes indicates that the two-phase productivity index is about an order of magnitude smaller than the injectivity index. The latter conclusion is in agreement with analyses of similar data from Oguni, Sumikawa, and Kirishima geothermal fields. A wellbore simulator was used to examine the effect of borehole diameter on the discharge capacity of geothermal boreholes with two-phase feedzones. Based on these analyses, it appears that it should be possible to deduce the discharge characteristics of largediameter wells using test data from slim holes with two-phase feeds.

  11. 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.

  12. 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...

  13. 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)

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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.

  17. 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)

  18. 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.

  19. Methods for obtaining well-to-well flow communication

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Harmon, R.A.; Wahl, H.A.

    1988-07-05

    A process is described for reducing uneven areal sweep of injection fluid in a well pattern having a central injection well surrounded by production wells, all of the wells being communicated by a fracture, comprising: (a) injecting fracturing fluid containing a proppant material into the central injection well and into the fracture to prop the fracture adjacent the injection well; (b) simultaneous with step (a), injecting fluid into one or more of the production wells toward which it is desired to reduce the flow of injection fluid, thereby causing a greater portion of the proppant material to be placed in the fracture adjacent the central injection well in directions away from the one or more of the production wells toward which it is desired to reduce the flow of injection fluid; and (c) thereby subsequently reducing uneven areal sweep of injection fluid injected into the central injection well at rates and pressures below those required to part the fracture.

  20. 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...

  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.

    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. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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...

  5. UIC permitting process for class IID and Class III wells: Protection of drinking water in New York State

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hillenbrand, C.J.

    1995-09-01

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region II, Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program regulates injection wells in the State of New York to protect drinking water; UIC regulations can be found under Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Parts 124, 144, 146 and 147. Operators of solution mining injection wells (UIC Class IIIG) and produced fluid disposal wells (UIC Class IID) are required to obtain an UIC permit for authorization to inject. The permitting process requires submittal of drinking water, geologic and proposed operational data in order to assure that pressure build-up within the injection zone will not compromise confining layers and allow vertical migration of fluid into Underground Sources of Drinking Water (USDW). Additional data is required within an Area of Review (AOR), defined as an area determined by the intersection of the adjusted potentiometric surface produced by injection and a depth 50 feet below the base of the lowermost USDW, or a radius of 1/4 mile around the injection well, whichever is greater. Locations of all wells in the AOR must be identified, and completion reports and plugging reports must be submitted. Requirements are set for maximum injection pressure and flow rates, monitoring of brine properties of the injection well and monitoring of water supply wells in the AOR for possible contamination. Any noncompliance with permit requirements constitutes a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act and is grounds for enforcement action, including possible revocation of permit. Presently four Class IID wells are authorized under permit in New York State. The Queenston sandstone, Medina sandstone, Salina B, Akron dolomite and Oriskany sandstone have been used for brine disposal; the lower Ordovician-Cambrian section is currently being considered as an injection zone. Over one hundred Class IIIG wells are authorized under permit in New York State and all have been utilized for solution mining of the Syracuse salt.

  6. 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.

  7. 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...

  8. 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....

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. Technology for Increasing Geothermal Energy Productivity. Computer Models to Characterize the Chemical Interactions of Goethermal Fluids and Injectates with Reservoir Rocks, Wells, Surface Equiptment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Nancy Moller Weare

    2006-07-25

    This final report describes the results of a research program we carried out over a five-year (3/1999-9/2004) period with funding from a Department of Energy geothermal FDP grant (DE-FG07-99ID13745) and from other agencies. The goal of research projects in this program were to develop modeling technologies that can increase the understanding of geothermal reservoir chemistry and chemistry-related energy production processes. The ability of computer models to handle many chemical variables and complex interactions makes them an essential tool for building a fundamental understanding of a wide variety of complex geothermal resource and production chemistry. With careful choice of methodology and parameterization, research objectives were to show that chemical models can correctly simulate behavior for the ranges of fluid compositions, formation minerals, temperature and pressure associated with present and near future geothermal systems as well as for the very high PT chemistry of deep resources that is intractable with traditional experimental methods. Our research results successfully met these objectives. We demonstrated that advances in physical chemistry theory can be used to accurately describe the thermodynamics of solid-liquid-gas systems via their free energies for wide ranges of composition (X), temperature and pressure. Eight articles on this work were published in peer-reviewed journals and in conference proceedings. Four are in preparation. Our work has been presented at many workshops and conferences. We also considerably improved our interactive web site (geotherm.ucsd.edu), which was in preliminary form prior to the grant. This site, which includes several model codes treating different XPT conditions, is an effective means to transfer our technologies and is used by the geothermal community and other researchers worldwide. Our models have wide application to many energy related and other important problems (e.g., scaling prediction in petroleum production systems, stripping towers for mineral production processes, nuclear waste storage, CO2 sequestration strategies, global warming). Although funding decreases cut short completion of several research activities, we made significant progress on these abbreviated projects.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  1. 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...

