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. Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All...

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

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

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

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

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

  7. 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...

  8. 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...

  9. 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...

  10. 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 -...

  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. 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...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  17. 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...

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

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

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

  19. 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...

  20. 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...

  1. 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...

  2. 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:...

  3. 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...

  4. 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...

  5. 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...

  6. 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...

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

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

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

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

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

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

  9. 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...

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

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

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

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

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

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

  12. Connecticut Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

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

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

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

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

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

  14. Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

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

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

  15. South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

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

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

  16. Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

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

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

  17. 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...

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

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

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

  19. 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

  20. South Central Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage

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

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

  1. 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...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

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

  7. 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.

  8. Boise geothermal injection well: Final environmental assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1997-12-31

    The City of Boise, Idaho, an Idaho Municipal Corporation, is proposing to construct a well with which to inject spent geothermal water from its hot water heating system back into the geothermal aquifer. Because of a cooperative agreement between the City and the US Department of Energy to design and construct the proposed well, compliance to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is required. Therefore, this Environmental Assessment (EA) represents the analysis of the proposed project required under NEPA. The intent of this EA is to: (1) briefly describe historical uses of the Boise Geothermal Aquifer; (2) discuss the underlying reason for the proposed action; (3) describe alternatives considered, including the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative; and (4) present potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and the analysis of those impacts as they apply to the respective alternatives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  12. 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...

  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. Single Well Injection Withdrawl Tracer Tests for Proppant Detection -

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

    Energy Innovation Portal Find More Like This Return to Search Single Well Injection Withdrawl Tracer Tests for Proppant Detection Sandia National Laboratories Contact SNL About This Technology Publications: PDF Document Publication Market Sheet (800 KB) Technology Marketing SummaryA large question preventing optimal natural gas production from "hydrofracked" shales is how far proppants, injected to keep shale fractures open, move into the gas-bearing shales. Knowing precisely

  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, 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.

  19. 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.

  20. Cerro Prieto cold water injection: effects on nearby production wells

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Truesdell, A.H.; Lippmann, M.J.; De Leon, J.; Rodriguez, M.H.

    1999-07-01

    The liquid-dominated Cerro Prieto geothermal field of northern Baja California, Mexico has been under commercial exploitation since 1973. During the early years of operation, all waste brines were sent to an evaporation pond built west of the production area. In 1989, cooled pond brines began to be successfully injected into the reservoir along the western boundary of the geothermal system. The injection rate varied over the years, and is at present about 20% of the total fluid extracted. As expected under the continental desert conditions prevailing in the area, the temperature and salinity of the pond brines change with the seasons, being higher during the summer and lower during the winter. The chemistry of pond brines is also affected by precipitation of silica, oxidation of H{sub 2}S and reaction with airborne clays. Several production wells in the western part of the field (CP-I area) showed beneficial effects from injection. The chemical (chloride, isotopic) and physical (enthalpy, flow rate) changes observed in producers close to the injectors are reviewed. Some wells showed steam flow increases, in others steam flow decline rates flattened. Because of their higher density, injected brines migrated downward in the reservoir and showed up in deep wells.

  1. Use of bauxite as packing material in steam injection wells

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Scoglio, J.; Joubert, G.; Gallardo, B.

    1995-12-31

    Cyclic steam injection, also known as steam soak, has proven to be the most efficient method for producing heavy crude oil and bitumen from unconsolidated sands. The application of steam injection may, however, generate sand production, causing, among other things, a decrease in production. The gravel pack technique is the most efficient way to prevent fines production from cold producing wells. But, once they are steam stimulated, a dissolution of quartz containing gravel material takes place reducing greatly the packing permeability and eventually sand production. Different types of packing material have been used to avoid sand production after cyclic steam injection, such as gravel, ceramics, bauxite, coated resin, and American sand. This paper presents the results of field test, using sinterized bauxite as a packing material, carried out in Venezuela`s heavy oil operations as a part of a comprehensive program aimed at increasing the packing durability and reducing sand production. This paper also verify the results of laboratory tests in which Bauxite was found to be less soluble than other packing material when steam injected.

