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


1

Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage  

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

Total Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Total Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 50,130 81,827 167,632 312,290 457,725 420,644 359,267 370,180 453,548 436,748 221,389 90,432 2012 74,854 56,243 240,351 263,896 357,965 323,026 263,910 299,798 357,109 327,767 155,554 104,953 2013 70,592 41,680 99,330 270,106 465,787 438,931 372,458 370,471 418,848 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 12/12/2013 Next Release Date: 1/7/2014 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground Storage - All Operators

2

Surface effects of underground nuclear explosions  

SciTech Connect

The effects of nuclear explosions have been observed and studied since the first nuclear test (code named Trinity) on July 16, 1945. Since that first detonation, 1,053 nuclear tests have been conducted by the US, most of which were sited underground at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The effects of underground nuclear explosions (UNEs) on their surroundings have long been the object of much interest and study, especially for containment, engineering, and treaty verification purposes. One aspect of these explosion-induced phenomena is the disruption or alteration of the near-surface environment, also known as surface effects. This report was prepared at the request of the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), to bring together, correlate, and preserve information and techniques used in the recognition and documentation of surface effects of UNEs. This report has several main sections, including pertinent background information (Section 2.0), descriptions of the different types of surface effects (Section 3.0), discussion of their application and limitations (Section 4.0), an extensive bibliography and glossary (Section 6.0 and Appendix A), and procedures used to document geologic surface effects at the NTS (Appendix C). Because a majority of US surface-effects experience is from the NTS, an overview of pertinent NTS-specific information also is provided in Appendix B. It is not within the scope of this report to explore new relationships among test parameters, physiographic setting, and the types or degree of manifestation of surface effects, but rather to compile, summarize, and capture surface-effects observations and interpretations, as well as documentation procedures and the rationale behind them.

Allen, B.M.; Drellack, S.L. Jr.; Townsend, M.J.

1997-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

3

Underground helium travels to the Earth's surface via aquifers...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

carried to the surface with the flow of water. The only place where helium is made on Earth is underground, where deep veins of uranium and thorium give off atoms of helium as...

4

,"U.S. Working Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"  

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

Total Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" Total Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Working Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","nga_epg0_sacw0_nus_mmcfa.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/nga_epg0_sacw0_nus_mmcfa.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov"

5

Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas)  

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

Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 4,302,792 4,302,341 4,302,108 4,303,570 4,304,364 4,301,779 4,300,139 4,300,269 4,301,291 4,301,737 4,299,727 4,301,752 2012 4,309,129 4,309,505 4,321,454 4,325,195 4,332,383 4,338,100 4,342,905 4,347,859 4,351,797 4,365,049 4,372,359 4,372,412 2013 4,365,146 4,365,297 4,363,812 4,363,259 4,367,088 4,370,387 4,351,118 4,348,089 4,348,899 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 12/12/2013 Next Release Date: 1/7/2014 Referring Pages: Underground Base

6

U.S. Natural Gas Salt Underground Storage - Total (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Total (Million Cubic Feet) Total (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Salt Underground Storage - Total (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 84,650 74,817 80,243 89,252 99,008 97,724 105,227 105,831 112,197 115,062 116,865 113,229 1995 127,040 118,542 112,576 120,337 127,595 132,749 130,338 117,338 134,950 142,711 138,775 131,368 1996 121,867 110,621 100,667 120,036 125,710 134,937 130,796 135,916 145,249 148,410 151,210 149,245 1997 122,426 108,624 120,923 123,380 138,068 145,452 131,065 131,980 142,780 159,497 161,999 149,833 1998 136,305 135,263 131,302 148,739 151,004 149,079 156,601 157,940 150,855 183,160 186,058 171,088 1999 149,354 144,176 134,794 144,963 161,229 167,124 160,812 168,386 178,681 182,040 183,512 168,536

7

U.S. Natural Gas Non-Salt Underground Storage - Total (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Total (Million Cubic Feet) Total (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Non-Salt Underground Storage - Total (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 5,842,438 5,352,874 5,220,483 5,427,454 5,807,019 6,150,408 6,523,428 6,855,588 7,153,329 7,314,086 7,214,150 6,852,919 1995 6,283,457 5,791,160 5,581,144 5,619,397 5,933,659 6,286,946 6,510,677 6,716,782 7,008,042 7,191,015 6,931,287 6,371,139 1996 5,694,851 5,258,703 4,947,685 5,046,305 5,367,004 5,734,954 6,102,705 6,440,727 6,797,354 6,997,046 6,737,406 6,364,016 1997 5,720,628 5,372,450 5,214,628 5,269,851 5,566,356 5,942,439 6,241,244 6,562,763 6,889,752 7,084,695 6,896,165 6,374,770 1998 5,923,228 5,632,905 5,393,111 5,576,347 5,963,201 6,299,655 6,649,456 6,879,896 7,117,737 7,350,123 7,312,560 6,884,476

8

U.S. Total Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Total Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1973 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,864,000 1974 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3,042,000 NA 2,912,000 1975 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3,085,000 3,107,000 3,150,000 3,162,000 1976 3,169,000 3,173,000 3,170,000 3,184,000 3,190,000 3,208,000 3,220,000 3,251,000 3,296,000 3,302,000 3,305,000 3,323,000 1977 3,293,000 3,283,000 3,286,000 3,286,000 3,293,000 3,300,000 3,317,000 3,346,000 3,364,000 3,373,000 3,403,000 3,391,000 1978 3,374,000 3,373,000 3,374,000 3,377,000 3,379,000 3,381,000 3,386,000 3,403,000 3,411,000 3,444,000 3,425,000 3,473,000

9

U.S. Total Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Total Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1973 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,034,000 1974 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,403,000 NA 2,050,000 1975 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,468,000 2,599,000 2,541,000 2,212,000 1976 1,648,000 1,444,000 1,326,000 1,423,000 1,637,000 1,908,000 2,192,000 2,447,000 2,650,000 2,664,000 2,408,000 1,926,000 1977 1,287,000 1,163,000 1,215,000 1,427,000 1,731,000 2,030,000 2,348,000 2,599,000 2,824,000 2,929,000 2,821,000 2,475,000 1978 1,819,000 1,310,000 1,123,000 1,231,000 1,491,000 1,836,000 2,164,000 2,501,000 2,813,000 2,958,000 2,927,000 2,547,000

10

Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas)  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 2,305,843 1,721,875 1,577,007 1,788,480 2,186,855 2,529,647 2,775,346 3,019,155 3,415,698 3,803,828 3,842,882 3,462,021 2012 2,910,007 2,448,810 2,473,130 2,611,226 2,887,060 3,115,447 3,245,201 3,406,134 3,693,053 3,929,250 3,799,215 3,412,910 2013 2,693,215 2,088,293 1,709,624 1,843,563 2,255,657 2,625,874 2,919,726 3,192,029 3,544,465 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 12/12/2013 Next Release Date: 1/7/2014 Referring Pages:

11

GIS surface effects archive of underground nuclear detonations conducted at Yucca Flat and Pahute Mesa, Nevada Test Site, Nevada  

SciTech Connect

This report presents a new comprehensive, digital archive of more than 40 years of geologic surface effects maps produced at individual detonation sites throughout the Yucca Flat and Pahute Mesa nuclear testing areas of the Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. The Geographic Information System (GIS) surface effects map archive on CD-ROM (this report) comprehensively documents the surface effects of underground nuclear detonations conducted at two of the most extensively used testing areas of the Nevada Test Site. Between 1951 and 1992, numerous investigators of the U.S. Geological Survey, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency meticulously mapped the surface effects caused by underground nuclear testing. Their work documented the effects of more than seventy percent of the underground nuclear detonations conducted at Yucca Flat and all of the underground nuclear detonations conducted at Pahute Mesa.

Grasso, D.N.

2001-11-02T23:59:59.000Z

12

Complete Embedded Minimal Surfaces of Finite Total David Hoffman  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Complete Embedded Minimal Surfaces of Finite Total Curvature David Hoffman Department-5300 Bonn, Germany July 18, 1994 Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Basic theory and the global Weierstrass representation 4 2.1 Finite total curvature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2

13

Correlation Of Surface Heat Loss And Total Energy Production...  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Correlation Of Surface Heat Loss And Total Energy Production For Geothermal Systems Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Conference Paper: Correlation...

14

EXPERIMENTS, CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES AND SCHEDULES FOR AN UNDERGROUND RESEARCH FACILITY  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

surface and underground facilities as we11 as operation andconstruction of the underground facility. However, because

Korbin, G.

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

15

Total effective dose equivalent associated with fixed uranium surface contamination  

SciTech Connect

This report provides the technical basis for establishing a uranium fixed-contamination action level, a fixed uranium surface contamination level exceeding the total radioactivity values of Appendix D of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, part 835 (10CFR835), but below which the monitoring, posting, and control requirements for Radiological Areas are not required for the area of the contamination. An area of fixed uranium contamination between 1,000 dpm/100 cm{sup 2} and that level corresponding to an annual total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) of 100 mrem requires only routine monitoring, posting to alert personnel of the contamination, and administrative control. The more extensive requirements for monitoring, posting, and control designated by 10CFR835 for Radiological Areas do not have to be applied for these intermediate fixed-contamination levels.

Bogard, J.S.; Hamm, R.N.; Ashley, J.C.; Turner, J.E.; England, C.A.; Swenson, D.E.; Brown, K.S.

1997-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

16

Evaluation of Cavity Collapse and Surface Crater Formation for Selected Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Underground Nuclear Tests - 2010  

SciTech Connect

This report evaluates collapse evolution for selected Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) underground nuclear tests at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS, formerly called the Nevada Test Site). The work is being done at the request of Navarro-Interra LLC, and supports environmental restoration efforts by the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration for the Nevada Site Office. Safety decisions must be made before a surface crater area, or potential surface crater area, can be reentered for any work. Our statements on cavity collapse and surface crater formation are input into their safety decisions. These statements do not include the effects of erosion that may modify the surface collapse craters over time. They also do not address possible radiation dangers that may be present. Subject matter experts from the LLNL Containment Program who had been active in weapons testing activities performed these evaluations. Information used included drilling and hole construction, emplacement and stemming, timing and sequence of the selected test and nearby tests, geology, yield, depth of burial, collapse times, surface crater sizes, cavity and crater volume estimations, and ground motion. Both classified and unclassified data were reviewed. Various amounts of information are available for these tests, depending on their age and other associated activities. Lack of data can hamper evaluations and introduce uncertainty. We make no attempt to quantify this uncertainty.

Pawloski, G A

2011-01-03T23:59:59.000Z

17

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 Storage Base Gas in Underground Storage Working Gas in Underground Storage Underground Storage Injections Underground Storage Withdrawals Underground Storage Net Withdrawals Total Consumption Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption Pipeline & Distribution Use Delivered to Consumers Residential Commercial Industrial Vehicle Fuel Electric Power Period:

18

Total  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Total Total .............. 16,164,874 5,967,376 22,132,249 2,972,552 280,370 167,519 18,711,808 1993 Total .............. 16,691,139 6,034,504 22,725,642 3,103,014 413,971 226,743 18,981,915 1994 Total .............. 17,351,060 6,229,645 23,580,706 3,230,667 412,178 228,336 19,709,525 1995 Total .............. 17,282,032 6,461,596 23,743,628 3,565,023 388,392 283,739 19,506,474 1996 Total .............. 17,680,777 6,370,888 24,051,665 3,510,330 518,425 272,117 19,750,793 Alabama Total......... 570,907 11,394 582,301 22,601 27,006 1,853 530,841 Onshore ................ 209,839 11,394 221,233 22,601 16,762 1,593 180,277 State Offshore....... 209,013 0 209,013 0 10,244 260 198,509 Federal Offshore... 152,055 0 152,055 0 0 0 152,055 Alaska Total ............ 183,747 3,189,837 3,373,584 2,885,686 0 7,070 480,828 Onshore ................ 64,751 3,182,782

19

Global relationships of total alkalinity with salinity and temperature in surface waters of the world's oceans  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Global relationships of total alkalinity with salinity and temperature in surface waters, R. A. Feely, and R. M. Key (2006), Global relationships of total alkalinity with salinity 35)2 + d (SST Ã? 20) + e (SST Ã? 20)2 fits surface total alkalinity (AT) data for each of five

20

Total............................................................  

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

Total................................................................... Total................................................................... 111.1 2,033 1,618 1,031 791 630 401 Total Floorspace (Square Feet) Fewer than 500............................................... 3.2 357 336 113 188 177 59 500 to 999....................................................... 23.8 733 667 308 343 312 144 1,000 to 1,499................................................. 20.8 1,157 1,086 625 435 409 235 1,500 to 1,999................................................. 15.4 1,592 1,441 906 595 539 339 2,000 to 2,499................................................. 12.2 2,052 1,733 1,072 765 646 400 2,500 to 2,999................................................. 10.3 2,523 2,010 1,346 939 748 501 3,000 to 3,499................................................. 6.7 3,020 2,185 1,401 1,177 851 546

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


21

Underground Exploration  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Underground Exploration and Testing A Report to Congress and the Secretary of Energy Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board October 1993 Yucca Mountain at #12;Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Dr. John E and Testing #12;Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Introduction

22

Total...................  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4,690,065 52,331,397 2,802,751 4,409,699 7,526,898 209,616 1993 Total................... 4,956,445 52,535,411 2,861,569 4,464,906 7,981,433 209,666 1994 Total................... 4,847,702 53,392,557 2,895,013 4,533,905 8,167,033 202,940 1995 Total................... 4,850,318 54,322,179 3,031,077 4,636,500 8,579,585 209,398 1996 Total................... 5,241,414 55,263,673 3,158,244 4,720,227 8,870,422 206,049 Alabama ...................... 56,522 766,322 29,000 62,064 201,414 2,512 Alaska.......................... 16,179 81,348 27,315 12,732 75,616 202 Arizona ........................ 27,709 689,597 28,987 49,693 26,979 534 Arkansas ..................... 46,289 539,952 31,006 67,293 141,300 1,488 California ..................... 473,310 8,969,308 235,068 408,294 693,539 36,613 Colorado...................... 110,924 1,147,743

23

Total..........................................................................  

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

7.1 7.1 19.0 22.7 22.3 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 2.1 0.6 Q 0.4 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 13.6 3.7 3.2 3.2 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 9.5 3.7 3.4 4.2 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 6.6 2.7 2.5 3.6 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 5.0 2.1 2.8 2.4 2,500 to 2,999..................................................... 10.3 3.7 1.8 2.8 2.1 3,000 to 3,499..................................................... 6.7 2.0 1.4 1.7 1.6 3,500 to 3,999..................................................... 5.2 1.6 0.8 1.5 1.4 4,000 or More.....................................................

24

Total..........................................................................  

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

0.7 0.7 21.7 6.9 12.1 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.9 0.6 Q Q 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 9.0 4.2 1.5 3.2 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 8.6 4.7 1.5 2.5 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 6.0 2.9 1.2 1.9 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 4.1 2.1 0.7 1.3 2,500 to 2,999..................................................... 10.3 3.0 1.8 0.5 0.7 3,000 to 3,499..................................................... 6.7 2.1 1.2 0.5 0.4 3,500 to 3,999..................................................... 5.2 1.5 0.8 0.3 0.4 4,000 or More.....................................................

25

Total..........................................................................  

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

25.6 25.6 40.7 24.2 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.9 0.5 0.9 1.0 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 4.6 3.9 9.0 6.3 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 2.8 4.4 8.6 5.0 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 1.9 3.5 6.0 4.0 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 2.3 3.2 4.1 2.6 2,500 to 2,999..................................................... 10.3 2.2 2.7 3.0 2.4 3,000 to 3,499..................................................... 6.7 1.6 2.1 2.1 0.9 3,500 to 3,999..................................................... 5.2 1.1 1.7 1.5 0.9 4,000 or More.....................................................

26

Total..........................................................................  

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

4.2 4.2 7.6 16.6 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 1.0 0.2 0.8 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 6.3 1.4 4.9 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 5.0 1.6 3.4 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 4.0 1.4 2.6 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 2.6 0.9 1.7 2,500 to 2,999..................................................... 10.3 2.4 0.9 1.4 3,000 to 3,499..................................................... 6.7 0.9 0.3 0.6 3,500 to 3,999..................................................... 5.2 0.9 0.4 0.5 4,000 or More.....................................................

27

Total.........................................................................  

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

Floorspace (Square Feet) Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 2 Fewer than 500.................................................. 3.2 Q 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.5 500 to 999.......................................................... 23.8 1.5 5.4 5.5 6.1 5.3 1,000 to 1,499.................................................... 20.8 1.4 4.0 5.2 5.0 5.2 1,500 to 1,999.................................................... 15.4 1.4 3.1 3.5 3.6 3.8 2,000 to 2,499.................................................... 12.2 1.4 3.2 3.0 2.3 2.3 2,500 to 2,999.................................................... 10.3 1.5 2.3 2.7 2.1 1.7 3,000 to 3,499.................................................... 6.7 1.0 2.0 1.7 1.0 1.0 3,500 to 3,999.................................................... 5.2 0.8 1.5 1.5 0.7 0.7 4,000 or More.....................................................

28

Total..........................................................................  

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

. . 111.1 20.6 15.1 5.5 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.9 0.5 0.4 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 4.6 3.6 1.1 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 2.8 2.2 0.6 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 1.9 1.4 0.5 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 2.3 1.7 0.5 2,500 to 2,999..................................................... 10.3 2.2 1.7 0.6 3,000 to 3,499..................................................... 6.7 1.6 1.0 0.6 3,500 to 3,999..................................................... 5.2 1.1 0.9 0.3 4,000 or More.....................................................

29

Total..........................................................................  

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

7.1 7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.4 Q Q 0.5 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 2.5 1.5 2.1 3.7 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 1.1 2.0 1.5 2.5 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 0.5 1.2 1.2 1.9 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 0.7 0.5 0.8 1.4 2,500 to 2,999..................................................... 10.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 1.1 3,000 to 3,499..................................................... 6.7 0.3 Q 0.4 0.3 3,500 to 3,999..................................................... 5.2 Q Q Q Q 4,000 or More.....................................................

30

Total..........................................................  

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

.. .. 111.1 24.5 1,090 902 341 872 780 441 Total Floorspace (Square Feet) Fewer than 500...................................... 3.1 2.3 403 360 165 366 348 93 500 to 999.............................................. 22.2 14.4 763 660 277 730 646 303 1,000 to 1,499........................................ 19.1 5.8 1,223 1,130 496 1,187 1,086 696 1,500 to 1,999........................................ 14.4 1.0 1,700 1,422 412 1,698 1,544 1,348 2,000 to 2,499........................................ 12.7 0.4 2,139 1,598 Q Q Q Q 2,500 to 2,999........................................ 10.1 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 3,000 or More......................................... 29.6 0.3 Q Q Q Q Q Q Heated Floorspace (Square Feet) None...................................................... 3.6 1.8 1,048 0 Q 827 0 407 Fewer than 500......................................