  2. The second-phase development of the China JinPing underground...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    away from the main water transport and auto traffic tunnels. ... well as for geophysicsengineering and other coupled ... Language: English Subject: deep underground laboratory; ...

  3. 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)

  4. 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...

  5. 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...

  6. 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...

  7. 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...

  8. 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...

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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....

  4. 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

  5. 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...

  6. 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...

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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...

  11. 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...

  12. 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...

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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...

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  1. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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...

  19. 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...

  20. 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...

  1. 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.

  2. Injectivity Test | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Geothermal Area (1979) Raft River Geothermal Area 1979 1979 Evaluation of testing and reservoir parameters in geothermal wells at Raft River and Boise, Idaho Injectivity Test...

  3. 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...

  4. Underground pumped hydroelectric storage

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1984-07-01

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

  5. 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

  6. Delineating Area of Review in a System with Pre-injection Relative Overpressure

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Oldenburg, Curtis M.; Cihan, Abdullah; Zhou, Quanlin; Fairweather, Stacey; Spangler, Lee H.

    2014-12-31

    The Class VI permit application for geologic carbon sequestration (GCS) requires delineation of an area of review (AoR), defined as the region surrounding the (GCS) project where underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) may be endangered. The methods for estimating AoR under the Class VI regulation were developed assuming that GCS reservoirs would be in hydrostatic equilibrium with overlying aquifers. Here we develop and apply an approach to estimating AoR for sites with preinjection relative overpressure for which standard AoR estimation methods produces an infinite AoR. The approach we take is to compare brine leakage through a hypothetical open flow path in the base-case scenario (no-injection) to the incrementally larger leakage that would occur in the CO2-injection case. To estimate AoR by this method, we used semi-analytical solutions to single-phase flow equations to model reservoir pressurization and flow up (single) leaky wells located at progressively greater distances from the injection well. We found that the incrementally larger flow rates for hypothetical leaky wells located 6 km and 4 km from the injection well are ~20% and 30% greater, respectively, than hypothetical baseline leakage rates. If total brine leakage is considered, the results depend strongly on how the incremental increase in total leakage is calculated, varying from a few percent to up to 40% greater (at most at early time) than base-case total leakage.

  7. Delineating Area of Review in a System with Pre-injection Relative Overpressure

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

    Oldenburg, Curtis M.; Cihan, Abdullah; Zhou, Quanlin; Fairweather, Stacey; Spangler, Lee H.

    2014-12-31

    The Class VI permit application for geologic carbon sequestration (GCS) requires delineation of an area of review (AoR), defined as the region surrounding the (GCS) project where underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) may be endangered. The methods for estimating AoR under the Class VI regulation were developed assuming that GCS reservoirs would be in hydrostatic equilibrium with overlying aquifers. Here we develop and apply an approach to estimating AoR for sites with preinjection relative overpressure for which standard AoR estimation methods produces an infinite AoR. The approach we take is to compare brine leakage through a hypothetical open flowmore » path in the base-case scenario (no-injection) to the incrementally larger leakage that would occur in the CO2-injection case. To estimate AoR by this method, we used semi-analytical solutions to single-phase flow equations to model reservoir pressurization and flow up (single) leaky wells located at progressively greater distances from the injection well. We found that the incrementally larger flow rates for hypothetical leaky wells located 6 km and 4 km from the injection well are ~20% and 30% greater, respectively, than hypothetical baseline leakage rates. If total brine leakage is considered, the results depend strongly on how the incremental increase in total leakage is calculated, varying from a few percent to up to 40% greater (at most at early time) than base-case total leakage.« less

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. Injections of Natural Gas into Storage (Annual Supply & Disposition)

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

    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

  11. Thermal well-test method

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Tsang, Chin-Fu; Doughty, Christine A.

    1985-01-01

    A well-test method involving injection of hot (or cold) water into a groundwater aquifer, or injecting cold water into a geothermal reservoir. By making temperature measurements at various depths in one or more observation wells, certain properties of the aquifer are determined. These properties, not obtainable from conventional well test procedures, include the permeability anisotropy, and layering in the aquifer, and in-situ thermal properties. The temperature measurements at various depths are obtained from thermistors mounted in the observation wells.