  2. 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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1992-07-01

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

  4. 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...

  5. 2003 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Shallow Injection Well Verification and Status Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lewis, M.G.

    2003-08-21

    A detailed verification of the shallow injection well inventory for Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC and Argonne National Laboratory-West-operated facilities was performed in 2003. Fourteen wells, or 20%, were randomly selected for the verification. This report provides updated information on the 14 shallow injection wells that were randomly selected for the 2003 verification. Where applicable, additional information is provided for shallow injection wells that were not selected for the 2003 verification. This updated information was incorporated into the 2003 Shallow Injection Wells Inventory, Sixty-eight wells were removed from the 2003 Shallow Injection Well Inventory.

  6. 2003 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Shallow Injection Well Verification and Status Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mike Lewis

    2003-08-01

    A detailed verification of the shallow injection well inventory for Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC and Argonne National Laboratory-West-operated facilities was performed in 2003. Fourteen wells, or 20%, were randomly selected for the verification. This report provides updated information on the 14 shallow injection wells that were randomly selected for the 2003 verification. Where applicable, additional information is provided for shallow injection wells that were not selected for the 2003 verification. This updated information was incorporated into the 2003 Shallow Injection Wells Inventory. Sixty-eight wells were removed from the 2003 Shallow Injection Well Inventory.

  7. 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.

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

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Subject: 02 PETROLEUM; 99 MATHEMATICS, COMPUTERS, INFORMATION SCIENCE, MANAGEMENT, LAW, MISCELLANEOUS; OIL WELLS; DAMAGE; WELL DRILLING; WELL COMPLETION; EQUATIONS; PROGRESS REPORT ...

  9. 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

  10. 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

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

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Plants (Dataset) | SciTech Connect Dataset: Nevada Production and Injection Well Data for Facilities with Flash Steam Plants Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Nevada Production and Injection Well Data for Facilities with Flash Steam Plants 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 Authors: Mines, Greg Publication Date: 2014-03-26 OSTI Identifier:

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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-...

  17. 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.

  18. Pore Models Track Reactions in Underground Carbon Capture

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

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

  19. Method for cutting steam heat losses during cyclic steam injection of wells. Fourth quarterly report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-02-01

    Effective Gravel-packing of horizontal wells is difficult to achieve, using conventional pre-slotted liners, yet it is generally required in the soft Heavy Oil reservoir rocks of California, where cyclic steam injection has been proven to be the most cost-effective oil recovery method. The proposed method of gravel placement behind a non-perforated liner, which is later perforated {open_quotes}in situ{close_quotes} with a new tool operated by coiled-tubing, is expected to greatly reduce costs resulting from sand production in horizontal wells operated under cyclic steam injection. The detailed configuration of the prototype tool is described. It includes two pairs of cutting wheels at the ends of spring-loaded pivoting arms, which are periodically pressed through the liner wall and shortly thereafter retracted, while the coiled tubing is being pulled-out. For each operating cycle of the hydraulically-operated tool, this results in a set of four narrow slots parallel to the liner axis, in two perpendicular diametral planes. The shape of the edges of each slot facilitates bridging by the gravel particles, for a more effective and compacted gravel-packing. The tool includes a few easily-assembled parts machined from surface-hardened alloy steel presenting great toughness, selected from those used in die making. The operation of the system and potential future improvements are outlined. The method of fabrication, detailed drawings and specifications are given. They will serve as a basis for negotiating subcontracts with qualified machine shops.