31

Total...................................................................  

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

2,033 2,033 1,618 1,031 791 630 401 Total Floorspace (Square Feet) Fewer than 500............................................... 3.2 357 336 113 188 177 59 500 to 999....................................................... 23.8 733 667 308 343 312 144 1,000 to 1,499................................................. 20.8 1,157 1,086 625 435 409 235 1,500 to 1,999................................................. 15.4 1,592 1,441 906 595 539 339 2,000 to 2,499................................................. 12.2 2,052 1,733 1,072 765 646 400 2,500 to 2,999................................................. 10.3 2,523 2,010 1,346 939 748 501 3,000 to 3,499................................................. 6.7 3,020 2,185 1,401 1,177 851 546 3,500 to 3,999................................................. 5.2 3,549 2,509 1,508

32

Total...........................................................  

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

26.7 26.7 28.8 20.6 13.1 22.0 16.6 38.6 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................... 3.2 1.9 0.9 Q Q Q 1.3 2.3 500 to 999........................................... 23.8 10.5 7.3 3.3 1.4 1.2 6.6 12.9 1,000 to 1,499..................................... 20.8 5.8 7.0 3.8 2.2 2.0 3.9 8.9 1,500 to 1,999..................................... 15.4 3.1 4.2 3.4 2.0 2.7 1.9 5.0 2,000 to 2,499..................................... 12.2 1.7 2.7 2.9 1.8 3.2 1.1 2.8 2,500 to 2,999..................................... 10.3 1.2 2.2 2.3 1.7 2.9 0.6 2.0 3,000 to 3,499..................................... 6.7 0.9 1.4 1.5 1.0 1.9 0.4 1.4 3,500 to 3,999..................................... 5.2 0.8 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.5 0.4 1.3 4,000 or More...................................... 13.3 0.9 1.9 2.2 2.0 6.4 0.6 1.9 Heated Floorspace

33

Total...........................................................  

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

14.7 14.7 7.4 12.5 12.5 18.9 18.6 17.3 9.2 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500.................................... 3.2 0.7 Q 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.3 Q 500 to 999........................................... 23.8 2.7 1.4 2.2 2.8 5.5 5.1 3.0 1.1 1,000 to 1,499..................................... 20.8 2.3 1.4 2.4 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.6 1.6 1,500 to 1,999..................................... 15.4 1.8 1.4 2.2 2.0 2.4 2.4 2.1 1.2 2,000 to 2,499..................................... 12.2 1.4 0.9 1.8 1.4 2.2 2.1 1.6 0.8 2,500 to 2,999..................................... 10.3 1.6 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.7 0.8 3,000 to 3,499..................................... 6.7 1.0 0.5 0.8 0.8 1.2 0.8 0.9 0.8 3,500 to 3,999..................................... 5.2 1.1 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.5 1.0 0.5 4,000 or More...................................... 13.3

34

Total................................................  

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

.. .. 111.1 86.6 2,522 1,970 1,310 1,812 1,475 821 1,055 944 554 Total Floorspace (Square Feet) Fewer than 500............................. 3.2 0.9 261 336 162 Q Q Q 334 260 Q 500 to 999.................................... 23.8 9.4 670 683 320 705 666 274 811 721 363 1,000 to 1,499.............................. 20.8 15.0 1,121 1,083 622 1,129 1,052 535 1,228 1,090 676 1,500 to 1,999.............................. 15.4 14.4 1,574 1,450 945 1,628 1,327 629 1,712 1,489 808 2,000 to 2,499.............................. 12.2 11.9 2,039 1,731 1,055 2,143 1,813 1,152 Q Q Q 2,500 to 2,999.............................. 10.3 10.1 2,519 2,004 1,357 2,492 2,103 1,096 Q Q Q 3,000 or 3,499.............................. 6.7 6.6 3,014 2,175 1,438 3,047 2,079 1,108 N N N 3,500 to 3,999.............................. 5.2 5.1 3,549 2,505 1,518 Q Q Q N N N 4,000 or More...............................

35

Animals that Hide Underground  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Animals that Hide Underground Animals that Hide Underground Nature Bulletin No. 733 November 23, 1963 Forest Preserve District of Cook County Seymour Simon, President David H. Thompson, Senior Naturalist ANIMALS THAT HIDE UNDERGROUND A hole in the ground has an air of mystery about it that rouses our curiosity. No matter whether it is so small that only a worm could squeeze into it, or large enough for a fox den, our questions are much the same. What animal dug the hole? Is it down there now? What is it doing? When will it come out? An underground burrow has several advantages for an animal. In it, many kinds find safety from enemies for themselves and their young. For others, it is an air-conditioned escape from the burning sun of summer and a snug retreat away from the winds and cold of winter. The moist atmosphere of a subterranean home allows the prolonged survival of a wide variety of lower animals which, above the surface, would soon perish from drying.

36

Natural Gas Withdrawals from Underground Storage (Annual Supply &  

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 Storage Base Gas in Underground Storage Working Gas in Underground Storage Underground Storage Injections Underground Storage Withdrawals Underground Storage Net Withdrawals Total Consumption Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption Pipeline & Distribution Use Delivered to Consumers Residential Commercial Industrial Vehicle Fuel Electric Power Period: Monthly Annual

37

Correlation Of Surface Heat Loss And Total Energy Production For Geothermal  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

source source History View New Pages Recent Changes All Special Pages Semantic Search/Querying Get Involved Help Apps Datasets Community Login | Sign Up Search Page Edit History Facebook icon Twitter icon » Correlation Of Surface Heat Loss And Total Energy Production For Geothermal Systems Jump to: navigation, search GEOTHERMAL ENERGYGeothermal Home Conference Paper: Correlation Of Surface Heat Loss And Total Energy Production For Geothermal Systems Details Activities (1) Areas (1) Regions (0) Abstract: Geothermal systems lose their heat by a site-specific combination of conduction (heat flow) and advection (surface discharge). The conductive loss at or near the surface (shallow heat flow) is a primary signature and indication of the strength of a geothermal system. Using a database of

38

,"Underground Natural Gas Storage by Storage Type"  

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

Sourcekey","N5030US2","N5010US2","N5020US2","N5070US2","N5050US2","N5060US2" "Date","U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)","U.S. Total Natural Gas in Underground...

39

Underground Layout Configuration  

SciTech Connect

The purpose of this analysis was to develop an underground layout to support the license application (LA) design effort. In addition, the analysis will be used as the technical basis for the underground layout general arrangement drawings.

A. Linden

2003-09-25T23:59:59.000Z

40

Underground coal gasification : overview of an economic and environmental evaluation.  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

??This paper examines an overview of the economic and environmental aspects of Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) as a viable option to the above ground Surface… (more)

Kitaka, Richard Herbertson

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

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


41

An effective medium study of surface plasmon polaritons in nanostructured gratings using attenuated total reflection  

SciTech Connect

Recent work studied surface plasmon resonances in structured materials by the method of attenuated total reflection using a prism on top of a metallic grating. That calculation considered Transverse Magnetic polarized radiation, involved an expansion in 121 Fourier modes, and found a number of interesting features. Many of these features were attributed to localized plasmons or other factors, which arise from a discrete structure. We use a simple effective medium theory to address the same problem, and find many of the same reflection features observed in the more complex calculation, indicating that localization is not an important factor. We also evaluate the possibility of using some of the new features in the reflection spectrum for bio-sensing and find that the sensitivity of the system to small changes in relative permittivity is increased compared to some standard methods.

Tyboroski, M. H.; Anderson, N. R.; Camley, R. E. [UCCS BioFrontiers Center, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80918 (United States)

2014-01-07T23:59:59.000Z

42

Science @WIPP: Underground Laboratory  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

WIPP 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" office has allowed WIPP to offer its mine operations infrastructure and space in the underground to researchers requiring a deep underground setting with dry conditions and very low levels of naturally occurring radioactive materials. Please contact Roger Nelson, chief scientist of the Department of

43

Underground Injection Control (Louisiana)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

The Injection and Mining Division (IMD) has the responsibility of implementing two major federal environmental programs which were statutorily charged to the Office of Conservation: the Underground...

44

Underground Power Cables  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...1973 research-article Underground Power Cables J. D. Endacott Up to the present, effectively...particular, in recent years, the oil-filled cable system using cellulose paper impregnated...design of supertension underground power cable systems are considered. The limitations...

1973-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

45

Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity Estimates for Intact Coal Barriers Between Closed Underground Mines  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...discharges were obtained from industry reports stored at the Consol...mining beneath surface water and waste impoundments: In Proceedings...associated with underground coal gasification: Canadian Geotechnical Journal...underground mining United States waste disposal water quality West...

KURT J. McCOY; JOSEPH J. DONOVAN; BRUCE R. LEAVITT

46

Underground pumped hydroelectric storage  

SciTech Connect

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

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

1984-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

47

Underground ventilation remote monitoring and control system  

SciTech Connect

This paper presents the design and installation of an underground ventilation remote monitoring and control system at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. This facility is designed to demonstrate safe underground disposal of U.S. defense generated transuranic nuclear waste. To improve the operability of the ventilation system, an underground remote monitoring and control system was designed and installed. The system consists of 15 air velocity sensors and 8 differential pressure sensors strategically located throughout the underground facility providing real-time data regarding the status of the ventilation system. In addition, a control system was installed on the main underground air regulators. The regulator control system gives indication of the regulator position and can be controlled either locally or remotely. The sensor output is displayed locally and at a central surface location through the site-wide Central Monitoring System (CMS). The CMS operator can review all sensor data and can remotely operate the main underground regulators. Furthermore, the Virtual Address Extension (VAX) network allows the ventilation engineer to retrieve real-time ventilation data on his personal computer located in his workstation. This paper describes the types of sensors selected, the installation of the instrumentation, and the initial operation of the remote monitoring system.

Strever, M.T.; Wallace, K.G. Jr.; McDaniel, K.H.

1995-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

48

Oil shale retorted underground  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Oil shale retorted underground ... Low-temperature underground retorting of oil shale produces a crude oil with many attractive properties, Dr. George R. Hill of the University of Utah told a meeting of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers last week in Los Angeles. ... Typical above-ground retorting of oil shale uses temperatures of 900° to 1100° F. because of the economic need ... ...

1967-02-27T23:59:59.000Z

49

GOING UNDERGROUND IN FINLAND: DESIGN OF ONKALO IN PROGRESS  

SciTech Connect

The long-term program aimed at selection of a site for a deep repository was initiated in Finland in 1983. This program has come to end in 2001 and a new phase aimed at implementation of the geological disposal of spent fuel has been started. In this new phase the first milestone is the application for a construction license for the disposal facility around 2010. To fulfill the needs for detailed design of the disposal system, an underground rock characterization facility (URCF) will be constructed at the representative depth at Olkiluoto. The excavation of this facility will start the work for underground characterization, testing and demonstration, which is planned to be a continuous activity throughout the whole life cycle of the deep repository. The overall objectives for the underground site characterization are (1) verification of the present conclusions on site suitability, (2) definition and identification of suitable rock volumes for repository space and (3) characterization of planned host rock for detailed design, safety assessment and construction planning. The objective for verification aims at assessing that the Olkiluoto site meets the basic criteria for long-term safety and as well the basic requirements for construction and thus justifies the site selection. The two other main objectives are closely related to design of the repository and assessing the long-term safety of the site-specific disposal system. The most important objective of ONKALO should allow an in-depth investigation of the geological environment and to provide the opportunity to allow validation of models at more appropriate scales and conditions than can be achieved from the surface. In some areas, such as in demonstrating operational safety, in acquiring geological information at a repository scale and in constructional and operational feasibility, the ONKALO will provide the only reliable source of in situ data. The depth range envisaged for URCF called ONKALO is between 400 and 600 m. The location and underground geometry of access ramp is of significance. Development of ONKALO will begin in 2003 and it consists of surface facilities, access ramp and vertical shaft to the depth of 500 meters and characterization and demonstration facilities. Total volume of the ONKALO underground facilities is approximately 250 000 m3. The development will be completed around 2010. The reconciliation of construction and investigations plays an important role through the project. Other major issues will be the management of groundwater conditions, workplace safety and documentation of the work.

Dikds, T.; Ikonen, A.; Niiranen, S.; Hansen, J.

2003-02-27T23:59:59.000Z

50

Total analysis of surface structure and properties by UHV transfer system  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

We have developed an ultrahigh-vacuum (UHV) complex sample preparation and analysis system, which realizes a reliable surface science analyzing various characters on an identical surface. The system contains three sample-preparation-and-characterization chambers and five analysis chambers. They are (1) an electronic-properties-characterization chamber, (2) a magnetic-properties-characterization chamber, (3) an organic-molecule chamber, (4) UHV SEM, (5) a high-energy-resolution angle-resolved photoelectron spectrometer, (6) a high-energy-resolution display-type spherical mirror analyzer, (7) a room-temperature (RT) STM, and (8) an optical-properties characterization chamber. A special sample holder is used with six electrodes on it, which enables accurate temperature measurement of a sample by connecting a thermocouple directly to the sample even if it is transferred. Four other electrodes can be used for construction of various circuits including evaporators. Some examples are shown.

Hiroshi Yamatani; Ken Hattori; Takahisa Matsuta; Takuji Ito; Tomohito Nohno; Madoka Hori; Yutaka Miyatake; Shigenori Konno; Tsukasa Tanaka; Yoji Hamada; Hiroshi Katagiri; Mikiharu Hibi; Toshiki Miyai; Mie Hashimoto; Keita Kataoka; Takeshi Tatsuta; Azusa N. Hattori; Naoto Higashi; Mitsunori Honda; Norifumi Masunaga; Hiroaki Mino; Shintaro Yasui; Janathul Nayeem; Tatsuya Shimizu; Nobuaki Takahashi; Yukako Kato; Chikako Sakai; Masashi Yoshimura; Sakura N. Takeda; Fumihiko Matsui; Hiroshi Daimon

2007-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

51

Underground waste barrier structure  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

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.

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

1988-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

52

Cost Comparison Among Concepts of Injection for CO2 Offshore Underground Sequestration Envisaged in Japan  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Publisher Summary Japan is in the process of 5-year R&D program of underground storage of CO2, and this study was carried out as part of this program. Offshore saline aquifers are the target geological formation in this program because (1) most of large-scale emission sources of CO2 are located near the coast in Japan, (2) aquifers of large volume are expected to be found more in offshore than on land, and (3) site acquisition is much more costly on land. At present, the total time scheme of the sequestration process is assumed, which is based on practical results from similar processes such as large-scale underground storage of natural gas in aquifers. The total system of underground sequestration can be roughly divided into three processes: recovery, transportation, and injection. Although the methods of recovery and transportation have been well studied, the injection process has not been established as it is significantly affected by geographic, geological, and topographic features of the site. The cost of injection into an offshore aquifer varies with the method applied. One reason is that there are a variety of applicable designs and construction methods of wells and surface facilities (especially offshore) that depend on the conditions of injection site. The other reason is that there are many uncertainties in exploration and operation, as is the case with petroleum development. This chapter presents the results of the preliminary analysis on the costs of injection facilities.

Hironori Kotsubo; Takashi Ohsumi; Hitoshi Koide; Motoo Uno; Takeshi Ito; Toshio Kobayashi; Kozo Ishida

2003-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

53

Underground Injection Control Rule (Vermont)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

This rule regulates injection wells, including wells used by generators of hazardous or radioactive wastes, disposal wells within an underground source of drinking water, recovery of geothermal...

54

Underground Storage Tank Program (Vermont)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

These rules are intended to protect public health and the environment by establishing standards for the design, installation, operation, maintenance, monitoring, and closure of underground storage...

55

Underground Injection Control Regulations (Kansas)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

This article prohibits injection of hazardous or radioactive wastes into or above an underground source of drinking water, establishes permit conditions and states regulations for design,...

56

Regulated underground storage tanks  

SciTech Connect

This guidance package is designed to assist DOE Field operations by providing thorough guidance on the underground storage tank (UST) regulations. (40 CFR 280). The guidance uses tables, flowcharts, and checklists to provide a roadmap'' for DOE staff who are responsible for supervising UST operations. This package is tailored to address the issues facing DOE facilities. DOE staff should use this guidance as: An overview of the regulations for UST installation and operation; a comprehensive step-by-step guidance for the process of owning and operating an UST, from installation to closure; and a quick, ready-reference guide for any specific topic concerning UST ownership or operation.

Not Available

1992-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

57

Regulated underground storage tanks  

SciTech Connect

This guidance package is designed to assist DOE Field operations by providing thorough guidance on the underground storage tank (UST) regulations. [40 CFR 280]. The guidance uses tables, flowcharts, and checklists to provide a ``roadmap`` for DOE staff who are responsible for supervising UST operations. This package is tailored to address the issues facing DOE facilities. DOE staff should use this guidance as: An overview of the regulations for UST installation and operation; a comprehensive step-by-step guidance for the process of owning and operating an UST, from installation to closure; and a quick, ready-reference guide for any specific topic concerning UST ownership or operation.

Not Available

1992-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

58

Saving an Underground Reservoir  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

significant part of the region?s agricultural economy. Though the area has few rivers and lakes, underneath it lies a supply of water that has provided groundwater for developing this economy. This underground water, the Ogallala Aquifer, is a finite.... ?We have already seen isolat- ed areas that have no irrigation water remaining and the economy has been crushed.? The region produces about 4 percent of the nation?s corn, 25 percent of the hard red winter wheat, 23 per- cent of the grain sorghum...

Wythe, Kathy

2006-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

59

Net Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage (Summary)  

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

Pipeline and Distribution Use Price Citygate Price Residential Price Commercial Price Industrial Price Vehicle Fuel Price Electric Power Price Proved Reserves as of 12/31 Reserves Adjustments Reserves Revision Increases Reserves Revision Decreases Reserves Sales Reserves Acquisitions Reserves Extensions Reserves New Field Discoveries New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields Estimated Production Number of Producing Gas Wells 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 Natural Gas Processed NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Dry Production Imports By Pipeline LNG Imports Exports Exports By Pipeline LNG Exports Underground Storage Capacity Underground Storage Injections Underground Storage Withdrawals Underground Storage Net Withdrawals LNG Storage Additions LNG Storage Withdrawals LNG Storage Net Withdrawals Total Consumption Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption Lease Fuel Plant Fuel Pipeline & Distribution Use Delivered to Consumers Residential Commercial Industrial Vehicle Fuel Electric Power Period: Monthly Annual

60

Underground Gasification of Coal Reported  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Underground Gasification of Coal Reported ... RESULTS of a first step taken toward determining the feasibility of the underground gasification of coal were reported recently to the Interstate Oil Compact Commission by Milton H. Fies, manager of coal operations for the Alabama Power Co. ...