  12. Well Placement

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

    Well Placement Well Placement LANL maintains an extensive groundwater monitoring and surveillance program through sampling. August 1, 2013 Finished groundwater well head with solar...

  13. 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.

  14. Zero Discharge Water Management for Horizontal Shale Gas Well Development

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Paul Ziemkiewicz; Jennifer Hause; Raymond Lovett; David Locke Harry Johnson; Doug Patchen

    2012-03-31

    Hydraulic fracturing technology (fracking), coupled with horizontal drilling, has facilitated exploitation of huge natural gas (gas) reserves in the Devonian-age Marcellus Shale Formation (Marcellus) of the Appalachian Basin. The most-efficient technique for stimulating Marcellus gas production involves hydraulic fracturing (injection of a water-based fluid and sand mixture) along a horizontal well bore to create a series of hydraulic fractures in the Marcellus. The hydraulic fractures free the shale-trapped gas, allowing it to flow to the well bore where it is conveyed to pipelines for transport and distribution. The hydraulic fracturing process has two significant effects on the local environment. First, water withdrawals from local sources compete with the water requirements of ecosystems, domestic and recreational users, and/or agricultural and industrial uses. Second, when the injection phase is over, 10 to 30% of the injected water returns to the surface. This water consists of flowback, which occurs between the completion of fracturing and gas production, and produced water, which occurs during gas production. Collectively referred to as returned frac water (RFW), it is highly saline with varying amounts of organic contamination. It can be disposed of, either by injection into an approved underground injection well, or treated to remove contaminants so that the water meets the requirements of either surface release or recycle use. Depending on the characteristics of the RFW and the availability of satisfactory disposal alternatives, disposal can impose serious costs to the operator. In any case, large quantities of water must be transported to and from well locations, contributing to wear and tear on local roadways that were not designed to handle the heavy loads and increased traffic. The search for a way to mitigate the situation and improve the overall efficiency of shale gas production suggested a treatment method that would allow RFW to be used as make-up water for successive fracs. RFW, however, contains dissolved salts, suspended sediment and oils that may interfere with fracking fluids and/or clog fractures. This would lead to impaired well productivity. The major technical constraints to recycling RFW involves: identification of its composition, determination of industry standards for make-up water, and development of techniques to treat RFW to acceptable levels. If large scale RFW recycling becomes feasible, the industry will realize lower transportation and disposal costs, environmental conflicts, and risks of interruption in well development schedules.

  15. Well Placement

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

    Well Placement Well Placement LANL maintains an extensive groundwater monitoring and surveillance program through sampling. August 1, 2013 Finished groundwater well head with solar power Finished groundwater well head with solar power How does LANL determine where to put a monitoring well? Project teams routinely review groundwater monitoring data to verify adequate placement of wells and to plan the siting of additional wells as needed. RELATED IMAGES

  16. 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

  17. Injectivity Testing for Vapour Dominated Feed Zones

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Clotworthy, A.W.; Hingoyon, C.S.

    1995-01-01

    Wells with vapor dominated feed zones yield abnormal pressure data. This is caused by the condensation of vapor during water injection. A revised injectivity test procedure currently applied by PNOC at the Leyte Geothermal Power Project has improved the injectivity test results.

  18. The Sanford Underground Research Facility at Homestake (SURF)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lesko, K. T.

    2015-03-24

    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. 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 Berkeley and CUBED low-background counters. 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. These plans include a Generation-2 Dark Matter experiment and the US flagship neutrino experiment, LBNE.

  19. The Sanford Underground Research Facility at Homestake (SURF)

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

    Lesko, K. T.

    2015-03-24

    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. 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 Berkeley and CUBED low-background counters. Plans for possible future experiments at SURF are well underway and include long baseline neutrino oscillation experiments, future dark mattermore » 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. These plans include a Generation-2 Dark Matter experiment and the US flagship neutrino experiment, LBNE.« less

  20. 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.

  1. 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...

  2. ,"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...

  3. ,"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...

  4. ,"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...

  5. ,"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...

  6. ,"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...

  7. ,"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...

  8. ,"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...

  9. ,"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...

  10. ,"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...

  11. ,"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...

  12. ,"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...

  13. ,"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...

  14. ,"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...

  15. ,"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...

  16. ,"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...

  17. ,"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...

  18. ,"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...

  19. ,"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...

  20. ,"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...

  1. ,"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...

  2. ,"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...

  3. ,"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...

  4. ,"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...

  5. ,"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...

  6. ,"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...

  7. ,"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...

  8. ,"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...

  9. ,"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...

  10. 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...