  20. Method for cutting steam heat losses during cyclic steam injection of wells. Second quarterly report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-08-01

    The Midway-Sunset Field (CA) is the largest Heavy Oil field in California and steam injection methods have been successfully used for more than 30 years to produce the Heavy Oil from many of its unconsolidated sand reservoirs. In partnership with another DOE/ERIP grantee, our Company has acquired an 80 ac. lease in the SE part of this field, in order to demonstrate our respective technologies in the Monarch sand, of Miocene Age, which is one of the reservoirs targeted by the DOE Class 3 Oil Program. This reservoir contains a 13 API oil, which has a much higher market value, as a Refinery Feedstock, than the 5 to 8 API Vaca Tar, used only as road paving material. This makes it easier to justify the required investment in a vertical well equipped with two horizontal drainholes. The economic viability of such a project is likely to be enhanced if Congress approves the export to Japan of a portion of the 27 API (1% Sulfur) AK North Slope oil, which currently is landed in California in preference to lighter and sweeter Far East imported crudes. This is a major cause of the depressed prices for California Heavy Oil in local refineries, which have reduced the economic viability of all EOR methods, including steam injection, in California. Two proposals, for a Near-Term (3 y.) and for a Mid-Term (6 y.) project respectively, were jointly submitted to the DOE for Field Demonstration of the Partners` new technologies under the DOE Class 3 Oil Program. The previous design of a special casing joint for the Oxnard field well was reviewed and adapted to the use of existing Downhole Hardware components from three suppliers, instead of one. The cost of drilling and completion of a well equipped with two horizontal drainholes was re-evaluated for the conditions prevailing in the Midway Sunset field, which are more favorable than in the Oxnard field, leading to considerable reductions in drilling rig time and cost.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Underground laboratories in Asia

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lin, Shin Ted; Yue, Qian

    2015-08-17

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

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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)

  11. 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.

  12. Work plan for ground water elevation data recorder/monitor well injection at Grand Junction, Colorado

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-07-18

    The purpose of this document is to describe the work that will be performed and the procedures that will be followed during installation of ground water monitor wells and ground water elevation data recorders (data loggers) at the Grand Junction, Colorado, Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project site. The monitor wells and data loggers will be used to gather required time-dependent data to investigate the interaction between the shallow aquifer and the Colorado River. Data collection objectives (DCO) identify reasons for collecting data. The following are DCOs for the Grand Junction ground water elevation data recorder/monitor well installation project: long-term continuous ground water level data and periodic ground water samples will be collected to better understand the relationship between surface and ground water at the site; water level and water quality data will eventually be used in future ground water modeling to more firmly establish boundary conditions in the vicinity of the Grand Junction processing site; modeling results will be used to demonstrate and document the potential remedial alternative of natural flushing.

  13. 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.

  14. 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

  15. 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)

  16. Underground physics with DUNE

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

    Kudryavtsev, Vitaly A.

    2016-06-09

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

  17. Corrective Action Investigation plan for Corrective Action Unit 546: Injection Well and Surface Releases, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Revision 0

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Alfred Wickline

    2008-03-01

    Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 546 is located in Areas 6 and 9 of the Nevada Test Site, which is approximately 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. Corrective Action Unit 546 is comprised of two Corrective Action Sites (CASs) listed below: •06-23-02, U-6a/Russet Testing Area •09-20-01, Injection Well These sites are being investigated because existing information on the nature and extent of potential contamination is insufficient to evaluate and recommend corrective action alternatives. Additional information will be obtained by conducting a corrective action investigation (CAI) before evaluating corrective action alternatives and selecting the appropriate corrective action for each CAS. The results of the field investigation will support a defensible evaluation of viable corrective action alternatives that will be presented in the Corrective Action Decision Document. The sites will be investigated based on the data quality objectives (DQOs) developed on November 8, 2007, by representatives of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office. The DQO process has been used to identify and define the type, amount, and quality of data needed to develop and evaluate appropriate corrective actions for CAU 546.

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

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Aines, Roger D.; Udell, Kent S.; Bruton, Carol J.; Carrigan, Charles R.

    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.

  19. 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

  20. 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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. Management of dry flue gas desulfurization by-products in underground mines. Quarterly report, August 1--October 31, 1997

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chugh, Y.P.