1947-05-12T23:59:59.000Z

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


61

Prince George's County Underground Storage Act (Maryland) | Department of  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Prince George's County Underground Storage Act (Maryland) Prince George&#039;s County Underground Storage Act (Maryland) Prince George's County Underground Storage Act (Maryland) < Back Eligibility Commercial Retail Supplier Tribal Government Program Info State Maryland Program Type Environmental Regulations Provider Maryland Department of the Environment A gas storage company may invoke eminent domain to acquire property in Prince George's County for underground gas storage purposes. The area acquired must lie not less than 800 feet below the surface of a maximum of 12,000 acres of land, and may be owned by a public body. A permit from the Department of the Environment, along with an order from the Public Service Commission, is required prior to the use of eminent domain. The Act contains further information on eminent domain, landowner, and property

62

California Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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...

63

California Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...  

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

Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) California Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

64

Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

. . Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity by State, December 31, 1996 (Capacity in Billion Cubic Feet) Table State Interstate Companies Intrastate Companies Independent Companies Total Number of Active Fields Capacity Number of Active Fields Capacity Number of Active Fields Capacity Number of Active Fields Capacity Percent of U.S. Capacity Alabama................. 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 3 0.04 Arkansas ................ 0 0 3 32 0 0 3 32 0.40 California................ 0 0 10 470 0 0 10 470 5.89 Colorado ................ 4 66 5 34 0 0 9 100 1.25 Illinois ..................... 6 259 24 639 0 0 30 898 11.26 Indiana ................... 6 16 22 97 0 0 28 113 1.42 Iowa ....................... 4 270 0 0 0 0 4 270 3.39 Kansas ................... 16 279 2 6 0 0 18 285 3.57 Kentucky ................ 6 167 18 49 0 0 24 216 2.71 Louisiana................ 8 530 4 25 0 0 12 555 6.95 Maryland ................ 1 62

65

Control Surveys for Underground Construction of the Superconducting Super Collider  

SciTech Connect

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

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

2005-08-16T23:59:59.000Z

66

Investigating leaking underground storage tanks  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

INVESTIGATING LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS A Thesis by DAVID THOMPSON UPTON Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE August 1989... Major Subject: Geology INVESTIGATING LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS A Thesis by DAVID THOMPSON UPTON Approved as to sty)e and content by: P. A, Domenico (Chair of Committee) jj K. W. Brown (Member) C. C Mathewson (Member) J. H. S ng Head...

Upton, David Thompson

1989-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

67

Underground Facilities, Technological Challenges  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

This report gives a summary overview of the status of international under- ground facilities, in particular as relevant to long-baseline neutrino physics and neutrino astrophysics. The emphasis is on the technical feasibility aspects of creating the large underground infrastructures that will be needed in the fu- ture to house the necessary detectors of 100 kton to 1000 kton scale. There is great potential in Europe to build such a facility, both from the technical point of view and because Europe has a large concentration of the necessary engi- neering and geophysics expertise. The new LAGUNA collaboration has made rapid progress in determining the feasibility for a European site for such a large detector. It is becoming clear in fact that several locations are technically fea- sible in Europe. Combining this with the possibility of a new neutrino beam from CERN suggests a great opportunity for Europe to become the leading centre of neutrino studies, combining both neutrino astrophysics and neutrino beam stu...

Spooner, N

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

68

Underground Coal Thermal Treatment  

SciTech Connect

The long-term objective of this work is to develop a transformational energy production technology by insitu thermal treatment of a coal seam for the production of substitute natural gas (SNG) while leaving much of the coalâ??s carbon in the ground. This process converts coal to a high-efficiency, low-GHG emitting gas fuel. It holds the potential of providing environmentally acceptable access to previously unusable coal resources. This topical report discusses the development of experimental capabilities, the collection of available data, and the development of simulation tools to obtain process thermo-chemical and geo-thermal parameters in preparation for the eventual demonstration in a coal seam. It also includes experimental and modeling studies of CO{sub 2} sequestration. Efforts focused on: â?¢ Constructing a suite of three different coal pyrolysis reactors. These reactors offer the ability to gather heat transfer, mass transfer and kinetic data during coal pyrolysis under conditions that mimic in situ conditions (Subtask 6.1). â?¢ Studying the operational parameters for various underground thermal treatment processes for oil shale and coal and completing a design matrix analysis for the underground coal thermal treatment (UCTT). This analysis yielded recommendations for terms of targeted coal rank, well orientation, rubblization, presence of oxygen, temperature, pressure, and heating sources (Subtask 6.2). â?¢ Developing capabilities for simulating UCTT, including modifying the geometry as well as the solution algorithm to achieve long simulation times in a rubblized coal bed by resolving the convective channels occurring in the representative domain (Subtask 6.3). â?¢ Studying the reactive behavior of carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) with limestone, sandstone, arkose (a more complex sandstone) and peridotite, including mineralogical changes and brine chemistry for the different initial rock compositions (Subtask 6.4). Arkose exhibited the highest tendency of participating in mineral reactions, which can be attributed to the geochemical complexity of its initial mineral assemblage. In experiments with limestone, continuous dissolution was observed with the release of CO{sub 2} gas, indicated by the increasing pressure in the reactor (formation of a gas chamber). This occurred due to the lack of any source of alkali to buffer the solution. Arkose has the geochemical complexity for permanent sequestration of CO{sub 2} as carbonates and is also relatively abundant. The effect of including NH{sub 3} in the injected gas stream was also investigated in this study. Precipitation of calcite and trace amounts of ammonium zeolites was observed. A batch geochemical model was developed using Geochemists Workbench (GWB). Degassing effect in the experiments was corrected using the sliding fugacity model in GWB. Experimental and simulation results were compared and a reasonable agreement between the two was observed.

P. Smith; M. Deo; E. Eddings; A. Sarofim; K. Gueishen; M. Hradisky; K. Kelly; P. Mandalaparty; H. Zhang

2011-10-30T23:59:59.000Z

69

Underground Storage Technology Consortium  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

U U U N N D D E E R R G G R R O O U U N N D D G G A A S S S S T T O O R R A A G G E E T T E E C C H H N N O O L L O O G G Y Y C C O O N N S S O O R R T T I I U U M M R R & & D D P P R R I I O O R R I I T T Y Y R R E E S S E E A A R R C C H H N N E E E E D D S S WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS February 3, 2004 Atlanta, Georgia U U n n d d e e r r g g r r o o u u n n d d G G a a s s S S t t o o r r a a g g e e T T e e c c h h n n o o l l o o g g y y C C o o n n s s o o r r t t i i u u m m R R & & D D P P r r i i o o r r i i t t y y R R e e s s e e a a r r c c h h N N e e e e d d s s OVERVIEW As a follow up to the development of the new U.S. Department of Energy-sponsored Underground Gas Storage Technology Consortium through Penn State University (PSU), DOE's National Energy Technology Center (NETL) and PSU held a workshop on February 3, 2004 in Atlanta, GA to identify priority research needs to assist the consortium in developing Requests for Proposal (RFPs). Thirty-seven

70

A Cost Benefit Analysis of California's Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

s Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks (LUFTs)”. Submitted to theCalifornia’s Underground Storage Tank Program”. Submitted tos Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks” by Samantha Carrington

Carrington-Crouch, Robert

1996-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

71

Total Number of Existing Underground Natural Gas Storage Fields  

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

Monthly Annual Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History U.S. 400 401 409 411 410 414 1989-2012 Alabama 2 2 2 2 2 2 1995-2012 Arkansas 2 2 2 2 2 2 1989-2012 California 12 12 13 13 13 14 1989-2012 Colorado 8 8 9 9 9 10 1989-2012 Illinois 29 28 28 28 28 28 1989-2012 Indiana 22 22 22 22 22 22 1989-2012 Iowa 4 4 4 4 4 4 1989-2012 Kansas 19 19 19 19 19 19 1989-2012 Kentucky 23 23 23 23 23 23 1989-2012 Louisiana 15 17 18 18 18 18 1989-2012 Maryland 1 1 1 1 1 1 1989-2012 Michigan 45 45 45 45 45 45 1989-2012 Minnesota 1 1 1 1 1 1 1989-2012

72

Relationship Between Surface Free Energy and Total Work of Fracture of Asphalt Binder and Asphalt Binder-Aggregate Interfaces  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

is the surface free energy of the asphalt binder and the aggregate. Surface free energy, which is a thermodynamic material property, is directly related to the adhesive bond energy between the asphalt binder and the aggregate as well as the cohesive bond energy...

Howson, Jonathan Embrey

2012-10-19T23:59:59.000Z

73

Underground and Ventilation System  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

HQ Total Nuclear Safety Program 8 7 3 2 12 Emergency Management 3 7 2 1 10 NWP Conduct of Operations 1 1 1 0 2 Maintenance Program 2 2 2 2 6 Radiation Protection Program 2 4 1 0 5...

74

Logistics background study: underground mining  

SciTech Connect

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

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

1982-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

75

Modelling rock–water interactions in flooded underground coal mines, Northern Appalachian Basin  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...Office of Surface Mining 3 Parkway Center...flooded underground coal mines in northern Appalachia, USA. In early...the Effects of Coal Mining, Greene County...Seam of Northern Appalachia. In: Proceedings Eastern Coal Mine Geomechanics...

Eric F. Perry

76

Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

Breakout Session 1C—Fostering Technology Adoption I: Building the Market for Renewables with High Octane Fuels Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility Ryan Haerer, Program Analyst, Alternative Fuels, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Environmental Protection Agency

77

High Temperature Superconducting Underground Cable  

SciTech Connect

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.

Farrell, Roger, A.

2010-02-28T23:59:59.000Z

78

Underground and under scrutiny  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

turns to groundwater Nearly every aspect of Texas groundwater is complicated. Unlike the clear movement of surface water to rivers and reservoirs following rains, the science of exactly how water moves down into aquifers and then within... their geological features is more multifaceted. Consider that each aquifer in Texas has different geological and hydrological character- istics, and therefore varying recharge rates, water quality and regional needs, and the complexity heightens. From a legal...

Lee, Leslie

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

79

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

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

3,"Monthly","9/2013","1/15/1989" 3,"Monthly","9/2013","1/15/1989" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","ng_stor_cap_dcu_nus_m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_stor_cap_dcu_nus_m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 7:03:21 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity" "Sourcekey","N5290US2","NGA_EPG0_SACW0_NUS_MMCF","NA1394_NUS_8" "Date","U.S. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)","U.S. Working Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)","U.S. Natural Gas Count of Underground Storage Capacity (Count)"

80

Underground test area subproject waste management plan. Revision No. 1  

SciTech Connect

The Nevada Test Site (NTS), located in southern Nevada, was the site of 928 underground nuclear tests conducted between 1951 and 1992. The tests were performed as part of the Atomic Energy Commission and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons testing program. The NTS is managed by the DOE Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV). Of the 928 tests conducted below ground surface at the NTS, approximately 200 were detonated below the water table. As an unavoidable consequence of these testing activities, radionuclides have been introduced into the subsurface environment, impacting groundwater. In the few instances of groundwater sampling, radionuclides have been detected in the groundwater; however, only a very limited investigation of the underground test sites and associated shot cavities has been conducted to date. The Underground Test Area (UGTA) Subproject was established to fill this void and to characterize the risk posed to human health and the environment as a result of underground nuclear testing activities at the NTS. One of its primary objectives is to gather data to characterize the deep aquifer underlying the NTS.

NONE

1996-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

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


81

Rating underground pipeline tape and shrink sleeve coating systems  

SciTech Connect

A rating system was developed for several coating types used for underground pipeline systems. Consideration included soil stress, adhesion, surface preparation, cathodic protection (CP) shielding, CP requirements, handling and construction, repair, field joint system, bends and other components, and the application process. Polyethylene- and polyvinyl chloride-backed tapes, woven polyolefin geotextile fabric (WGF)-backed tapes, hot-applied tapes, petrolatum- and wax-based tapes, and shrink sleeves were evaluated. WGF-backed tapes had the highest rating.

Norsworthy, R.

1999-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

82

Midwest Underground Technology | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Underground Technology Underground Technology Jump to: navigation, search Name Midwest Underground Technology Facility Midwest Underground Technology Sector Wind energy Facility Type Small Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Midwest Underground Technology Energy Purchaser Midwest Underground Technology Location Champaign IL Coordinates 40.15020987°, -88.29149723° Loading map... {"minzoom":false,"mappingservice":"googlemaps3","type":"ROADMAP","zoom":14,"types":["ROADMAP","SATELLITE","HYBRID","TERRAIN"],"geoservice":"google","maxzoom":false,"width":"600px","height":"350px","centre":false,"title":"","label":"","icon":"","visitedicon":"","lines":[],"polygons":[],"circles":[],"rectangles":[],"copycoords":false,"static":false,"wmsoverlay":"","layers":[],"controls":["pan","zoom","type","scale","streetview"],"zoomstyle":"DEFAULT","typestyle":"DEFAULT","autoinfowindows":false,"kml":[],"gkml":[],"fusiontables":[],"resizable":false,"tilt":0,"kmlrezoom":false,"poi":true,"imageoverlays":[],"markercluster":false,"searchmarkers":"","locations":[{"text":"","title":"","link":null,"lat":40.15020987,"lon":-88.29149723,"alt":0,"address":"","icon":"","group":"","inlineLabel":"","visitedicon":""}]}

83

Might underground waste repositories blow up?  

SciTech Connect

Some writers have presented possible scenarios in which a subcritical underground deposit of plutonium or other fissile material might be changed into a critical configuration. The underground criticalities that occurred in Gabon some 1.7 billion years ago in deposits of natural uranium is cited. Other scientists assert that it is virtually impossible that such a configuration could develop in an underground repository. The author presents the pros and cons of these views. 5 refs.

Hippel, F. von [Princeton Univ., NJ (United States)

1996-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

84

Underground Storage Tank Regulations | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Underground Storage Tank Regulations Underground Storage Tank Regulations Underground Storage Tank Regulations < Back Eligibility Agricultural Commercial Construction Developer Fed. Government Fuel Distributor General Public/Consumer Industrial Installer/Contractor Institutional Investor-Owned Utility Local Government Low-Income Residential Multi-Family Residential Municipal/Public Utility Nonprofit Residential Retail Supplier Rural Electric Cooperative Schools State/Provincial Govt Systems Integrator Transportation Tribal Government Utility Savings Category Alternative Fuel Vehicles Hydrogen & Fuel Cells Program Info State Mississippi Program Type Environmental Regulations Siting and Permitting Provider Department of Environmental Quality The Underground Storage Tank Regulations is relevant to all energy projects

85

Unsteady heat losses of underground pipelines  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Analytic expressions are presented for the unsteady temperature distribution of the ground and heat losses of an underground pipeline for an arbitrary...

B. L. Krivoshein; V. M. Agapkin

1977-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

86

,"Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"  

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

Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators",8,"Monthly","102014","1151973" ,"Release...

87

Pipelines and Underground Gas Storage (Iowa)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

These rules apply to intrastate transport of natural gas and other substances via pipeline, as well as underground gas storage facilities. The construction and operation of such infrastructure...

88

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

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

Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators",3,"Annual",2013,"6301967"...

89

,"California Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity"  

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

Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity",12,"Annual",2013,"6301988" ,"Release...

90

Cryogenic slurry for extinguishing underground fires  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

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

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

1994-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

91

,"New York Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity"  

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

Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New York Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity",11,"Annual",2013,"6301988" ,"Release...

92

Hawaii Underground Injection Control Permitting Webpage | Open...  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

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

93

Numerical Simulations of Leakage from Underground LPG Storage Caverns  

SciTech Connect

To secure a stable supply of petroleum gas, underground storage caverns for liquified petroleum gas (LPG) are commonly used in many countries worldwide. Storing LPG in underground caverns requires that the surrounding rock mass remain saturated with groundwater and that the water pressure be higher than the liquid pressure inside the cavern. In previous studies, gas containment criteria for underground gas storage based on hydraulic gradient and pressure have been discussed, but these studies do not consider the physicochemical characteristics and behavior of LPG such as vaporization and dissolution in groundwater. Therefore, while these studies are very useful for designing storage caverns, they do not provide better understanding of the either the environmental effects of gas contamination or the behavior of vaporized LPG. In this study, we have performed three-phase fluid flow simulations of gas leakage from underground LPG storage caverns, using the multiphase multicomponent nonisothermal simulator TMVOC (Pruess and Battistelli, 2002), which is capable of solving the three-phase nonisothermal flow of water, gas, and a multicomponent mixture of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) in multidimensional heterogeneous porous media. A two-dimensional cross-sectional model resembling an actual underground LPG facility in Japan was developed, and gas leakage phenomena were simulated for three different permeability models: (1) a homogeneous model, (2) a single-fault model, and (3) a heterogeneous model. In addition, the behavior of stored LPG was studied for the special case of a water curtain suddenly losing its function because of operational problems, or because of long-term effects such as clogging of boreholes. The results of the study indicate the following: (1) The water curtain system is a very powerful means for preventing gas leakage from underground storage facilities. By operating with appropriate pressure and layout, gas containment can be ensured. (2) However , in highly heterogeneous media such as fractured rock and fault zones, local flow paths within which the gas containment criterion is not satisfied could be formed. To eliminate such zones, treatments such as pre/post grouting or an additional installment of water-curtain boreholes are essential. (3) Along highly conductive features such as faults, even partially saturated zones possess certain effects that can retard or prevent gas leakage, while a fully unsaturated fault connected to the storage cavern can quickly cause a gas blowout. This possibility strongly suggests that ensuring water saturation of the rock surrounding the cavern is a very important requirement. (4) Even if an accident should suddenly impair the water curtain, the gas plume does not quickly penetrate the ground surface. In these simulations, the plume takes several months to reach the ground surface.

Yamamoto, Hajime; Pruess, Karsten

2004-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

94

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

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

Total Underground Storage",6,"Monthly","9/2013","1/15/1973" Total Underground Storage",6,"Monthly","9/2013","1/15/1973" ,"Data 2","Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year",2,"Monthly","9/2013","1/15/1973" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","ng_stor_sum_dcu_nus_m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_stor_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 7:04:07 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage"

95

,"Colorado Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"  

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

"Sourcekey","N5030CO2","N5010CO2","N5020CO2","N5070CO2","N5050CO2","N5060CO2" "Date","Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)","Colorado Natural Gas in Underground...