  11. 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...

  12. ,"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...

  13. DOE - Fossil Energy: An Introduction to Oil Well Technology

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

    Introduction An Energy Lesson Looking Down an Oil Well Looking Down an Oil Well OIL — Ever wonder what oil looks like underground, down deep, hundreds or thousands of feet below the surface, buried under millions of tons of rock and dirt? If you could look down an oil well and see oil where Nature created it, you might be surprised. You wouldn't see a big underground lake, as a lot of people think. Oil doesn't exist in deep, black pools. In fact, an underground oil formation - called an

  14. 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.

  15. 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: ...

  16. 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...

  17. 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...

  18. 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...

  19. 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...

  20. 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) ...

  1. 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...

  2. 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...

  3. 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...

  4. 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...

  5. 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...

  6. 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...

  7. 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...

  8. 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...

  9. 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...

  10. 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...

  11. 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...

  12. 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...

  13. 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...

  14. 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...

  15. 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...

  16. 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...

  17. 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...

  18. 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...

  19. 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...

  20. 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...

  1. 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...

  2. 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...

  3. 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...

  4. 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...

  5. 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...

  6. 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...

  7. 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...

  8. 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...

  9. 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...

  10. 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...

  11. 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...

  12. 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...

  13. 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.

  14. Thermal well-test method

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Tsang, C.F.; Doughty, C.A.

    1984-02-24

    A well-test method involving injection of hot (or cold) water into a groundwater aquifer, or injecting cold water into a geothermal reservoir is disclosed. By making temperature measurements at various depths in one or more observation wells, certain properties of the aquifer are determined. These properties, not obtainable from conventional well test procedures, include the permeability anisotropy, and layering in the aquifer, and in-situ thermal properties. The temperature measurements at various depths are obtained from thermistors mounted in the observation wells.

  15. Monitoring well

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Hubbell, J.M.; Sisson, J.B.

    1999-06-29

    A monitoring well is described which includes: a conduit defining a passageway, the conduit having a proximal and opposite, distal end; a coupler connected in fluid flowing relationship with the passageway; and a porous housing borne by the coupler and connected in fluid flowing relation thereto. 8 figs.

  16. Monitoring well

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Hubbell, Joel M.; Sisson, James B.

    1999-01-01

    A monitoring well including a conduit defining a passageway, the conduit having a proximal and opposite, distal end; a coupler connected in fluid flowing relationship with the passageway; and a porous housing borne by the coupler and connected in fluid flowing relation thereto.

  17. 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.

  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. 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...

  20. 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...

  1. Monitoring well

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Hubbell, Joel M.; Sisson, James B.

    2002-01-01

    The present invention relates to a monitoring well which includes an enclosure defining a cavity and a water reservoir enclosed within the cavity and wherein the reservoir has an inlet and an outlet. The monitoring well further includes a porous housing borne by the enclosure and which defines a fluid chamber which is oriented in fluid communication with the outlet of the reservoir, and wherein the porous housing is positioned in an earthen soil location below-grade. A geophysical monitoring device is provided and mounted in sensing relation relative to the fluid chamber of the porous housing; and a coupler is selectively moveable relative to the outlet of reservoir to couple the porous housing and water reservoir in fluid communication. An actuator is coupled in force transmitting relation relative to the coupler to selectively position the coupler in a location to allow fluid communication between the reservoir and the fluid chamber defined by the porous housing.

  2. Well pump

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Ames, Kenneth R.; Doesburg, James M.

    1987-01-01

    A well pump includes a piston and an inlet and/or outlet valve assembly of special structure. Each is formed of a body of organic polymer, preferably PTFE. Each includes a cavity in its upper portion and at least one passage leading from the cavity to the bottom of the block. A screen covers each cavity and a valve disk covers each screen. Flexible sealing flanges extend upwardly and downwardly from the periphery of the piston block. The outlet valve block has a sliding block and sealing fit with the piston rod.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. Single Well Injection Withdrawl Tracer Tests for Proppant Detection...

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

    drilling and involves no hazardous chemicals. Benefits Increased gas production Better reservoir management Applications and Industries Oil and Gas production Geothermal Energy...

  6. A Fluka study of underground cosmogenic neutron production

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Empl, A.; Hungerford, E.V.; Jasim, R.; Mosteiro, P. E-mail: evhunger@central.uh.edu E-mail: mosteiro@gmail.com

    2014-08-01

    Neutrons produced by cosmic muon interactions are important contributors to backgrounds in underground detectors when searching for rare events. Typically such neutrons can dominate the background, as they are particularly difficult to shield and detect. Since actual data is sparse and not well documented, simulation studies must be used to design shields and predict background rates. Thus validation of any simulation code is necessary to assure reliable results. This work compares in detail predictions of the FLUKA simulation code to existing data, and uses this code to report a simulation of cosmogenic backgrounds for typical detectors embedded in a water tank with liquid scintillator shielding.