    1997-12-31

    The objective of this project was to develop and demonstrate two technologies for the placement of coal combustion by-products in abandoned underground coal mines, and to assess the environmental impact of these technologies for the management of CCB materials. The two technologies for the underground placement that were to be developed and demonstrated are: (1) pneumatic placement using virtually dry CCB products, and (2) hydraulic placement using a paste mixture of CCB products with about 70% solids. The period covered by this report is the second quarter of Phase 3 of the overall program. During this period over 8,000 tons of CCB mixtures was injected using the hydraulic paste technology. This amount of material virtually filled the underground opening around the injection well, and was deemed sufficient to demonstrate fully the hydraulic injection technology. By the end of this quarter about 2,000 tons of fly ash had been placed underground using the pneumatic placement technology. While the rate of injection of about 50 tons per hour met design criteria, problems were experienced in the delivery of fly ash to the pneumatic demonstration site. The source of the fly ash, the Archer Daniels Midland Company power plant at Decatur, Illinois is some distance from the demonstration site, and often sufficient tanker trucks are not available to haul enough fly ash to fully load the injection equipment. Further, on some occasions fly ash from the plant was not available. The injection well was plugged three times during the demonstration. This typically occurred due to cementation of the FBC ash in contact with water. After considerable deliberations and in consultation with the technical project officer, it was decided to stop further injection of CCB`s underground using the developed pneumatic technology.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. Underground house book

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Campbell, S.

    1980-01-01

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

  9. Underground Coal Gasification 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

  10. Base Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Summary)

    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. Vitrified underground structures

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

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

    1992-01-01

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

  12. Corrective Action Investigation Plan for Corrective Action Unit 219: Septic Systems and Injection Wells, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Rev. No.: 0

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    David A. Strand

    2005-01-01

    The Corrective Action Investigation Plan for Corrective Action Unit 219, Septic Systems and Injection Wells, has been developed in accordance with the ''Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order'' (1996) that was agreed to by the State of Nevada, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Department of Defense. The purpose of the investigation is to ensure that adequate data are collected to provide sufficient and reliable information to identify, evaluate, and select technically viable corrective actions. Corrective Action Unit 219 is located in Areas 3, 16, and 23 of the Nevada Test Site, which is 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. Corrective Action Unit 219 is comprised of the six Corrective Action Sites (CASs) listed below: (1) 03-11-01, Steam Pipes and Asbestos Tiles; (2) 16-04-01, Septic Tanks (3); (3) 16-04-02, Distribution Box; (4) 16-04-03, Sewer Pipes; (5) 23-20-01, DNA Motor Pool Sewage and Waste System; and (6) 23-20-02, Injection Well. These sites are being investigated because existing information on the nature and extent of potential contamination is insufficient to evaluate and recommend corrective action alternatives. Additional information will be obtained by conducting a corrective action investigation prior to evaluating corrective action alternatives and selecting the appropriate corrective action for each CAS. The results of the field investigation will support a defensible evaluation of viable corrective action alternatives that will be presented in the Corrective Action Decision Document.

  13. 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)

  14. Injection current dependences of electroluminescence transition energy in InGaN/GaN multiple quantum wells light emitting diodes under pulsed current conditions

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zhang, Feng; Ikeda, Masao Liu, Jianping; Zhang, Shuming; Zhou, Kun; Yang, Hui; Liu, Zongshun