96

Carbon Allocation in Underground Storage Organs  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Carbon Allocation in Underground Storage Organs Studies on Accumulation of Starch, Sugars and Oil Cover: Starch granules in cells of fresh potato tuber visualised by iodine staining. #12;Carbon By increasing knowledge of carbon allocation in underground storage organs and using the knowledge to improve

97

Underground coal gasification: a brief review of current status  

SciTech Connect

Coal gasification is a promising option for the future use of coal. Similarly to gasification in industrial reactors, underground coal gasification (UCG) produces syngas, which can be used for power generation or for the production of liquid hydrocarbon fuels and other valuable chemical products. As compared with conventional mining and surface gasification, UCG promises lower capital/operating costs and also has other advantages, such as no human labor underground. In addition, UCG has the potential to be linked with carbon capture and sequestration. The increasing demand for energy, depletion of oil and gas resources, and threat of global climate change lead to growing interest in UCG throughout the world. In this article, we review the current status of this technology, focusing on recent developments in various countries.

Shafirovich, E.; Varma, A. [Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN (United States). School of Chemical Engineering

2009-09-15T23:59:59.000Z

98

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

DOE Patents (OSTI)

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.

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

1995-09-12T23:59:59.000Z

99

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

Open Energy Info (EERE)

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

100

Colorado Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

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

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


101

Progress Continues Toward Closure of Two Underground Waste Tanks...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Progress Continues Toward Closure of Two Underground Waste Tanks at Savannah River Site Progress Continues Toward Closure of Two Underground Waste Tanks at Savannah River Site...

102

The Simulation Analysis of Fire Feature on Underground Substation  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Underground transformer substations constructed with non-dwelling buildings have a ... out simulation analysis of fire feature on underground substation. The corresponding fire protection strategy is also...

Xin Han; Xie He; Beihua Cong

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

103

California Natural Gas Count of Underground Storage Capacity...  

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

Count of Underground Storage Capacity (Number of Elements) California Natural Gas Count of Underground Storage Capacity (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3...

104

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

Office of Legacy Management (LM)

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

105

Seismic verification of underground explosions  

SciTech Connect

The first nuclear test agreement, the test moratorium, was made in 1958 and lasted until the Soviet Union unilaterally resumed testing in the atmosphere in 1961. It was followed by the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963, which prohibited nuclear tests in the atmosphere, in outer space, and underwater. In 1974 the Threshold Test Ban Treaty (TTBT) was signed, limiting underground tests after March 1976 to a maximum yield of 250 kt. The TTBT was followed by a treaty limiting peaceful nuclear explosions and both the United States and the Soviet Union claim to be abiding by the 150-kt yield limit. A comprehensive test ban treaty (CTBT), prohibiting all testing of nuclear weapons, has also been discussed. However, a verifiable CTBT is a contradiction in terms. No monitoring technology can offer absolute assurance that very-low-yield illicit explosions have not occurred. The verification process, evasion opportunities, and cavity decoupling are discussed in this paper.

Glenn, L.A.

1985-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

106

Depleted Argon from Underground Sources  

SciTech Connect

Argon is a strong scintillator and an ideal target for Dark Matter detection; however {sup 39}Ar contamination in atmospheric argon from cosmic ray interactions limits the size of liquid argon dark matter detectors due to pile-up. Argon from deep underground is depleted in {sup 39}Ar due to the cosmic ray shielding of the earth. In Cortez, Colorado, a CO{sub 2} well has been discovered to contain approximately 600 ppm of argon as a contamination in the CO{sub 2}. We first concentrate the argon locally to 3% in an Ar, N{sub 2}, and He mixture, from the CO{sub 2} through chromatographic gas separation, and then the N{sub 2} and He will be removed by continuous distillation to purify the argon. We have collected 26 kg of argon from the CO{sub 2} facility and a cryogenic distillation column is under construction at Fermilab to further purify the argon.

Back, H. O.; Galbiati, C.; Goretti, A.; Loer, B.; Montanari, D.; Mosteiro, P. [Department of Physics, Princeton University, Jadwin Hall, Princeton, NJ 08544 (United States); Alexander, T.; Alton, A.; Rogers, H. [Augustana College, Physics Department, 2001 South Summit Ave., Sioux Fall, SD 57197 (United States); Kendziora, C.; Pordes, S. [Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, P.O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510 (United States)

2011-04-27T23:59:59.000Z

107

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

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

U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators",3,"Annual",2012,"6/30/1935" U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators",3,"Annual",2012,"6/30/1935" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","ng_stor_sum_dcu_nus_a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_stor_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 7:04:06 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" "Sourcekey","N5070US2","N5050US2","N5060US2" "Date","U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)","U.S. Total Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (MMcf)","U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

108

Underground Coal Gasification in the USSR  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

By accomplishing in a single operation the extraction of coal and its conversion into a gaseous fuel, underground gasification makes it possible to avoid the heavy capital investments required for coal gasification

1983-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

109

Best practices for underground diesel emissions  

SciTech Connect

The US NIOSH and the Coal Diesel Partnership recommend practices for successfully using ceramic filters to control particulate emitted from diesel-powered equipment used in underground coal mines. 3 tabs.

Patts, L.; Brnich, M. Jr. [NIOSH Pittsburgh Research Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA (United States)

2007-08-15T23:59:59.000Z

110

Underground Storage of Natural Gas (Kansas)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

Any natural gas public utility may appropriate for its use for the underground storage of natural gas any subsurface stratum or formation in any land which the commission shall have found to be...

111

UEME : the underground electronic music experience  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

The global electronic music scene has remained underground for its entire lifespan, momentarily materializing during an event, a place defined by the music performed and the people who desire the experience. As festivals ...

Ciraulo, Christopher Samuel

2005-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

112

Depleted argon from underground sources  

SciTech Connect

Argon is a powerful scintillator and an excellent medium for detection of ionization. Its high discrimination power against minimum ionization tracks, in favor of selection of nuclear recoils, makes it an attractive medium for direct detection of WIMP dark matter. However, cosmogenic {sup 39}Ar contamination in atmospheric argon limits the size of liquid argon dark matter detectors due to pile-up. The cosmic ray shielding by the earth means that Argon from deep underground is depleted in {sup 39}Ar. In Cortez Colorado a CO{sub 2} well has been discovered to contain approximately 500ppm of argon as a contamination in the CO{sub 2}. In order to produce argon for dark matter detectors we first concentrate the argon locally to 3-5% in an Ar, N{sub 2}, and He mixture, from the CO{sub 2} through chromatographic gas separation. The N{sub 2} and He will be removed by continuous cryogenic distillation in the Cryogenic Distillation Column recently built at Fermilab. In this talk we will discuss the entire extraction and purification process; with emphasis on the recent commissioning and initial performance of the cryogenic distillation column purification.

Back, H.O.; /Princeton U.; Alton, A.; /Augustana U. Coll.; Calaprice, F.; Galbiati, C.; Goretti, A.; /Princeton U.; Kendziora, C.; /Fermilab; Loer, B.; /Princeton U.; Montanari, D.; /Fermilab; Mosteiro, P.; /Princeton U.; Pordes, S.; /Fermilab

2011-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

113

TOTAL Full-TOTAL Full-  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Conducting - Orchestral 6 . . 6 5 1 . 6 5 . . 5 Conducting - Wind Ensemble 3 . . 3 2 . . 2 . 1 . 1 Early- X TOTAL Full- Part- X TOTAL Alternative Energy 6 . . 6 11 . . 11 13 2 . 15 Biomedical Engineering 52 English 71 . 4 75 70 . 4 74 72 . 3 75 Geosciences 9 . 1 10 15 . . 15 19 . . 19 History 37 1 2 40 28 3 3 34

Portman, Douglas

114

A Comparison of Popular Remedial Technologies for Petroleum Contaminated Soils from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Underground Storage Tanks. Chelsea: Lewis Publishers.and Underground Storage Tank Sites. Database on-line.Michigan Underground Storage Tank Rules. Database on-line.

Kujat, Jonathon D.

1999-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

115

Assessing the Effectiveness of California's Underground Storage Tank Annual Inspection Rate Requirements  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Leaks from Underground Storage Tanks by Media Affected Soilfrom Underground Storage Tank Facilities Cities CountiesCities Counties Leaks per Underground Storage Tank Facility

Cutter, W. Bowman

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

116

E-Print Network 3.0 - amchitka underground nuclear Sample Search...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

underground nuclear Search Powered by Explorit Topic List Advanced Search Sample search results for: amchitka underground nuclear Page: << < 1 2 3 4 5 > >> 1 Underground Nuclear...

117

SEARCH FOR UNDERGROUND OPENINGS FOR IN SITU TEST FACILITIES IN CRYSTALLINE ROCK  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Helms Underground Powerhouse - Pumped storage project Figurelayout of underground powerhouse complex—Helms Pumped57. Helms Underground Powerhouse Pumped Storage Project

Wallenberg, H.A.

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

118

Total Imports  

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

Data Series: Imports - Total Imports - Crude Oil Imports - Crude Oil, Commercial Imports - by SPR Imports - into SPR by Others Imports - Total Products Imports - Total Motor Gasoline Imports - Finished Motor Gasoline Imports - Reformulated Gasoline Imports - Reformulated Gasoline Blended w/ Fuel Ethanol Imports - Other Reformulated Gasoline Imports - Conventional Gasoline Imports - Conv. Gasoline Blended w/ Fuel Ethanol Imports - Conv. Gasoline Blended w/ Fuel Ethanol, Ed55 & Ed55 Imports - Other Conventional Gasoline Imports - Motor Gasoline Blend. Components Imports - Motor Gasoline Blend. Components, RBOB Imports - Motor Gasoline Blend. Components, RBOB w/ Ether Imports - Motor Gasoline Blend. Components, RBOB w/ Alcohol Imports - Motor Gasoline Blend. Components, CBOB Imports - Motor Gasoline Blend. Components, GTAB Imports - Motor Gasoline Blend. Components, Other Imports - Fuel Ethanol Imports - Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel Imports - Distillate Fuel Oil Imports - Distillate F.O., 15 ppm Sulfur and Under Imports - Distillate F.O., > 15 ppm to 500 ppm Sulfur Imports - Distillate F.O., > 500 ppm to 2000 ppm Sulfur Imports - Distillate F.O., > 2000 ppm Sulfur Imports - Residual Fuel Oil Imports - Propane/Propylene Imports - Other Other Oils Imports - Kerosene Imports - NGPLs/LRGs (Excluding Propane/Propylene) Exports - Total Crude Oil and Products Exports - Crude Oil Exports - Products Exports - Finished Motor Gasoline Exports - Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel Exports - Distillate Fuel Oil Exports - Residual Fuel Oil Exports - Propane/Propylene Exports - Other Oils Net Imports - Total Crude Oil and Products Net Imports - Crude Oil Net Imports - Petroleum Products Period: Weekly 4-Week Avg.

119

The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Analysis > The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage Analysis > The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage Latest update: August 2004 Printer-Friendly Version Natural gas-a colorless, odorless, gaseous hydrocarbon-may be stored in a number of different ways. It is most commonly held in inventory underground under pressure in three types of facilities. These are: (1) depleted reservoirs in oil and/or gas fields, (2) aquifers, and (3) salt cavern formations. (Natural gas is also stored in liquid form in above-ground tanks. A discussion of liquefied natural gas (LNG) is beyond the scope of this report. For more information about LNG, please see the EIA report, The Global Liquefied Natural Gas Market: Status & Outlook.) Each storage type has its own physical characteristics (porosity, permeability, retention capability) and economics (site preparation and maintenance costs, deliverability rates, and cycling capability), which govern its suitability to particular applications. Two of the most important characteristics of an underground storage reservoir are its capacity to hold natural gas for future use and the rate at which gas inventory can be withdrawn-its deliverability rate (see Storage Measures, below, for key definitions).

120

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

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

Regional/State Underground Natural Gas Storage Table Regional/State Underground Natural Gas Storage Table About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates Regional Underground Natural Gas Storage, Close of 2007 Depleted-Reservoir Storage Aquifer Storage Salt-Cavern Storage Total Region/ State # of Sites Working Gas Capacity (Bcf) Daily Withdrawal Capability (MMcf) # of Sites Working Gas Capacity (Bcf) Daily Withdrawal Capability (MMcf) # of Sites Working Gas Capacity (Bcf) Daily Withdrawal Capability (MMcf) # of Sites Working Gas Capacity (Bcf) Daily Withdrawal Capability (MMcf) Central Region Colorado 8 42 1,088 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 42 1,088 Iowa 0 0 0 4 77 1,060 0 0 0 4 77 1,060

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


121

Active control of underground stresses through rock pressurization  

SciTech Connect

To significantly increase the stability of underground excavations while exploiting the full advantages of confined rock strength, methods must be developed to actively control the distribution of stresses near the excavation. This US Bureau of Mines study examines theoretical and practical aspects of rock pressurization, an active stress control concept that induces compressive stress in the wall rock through repeated hydraulic fracturing with a settable fluid. Numerical analyses performed by incorporating the rock pressurization concept into a variety of boundary-element models indicate that rock pressurization has the potential to improve underground excavation stability in three ways: (1) by relocating stress concentrations away from the weak opening surface to stronger, confined wall rock; (2) by inducing additional stresses in a biaxial stress field to reduce the difference between the principal stress components near the surface of the opening, and (3) by counteracting the tensile stresses induced in the rock around internally loaded openings. Practical aspects of the rock pressurization concept were investigated through a series of hydraulic fracturing experiments. The use of sulfur as a settable fluid for hydraulic fracturing was demonstrated, although problems related to sulfur viscosity suggest that other molten materials, such as wax, may be better suited to practical field application of the rock pressurization concept.

Vandergrift, T.L.

1995-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

122

The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage Latest update: August 2004 Natural gas-a colorless, odorless, gaseous hydrocarbon-may be stored in a number of different ways. It is most commonly held in inventory underground under pressure in three types of facilities. These are: (1) depleted reservoirs in oil and/or gas fields, (2) aquifers, and (3) salt cavern formations. (Natural gas is also stored in liquid form in above-ground tanks. A discussion of liquefied natural gas (LNG) is beyond the scope of this report. For more information about LNG, please see the EIA report, The Global Liquefied Natural Gas Market: Status & Outlook.) Each storage type has its own physical characteristics (porosity, permeability, retention capability) and economics (site preparation and

123

Method for making generally cylindrical underground openings  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

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

Routh, J.W.

1983-05-26T23:59:59.000Z

124

Underground Facilities Information (Iowa) | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Facilities Information (Iowa) Facilities Information (Iowa) Underground Facilities Information (Iowa) < Back Eligibility Agricultural Commercial Construction Fuel Distributor Industrial Installer/Contractor Institutional Investor-Owned Utility Low-Income Residential Multi-Family Residential Municipal/Public Utility Residential Transportation Utility Savings Category Alternative Fuel Vehicles Hydrogen & Fuel Cells Buying & Making Electricity Solar Wind Program Info State Iowa Program Type Environmental Regulations Provider Iowa Utilities Board This section applies to any excavation which may impact underground facilities, including those used for the conveyance of electricity or the transportation of hazardous liquids or natural gas. Excavation is prohibited unless notification takes place, as described in this chapter

125

Underground Injection Control Permits and Registrations (Texas) |  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

You are here You are here Home » Underground Injection Control Permits and Registrations (Texas) Underground Injection Control Permits and Registrations (Texas) < Back Eligibility Utility Agricultural Investor-Owned Utility State/Provincial Govt Industrial Construction Municipal/Public Utility Local Government Installer/Contractor Rural Electric Cooperative Fuel Distributor Savings Category Buying & Making Electricity Program Info State Texas Program Type Environmental Regulations Safety and Operational Guidelines Provider Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Chapter 27 of the Texas Water Code (the Injection Well Act) defines an "injection well" as "an artificial excavation or opening in the ground made by digging, boring, drilling, jetting, driving, or some other

126

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

Open Energy Info (EERE)

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

127

Visit to the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory  

ScienceCinema (OSTI)

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

None

2010-01-08T23:59:59.000Z

128

Ground Motions from and House Response to Underground Aggregate Mining  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

interest because many urban quarries have gone underground or are considering doing so. Three cracks were to determine future blasting controls for a underground aggregate quarry near Franklin, KY (Revey, 2005

129

Evaluation of energy system analysis techniques for identifying underground facilities  

SciTech Connect

This report describes the results of a study to determine the feasibility and potential usefulness of applying energy system analysis techniques to help detect and characterize underground facilities that could be used for clandestine activities. Four off-the-shelf energy system modeling tools were considered: (1) ENPEP (Energy and Power Evaluation Program) - a total energy system supply/demand model, (2) ICARUS (Investigation of Costs and Reliability in Utility Systems) - an electric utility system dispatching (or production cost and reliability) model, (3) SMN (Spot Market Network) - an aggregate electric power transmission network model, and (4) PECO/LF (Philadelphia Electric Company/Load Flow) - a detailed electricity load flow model. For the purposes of most of this work, underground facilities were assumed to consume about 500 kW to 3 MW of electricity. For some of the work, facilities as large as 10-20 MW were considered. The analysis of each model was conducted in three stages: data evaluation, base-case analysis, and comparative case analysis. For ENPEP and ICARUS, open source data from Pakistan were used for the evaluations. For SMN and PECO/LF, the country data were not readily available, so data for the state of Arizona were used to test the general concept.

VanKuiken, J.C.; Kavicky, J.A.; Portante, E.C. [and others

1996-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

130

Rectifiers used on the London Underground Railways  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

... Lunn to the Institution of Electrical Engftieers on November 7, a description of the rectifier substations is given and also much useful information of the working of these rectifiers for traction ... there is little vibration; but in these respects the rectifier is much superior. The substation buildings for operating the traction system of the London Underground are in very densely populated ...

1935-11-30T23:59:59.000Z

131

Underground natural gas storage reservoir management  

SciTech Connect

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

Ortiz, I.; Anthony, R.