  7. Third invitational well-testing symposium: well testing in low permeability environments

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Doe, T.W.; Schwarz, W.J.

    1981-03-01

    The testing of low permeability rocks is common to waste disposal, fossil energy resource development, underground excavation, and geothermal energy development. This document includes twenty-six papers and abstracts, divided into the following sessions: opening session, case histories and related phenomena, well test design in low permeability formations, analysis and interpretation of well test data, and instrumentation for well tests. Separate abstracts were prepared for 15 of the 16 papers; the remaining paper has been previously abstracted. (DLC)

  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. The Underground Corrosion of Selected Type 300 Stainless Steels After 34 Years

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    T. S. Yoder; M. K. Adler Flitton

    2009-03-01

    Recently, interest in long-term underground corrosion has greatly increased because of the ongoing need to dispose of nuclear waste. Additionally, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 requires disposal of high-level nuclear waste in an underground repository. Current contaminant release and transport models use limited available short-term underground corrosion rates when considering container and waste form degradation. Consequently, the resulting models oversimplify the complex mechanisms of underground metal corrosion. The complexity of stainless steel corrosion mechanisms and the processes by which corrosion products migrate from their source are not well depicted by a corrosion rate based on general attack. The research presented here is the analysis of austenitic stainless steels after 33½ years of burial. In this research, the corrosion specimens were analyzed using applicable ASTM standards as well as microscopic and X-ray examination to determine the mechanisms of underground stainless steel corrosion. As presented, the differences in the corrosion mechanisms vary with the type of stainless steel and the treatment of the samples. The uniqueness of the long sampling time allows for further understanding of the actual stainless steel corrosion mechanisms, and when applied back into predictive models, will assist in reduction of the uncertainty in parameters for predicting long-term fate and transport.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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...

  19. 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...

  20. 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...

  1. 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).

  2. 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).

  3. 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).

  4. 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...

  5. 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...

  6. 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...

  7. 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...

  8. 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

  9. 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...

  10. 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.

  11. Borehole induction logging for the Dynamic Underground Stripping Project LLNL gasoline spill site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boyd, S.; Newmark, R.; Wilt, M.

    1994-01-21

    Borehole induction logs were acquired for the purpose of characterizing subsurface physical properties and monitoring steam clean up activities at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. This work was part of the Dynamic Underground Stripping Project`s demonstrated clean up of a gasoline spin. The site is composed of unconsolidated days, sands and gravels which contain gasoline both above and below the water table. Induction logs were used to characterize lithology, to provide ``ground truth`` resistivity values for electrical resistance tomography (ERT), and to monitor the movement of an underground steam plume used to heat the soil and drive volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to the extraction wells.

  12. Advantages of co-located spent fuel reprocessing, repository and underground reactor facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mahar, James M.; Kunze, Jay F.; Wes Myers, Carl; Loveland, Ryan

    2007-07-01

    The purpose of this work is to extend the discussion of potential advantages of the underground nuclear park (UNP) concept by making specific concept design and cost estimate comparisons for both present Generation III types of reactors and for some of the modular Gen IV or the GNEP modular concept. For the present Gen III types, we propose co-locating reprocessing and (re)fabrication facilities along with disposal facilities in the underground park. The goal is to determine the site costs and facility construction costs of such a complex which incorporates the advantages of a closed fuel cycle, nuclear waste repository, and ultimate decommissioning activities all within the UNP. Modular power generation units are also well-suited for placement underground and have the added advantage of construction using current and future tunnel boring machine technology. (authors)

  13. Application of Gaseous Sphere Injection Method for Modeling Under-expanded H2 Injection

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Whitesides, R; Hessel, R P; Flowers, D L; Aceves, S M

    2010-12-03

    A methodology for modeling gaseous injection has been refined and applied to recent experimental data from the literature. This approach uses a discrete phase analogy to handle gaseous injection, allowing for addition of gaseous injection to a CFD grid without needing to resolve the injector nozzle. This paper focuses on model testing to provide the basis for simulation of hydrogen direct injected internal combustion engines. The model has been updated to be more applicable to full engine simulations, and shows good agreement with experiments for jet penetration and time-dependent axial mass fraction, while available radial mass fraction data is less well predicted.

  14. 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...

  15. 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...