    2015-07-21

    Injection current dependences of electroluminescence transition energy in blue InGaN/GaN multiple quantum wells light emitting diodes (LEDs) with different quantum barrier thicknesses under pulsed current conditions have been analyzed taking into account the related effects including deformation caused by lattice strain, quantum confined Stark effects due to polarization field partly screened by carriers, band gap renormalization, Stokes-like shift due to compositional fluctuations which are supposed to be random alloy fluctuations in the sub-nanometer scale, band filling effect (Burstein-Moss shift), and quantum levels in finite triangular wells. The bandgap renormalization and band filling effect occurring at high concentrations oppose one another, however, the renormalization effect dominates in the concentration range studied, since the band filling effect arising from the filling in the tail states in the valence band of quantum wells is much smaller than the case in the bulk materials. In order to correlate the carrier densities with current densities, the nonradiative recombination rates were deduced experimentally by curve-fitting to the external quantum efficiencies. The transition energies in LEDs both with 15 nm quantum barriers and 5 nm quantum barriers, calculated using full strengths of theoretical macroscopic polarization given by Barnardini and Fiorentini [Phys. Status Solidi B 216, 391 (1999)] are in excellent accordance with experimental results. The LED with 5 nm barriers has been shown to exhibit a higher transition energy and a smaller blue shift than those of LED with 15 nm barriers, which is mainly caused by the smaller internal polarization field in the quantum wells.

  15. High Temperature Superconducting Underground Cable

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Farrell, Roger, A.

    2010-02-28

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

  16. Design and Implementation of a CO(2) Flood Utilizing Advanced Reservoir Characterization and Horizontal Injection Wells in Shallow Shelf Carbonate Approaching Waterflood Depletion

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1997-12-31

    The work reported herein covers select tasks in Budget Phase 11. The principle Task in Budget Phase 11 included in this report is Field Demonstration. Completion of many of the Field Demonstration tasks during the last report period enabled an optimum carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) flood project to be designed, economically evaluated, and implemented in the field. Field implementation of the project commenced during late 1995, with actual C0{sub 2} injection commencing in mid-July, 1996. This report summarizes activities incurred following initial project start-up, towards the goal of optimizing project performance. The current project has focused on reducing initial investment cost by utilizing horizontal injection wells and concentrating the project in the best productivity area of the field. An innovative C0{sub 2} purchase agreement (no take-or-pay provisions, C0{sub 2} purchase price tied to West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil price) and gas recycle agreement (expensing costs as opposed to a large upfront capital investment for compression) were negotiated to further improve the project economics. The Grayburg-San Andres section had previously been divided into multiple zones based on the core study and gamma ray markers that correlate wells within the Unit. Each zone was mapped as continuous across the field. Previous core studies concluded that the reservoir quality in the South Cowden Unit (SCU) is controlled primarily by the distribution of a bioturbated and diagenetically-altered rock type with a distinctive chaotic texture. The chaotic modifier is derived from the visual effect of pervasive, small-scale intermixing of tan oil-stained reservoir rock with tight gray non- reservoir rock. The chaotic reservoir rock extends from Zone C (4780`-4800`) to the lower part of Zone F (4640`-4680`). Zones D (4755`-4780`) and E (4680`-4755`) are considered the main floodable zones, though Zone F is also productive and Zone C is productive above the oil- water contact

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  18. 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...

  19. Corrective Action Decision Document/Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 219: Septic Systems and Injection Wells, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Rev. No.: 0

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    David Strand

    2006-05-01

    This Corrective Action Decision Document/Closure Report has been prepared for Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 219, Septic Systems and Injection Wells, in Areas 3, 16, and 23 of the Nevada Test Site, Nevada, in accordance with the ''Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order'' (1996). Corrective Action Unit 219 is comprised of the following corrective action sites (CASs): (1) 03-11-01, Steam Pipes and Asbestos Tiles; (2) 16-04-01, Septic Tanks (3); (3) 16-04-02, Distribution Box; (4) 16-04-03, Sewer Pipes; (5) 23-20-01, DNA Motor Pool Sewage and Waste System; and (6) 23-20-02, Injection Well. The purpose of this Corrective Action Decision Document/Closure Report is to provide justification and documentation supporting the recommendation for closure of CAU 219 with no further corrective action beyond the application of a use restriction at CASs 16-04-01, 16-04-02, and 16-04-03. To achieve this, corrective action investigation (CAI) activities were performed from June 20 through October 12, 2005, as set forth in the CAU 219 Corrective Action Investigation Plan and Record of Technical Change No. 1. A best management practice was implemented at CASs 16-04-01, 16-04-02, and 16-04-03, and corrective action was performed at CAS 23-20-01 between January and April 2006. In addition, a use restriction will be applied to CASs 16-04-01, 16-04-02, and 16-04-03 to provide additional protection to Nevada Test Site personnel. The purpose of the CAI was to fulfill the following data needs as defined during the data quality objective (DQO) process: (1) Determine whether contaminants of concern (COCs) are present. (2) If COCs are present, determine their nature and extent. (3) Provide sufficient information and data to complete appropriate corrective actions. The CAU 219 dataset from the investigation results was evaluated based on the data quality indicator parameters. This evaluation demonstrated the quality and acceptability of the dataset for use in fulfilling the DQO data needs