1995-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

132

The Public Perceptions of Underground Coal Gasification (UCG)  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

The Public Perceptions of Underground Coal Gasification (UCG): A Pilot Study Simon Shackley #12;The Public Perceptions of Underground Coal Gasification (UCG): A Pilot Study Dr Simon Shackley of Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) in the United Kingdom. The objectives were to identify the main dangers

Watson, Andrew

133

Detection of Underground Marlpit Quarries Using High Resolution Seismic  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Detection of Underground Marlpit Quarries Using High Resolution Seismic B. Piwakowski* (Ecole of high resolution reflection seismic for the detection and location of underground marlpit quarries of the geological structure, the results show that the detection of marlpit underground quarries, often considered

Boyer, Edmond

134

Coalbed methane production enhancement by underground coal gasification  

SciTech Connect

The sub-surface of the Netherlands is generally underlain by coal-bearing Carboniferous strata at greater depths (at many places over 1,500 m). These coal seams are generally thinner than 3 meter, occur in groups (5--15) within several hundred meters and are often fairly continuous over many square kilometers. In many cases they have endured complex burial history, influencing their methane saturation. In certain particular geological settings, a high, maximum coalbed methane saturation, may be expected. Carboniferous/Permian coals in the Tianjin-region (China) show many similarities concerning geological settings, rank and composition. Economical coalbed methane production at greater depths is often obstructed by the (very) low permeabilities of the coal seams as with increasing depth the deformation of the coal reduces both its macro-porosity (the cleat system) and microporosity. Experiments in abandoned underground mines, as well as after underground coal gasification tests indicate ways to improve the prospects for coalbed methane production in originally tight coal reservoirs. High permeability areas can be created by the application of underground coal gasification of one of the coal seams of a multi-seam cycle with some 200 meter of coal bearing strata. The gasification of one of the coal seams transforms that seam over a certain area into a highly permeable bed, consisting of coal residues, ash and (thermally altered) roof rubble. Additionally, roof collapse and subsidence will destabilize the overburden. In conjunction this will permit a better coalbed methane production from the remaining surrounding parts of the coal seams. Moreover, the effects of subsidence will influence the stress patterns around the gasified seam and this improves the permeability over certain distances in the coal seams above and below. In this paper the effects of the combined underground coal gasification and coalbed methane production technique are regarded for a single injection well. Known geotechnical aspects are combined with results from laboratory experiments on compaction of thermally treated rubble. An axi-symmetric numerical model is used to determine the effects induced by the gasified coal seam. The calculation includes the rubble formation, rubble compaction and induced stress effects in the overlying strata. Subsequently the stress effects are related to changes in coal permeability, based on experimental results of McKee et al.

Hettema, M.H.H.; Wolf, K.H.A.A.; Neumann, B.V.

1997-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

135

Georgia Underground Storage Tank Act (Georgia) | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Underground Storage Tank Act (Georgia) Underground Storage Tank Act (Georgia) Georgia Underground Storage Tank Act (Georgia) < Back Eligibility Agricultural Commercial Construction Developer Fed. Government Fuel Distributor General Public/Consumer Industrial Installer/Contractor Institutional Investor-Owned Utility Local Government Low-Income Residential Multi-Family Residential Municipal/Public Utility Nonprofit Residential Retail Supplier Rural Electric Cooperative Schools State/Provincial Govt Systems Integrator Transportation Tribal Government Utility Program Info State Georgia Program Type Environmental Regulations Siting and Permitting Provider Georgia Department of Natural Resources The Georgia Underground Storage Act (GUST) provides a comprehensive program to prevent, detect, and correct releases from underground storage tanks

136

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

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Hoe Creek Underground Coal Hoe Creek Underground Coal Gasification Site - 045 FUSRAP Considered Sites Site: Hoe Creek Underground Coal Gasification Site (045) Designated Name: Alternate Name: Location: Evaluation Year: Site Operations: Site Disposition: Radioactive Materials Handled: Primary Radioactive Materials Handled: Radiological Survey(s): Site Status: The Hoe Creek Underground Gasification site occupies 80 acres of land located in Campbell County, Wyoming. The site was used to investigate the process and environmental parameters of underground coal gasification technologies in the 1970s. The Department of Energy¿s (DOE) current mission is limited to completing environmental remediation activities at the site. This property is owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),

137

Underground Storage Tank Regulations for the Certification of Persons Who  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Underground Storage Tank Regulations for the Certification of Underground Storage Tank Regulations for the Certification of Persons Who Install, Alter, and Remove Underground Storage Tanks (Mississippi) Underground Storage Tank Regulations for the Certification of Persons Who Install, Alter, and Remove Underground Storage Tanks (Mississippi) < Back Eligibility Agricultural Commercial Construction Developer Fed. Government Fuel Distributor General Public/Consumer Industrial Installer/Contractor Institutional Investor-Owned Utility Local Government Low-Income Residential Multi-Family Residential Municipal/Public Utility Nonprofit Residential Retail Supplier Rural Electric Cooperative Schools State/Provincial Govt Systems Integrator Transportation Tribal Government Utility Savings Category Alternative Fuel Vehicles Hydrogen & Fuel Cells

138

Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity - Methodology  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Summary Prices Exploration & Reserves Production Imports/Exports Pipelines Storage Consumption All Natural Gas Data Reports Analysis & Projections Most Requested Consumption Exploration & Reserves Imports/Exports & Pipelines Prices Production Projections Storage All Reports ‹ See All Natural Gas Reports Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity With Data for November 2012 | Release Date: July 24, 2013 | Next Release Date: Spring 2014 Previous Issues Year: 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 Go Methodology Demonstrated Peak Working Gas Capacity Estimates: Estimates are based on aggregation of the noncoincident peak levels of working gas inventories at individual storage fields as reported monthly over a 60-month period ending in November 2012 on Form EIA-191, "Monthly Natural Gas Underground Storage

139

The Sanford underground research facility at Homestake  

SciTech Connect

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.

Heise, J. [Sanford Underground Research Facility, 630 East Summit Street, Lead, SD 57754 (United States)

2014-06-24T23:59:59.000Z

140

Focused evaluation of selected remedial alternatives for the underground test area  

SciTech Connect

The Nevada Test Site (NTS), located in Nye County in southern Nevada, was the location of 928 nuclear tests conducted between 1951 and 1992. Of the total tests, 824 were nuclear tests performed underground. This report describes the approach taken to determine whether any specific, proven, cost-effective technologies currently exist to aid in the removal of the radioactive contaminants from the groundwater, in the stabilization of these contaminants, and in the removal of the source of the contaminants.

NONE

1997-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

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


141

Degradation of transuranic waste drums in underground storage at the Hanford Site  

SciTech Connect

In situ inspections were performed on tarp-covered 55-gallon drums of transuranic (TRU) waste stored underground at the Hanford Site. These inspections were part of a task to characterize TRU drums for extent of corrosion degradation and uncertainty in TRU designation (inaccuracy in earlier assay determinations may have led to drums that actually were low-level waste to be termed TRU), and to attempt to correlate accuracy of existing records with actual drum contents. Two separate storage trench sites were investigated; a total of 90 drums were inspected with ultrasonic techniques and 104 additional drums were visually inspected. A high-humidity environment in the underground storage trenches had been reported in earlier investigations and was expected to result in substantial corrosion degradation. However, corrosion was much less than expected. Only a small percentage of drums had significant corrosion (with one breach) and the maximum rate was estimated at 0.051 mm/yr (2 mils/yr). The corrosion time of underground exposure was 14 to 15 years. These inspection results should be applicable to other similar environments (this applicability should be restricted to arid climates such as the Hanford Site) where drums are stored underground but shielded from direct soil contact by a tarp or other means. Soil contact would lead to more rapid corrosion.

Duncan, D.R.

1996-05-07T23:59:59.000Z

142

Underground coal mining is an industry well suited for robotic automation. Human operators are severely hampered in  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Abstract Underground coal mining is an industry well suited for robotic automation. Human operators approach meets the requirements for cutting straight entries and mining the proper amount of coal per cycle. Introduction The mining of soft materials, such as coal, is a large industry. Worldwide, a total of 435 million

Stentz, Tony

143

Arkansas Underground Injection Control Code (Arkansas) | Department of  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Arkansas Underground Injection Control Code (Arkansas) Arkansas Underground Injection Control Code (Arkansas) Arkansas Underground Injection Control Code (Arkansas) < Back Eligibility Commercial Construction Industrial Utility Program Info State Arkansas Program Type Environmental Regulations Siting and Permitting Provider Department of Environmental Quality The Arkansas Underground Injection Control Code (UIC code) is adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Control Act (Arkansas Code Annotated 8-5-11). It is the purpose of this UIC Code to adopt underground injection control (UIC) regulations necessary to qualify the State of Arkansas to retain authorization for its Underground Injection Control Program pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended; 42 USC 300f et seq. In order

144

Wells, Borings, and Underground Uses (Minnesota) | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Wells, Borings, and Underground Uses (Minnesota) Wells, Borings, and Underground Uses (Minnesota) Wells, Borings, and Underground Uses (Minnesota) < Back Eligibility Utility Fed. Government Commercial Agricultural Investor-Owned Utility State/Provincial Govt Industrial Construction Municipal/Public Utility Local Government Residential Installer/Contractor Rural Electric Cooperative Tribal Government Low-Income Residential Schools Retail Supplier Institutional Multi-Family Residential Systems Integrator Fuel Distributor Nonprofit General Public/Consumer Transportation Program Info State Minnesota Program Type Siting and Permitting This section regulates wells, borings, and underground storage with regards to protecting groundwater resources. The Commissioner of the Department of Health has jurisdiction, and can grant permits for proposed activities,

145

Utah Division of Environmental Response and Remediation Underground...  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

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

146

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

Open Energy Info (EERE)

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

147

,"Underground Natural Gas Storage - Storage Fields Other than...  

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

Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Underground Natural Gas Storage - Storage Fields Other than Salt Caverns",8,"Monthly","102014","115...

148

All of Hanford's underground waste tanks generate hydrogen gas...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

of Hanford's underground waste tanks generate hydrogen gas to some degree since the radioactivity in the waste releases hydrogen from basic nuclear reactions. The routine release...

149

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

Open Energy Info (EERE)

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

150

Hawaii Department of Health Underground Storage Tank Webpage...  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Abstract This webpage provides information on the regulation of underground storage tanks. Author State of Hawaii Department of Health Published State of Hawaii, Date Not...

151

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...

152

NNSA Commemorates the 20th Anniversary of the Last Underground...  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Commemorates the 20th Anniversary of the Last Underground Nuclear Test | National Nuclear Security Administration People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation...

153

,"New York Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"  

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

Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New York Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators",3,"Annual",2013,"6301967" ,"Release...

154

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

Open Energy Info (EERE)

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

155

Underground Storage Tanks (New Jersey) | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Underground Storage Tanks (New Jersey) Underground Storage Tanks (New Jersey) Underground Storage Tanks (New Jersey) < Back Eligibility Agricultural Commercial Construction Developer Fed. Government Fuel Distributor General Public/Consumer Industrial Installer/Contractor Institutional Investor-Owned Utility Local Government Low-Income Residential Multi-Family Residential Municipal/Public Utility Nonprofit Residential Retail Supplier Rural Electric Cooperative Schools State/Provincial Govt Systems Integrator Transportation Tribal Government Utility Program Info State New Jersey Program Type Safety and Operational Guidelines This chapter constitutes rules for all underground storage tank facilities- including registration, reporting, permitting, certification, financial responsibility and to protect human health and the environment

156

Key tests set for underground coal gasification  

SciTech Connect

Underground coal gasification (UCG) is about to undergo some tests. The tests will be conducted by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in a coal seam owned by Washington Irrigation and Development Co. A much-improved UCG system has been developed by Stephens and his associates at LLNL - the controlled retracting injection point (CRIP) method. Pritchard Corp., Kansas City, has done some conceptual process design and has further studied the feasibility of using the raw gas from a UCG burn as a feedstock for methanol synthesis and/or MTG gasoline. Each method was described. (DP)

Haggin, J.

1983-07-18T23:59:59.000Z

157

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

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

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

158

Underground facility area requirements for a radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain  

SciTech Connect

The Nevada Nuclear Waste Storage Investigations Project, managed by the US Department of Energy`s Nevada Operations Office, is examining the feasibility of siting a repository for high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain on and adjacent to the Nevada Test Site. Preliminary waste descriptions and preliminary areal power density calculations have been completed, and the Topopah Spring Member has been recommended as the emplacement unit. Using these data, an effort has begun to determine the area needed for the underground facility. This report describes work performed to determine the area needed to emplace waste equivalent to 70,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU) initially loaded in commercial power reactors. The area needed for support functions is also described. The total area of the underground facility depends on the types of waste received, the amount of each type of waste received, the areal power density assumed, and the emplacement configuration chosen (horizontal or vertical emplacement). The areas range from about 1240 acres to about 1520 acres. For vertical emplacement of the reference inventory of spent fuel, 1520 acres are required. A significant finding of this report is the importance of low-heat-producing wastes (defense high-level waste, West Valley high-level waste, cladding hulls, transuranic waste, and spent fuel hardware) when calculating the area required for the underground facility. If other wastes are included and the spent fuel capacity is reduced consistent with a total capacity of 70,000 MTU, the area required will be smaller.

Mansure, A.J.

1985-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

159

Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Methodology Methodology Methodology Demonstrated Peak Working Gas Capacity Estimates: Estimates are based on aggregation of the noncoincident peak levels of working gas inventories at individual storage fields as reported monthly over a 60-month period ending in April 2010 on Form EIA-191M, "Monthly Natural Gas Underground Storage Report." The months of measurement for the peak storage volumes by facilities may differ; i.e., the months do not necessarily coincide. As such, the noncoincident peak for any region is at least as big as any monthly volume in the historical record. Data from Form EIA-191M, "Monthly Natural Gas Underground Storage Report," are collected from storage operators on a field-level basis. Operators can report field-level data either on a per reservoir basis or on an aggregated reservoir basis. It is possible that if all operators reported on a per reservoir basis that the demonstrated peak working gas capacity would be larger. Additionally, these data reflect inventory levels as of the last day of the report month, and a facility may have reached a higher inventory on a different day of the report month, which would not be recorded on Form EIA-191M.

160

Underground coal gasification using oxygen and steam  

SciTech Connect

In this paper, through model experiment of the underground coal gasification, the effects of pure oxygen gasification, oxygen-steam gasification, and moving-point gasification methods on the underground gasification process and gas quality were studied. Experiments showed that H{sub 2} and CO volume fraction in product gas during the pure oxygen gasification was 23.63-30.24% and 35.22-46.32%, respectively, with the gas heating value exceeding 11.00 MJ/m{sup 3}; under the oxygen-steam gasification, when the steam/oxygen ratio stood at 2: 1, gas compositions remained virtually stable and CO + H{sub 2} was basically between 61.66 and 71.29%. Moving-point gasification could effectively improve the changes in the cavity in the coal seams or the effects of roof inbreak on gas quality; the ratio of gas flowing quantity to oxygen supplying quantity was between 3.1:1 and 3.5:1 and took on the linear changes; on the basis of the test data, the reasons for gas quality changes under different gasification conditions were analyzed.

Yang, L.H.; Zhang, X.; Liu, S. [China University of Mining & Technology, Xuzhou (China)

2009-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

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


161

Effects of network-average magnitude bias on yield estimates for underground nuclear explosions  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......yield estimates for underground nuclear explosions R. A. Clark Department...ISC, of presumed underground nuclear explosions in Kazakhstan...on estimates for underground nuclear explosions 553 explosions...utilizing a more extensive dataset, including more sources and......

R. A. Clark

1983-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

162

Seasonal thermal signatures of heat transfer by water exchange in an underground vault  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......also to the long-term temperature...underground waste storage and contaminant...underground nuclear waste storage sites is...2000), the long-term impact and...Concerning the long-term temperature...underground waste storage, underlying......

Frédéric Perrier; Pierre Morat; Toshio Yoshino; Osam Sano; Hisashi Utada; Olivier Gensane; Jean-Louis Le Mouël

2004-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

163

Barge Truck Total  

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

Barge Barge Truck Total delivered cost per short ton Shipments with transportation rates over total shipments Total delivered cost per short ton Shipments with transportation rates over total shipments Year (nominal) (real) (real) (percent) (nominal) (real) (real) (percent) 2008 $6.26 $5.77 $36.50 15.8% 42.3% $6.12 $5.64 $36.36 15.5% 22.2% 2009 $6.23 $5.67 $52.71 10.8% 94.8% $4.90 $4.46 $33.18 13.5% 25.1% 2010 $6.41 $5.77 $50.83 11.4% 96.8% $6.20 $5.59 $36.26 15.4% 38.9% Annual Percent Change First to Last Year 1.2% 0.0% 18.0% - - 0.7% -0.4% -0.1% - - Latest 2 Years 2.9% 1.7% -3.6% - - 26.6% 25.2% 9.3% - - - = No data reported or value not applicable STB Data Source: The Surface Transportation Board's 900-Byte Carload Waybill Sample EIA Data Source: Form EIA-923 Power Plant Operations Report

164

Permanent Closure of the TAN-664 Underground Storage Tank  

SciTech Connect

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

Bradley K. Griffith

2011-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

165

Flooding of an underground facility at Yucca Mountain: A summary of NRC review plans  

SciTech Connect

Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) are developing review plans for a potential high-level waste (HLW) repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. This early preparation of NRC`s review program will ensure that important technical issues related to compliance with 10 CFR Part 60 will be identified before receipt of a license application. Under the siting criteria of NRC`s Part 60, one of the potentially adverse conditions is the potential for flooding of the underground facility by surface waters. The Department of Energy (DOE) should evaluate this and other conditions in a license application. This paper summarizes the NRC staff`s plans to review DOE`s demonstration of compliance with Part 60 regarding potential flooding of an underground facility. We present these plans recognizing that the Congress is currently considering changes in how a HLW repository would be licensed.

Coleman, N.M.; Wescott, R.G.; Johnson, T.L. [Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC (United States)

1996-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

166

Alabama Underground Storage Tank And Wellhead Protection Act (Alabama) |  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Alabama Underground Storage Tank And Wellhead Protection Act Alabama Underground Storage Tank And Wellhead Protection Act (Alabama) Alabama Underground Storage Tank And Wellhead Protection Act (Alabama) < Back Eligibility Commercial Construction Industrial Municipal/Public Utility Savings Category Buying & Making Electricity Water Home Weatherization Program Info State Alabama Program Type Environmental Regulations The department, acting through the commission, is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations governing underground storage tanks and is authorized to seek the approval of the United States Environmental Protection Agency to operate the state underground storage tank program in lieu of the federal program. In addition to specific authorities provided by this chapter, the department is authorized, acting through the commission, to

167

The Strip and Underground Mine Reclamation Act (Montana) | Department of  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

The Strip and Underground Mine Reclamation Act (Montana) The Strip and Underground Mine Reclamation Act (Montana) The Strip and Underground Mine Reclamation Act (Montana) < Back Eligibility Utility Investor-Owned Utility Industrial Construction Municipal/Public Utility Installer/Contractor Rural Electric Cooperative Program Info State Montana Program Type Siting and Permitting Provider Montana Department of Environmental Quality The policy of the state is to provide adequate remedies to protect the environmental life support system from degradation and to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources from strip and underground mining. This Act imposes permitting and operating restrictions on strip and underground mining activities for coal and uranium, and authorizes the Department of Environmental Quality to administer a

168

Head of EM Visits Waste Isolation Pilot Plant for First Underground...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Head of EM Visits Waste Isolation Pilot Plant for First Underground Tour Since February Incidents Head of EM Visits Waste Isolation Pilot Plant for First Underground Tour Since...