  16. 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.

  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. 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.

  2. Geohydrologic study of the Michigan Basin for the applicability of Jack W. McIntyre`s patented process for simultaneous gas recovery and water disposal in production wells

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Maryn, S.

    1994-03-01

    Geraghty & Miller, Inc. of Midland, Texas conducted a geohydrologic study of the Michigan Basin to evaluate the applicability of Jack McIntyre`s patented process for gas recovery and water disposal in production wells. A review of available publications was conducted to identify, (1) natural gas reservoirs which generate large quantities of gas and water, and (2) underground injection zones for produced water. Research efforts were focused on unconventional natural gas formations. The Antrim Shale is a Devonian gas shale which produces gas and large quantities of water. Total 1992 production from 2,626 wells was 74,209,916 Mcf of gas and 25,795,334 bbl of water. The Middle Devonian Dundee Limestone is a major injection zone for produced water. ``Waterless completion`` wells have been completed in the Antrim Shale for gas recovery and in the Dundee Limestone for water disposal. Jack McIntyre`s patented process has potential application for the recovery of gas from the Antrim Shale and simultaneous injection of produced water into the Dundee Limestone.

  3. 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

  4. New Wells Provide Information on Groundwater at Pahute Mesa

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

    November 28, 2012 New Wells Provide Information on Groundwater at Pahute Mesa New wells drilled near historic underground test areas in Nevada are helping scientists get a clearer understanding of the groundwater in these areas while contributing to the design of a long-term monitoring system. Drilled from September to October 2012, these two wells will supplement a network of more than 20 existing characterization wells in an area called Pahute Mesa, which extends from the northwestern portion

  5. 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 ...

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. Completion report for Well Cluster ER-20-6

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1998-02-01

    The Well Cluster ER-20-6 drilling and completion project was conducted during February, March, and April of 1996 in support of the Nevada Environmental Restoration Project at the Nevada Test Site (NTS), Nye County, Nevada. This project is part of the DOE`s Underground Test Area (UGTA) subproject at the NTS. The primary UGTA tasks include collecting geological, geophysical, and hydrological data from new and existing wells to define groundwater quality as well as pathways and rates of groundwater migration at the NTS. A program of drilling wells near the sites of selected underground nuclear tests (near-field drilling) was implemented as part of the UGTA subproject to obtain site-specific data on the nature and extent of migration of radionuclides produced by an underground nuclear explosion. The ER-20-6 near-field drilling project was originally planned to be very similar to that recently conducted at Well Cluster ER-20-5, which was designed to obtain data on the existing hydrologic regime near the site of an underground nuclear explosion (IT, 1995; IT, 1996a). However, after further consideration of the goals of the near-field drilling program and the characteristics of the BULLION site, the TWG recommended that the ER-20-6 project be redesigned to accommodate a forced-gradient experiment. This proposed experiment is expected to yield more realistic estimates of transport parameters than can be deduced from sampling and testing natural groundwater flow systems.

  9. 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...

  10. 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

  11. ,"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

  12. ,"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

  13. ,"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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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.

  19. 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

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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 ...

  5. 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...

  6. 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.

  7. 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...

  8. 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...

  9. 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...

  10. 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...

  11. 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...

  12. ,"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...

  13. ,"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...

  14. ,"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...

  15. ,"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...

  16. 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...

  17. ,"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"...

  18. 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...

  19. ,"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"...

  20. ,"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...

  1. 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...

  2. ,"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...

  3. ,"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...

  4. ,"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"...

  5. ,"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...

  6. ,"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"...

  7. ,"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...

  8. ,"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...

  9. ,"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...

  10. 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...

  11. 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 ...

  12. 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 ...

  13. $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)

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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

  17. 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...

  18. 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...

  19. INJECTION PROFILE MODIFICATION IN A HOT, DEEP MINNELUSA WATER INJECTION PROJECT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lyle A. Johnson Jr.