  20. 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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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...

  4. 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.

  5. Science @WIPP: Underground Laboratory

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

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

  6. Addendum to the Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 322: Areas 1 & 3 Release Sites and Injection Wells Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Revision 0

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lynn Kidman

    2008-10-01

    This document constitutes an addendum to the June 2006, Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 322: Areas 1 & 3 Release Sites and Injection Wells as described in the document Recommendations and Justifications for Modifications for Use Restrictions Established under the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (UR Modification document) dated February 2008. The UR Modification document was approved by NDEP on February 26, 2008. The approval of the UR Modification document constituted approval of each of the recommended UR modifications. In conformance with the UR Modification document, this addendum consists of: • This cover page that refers the reader to the UR Modification document for additional information • The cover and signature pages of the UR Modification document • The NDEP approval letter • The corresponding section of the UR Modification document This addendum provides the documentation justifying the cancellation of the URs for: • CAS 01-25-01, AST Release • CAS 03-25-03, Mud Plant AST Diesel Release These URs were established as part of Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) corrective actions and were based on the presence of contaminants at concentrations greater than the action levels established at the time of the initial investigation (FFACO, 1996; as amended August 2006). Since these URs were established, practices and procedures relating to the implementation of risk-based corrective actions (RBCA) have changed. Therefore, these URs were re-evaluated against the current RBCA criteria as defined in the Industrial Sites Project Establishment of Final Action Levels (NNSA/NSO, 2006c). This re-evaluation consisted of comparing the original data (used to define the need for the URs) to risk-based final action levels (FALs) developed using the current Industrial Sites RBCA process. The re-evaluation resulted in a recommendation to

  7. Addendum to the Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 335: Area 6 Injection Well and Drain Pit Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Revison 0

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lynn Kidman

    2008-10-01

    This document constitutes an addendum to the June 2003, Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 335: Area 6 Injection Well and Drain Pit as described in the document Recommendations and Justifications for Modifications for Use Restrictions Established under the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (UR Modification document) dated February 2008. The UR Modification document was approved by NDEP on February 26, 2008. The approval of the UR Modification document constituted approval of each of the recommended UR modifications. In conformance with the UR Modification document, this addendum consists of: • This cover page that refers the reader to the UR Modification document for additional information • The cover and signature pages of the UR Modification document • The NDEP approval letter • The corresponding section of the UR Modification document This addendum provides the documentation justifying the cancellation of the URs for: • CAS 06-20-02, 20-inch Cased Hole • CAS 06-23-03, Drain Pit These URs were established as part of Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) corrective actions and were based on the presence of contaminants at concentrations greater than the action levels established at the time of the initial investigation (FFACO, 1996; as amended August 2006). Since these URs were established, practices and procedures relating to the implementation of risk-based corrective actions (RBCA) have changed. Therefore, these URs were re-evaluated against the current RBCA criteria as defined in the Industrial Sites Project Establishment of Final Action Levels (NNSA/NSO, 2006c). This re-evaluation consisted of comparing the original data (used to define the need for the URs) to risk-based final action levels (FALs) developed using the current Industrial Sites RBCA process. The re-evaluation resulted in a recommendation to remove these URs because

  8. 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.