169

E-Print Network 3.0 - advanced underground gas Sample Search...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Mulder1 Summary: where all current underground activities take place except for oil and gas extraction and mining... with reluctant public perception still hamper such underground...

170

The Remote Video Monitoring System Design and Development for Underground Substation Construction Process  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

From the current situation of underground substation construction in China, we design and development ... image enhancement technology, the construction of underground substation can be clearly and accurately tra...

Siguo Zheng; Yugan You; Fanguang Li; Gang Liu

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

171

E-Print Network 3.0 - american underground science Sample Search...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

underground science Search Powered by Explorit Topic List Advanced Search Sample search results for: american underground science Page: << < 1 2 3 4 5 > >> 1 Studying the Universe...

172

Total Petroleum Systems and Assessment Units (AU)  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Total Petroleum Systems (TPS) and Assessment Units (AU) Field type Surface water Groundwater X X X X X X X X AU 00000003 Oil/ Gas X X X X X X X X Total X X X X X X X Total Petroleum Systems (TPS) and Assessment Units (AU) Field type Total undiscovered petroleum (MMBO or BCFG) Water per oil

Torgersen, Christian

173

Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Definitions Definitions Definitions Since 2006, EIA has reported two measures of aggregate capacity, one based on demonstrated peak working gas storage, the other on working gas design capacity. Demonstrated Peak Working Gas Capacity: This measure sums the highest storage inventory level of working gas observed in each facility over the 5-year range from May 2005 to April 2010, as reported by the operator on the Form EIA-191M, "Monthly Underground Gas Storage Report." This data-driven estimate reflects actual operator experience. However, the timing for peaks for different fields need not coincide. Also, actual available maximum capacity for any storage facility may exceed its reported maximum storage level over the last 5 years, and is virtually certain to do so in the case of newly commissioned or expanded facilities. Therefore, this measure provides a conservative indicator of capacity that may understate the amount that can actually be stored.

174

Barge Truck Total  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

Barge Truck Total delivered cost per short ton Shipments with transportation rates over total shipments Total delivered cost per short ton Shipments with transportation rates over...

175

An assessment of underground and aboveground steam system failures in the SRS waste tank farms  

SciTech Connect

Underground steam system failures in waste tank farms at the Savannah River Site (SRS) increased significantly in the 3--4 year period prior to 1995. The primary safety issues created by the failures were the formation of sub-surface voids in soil and the loss of steam jet transfer and waste evaporation capability, and the loss of heating and ventilation to the tanks. The average annual cost for excavation and repair of the underground steam system was estimated to be several million dollars. These factors prompted engineering personnel to re-consider long-term solutions to the problem. The primary cause of these failures was the inadequate thermal insulation utilized for steam lines associated with older tanks. The failure mechanisms were either pitting or localized general corrosion on the exterior of the pipe beneath the thermal insulation. The most realistic and practical solution is to replace the underground lines by installing aboveground steam systems, although this option will incur significant initial capital costs. Steam system components, installed aboveground in other areas of the tank farms have experienced few failures, while in continuous use. As a result, piecewise installation of temporary aboveground steam systems have been implemented in F-area whenever opportunities, i.e., failures, present themselves.

Hsu, T.C.; Shurrab, M.S.; Wiersma, B.J. [Westinghouse Savannah River Co., Aiken, SC (United States)

1997-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

176

Southwest Virginia underground coal mine map database and base maps - synopsis of an ongoing coalfield project  

SciTech Connect

In September 1991, the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy of the Commonwealth of Virginia entered into an agreement with the office of Surface Mining to prepare a coal mine map database and to produce 1:24,000 scale individual coal-bed base maps showing documented underground mined areas throughout the Southwest Virginia coal field. The project results are to provide public, industry, and all levels of government a much-needed means of initial evaluation of many coalfield related concerns. The completed maps will be incorporated into an integrated geographic information system (GIS). Evaluating the entire coalfield involved a preliminary review of 48 quadrangles. Ongoing detailed, accurate information gathering of extensive underground mine map files was necessary to provide a needed organized map database. Construction of coalfield index maps of information gathered to date provide insight into coalfield-wide outcrop patterns, mine distributions, and coal-bed trends. A completed set of individual maps, referenced to the underground mine map database, showing the types of mining applicable per coal bed quadrangle is the designated project output.

Sites, R.S.; Hostettler, K.K. (Division of Mineral Resources, Charlottesville, VA (United States))

1993-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

177

Management of dry flue gas desulfurization by-products in underground mines  

SciTech Connect

Disposal of coal combustion by-products (CCBs) in an environmentally sound manner is a major issue facing the coal and utility industries in the US today. Disposal into abandoned sections of underground coal mines may overcome many of the surface disposal problems along with added benefits such as mitigation of subsidence and acid mine drainage. However, many of the abandoned underground coal mines are located far from power plants, requiring long distance hauling of by-products which will significantly contribute to the cost of disposal. For underground disposal to be economically competitive, the transportation and handling cost must be minimized. This requires careful selection of the system and optimal design for efficient operation. The materials handling and system economics research addresses these issues. Transportation and handling technologies for CCBs were investigated from technical, environmental and economic points of view. Five technologies were found promising: (1) Pneumatic Trucks, (2) Pressure Differential Rail Cars, (3) Collapsible Intermodal Containers, (4) Cylindrical Intermodal Tanks, and (5) Coal Hopper Cars with Automatic Retractable Tarping. The first two technologies are currently being utilized in transporting by-products from power plants to disposal sites, whereas the next three are either in development or in conceptualization phases. In this research project, engineering design and cost models were developed for the first four technologies. The engineering design models are in the form of spreadsheets and serve the purpose of determining efficient operating schedules and sizing of system components.

Sevim, H.

1997-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

178

Underground Storage Tank Act (West Virginia) | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Act (West Virginia) Act (West Virginia) Underground Storage Tank Act (West Virginia) < Back Eligibility Utility Fed. Government Commercial Agricultural Investor-Owned Utility State/Provincial Govt Industrial Construction Municipal/Public Utility Local Government Residential Installer/Contractor Rural Electric Cooperative Tribal Government Low-Income Residential Schools Retail Supplier Institutional Multi-Family Residential Systems Integrator Fuel Distributor Nonprofit General Public/Consumer Transportation Program Info State West Virginia Program Type Siting and Permitting Provider Department of Environmental Protection New underground storage tank construction standards must include at least the following requirements: (1) That an underground storage tank will prevent releases of regulated substances stored therein, which may occur as

179

Investigation into the modeling of ground deformations induced by underground mining  

SciTech Connect

The mechanisms of strata deformation due to underground mining were analyzed in an effort to better understand immediate roof behavior and surface displacements. Strata deformation characteristics above longwall and room-and-pillar mines in the eastern US coal fields were evaluated and a numerical procedure was developed for calculating surface displacements. The model, based on the well-known finite element method, utilized empirical indices associated with subsidence engineering in order to incorporate the site-specific characteristics into the formulation. Different material behavior models and failure criteria were employed in an attempt to determine the areas highly deformed by underground excavation. Additionally, the method was sensitive to the ratios of the elastic moduli used to describe different rocks and/or rock conditions, and not to the magnitude of the elastic properties. Thus, the use of arbitrary reduction factors to convert laboratory to in situ property values was completely avoided and scaling of the calculated surface displacements was based on, the empirically predicted, regional or local parameters. The use of fixed displacement nodes around an opening to induce failure overcame the roof-floor overlap problem encountered in other formulations. The successful implementation of the proposed methodology for modeling surface deformations complements and enhances existing prediction techniques, which are primarily based on empirical approaches, by allowing parametric analysis for different excavation geometries, roof convergence curves and overburden properties.

Agioutantis, Z.G.

1987-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

180

Fire Simulation, Evacuation Analysis and Proposal of Fire Protection Systems Inside an Underground Cavern  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Fire Simulation, Evacuation Analysis and Proposal of Fire Protection Systems Inside an Underground Cavern

Stella, Carlo

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


181

A study of the feasibility of construction of underground storage structures in soft soil  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Introduction Page 44 46 Construction Procedure for an Underground Storage Structure for Liquid Materials Construction Procedure for an Underground Storage Structure for Solid Materials 46 48 Geotechnical Considerations in the Construction Procedure... Introduction Page 44 46 Construction Procedure for an Underground Storage Structure for Liquid Materials Construction Procedure for an Underground Storage Structure for Solid Materials 46 48 Geotechnical Considerations in the Construction Procedure...

Rosner, Stephen Anthony

2012-06-07T23:59:59.000Z

182

EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Underground Natural Gas Storage  

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

Storage Storage About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates Underground Natural Gas Storage Overview | Regional Breakdowns Overview Underground natural gas storage provides pipelines, local distribution companies, producers, and pipeline shippers with an inventory management tool, seasonal supply backup, and access to natural gas needed to avoid imbalances between receipts and deliveries on a pipeline network. There are three principal types of underground storage sites used in the United States today. They are: · depleted natural gas or oil fields (326), · aquifers (43), or · salt caverns (31). In a few cases mine caverns have been used. Most underground storage facilities, 82 percent at the beginning of 2008, were created from reservoirs located in depleted natural gas production fields that were relatively easy to convert to storage service, and that were often close to consumption centers and existing natural gas pipeline systems.

183

DOE - Office of Legacy Management -- Los Alamos Underground Med Pipelines -  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Los Alamos Underground Med Los Alamos Underground Med Pipelines - NM 02 FUSRAP Considered Sites Site: Los Alamos Underground Med Pipelines ( NM.02 ) Eliminated - Remedial action being performed by the Los Alamos Area Office of the DOE Albuquerque Operations Office Designated Name: Not Designated Alternate Name: Los Alamos County Industrial Waste Lines NM.02-1 Location: Los Alamos , New Mexico NM.02-1 Evaluation Year: 1986 NM.02-1 Site Operations: From 1952 to 1965, underground pipelines or industrial waste lines were used at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory to transport liquid wastes from Technical Areas 1, 3, 48, and 43 to a chemical waste treatment plant (Technical Area 45). NM.02-1 Site Disposition: Eliminated - Remedial action being performed by another DOE office NM.02-1

184

Georgia Underground Gas Storage Act of 1972 (Georgia) | Department of  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Georgia Underground Gas Storage Act of 1972 (Georgia) Georgia Underground Gas Storage Act of 1972 (Georgia) Georgia Underground Gas Storage Act of 1972 (Georgia) < Back Eligibility Commercial Construction Developer General Public/Consumer Industrial Investor-Owned Utility Municipal/Public Utility Retail Supplier Rural Electric Cooperative Utility Program Info State Georgia Program Type Environmental Regulations Siting and Permitting Provider Georgia Department of Natural Resources The Georgia Underground Gas Storage Act, which permits the building of reserves for withdrawal in periods of peak demand, was created to promote the economic development of the State of Georgia and provide for more economical distribution of gas to the domestic, commercial, and industrial consumers of the State. Any gas utility desiring to utilize or operate an

185

Underground Storage of Natural Gas and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Nebraska) |  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Underground Storage of Natural Gas and Liquefied Petroleum Gas Underground Storage of Natural Gas and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Nebraska) Underground Storage of Natural Gas and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Nebraska) < Back Eligibility Agricultural Commercial Construction Fed. Government Fuel Distributor General Public/Consumer Industrial Installer/Contractor Institutional Investor-Owned Utility Local Government Low-Income Residential Multi-Family Residential Municipal/Public Utility Nonprofit Residential Retail Supplier Rural Electric Cooperative Schools State/Provincial Govt Systems Integrator Transportation Tribal Government Utility Program Info State Nebraska Program Type Siting and Permitting Provider Nebraska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission This statute declares underground storage of natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas to be in the public interest if it promotes the conservation

186

Rules and Regulations for Underground Storage Facilities Used for Petroleum  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Rules and Regulations for Underground Storage Facilities Used for Rules and Regulations for Underground Storage Facilities Used for Petroleum Products and Hazardous Materials (Rhode Island) Rules and Regulations for Underground Storage Facilities Used for Petroleum Products and Hazardous Materials (Rhode Island) < Back Eligibility Agricultural Commercial Construction Fed. Government Fuel Distributor General Public/Consumer Industrial Installer/Contractor Institutional Investor-Owned Utility Local Government Multi-Family Residential Municipal/Public Utility Nonprofit Retail Supplier Rural Electric Cooperative Schools State/Provincial Govt Systems Integrator Transportation Tribal Government Utility Program Info State Rhode Island Program Type Environmental Regulations Provider Department of Environmental Management These regulations apply to underground storage facilities for petroleum and

187

Appendix E: Underground Storage Annual Site Environmental Report  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Appendix E: Underground Storage Tank Data #12;Annual Site Environmental Report Appendix E identification service Contents Status ( ) date to Corrective action Tank Out-of- assessment number date regulatory Installation Capacity Preliminary date (gallons) investigation Environmental agency Petroleum USTs

Pennycook, Steve

188

NM Underground Storage Tank Registration | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- OtherOther: NM Underground Storage Tank RegistrationLegal Published NA Year Signed or Took Effect 2012 Legal Citation...

189

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

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

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

190

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

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

,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"1302015 12:57:42 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5070CO2"...

191

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

Open Energy Info (EERE)

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

192

Alaska Underground Storage Tanks Website | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

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

193

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

Open Energy Info (EERE)

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

194

Investigating dynamic underground coal fires by means of numerical simulation  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......available within the combustion centre. Combustion will only proceed whenever...controls the overall combustion rate. For numerical...transport-only and a chemistry-only part. Common...rate of underground coal fires by oxygen transport......

S. Wessling; W. Kessels; M. Schmidt; U. Krause

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

195

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

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

,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"182015 12:49:33 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5070NY2"...

196

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

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

,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"182015 12:49:32 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5070NY2"...

197

ANALYSIS OF METHANE PRODUCING COMMUNITIES WITHIN UNDERGROUND COAL BEDS  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

ANALYSIS OF METHANE PRODUCING COMMUNITIES WITHIN UNDERGROUND COAL BEDS by Elliott Paul Barnhart ..................................................................................14 Ability of the Consortium to Produce Methane from Coal and Metabolites ................16.............................................................................................21 Coal and Methane Production

Maxwell, Bruce D.

198

Physical security of cut-and-cover underground facilities  

SciTech Connect

To aid designers, generic physical security objectives and design concepts for cut-and-cover underground facilities are presented. Specific aspects addressing overburdens, entryways, security doors, facility services, emergency egress, security response force, and human elements are discussed.

Morse, W.D.

1998-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

199

Microsoft Word - WIPP Updates_Underground Recovery Process Begins  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

5DR0314 002NWPR0314 NWP Media Contacts: Donavan Mager Nuclear Waste Partnership LLC (575) 234-7586 www.wipp.energy.gov For Immediate Release WIPP UPDATES: Underground Recovery...

200

P-wave Spectra from Underground Nuclear Explosions  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......three underground explosions at the Nevada Test Site and three earthquakes recorded...nuclear explosions detonated in Nevada (Jorum and Handley) and for a...spectra from two explosions at the Nevada Test Site (Jorum and Handley) and a presumed......

Peter Molnar

1971-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

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


201

,"New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"  

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

,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"1162014 3:07:28 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290NY2"...

202

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

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

,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"1162014 3:06:47 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5060NY2"...

203

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

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

,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"1162014 3:06:48 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5060NY2"...

204

,"New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"  

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

,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"1162014 3:07:27 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290NY2"...

205

Underground Salt Haul Truck Fire at the Waste Isolation Pilot...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Underground Salt Haul Truck Fire at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant February 5, 2014 March 2014 Salt Haul Truck Fire at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Salt Haul Truck Fire at the...

206

One-man video verite: thoughts on Scenes from underground  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

This thesis considers the making of a documentary videotape on the Red Line Subway Extension project in Cambridge and Somerville, Massachusetts entitled Scenes From Underground. It traces my initial plans for an expository ...

Strongin, Barry

1984-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

207

Waste package and underground facility design  

SciTech Connect

The design of the waste package and the underground facility for radioactive waste disposal presents many challenges never before addressed in an engineering design effort. The designs must allow for handling and emplacement of the waste and must ensure that the waste will be isolated over time periods that extend beyond those normally dealt with in engineering solutions. Once developed, these designs must be defended in a licensing arena to allow construction and operation of the disposal system. The design of the waste package and the repository is being conducted iteratively. Each iteration of the design is accompanied by an assessment of the performance of the design and an assessment of remaining design issues. These assessments are used to establish the basis for the next design phase. Design requirements are assessed and revised as necessary before the initiation of each design phase. In addition, the design effort is being closely integrated with the siting effort through the application of an issue identification and resolution strategy.

Frei, M.W.; Dayem, N.J.

1988-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

208

Experiences and prospects of nuclear astrophysics in underground laboratories  

SciTech Connect

Impressive progress has been made in the course the last decades in understanding astrophysical objects. Increasing precision of nuclear physics data has contributed significantly to this success, but now a better understanding of several important findings is frequently limited by uncertainties related to the available nuclear physics data. Consequently it is desirable to improve significantly the quality of these data. An important step towards higher precision is an excellent signal to background ratio of the data. Placing an accelerator facility inside an underground laboratory reducing the cosmic ray induced background by six orders of magnitude is a powerful method to reach this goal, even though careful reduction of environmental and beam induced background must still be considered. Experience in the field of underground nuclear astrophysics has been gained since 20 years due to the pioneering work of the LUNA Collaboration (Laboratory for Underground Nuclear Astrophysics) operating inside the underground laboratories of the Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso (LNGS) in Italy. Based on the success of this work presently also several other projects for underground laboratories dedicated to nuclear astrophysics are being pursued worldwide. This contribution will give a survey of the past experience in underground nuclear astrophysics as well as an outlook on future developments.

Junker, M. [INFN - Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso, Via Acitelli, 22, 67100 L'Aquila, Località Assergi (Italy)

2014-05-09T23:59:59.000Z

209

Management of dry flue gas desulfurization by-products in underground mines. Quarterly report, April 1--June 30, 1996  

SciTech Connect

On September 30, 1993, the US Department of Energy - Morgantown Energy Technology Center (DOE-METC) and Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC) entered into a cooperative research agreement entitled {open_quotes}Management of Dry Flue Gas Desulfurization By-Products in Underground Mines{close_quotes} (DE-FC21-93MC30252). Under the agreement Southern Illinois University at Carbondale will develop and demonstrate two technologies for the placement of coal combustion residues in abandoned underground coal mines, and will assess the environmental impact of these technologies for the management of coal combustion by-products. The two technologies for the underground placement that will be developed and demonstrated are: (1) pneumatic placement, using virtually dry materials, and (2) hydraulic placement, using a {open_quotes}paste{close_quotes} mixture of materials with about 70% solids. Phase II of the overall program began April 1, 1996. The principal objective of Phase II is to develop and fabricate the equipment for placing the coal combustion by-products underground, and to conduct a demonstration of the technologies on the surface. Therefore, this quarter has been largely devoted to developing specifications for equipment components, visiting fabrication plants throughout Southern Illinois to determine their capability for building the equipment components in compliance with the specifications, and delivering the components in a timely manner.