    2001-09-01

    As oil fields in the United States age, production enhancements and modifications will be needed to increase production from deeper and hotter oil reservoirs. New techniques and products must be tested in these areas before industry will adapt them as common practice. The Minnelusa fields of northeastern Wyoming are relatively small, deep, hot fields that have been developed in the past ten to twenty years. As part of the development, operators have established waterfloods early in the life of the fields to maximize cumulative oil production. However, channeling between injectors and producers does occur and can lead to excessive water production and bypassed oil left in the reservoir. The project evaluated the use of a recently developed, high-temperature polymer to modify the injection profiles in a waterflood project in a high-temperature reservoir. The field is the Hawk Point field in Campbell County, Wyoming. The field was discovered in 1986 and initially consisted of eight producing wells with an average depth of 11,500 feet and a temperature of 260 F (127 C). The polymer system was designed to plug the higher permeable channels and fractures to provide better conformance, i.e. sweep efficiency, for the waterflood. The project used a multi-well system to evaluate the treatment. Injection profile logging was used to evaluate the injection wells both before and after the polymer treatment. The treatment program was conducted in January 2000 with a treatment of the four injection wells. The treatment sizes varied between 500 bbl and 3,918 bbl at a maximum allowable pressure of 1,700 psig. Injection in three of the wells was conducted as planned. However, the injection in the fourth well was limited to 574 bbl instead of the planned 3,750 bbl because of a rapid increase in injection pressure, even at lower than planned injection rates. Following completion of polymer placement, the injection system was not started for approximately one week to permit the gel to set. The system then returned to operation as before the test with no major change in the fieldwide injection. The injection and production rates for the field were monitored for approximately one year to give the production side of the system time to stabilize. The polymer treatment conducted on the injection wells in Hawk Point is believed to be the largest treatment of a hot, deep reservoir to date. These injection well treatments did produce some change in the injection profile of the injection wells. However, it is very disappointing that there was no significant improvement in the performance of the field. There was no noticeable reduction in the water production, the water-oil ratio (WOR), or an increase in oil production. The cosponsor has determined that the field is currently at its economic limit because of the high cost of this deep operation and the continual downhole problems. A restructuring of the injection-production pattern is presently being done to prolong the life of the field.

  20. Natural Gas Wells Near Project Rulison

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    for Natural Gas Wells Near Project Rulison Second Quarter 2013 U.S. Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management Grand Junction, Colorado Date Sampled: April 3, 2013 Background: Project Rulison was the second underground nuclear test under the Plowshare Program to stimulate natural-gas recovery from deep, low-permeability formations. On September 10, 1969, a 40-kiloton-yield nuclear device was detonated 8,426 feet (1.6 miles) below the ground surface in the Williams Fork Formation, at what

  1. 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.'

  2. 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.

  3. Geothermal Reservoir Well Stimulation Program: technology transfer

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1980-05-01

    Each of the following types of well stimulation techniques are summarized and explained: hydraulic fracturing; thermal; mechanical, jetting, and drainhole drilling; explosive and implosive; and injection methods. Current stimulation techniques, stimulation techniques for geothermal wells, areas of needed investigation, and engineering calculations for various techniques. (MHR)

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. Search for underground openings for in situ test facilities in crystalline rock

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wollenberg, H.A.; Strisower, B.; Corrigan, D.J.; Graf, A.N.; O'Brien, M.T.; Pratt, H.; Board, M.; Hustrulid, W.

    1980-01-01

    With a few exceptions, crystalline rocks in this study were limited to plutonic rocks and medium to high-grade metamorphic rocks. Nearly 1700 underground mines, possibly occurring in crystalline rock, were initially identified. Application of criteria resulted in the identification of 60 potential sites. Within this number, 26 mines and 4 civil works were identified as having potential in that they fulfilled the criteria. Thirty other mines may have similar potential. Most of the mines identified are near the contact between a pluton and older sedimentary, volcanic and metamorphic rocks. However, some mines and the civil works are well within plutonic or metamorphic rock masses. Civil works, notably underground galleries associated with pumped storage hydroelectric facilities, are generally located in tectonically stable regions, in relatively homogeneous crystalline rock bodies. A program is recommended which would identify one or more sites where a concordance exists between geologic setting, company amenability, accessibility and facilities to conduct in situ tests in crystalline rock.

  18. 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.

  19. 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

  20. 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 -

  1. Powder Injection Molding of Titanium Components

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2005-01-01

    Powder injection molding (PIM) is a well-established, cost-effective method of fabricating small-to-moderate size metal components. Derived from plastic injection molding and employing a mixture of metal powder and plastic binder, the process has been used with great success in manufacturing a wide variety of metal products, including those made from stainless steel, nickel-based superalloys, and copper alloys. Less progress has been achieved with titanium and other refractory metal alloys because of problems with alloy impurities that are directly attributable to the injection molding process. Specifically, carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen are left behind during binder removal and become incorporated into the chemistry and microstructure of the material during densification. Even at low concentration, these impurities can cause severe degradation in the mechanical properties of titanium and its alloys. We have developed a unique blend of PIM constituents where only a small volume fraction of binder (~5 – 10 vol%) is required for injection molding; the remainder of the mixture consists of the metal powder and binder solvent. Because of the nature of decomposition in the binder system and the relatively small amount used, the binder is eliminated almost completely from the pre-sintered component during the initial stage of a two-step heat treatment process. Results will be presented on the first phase of this research, in which the binder, injection molding, de-binding and sintering schedule were developed. Additional data on the mechanical and physical properties of the material produced will be discussed.