  9. Well test report and CO/sub 2/ injection plan for the Little Knife Field CO/sub 2/ minitest Billings County, North Dakota. First annual report, September 1979-August 1980

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Upton, J.E.

    1981-11-01

    Gulf Oil Exploration and Production Company in conjunction with the Department of Energy is conducting a field test of the CO/sub 2/ miscible displacement process. The project is being conducted in the Mission Canyon Formation (lower Mississippian), a dolomitized carbonate reservoir which is currently in the middle stage of primary depletion. Location of the field is in west-central North Dakota at the approximate center of the Williston Basin. Four wells were drilled in an inverted four-spot configuration within the five-acre minitest. The central well is the injection well surrounded by three non-producing observation wells. Oriented cores were obtained from each well for detailed reservoir characterization and laboratory testing. In addition, pulse and injectivity tests were obtained. Results from these tests were used to upgrade two reservoir simulation models. Various parameters within the models were modified to determine the most efficient injection plan. A WAG-type injection sequence involving alternate slugs of water and CO/sub 2/ will be employed. The test is designed to establish the incremental recovery, over waterflooding, by a miscible CO/sub 2/ flood in an oil reservoir.

  10. 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....

  11. 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...

  12. 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.

  13. The WIPP Underground Ventilation System

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

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

  14. 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.

  15. Underground barrier construction apparatus with soil-retaining shield

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

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

    1998-01-01

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

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

    Office of Science (SC) Website

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

  17. Annual Report RCRA Post-Closure Monitoring and Inspections for CAU 91: Area 3 U-3fi Injection Well, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, for the period October 2000-October 2001

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    D. S. Tobiason

    2002-02-01

    This annual Neutron Soil Moisture Monitoring report provides an analysis and summary for site inspections, meteorological information, and neutron soil moisture monitoring data obtained at the U-3fi Injection Well during the October 2000 to October 2001 period. The U-3fi Injection Well is located in Area 3 of the Nevada Test Site (NTS), Nye County, Nevada. Inspections of the Area 3 U-3fi Injection Well are conducted to determine and document the physical condition of the concrete pad, facilities, and any unusual conditions that could impact the proper operation of the waste disposal unit closure. The objective of the neutron-logging program is to monitor the soil moisture conditions along the 128-meter (m) (420-ft) ER3-3 monitoring well and detect changes that may be indicative of moisture movement in the regulated interval extending between 73 to 82 m (240 to 270 ft) or to detect changes that may be indicative of subsidence within the disposal unit itself.

  18. 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.

  19. LUNA: Nuclear astrophysics underground

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Best, A.

    2015-02-24

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

  20. Underground waste barrier structure

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Saha, Anuj J.; Grant, David C.

    1988-01-01

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

  1. 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.

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

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

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

    1995-01-01

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

  3. 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.

  4. 'Underground battery' could store renewable energy, sequester CO2 |

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    National Nuclear Security Administration | (NNSA) 'Underground battery' could store renewable energy, sequester CO2 Wednesday, January 6, 2016 - 2:40pm NNSA Blog This integrated system would store carbon dioxide in an underground reservoir, with concentric rings of horizontal wells confining the pressurized CO2 beneath the caprock. Stored CO2 displaces brine that flows up wells to the surface where it is heated by thermal plants (e.g., solar farms) and reinjected into the reservoir to store

  5. 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

  6. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  9. Underground coal gasification. Presentations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2007-07-01

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

  10. 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.

  11. 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)

  12. 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; ...

  13. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  16. 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...

  17. 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...

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

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

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

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

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

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

  20. 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...

  1. 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...