NONE

1997-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

210

Lake Nyos and Mammoth Mountain: What Do They Tell Us about the Security of Engineered Storage of CO2 Underground?  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Lake Nyos aNd MaMMoth MouNtaiN: Lake Nyos aNd MaMMoth MouNtaiN: What do they teLL us about the security of eNgiNeered storage of co 2 uNdergrouNd? Introduction Lake Nyos in the Northwest Province of Cameroon in western Africa and Mammoth Mountain in California are the sites of two well-known underground releases of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) in nature, both with adverse effects. Both Lake Nyos and Mammoth Mountain are atop current or former volcanoes and the released CO 2 is volcanic in origin (sometimes referred to as magmatic origin). Molten rock (magma) far below the Earth's surface contains entrained amounts of water, CO 2 , and other gases. If the magma rises toward the Earth's surface, the pressure it is under is reduced and the entrained gases begin to expand. The expansion of the

211

Hydrologic Resources Management Program and Underground Test Area Project FY 2006 Progress Report  

SciTech Connect

This report describes FY 2006 technical studies conducted by the Chemical Biology and Nuclear Science Division (CBND) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in support of the Hydrologic Resources Management Program (HRMP) and the Underground Test Area Project (UGTA). These programs are administered by the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) through the Defense Programs and Environmental Restoration Divisions, respectively. HRMP-sponsored work is directed toward the responsible management of the natural resources at the Nevada Test Site (NTS), enabling its continued use as a staging area for strategic operations in support of national security. UGTA-funded work emphasizes the development of an integrated set of groundwater flow and contaminant transport models to predict the extent of radionuclide migration from underground nuclear testing areas at the NTS. The report is organized on a topical basis and contains four chapters that highlight technical work products produced by CBND. However, it is important to recognize that most of this work involves collaborative partnerships with the other HRMP and UGTA contract organizations. These groups include the Energy and Environment Directorate at LLNL (LLNL-E&E), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), the Desert Research Institute (DRI), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture (SNJV), and National Security Technologies (NSTec). Chapter 1 is a summary of FY 2006 sampling efforts at near-field 'hot' wells at the NTS, and presents new chemical and isotopic data for groundwater samples from four near-field wells. These include PM-2 and U-20n PS 1DDh (CHESHIRE), UE-7ns (BOURBON), and U-19v PS No.1ds (ALMENDRO). Chapter 2 is a summary of the results of chemical and isotopic measurements of groundwater samples from three UGTA environmental monitoring wells. These wells are: ER-12-4 and U12S located in Area 12 on Rainier Mesa and USGS HGH No.2 WW2 located in Yucca Flat. In addition, three springs were sampled White Rock Spring and Captain Jack Spring in Area 12 on Rainier Mesa and Topopah Spring in Area 29. Chapter 3 is a compilation of existing noble gas data that has been reviewed and edited to remove inconsistencies in presentation of total vs. single isotope noble gas values reported in the previous HRMP and UGTA progress reports. Chapter 4 is a summary of the results of batch sorption and desorption experiments performed to determine the distribution coefficients (Kd) of Pu(IV), Np(V), U(VI), Cs and Sr to zeolitized tuff (tuff confining unit, TCU) and carbonate (lower carbonate aquifer, LCA) rocks in synthetic NTS groundwater Chapter 5 is a summary of the results of a series of flow-cell experiments performed to examine Np(V) and Pu(V) sorption to and desorption from goethite. Np and Pu desorption occur at a faster rate and to a greater extent than previously reported. In addition, oxidation changes occurred with the Pu whereby the surface-sorbed Pu(IV) was reoxidized to aqueous Pu(V) during desorption.

Culham, H W; Eaton, G F; Genetti, V; Hu, Q; Kersting, A B; Lindvall, R E; Moran, J E; Blasiyh Nuno, G A; Powell, B A; Rose, T P; Singleton, M J; Williams, R W; Zavarin, M; Zhao, P

2008-04-08T23:59:59.000Z

212

Seismic Response of a Deep Underground Geologic Repository for Nuclear Waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico  

SciTech Connect

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is a deep underground nuclear waste repository certified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ,(EPA) to store transuranic defense-related waste contaminated by small amounts of radioactive materials. Located at a depth of about 655 meters below the surface, the facility is sited in southeastern New Mexico, about 40 Department of Energy underground facilities, waste disposal. kilometers east of the city of Carlsbad, New Mexico. The U.S. (DOE) managed the design and construction of the surface and and remains responsible for operation and closure following The managing and operating contractor for the DOE at the WIPP, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, maintains two rechmiant seismic monitoring systems located at the surface and in the underground. This report discusses two earthquakes detected by the seismic monitoring system, one a duratior magnitude 5.0 (Md) event located approximately 60 km east-southeast of the facility, and another a body-wave magnitude 5.6 (rob) event that occurred approximately 260 kilometers to the south-southeast.

Sanchez, P.E.

1998-11-02T23:59:59.000Z

213

Determining surface-wave magnitudes from regional Nevada Test Site data  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......surface-wave magnitudes from regional Nevada Test Site data Bradley B. Woods David...surface-wave magnitudes for 190 Nevada Test Site (NTS) shots using regional...underground nuclear explosions at Nevada Test Site 1971-1980, United Kingdom......

Bradley B. Woods; David G. Harkrider

1995-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

214

Detectability and significance of 12 hr barometric tide in radon-222 signal, dripwater flow rate, air temperature and carbon dioxide concentration in an underground tunnel  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......cycle. First, to remove long-term variations and large...caves or underground waste storage. Indeed, the analysis...possibility of predicting long term and transient phenomena...Shnirman M.G., 2005a. Long-term climate change and surface......

Patrick Richon; Frédéric Perrier; Eric Pili; Jean-Christophe Sabroux

2009-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

215

Underground physics without underground labs: large detectors in solution-mined salt caverns  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

A number of current physics topics, including long-baseline neutrino physics, proton decay searches, and supernova neutrino searches, hope to someday construct huge (50 kiloton to megaton) particle detectors in shielded, underground sites. With today's practices, this requires the costly excavation and stabilization of large rooms in mines. In this paper, we propose utilizing the caverns created by the solution mining of salt. The challenge is that such caverns must be filled with pressurized fluid and do not admit human access. We sketch some possible methods of installing familiar detector technologies in a salt cavern under these constraints. Some of the detectors discussed are also suitable for deep-sea experiments, discussed briefly. These sketches appear challenging but feasible, and appear to force few major compromises on detector capabilities. This scheme offers avenues for enormous cost savings on future detector megaprojects.

Benjamin Monreal

2014-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

216

Underground physics without underground labs: large detectors in solution-mined salt caverns  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

A number of current physics topics, including long-baseline neutrino physics, proton decay searches, and supernova neutrino searches, hope to someday construct huge (50 kiloton to megaton) particle detectors in shielded, underground sites. With today's practices, this requires the costly excavation and stabilization of large rooms in mines. In this paper, we propose utilizing the caverns created by the solution mining of salt. The challenge is that such caverns must be filled with pressurized fluid and do not admit human access. We sketch some possible methods of installing familiar detector technologies in a salt cavern under these constraints. Some of the detectors discussed are also suitable for deep-sea experiments, discussed briefly. These sketches appear challenging but feasible, and appear to force few major compromises on detector capabilities. This scheme offers avenues for enormous cost savings on future detector megaprojects.

Monreal, Benjamin

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

217

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

DOE Patents (OSTI)

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

Hampel, Viktor E. (Pleasanton, CA)

1989-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

218

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

DOE Patents (OSTI)

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

Hampel, V.E.

1988-05-17T23:59:59.000Z

219

New Texas Oil Project Will Help Keep Carbon Dioxide Underground |  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Texas Oil Project Will Help Keep Carbon Dioxide Underground Texas Oil Project Will Help Keep Carbon Dioxide Underground New Texas Oil Project Will Help Keep Carbon Dioxide Underground February 5, 2013 - 12:05pm Addthis The Air Products and Chemicals hydrogen production facilities in Port Arthur, Texas, is funded by the Energy Department through the 2009 Recovery Act. It is managed by the Office of Fossil Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory. | Photo credit Air Products and Chemicals hydrogen production facilities. The Air Products and Chemicals hydrogen production facilities in Port Arthur, Texas, is funded by the Energy Department through the 2009 Recovery Act. It is managed by the Office of Fossil Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory. | Photo credit Air Products and Chemicals hydrogen

220

New Texas Oil Project Will Help Keep Carbon Dioxide Underground |  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

New Texas Oil Project Will Help Keep Carbon Dioxide Underground New Texas Oil Project Will Help Keep Carbon Dioxide Underground New Texas Oil Project Will Help Keep Carbon Dioxide Underground February 5, 2013 - 12:05pm Addthis The Air Products and Chemicals hydrogen production facilities in Port Arthur, Texas, is funded by the Energy Department through the 2009 Recovery Act. It is managed by the Office of Fossil Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory. | Photo credit Air Products and Chemicals hydrogen production facilities. The Air Products and Chemicals hydrogen production facilities in Port Arthur, Texas, is funded by the Energy Department through the 2009 Recovery Act. It is managed by the Office of Fossil Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory. | Photo credit Air Products and Chemicals hydrogen

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


221

Underground Injection Control (West Virginia) | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Injection Control (West Virginia) Injection Control (West Virginia) Underground Injection Control (West Virginia) < Back Eligibility Utility Fed. Government Commercial Agricultural Investor-Owned Utility State/Provincial Govt Industrial Construction Municipal/Public Utility Local Government Residential Installer/Contractor Rural Electric Cooperative Tribal Government Low-Income Residential Schools Retail Supplier Institutional Multi-Family Residential Systems Integrator Fuel Distributor Nonprofit General Public/Consumer Transportation Program Info State West Virginia Program Type Siting and Permitting Provider Department of Environmental Protection This rule set forth criteria and standards for the requirements which apply to the State Underground Injection Control Program (U.I.C.). The UIC permit program regulates underground injections by 5 classes of wells. All owners

222

Solid Waste Disposal, Hazardous Waste Management Act, Underground Storage  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Disposal, Hazardous Waste Management Act, Underground Disposal, Hazardous Waste Management Act, Underground Storage Act (Tennessee) Solid Waste Disposal, Hazardous Waste Management Act, Underground Storage Act (Tennessee) < Back Eligibility Agricultural Commercial Construction Developer Fuel Distributor Industrial Installer/Contractor Institutional Investor-Owned Utility Local Government Municipal/Public Utility Nonprofit Rural Electric Cooperative Schools State/Provincial Govt Systems Integrator Tribal Government Utility Program Info State Tennessee Program Type Environmental Regulations Siting and Permitting Provider Tennessee Department Of Environment and Conservation The Solid Waste Disposal Laws and Regulations are found in Tenn. Code 68-211. These rules are enforced and subject to change by the Public Waste Board (PWB), which is established by the Division of Solid and Hazardous

223

Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 1993-Dec 12/31 341 1994-Jan 01/07 331 01/14 316 01/21 303 01/28 290 1994-Feb 02/04 266 02/11 246 02/18 228 02/25 212 1994-Mar 03/04 206 03/11 201 03/18 205 03/25 202 1994-Apr 04/01 201 04/08 201 04/15 202 04/22 210 04/29 215 1994-May 05/06 225 05/13 236 05/20 242 05/27 256

224

Underground storage of natural gas, liquid hydrocarbons, and carbon dioxide  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

storage of natural gas, liquid hydrocarbons, and carbon storage of natural gas, liquid hydrocarbons, and carbon dioxide (Louisiana) Underground storage of natural gas, liquid hydrocarbons, and carbon dioxide (Louisiana) < Back Eligibility Commercial Construction Industrial Investor-Owned Utility Municipal/Public Utility Utility Program Info State Louisiana Program Type Environmental Regulations Siting and Permitting The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality regulates the underground storage of natural gas or liquid hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide. Prior to the use of any underground reservoir for the storage of natural gas and prior to the exercise of eminent domain by any person, firm, or corporation having such right under laws of the state of Louisiana, the commissioner, shall have found all of the following:

225

Nonsalt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Nonsalt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Nonsalt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Nonsalt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2006-Dec 12/29 841 2007-Jan 01/05 823 01/12 806 01/19 755 01/26 716 2007-Feb 02/02 666 02/09 613 02/16 564 02/23 538 2007-Mar 03/02 527 03/09 506 03/16 519 03/23 528 03/30 550 2007-Apr 04/06 560 04/13 556 04/20 568 04/27 590 2007-May 05/04 610 05/11 629 05/18 648 05/25 670

226

Office of Enforcement Final Notice of Violation to Pacific Underground  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Enforcement Final Notice of Violation to Pacific Enforcement Final Notice of Violation to Pacific Underground Construction, Inc. September 3, 2009 Office of Enforcement Final Notice of Violation to Pacific Underground Construction, Inc. September 3, 2009 Pursuant to section 234C of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2282c, and the Department of Energy's (DOE) regulations at 10 C.F.R. Part 851, Worker Safety and Health Program, DOE is issuing this Final Notice of Violation (FNOV) to Pacific Underground Construction, Inc. (PUC). The FNOV finds PUC liable for violating DOE's worker safety and health requirements. The FNOV is based upon the Office of Enforcement's July 23, 2008, Investigation Report and a careful and thorough review of all evidence presented to DOE by PUC, including your response to the Preliminary Notice

227

Underground radio technology saves miners and emergency response personnel  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Underground radio technology saves miners and emergency response Underground radio technology saves miners and emergency response personnel Underground radio technology saves miners and emergency response personnel Founded through LANL, Vital Alert Technologies, Inc. (Vital Alert) has launched a wireless, two-way real-time voice communication system that is effective through 1,000+ feet of solid rock. April 3, 2012 Vital Alert's C1000 mine and tunnel radios use magnetic induction, advanced digital communications techniques and ultra-low frequency transmission to wirelessly provide reliable 2-way voice, text, or data links through rock strata and other solid media. Vital Alert's C1000 mine and tunnel radios use magnetic induction, advanced digital communications techniques and ultra-low frequency transmission to wirelessly provide reliable 2-way voice, text, or data links through rock

228

Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 1993-Dec 12/31 570 1994-Jan 01/07 532 01/14 504 01/21 440 01/28 414 1994-Feb 02/04 365 02/11 330 02/18 310 02/25 309 1994-Mar 03/04 281 03/11 271 03/18 284 03/25 303 1994-Apr 04/01 287 04/08 293 04/15 308 04/22 334 04/29 353 1994-May 05/06 376 05/13 399 05/20 429 05/27 443

229

Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)  

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

Total Working Gas Capacity Total Number of Existing Fields Period: Monthly Annual Total Working Gas Capacity Total Number of Existing Fields Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View History U.S. 9,072,508 9,104,181 9,111,242 9,117,296 9,132,250 9,171,017 1989-2013 Alaska 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2013-2013 Lower 48 States 8,988,916 9,020,589 9,027,650 9,033,704 9,048,658 9,087,425 2012-2013 Alabama 35,400 35,400 35,400 35,400 35,400 35,400 2002-2013 Arkansas 21,853 21,853 21,853 21,853 21,853 21,853 2002-2013 California 592,711 592,711 592,711 599,711 599,711 599,711 2002-2013 Colorado 122,086 122,086 122,086 122,086 122,086 122,086 2002-2013

230

Desiccant bed on hydrocarbon charged to and removed from underground (salt) cavern  

SciTech Connect

A hydrocarbon fluid storage system is described which consists of in operable conjunction: a cavern formed within an underground salt strata below a ground surface, the cavern comprises a lower liquid volume of saturated sodium chloride storage brine and an upper fluid volume of wet hydrocarbon storage fluid, surface fluid handling means; conduit connecting the lower storage brine and upper storage hydrocarbon fluid with the surface fluid handling means, of fluid transfer means enabling transfer of brine and hydrocarbon fluid from the surface to the cavern and from the cavern to the surface, such that brine can be added to or withdrawn from the lower brine volume and hydrocarbon fluids can be added to or withdrawn from the upper hydrocarbon fluid volume, and at least one desiccant drier means positioned at the surface in operable association with the surface fluid handling means whereby the wet hydrocarbon fluid upon withdrawal from the cavern passes through the desiccant drier means and thereby becomes dry, and dry hydrocarbon fluid intended for storage passes through the desiccant drier prior to entering the storage cavern and thereby becomes wet.

Washer, S.P.

1986-06-03T23:59:59.000Z

231

Underground Storage Tanks (West Virginia) | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Tanks (West Virginia) Tanks (West Virginia) Underground Storage Tanks (West Virginia) < Back Eligibility Utility Fed. Government Commercial Agricultural Investor-Owned Utility State/Provincial Govt Industrial Construction Municipal/Public Utility Local Government Residential Installer/Contractor Rural Electric Cooperative Tribal Government Low-Income Residential Schools Retail Supplier Institutional Multi-Family Residential Systems Integrator Fuel Distributor Nonprofit General Public/Consumer Transportation Program Info State West Virginia Program Type Siting and Permitting Provider Department of Environmental Protection This rule governs the construction, installation, upgrading, use, maintenance, testing, and closure of underground storage tanks, including certification requirements for individuals who install, repair, retrofit,

232

Underground Gas Storage Reservoirs (West Virginia) | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Gas Storage Reservoirs (West Virginia) Gas Storage Reservoirs (West Virginia) Underground Gas Storage Reservoirs (West Virginia) < Back Eligibility Utility Fed. Government Commercial Agricultural Investor-Owned Utility State/Provincial Govt Industrial Construction Municipal/Public Utility Local Government Residential Installer/Contractor Rural Electric Cooperative Tribal Government Low-Income Residential Schools Retail Supplier Institutional Multi-Family Residential Systems Integrator Fuel Distributor Nonprofit General Public/Consumer Transportation Program Info State West Virginia Program Type Safety and Operational Guidelines Provider West Virginia Department of Commerce Lays out guidelines for the conditions under which coal mining operations must notify state authorities of intentions to mine where underground gas

233

Sudden stratospheric warmings seen in MINOS deep underground muon data  

SciTech Connect

The rate of high energy cosmic ray muons as measured underground is shown to be strongly correlated with upper-air temperatures during short-term atmospheric (10-day) events. The effects are seen by correlating data from the MINOS underground detector and temperatures from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts during the winter periods from 2003-2007. This effect provides an independent technique for the measurement of meteorological conditions and presents a unique opportunity to measure both short and long-term changes in this important part of the atmosphere.