  2. 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....

  3. 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...

  4. Monitoring Well Placement

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

    Monitoring Well Placement Monitoring Well Placement Monitoring wells are designed and placed to define groundwater flow and water quality below the surface. August 1, 2013 Topographic map showing placement of monitoring wells Topographic map showing placement of monitoring wells

  5. 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.

  6. Inspecting coiled tubing for well operations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gard, M.F.; Pasternack, E.S.; Smith, L.J.

    1992-02-18

    This patent describes improvement in a coiled tubing system for insertion of a substantially continuous bendable length of metal tubing into and withdrawal from a wellbore, the system including a tubing injection unit disposed for injecting the length of tubing into the well bore and storage means for dispensing the length of tubing and receiving the length of tubing from the injection unit. The improvement includes: tubing inspection apparatus for substantially continuously inspecting the wall section of the tubing to detect cracks and structural defects which may lead to tubing failure, the apparatus comprising: a source of electromagnetic radiation mounted in proximity to the tubing between the injection unit and a wellhead into which the tubing is injected; a radiation detector unit for receiving signals from the source which have been projected through the wall of the tubing; means for receiving signals form the detector unit for monitoring the structural integrity o the wall of the tubing during one of injecting and withdrawing the tubing with respect to the wellhead; and housing means supported for rotation about a longitudinal axis of the tubing.

  7. Laser Oil and Gas Well Drilling Demonstration Videos

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

    ANL's Laser Applications Laboratory and collaborators are examining the feasibility of adapting high-power laser technology to drilling for gas and oil. The initial phase is designed to establish a scientific basis for developing a commercial laser drilling system and determine the level of gas industry interest in pursuing future research. Using lasers to bore a hole offers an entirely new approach to mechanical drilling. The novel drilling system would transfer light energy from lasers on the surface, down a borehole by a fiber optic bundle, to a series of lenses that would direct the laser light to the rock face. Researchers believe that state-of-the-art lasers have the potential to penetrate rock many times faster than conventional boring technologies - a huge benefit in reducing the high costs of operating a drill rig. Because the laser head does not contact the rock, there is no need to stop drilling to replace a mechanical bit. Moreover, researchers believe that lasers have the ability to melt the rock in a way that creates a ceramic sheath in the wellbore, eliminating the expense of buying and setting steel well casing. A laser system could also contain a variety of downhole sensors, including visual imaging systems that could communicate with the surface through the fiber optic cabling. Earlier studies have been promising, but there is still much to learn. One of the primary objectives of the new study will be to obtain much more precise measurements of the energy requirements needed to transmit light from surface lasers down a borehole with enough power to bore through rocks as much as 20,000 feet or more below the surface. Another objective will be to determine if sending the laser light in sharp pulses, rather than as a continuous stream, could further increase the rate of rock penetration. A third aspect will be to determine if lasers can be used in the presence of drilling fluids. In most wells, thick fluids called "drilling muds" are injected into the borehole to wash out rock cuttings and keep water and other fluids from the underground formations from seeping into the well. The technical challenge will be to determine whether too much laser energy is expended to clear away the fluid where the drilling is occurring. (Copied with editing from http://www.ne.anl.gov/facilities/lal/laser_drilling.html). The demonstration videos, provided here in QuickTime format, are accompanied by patent documents and PDF reports that, together, provide an overall picture of this fascinating project.

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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...

  11. 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 -...

  12. 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...

  13. ,"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...

  14. ,"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"...

  15. ,"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"...

  16. ,"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"...

  17. 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...

  18. 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...

  19. 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...

  20. 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...

  1. 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...

  2. 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...

  3. 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...

  4. 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...

  5. 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...

  6. 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...

  7. 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...

  8. 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...

  9. 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...

  10. 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...

  11. 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...

  12. 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...

  13. 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...

  14. 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...

  15. 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...

  16. 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...

  17. 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...

  18. 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...

  19. 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...

  20. 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...

  1. 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...

  2. 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...

  3. 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...

  4. 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...

  5. 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...

  6. 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...

  7. 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...

  8. 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...

  9. 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...

  10. 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...

  11. 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...

  12. 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...

  13. 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...

  14. 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...

  15. 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...

  16. 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...

  17. 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...

  18. 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...

  19. 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...

  20. 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...