  2. 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...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  9. Corrective Action Investigation Plan for Corrective Action Unit 322: Areas 1 and 3 Release Sites and Injection Wells, Nevada Test Site, Nevada: Revision 0, Including Record of Technical Change No. 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office

    2003-07-16

    This Corrective Action Investigation Plan contains the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office's approach to collect the data necessary to evaluate corrective action alternatives (CAAs) appropriate for the closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 322, Areas 1 and 3 Release Sites and Injection Wells, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, under the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order. Corrective Action Unit 322 consists of three Corrective Action Sites (CASs): 01-25-01, AST Release (Area 1); 03-25-03, Mud Plant AST Diesel Release (Area 3); 03-20-05, Injection Wells (Area 3). Corrective Action Unit 322 is being investigated because existing information on the nature and extent of potential contamination is insufficient to evaluate and recommend corrective action alternatives. The investigation of three CASs in CAU 322 will determine if hazardous and/or radioactive constituents are present at concentrations and locations that could potentially pose a threat to human health and the environment. The results of this field investigation will support a defensible evaluation of corrective action alternatives in the corrective action decision document.

  10. Design and implementation of a CO{sub 2} flood utilizing advanced reservoir characterization and horizontal injection wells in a shallow shelf carbonate approaching waterflood depletion. Annual report, July 1, 1996--June 30, 1997

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dollens, K.B.; Harpole, K.J.; Durrett, E.G.; Bles, J.S.

    1997-12-01

    The work reported herein covers select tasks in Budget Phase 2. The principle Task in Budget Phase 2 included in this report is Field Demonstration. Completion of many of the Field Demonstration tasks during the last report period enabled an optimum carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) flood project to be designed, economically evaluated, and implemented in the field. Field implementation of the project commenced during late 1995, with actual CO{sub 2} injection commencing in mid-July, 1996. This report summarizes activities incurred following initial project start-up, towards the goal of optimizing project performance. The current project has focused on reducing initial investment cost by utilizing horizontal injection wells and concentrating the project in the best productivity area of the field. An innovative CO{sub 2} purchase agreement (no take-or-pay provisions, CO{sub 2} purchase price tied to West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil price) and gas recycle agreement (expensing costs as opposed to a large upfront capital investment for compression) were negotiated to further improve the project economics.

  11. Management of dry flue gas desulfurization by-products in underground mines. Annual report, October 1993--September 1994

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chugh, Y.P.; Dutta, D.; Esling, S.; Ghafoori, N.; Paul, B.; Sevim, H.; Thomasson, E.

    1994-10-01

    Preliminary environmental risk assessment on the FGD by-products to be placed underground is virtually complete. The initial mixes for pneumatic and hydraulic placement have been selected and are being subject to TCLP, ASTM, and modified SLP shake tests as well as ASTM column leaching. Results of these analyses show that the individual coal combustion residues, and the residues mixes, are non-hazardous in character. Based on available information, including well logs obtained from Peabody Coal Company, a detailed study of the geology of the placement site was completed. The study shows that the disposal site in the abandoned underground mine workings at depths of between 325 and 375 feet are well below potable groundwater resources. This, coupled with the benign nature of the residues and residues mixtures, should alleviate any concern that the underground placement will have adverse effects on groundwater resources. Seven convergence stations were installed in the proposed underground placement area of the Peabody Coal Company No. 10 mine. Several sets of convergence data were obtained from the stations. A study of materials handling and transportation of coal combustion residues from the electric power plant to the injection site has been made. The study evaluated the economics of the transportation of coal combustion residues by pneumatic trucks, by pressure differential rail cars, and by SEEC, Inc. collapsible intermodal containers (CICs) for different annual handling rates and transport distances. The preliminary physico-chemical characteristics and engineering properties of various FBC fly ash-spent bed mixes have been determined, and long-term studies of these properties are continuing.

  12. 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

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

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

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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

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

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

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

  1. 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

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

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

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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  19. 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...

  20. 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...

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

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

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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  7. 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

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

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

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

  9. 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

  10. 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

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

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

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

  12. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  15. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  4. 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

  5. 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

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

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

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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

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

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

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