Osprey, S.; /Oxford U.; Barnett, J.; /Oxford U.; Smith, J.; /Oxford U.; Adamson, P.; /Fermilab; Andreopoulos, C.; /Rutherford; Arms, K.E.; /Minnesota U.; Armstrong, R.; /Indiana U.; Auty, D.J.; /Sussex U.; Ayres, D.S.; /Argonne; Baller, B.; /Fermilab; Barnes, P.D., Jr.; /LLNL, Livermore /Oxford U.

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

234

Variations of Total Domination  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The study of locating–dominating sets in graphs was pioneered by Slater [186, 187...], and this concept was later extended to total domination in graphs. A locating–total dominating set, abbreviated LTD-set, in G

Michael A. Henning; Anders Yeo

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

235

Total Crude by Pipeline  

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

Product: Total Crude by All Transport Methods Domestic Crude by All Transport Methods Foreign Crude by All Transport Methods Total Crude by Pipeline Domestic Crude by Pipeline Foreign Crude by Pipeline Total Crude by Tanker Domestic Crude by Tanker Foreign Crude by Tanker Total Crude by Barge Domestic Crude by Barge Foreign Crude by Barge Total Crude by Tank Cars (Rail) Domestic Crude by Tank Cars (Rail) Foreign Crude by Tank Cars (Rail) Total Crude by Trucks Domestic Crude by Trucks Foreign Crude by Trucks Period: Product: Total Crude by All Transport Methods Domestic Crude by All Transport Methods Foreign Crude by All Transport Methods Total Crude by Pipeline Domestic Crude by Pipeline Foreign Crude by Pipeline Total Crude by Tanker Domestic Crude by Tanker Foreign Crude by Tanker Total Crude by Barge Domestic Crude by Barge Foreign Crude by Barge Total Crude by Tank Cars (Rail) Domestic Crude by Tank Cars (Rail) Foreign Crude by Tank Cars (Rail) Total Crude by Trucks Domestic Crude by Trucks Foreign Crude by Trucks Period: Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Product Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View

236

H.A.R. 11-281 - Underground Storage Tanks | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

1 - Underground Storage Tanks Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: H.A.R. 11-281 - Underground Storage...

237

C.R.S. 37-90 - Underground Water | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

StatuteStatute: C.R.S. 37-90 - Underground WaterLegal Abstract This article governs the management of underground water in Colorado. Published NA Year Signed or Took Effect 2014...

238

Assessment of seawater intrusion into underground oil storage cavern and prediction of its sustainability  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Operation of underground oil (gas) storage cavern in coastal area can induce seawater intrusion because excavation of underground storage cavern causes the groundwater level decrease of coastal aquifer. Seawater ...

Eunhee Lee; Jeong-Won Lim; Hee Sun Moon; Kang-Kun Lee

2014-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

239

Managing expert-information uncertainties for assessing collapse susceptibility of abandoned underground structures  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

by the vast number of quarries and marl pits, but also for various other reasons resulting in underground be sufficiently violent to cause human loss. Thus, in 1961, the collapse of an underground chalk quarry

Boyer, Edmond

240

Lower 48 States Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic  

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

Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 849,115 666,248 313,952 100,096 58,314 80,472 115,649 125,989 55,418 51,527 183,799 473,674 2012 619,332 515,817 205,365 126,403 73,735 90,800 129,567 133,919 66,652 85,918 280,933 489,707 2013 791,849 646,483 480,032 134,680 48,945 68,117 98,141 101,568 66,273 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 12/12/2013 Next Release Date: 1/7/2014 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators

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


241

Appendix C: Underground Storage Annual Site Environmental Report  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Appendix C: Underground Storage Tank Data #12;#12;Annual Site Environmental Report Appendix C identification service Contents Status ( ) date to Corrective action Tank Out-of- assessment number date regulatory Installation Capacity Preliminary date (gallons) investigation Environmental agency Petroleum USTs

Pennycook, Steve

242

Coal properties and system operating parameters for underground coal gasification  

SciTech Connect

Through the model experiment for underground coal gasification, the influence of the properties for gasification agent and gasification methods on underground coal gasifier performance were studied. The results showed that pulsating gasification, to some extent, could improve gas quality, whereas steam gasification led to the production of high heating value gas. Oxygen-enriched air and backflow gasification failed to improve the quality of the outlet gas remarkably, but they could heighten the temperature of the gasifier quickly. According to the experiment data, the longitudinal average gasification rate along the direction of the channel in the gasifying seams was 1.212 m/d, with transverse average gasification rate 0.069 m/d. Experiment indicated that, for the oxygen-enriched steam gasification, when the steam/oxygen ratio was 2:1, gas compositions remained stable, with H{sub 2} + CO content virtually standing between 60% and 70% and O{sub 2} content below 0.5%. The general regularities of the development of the temperature field within the underground gasifier and the reasons for the changes of gas quality were also analyzed. The 'autopneumatolysis' and methanization reaction existing in the underground gasification process were first proposed.

Yang, L. [China University of Mining & Technology, Xuzhou (China)

2008-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

243

Effect of repository underground ventilation on emplacement drift temperature control  

SciTech Connect

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

Yang, H.; Sun, Y.; McKenzie, D.G.; Bhattacharyya, K.K. [Morrison Knudson Corporation, Las Vegas, NV (United States)

1996-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

244

Case study of groundwater impact caused by underground mining  

SciTech Connect

An investigative methodology is presented to assist mining and regulatory personnel in determining the effect underground mining can have on local aquifers in the Appalachian coal region. The impact of underground mining on groundwater may be more extensive than first realized by the mining industry and regulatory agencies. The primary reason for this possible under-assessment of deep mining's influence on groundwater is the methods used to calculate groundwater movement. Since groundwater calculations are based on primary hydraulic conductivity, i.e. the conductivity through solid rock measured from rock core samples, erroneous results may be expected. In many cases, groundwater flow times and the corresponding areas of influence are much greater than those assumed since water is rapidly moved through fractured zones that commonly occur throughout Appalachia. A case study illustrating this phenomenon is drawn from underground mining operations in Pike County. A survey of 144 wells was conducted to determine if any loss of water supply and/or quality was found. This was correlated to the extent and time progression of underground mining operations. Other parameters qualified are water level fluctuations, groundwater quality, precipitation, seasonal effects, geology, and mine dewatering. The analysis includes a comprehensive compilation of a well inventory of domestic water supplies. The case study draws conclusions regarding cause and effect relationships.

Sloan, P.; Warner, R.C.

1984-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

245

Underground—and the City of the Future  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

... , warehouses and other public service buildings, as well as traffic routes for vehicles and pedestrians, would be constructed in this way. Already there exists a plan for the diversion ... in the well-known École spéciale d'Architecture, on the lighting of underground traffic and pedestrian routes. He reviews the practice exemplified in some of the short subways in Paris, ...

1940-01-06T23:59:59.000Z

246

Grounding Analysis in Heterogeneous Soil Models: Application to Underground Substations  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Grounding Analysis in Heterogeneous Soil Models: Application to Underground Substations Ignasi category includes all step- up and step-down transmission substations, as well as a number of distribution substations indeed. Nevertheless, the current trend in electric power Engineering moves in another direction

Colominas, Ignasi

247

,"New York Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"  

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

"Sourcekey","N5030NY2","N5010NY2","N5020NY2","N5070NY2","N5050NY2","N5060NY2" "Date","New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)","New York Natural Gas in...

248

Radon concentrations in three underground lignite mines in Turkey  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......being operated by the Aegean Lignite Enterprise (Ege Linyitleri...determined in three underground lignite mines, namely Tuncbilek...which is the main state body of lignite coal production, processing...of TKi. GLi Tuncbilek coal reserve, which is located on the mid-west......

S. Çile; N. Altinsoy; N. Çelebi

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

249

EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNDERGROUND SNO LABORATORY IN CANADA  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNDERGROUND SNO LABORATORY IN CANADA by G.T. Ewan and W.F. Davidson Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario Fundamental physics measurements can be made by many different of high energy cos- mic rays, solar neutrino measure- ments, and searches for rare process- es

Abolmaesumi, Purang

250

Design and Field Testing of an Autonomous Underground Tramming System  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

-haul-dump (LHD) machine is often used to excavate fragmented rock, haul it to an assigned location, and then dump, the hazardous nature of underground envi- ronments, driver safety and fatigue, labor costs, and the cyclic" attempts worked by outfitting the mine with signal- emitting cables [2], light-emitting ropes [1

Paris-Sud XI, Université de

251

Underground storage tank 511-D1U1 closure plan  

SciTech Connect

This document contains the closure plan for diesel fuel underground storage tank 511-D1U1 and appendices containing supplemental information such as staff training certification and task summaries. Precision tank test data, a site health and safety plan, and material safety data sheets are also included.

Mancieri, S.; Giuntoli, N.

1993-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

252

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

SciTech Connect

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

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

1996-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

253

Total Space Heat-  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: Energy End-Use Consumption Tables Total Space Heat- ing Cool- ing Venti- lation Water Heat- ing Light- ing Cook- ing Refrig- eration...

254

Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 1988-2012 Salt Caverns

255

Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 572,477 572,477 580,380 580,380 580,380 577,944 1988-2012

256

Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 690,678 740,477 766,768 783,579 812,394 831,190 1988-2012

257

Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 220,359 220,359 220,368 221,751 221,751 221,751 1988-2012

258

Oregon Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 29,415 29,415 29,565 29,565 29,565 28,750 1989-2012 Salt Caverns

259

Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 1,060,558 1,062,339 1,069,405 1,069,898 1,075,472 1,078,979

260

Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 1,200 1,200 1,200 0 1998-2012 Salt Caverns 0 1999-2012

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


261

Alabama Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 19,300 26,900 26,900 32,900 35,400 35,400 1995-2012 Salt Caverns

262

Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 114,067 111,167 111,120 111,120 106,764 124,937 1988-2012

263

Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 114,294 114,937 114,274 111,271 111,313 110,749 1988-2012

264

Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 588,711 615,858 651,968 670,880 690,295 699,646 1988-2012

265

Montana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 374,201 374,201 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 1988-2012

266

Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 9,560 6,200 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 1998-2012 Salt Caverns

267

Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 166,909 187,251 210,128 235,638 240,241 289,416 1988-2012

268

Pennsylvania Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 759,365 759,153 776,964 776,822 776,845 774,309 1988-2012

269

A feasibility study for underground coal gasification at Krabi Mine, Thailand  

SciTech Connect

A study to evaluate the technical, economical, and environmental feasibility of underground coal gasification (UCG) in the Krabi Mine, Thailand, was conducted by the Energy and Environmental Research Center (EERC) in cooperation with B.C. Technologies (BCT) and the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT). The selected coal resource was found suitable to fuel a UCG facility producing 460,000 MJ/h (436 million Btu/h) of 100--125 Btu/scf gas for 20 years. The raw UCG gas could be produced for a selling price of $1.94/MMBtu. The UCG facility would require a total investment of $13.8 million for installed capital equipment, and annual operating expenses for the facility would be $7.0 million. The UCG gas could be either cofired in a power plant currently under construction or power a 40 MW simple-cycle gas turbine or a 60 MW combined-cycle power plant.

Solc, J.; Steadman, E.N. [Energy and Environmental Research Center, Grand Forks, ND (United States); Boysen, J.E. [BC Technologies, Laramie, WY (United States)

1998-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

270

Management of dry gas desulfurization by-products in underground mines. Quarterly report, October 1--December 31, 1996  

SciTech Connect

The objective is 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 coal combustion by-products. The two technologies for the underground placement that will be developed and demonstrated are: (1) pneumatic placement using virtually dry coal combustion by-products, and (2) hydraulic placement using a paste mixture of combustion by-products with about 70% solids. Phase 2 of the overall program began April 1, 1996. The principal objective of Phase 2 is to develop and fabricate the equipment for both the pneumatic and hydraulic placement technologies, and to conduct a limited, small-scale shakedown test of the pneumatic and hydraulic placement equipment. The shakedown test originally was to take place on the surface, in trenches dug for the tests. However, after a thorough study it was decided, with the concurrence of DOE-METC, to drill additional injection wells and conduct the shakedown tests underground. This will allow a more thorough test of the placement equipment.

NONE

1996-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

271

Total Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Summary)  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Gas Processed NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Dry Production Imports By Pipeline LNG Imports Exports Exports By Pipeline LNG Exports Underground Storage Capacity...

272

GRR/Section 14-HI-c - Underground Injection Control Permit | Open Energy  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

GRR/Section 14-HI-c - Underground Injection Control Permit GRR/Section 14-HI-c - Underground Injection Control Permit < GRR Jump to: navigation, search GRR-logo.png GEOTHERMAL REGULATORY ROADMAP Roadmap Home Roadmap Help List of Sections Section 14-HI-c - Underground Injection Control Permit 14HIC - UndergroundInjectionControlPermit (1).pdf Click to View Fullscreen Contact Agencies Hawaii Department of Health Safe Drinking Water Branch Regulations & Policies Hawaii Administrative Rules Title 11, Chapter 23 Triggers None specified Click "Edit With Form" above to add content 14HIC - UndergroundInjectionControlPermit (1).pdf 14HIC - UndergroundInjectionControlPermit (1).pdf Error creating thumbnail: Page number not in range. Error creating thumbnail: Page number not in range. Flowchart Narrative The developer must receive an Underground Injection Control Permit from the

273

Cosmic Ray Muon Flux at the Sanford Underground Laboratory at Homestake  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Measuring the muon flux is important to the Sanford Underground Laboratory at Homestake, for which several low background experiments are being planned. The nearly-vertical cosmic ray muon flux was measured in three locations at this laboratory: on the surface (1.149 \\pm 0.017 x 10^-2 cm^-2 s^-1 sr^-1), at the 800-ft (0.712 km w.e.) level (2.67 \\pm 0.06 x 10^-6 cm^-2 s^-1 sr^-1), and at the 2000-ft (1.78 km w.e.) level (2.56 \\pm 0.25 x 10^-7 cm^-2 s^-1 sr^-1). These fluxes agree well with model predictions.

F. E. Gray; C. Ruybal; J. Totushek; D. -M. Mei; K. Thomas; C. Zhang

2010-07-12T23:59:59.000Z

274

Department of Energy Announces 15 Projects Aimed at Secure Underground  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

15 Projects Aimed at Secure 15 Projects Aimed at Secure Underground Storage of CO2 Department of Energy Announces 15 Projects Aimed at Secure Underground Storage of CO2 August 11, 2010 - 1:00pm Addthis Washington, DC - U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced today the selection of 15 projects to develop technologies aimed at safely and economically storing carbon dioxide (CO2) in geologic formations. Funded at $21.3 million over three years, today's selections will complement existing DOE initiatives to help develop the technology and infrastructure to implement large-scale CO2 storage in different geologic formations across the Nation. The projects selected today will support the goals of helping reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, developing and deploying near-zero-emission coal technologies, and making the U.S. a leader in

275

Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity - Energy Information  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity With Data for November 2012 | Release Date: July 24, 2013 | Next Release Date: Spring 2014 Previous Issues Year: 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 Go Overview Natural gas working storage capacity increased by about 2 percent in the Lower 48 states between November 2011 and November 2012. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has two measures of working gas storage capacity, and both increased by similar amounts: Demonstrated maximum volume increased 1.8 percent to 4,265 billion cubic feet (Bcf) Design capacity increased 2.0 percent to 4,575 Bcf Maximum demonstrated working gas volume is an operational measure of the highest level of working gas reported at each storage facility at any time

276

one mile underground into a deep saline formation. The injection  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

mile underground into a deep saline formation. The injection, mile underground into a deep saline formation. The injection, which will occur over a three-year period and is slated to start in early 2010, will compress up to 1 million metric tonnes of CO 2 from the ADM ethanol facility into a liquid-like, dense phase. The targeted rock formation, the Mt. Simon Sandstone, is the thickest and most widespread saline reservoir in the Illinois Basin, with an estimated CO 2 storage capacity of 27 to 109 billion metric tonnes. A comprehensive monitoring program, which will be evaluated yearly, will be implemented after the injection to ensure the injected CO 2 is stored safely and permanently. The RCSP Program was launched by the Office of Fossil Energy (FE)

277

Westinghouse Earns Mine Safety Award for Exceptional Underground Operations  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Westinghouse Earns Mine Safety Award Westinghouse Earns Mine Safety Award For Exceptional Underground Operations CARLSBAD, N.M., October 5, 2000 - For the 14 th consecutive year, the Westinghouse Waste Isolation Division (WID) has been recognized for "excellence in underground operations" at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). On September 19, New Mexico State Inspector of Mines Gilbert Miera and the New Mexico Mining Association presented Westinghouse with the "Mine Operator of the Year" award. The presentation took place at the New Mexico Mining Association's annual convention in Farmington. The "Mine Operator of the Year" award recognizes Westinghouse's close attention to safety in a mining environment. WID received the award in the category of "non-producing

278

Advanced Underground Gas Storage Concepts Refrigerated-Mined Cavern Storage  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE CONCEPTS UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE CONCEPTS REFRIGERATED-MINED CAVERN STORAGE FINAL REPORT DOE CONTRACT NUMBER DE-AC26-97FT34349 SUBMITTED BY: PB-KBB INC. 11757 KATY FREEWAY, SUITE 600 HOUSTON, TX 77079 SEPTEMBER 1998 Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily

279

DIANA - A deep underground accelerator for nuclear astrophysics experiments  

SciTech Connect

DIANA (Dakota Ion Accelerator for Nuclear Astrophysics) is a proposed facility designed to be operated deep underground. The DIANA collaboration includes nuclear astrophysics groups from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Michigan State University, Western Michigan University, Colorado School of Mines, and the University of North Carolina, and is led by the University of Notre Dame. The scientific goals of the facility are measurements of low energy nuclear cross-sections associated with sun and pre-supernova stars in a laboratory setup at energies that are close to those in stars. Because of the low stellar temperatures associated with these environments, and the high Coulomb barrier, the reaction cross-sections are extremely low. Therefore these measurements are hampered by small signal to background ratios. By going underground the background due to cosmic rays can be reduced by several orders of magnitude. We report on the design status of the DIANA facility with focus on the 3 MV electrostatic accelerator.

Winklehner, Daniel; Leitner, Daniela [Michigan State University, 640 S Shaw Lane, East Lansing MI 48824 (United States); Lemut, Alberto; Hodgkinson, Adrian [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley CA 94720 (United States); Couder, Manoel; Wiescher, Michael [University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556 (United States)

2013-04-19T23:59:59.000Z

280

200-Area plateau inactive miscellaneous underground storage tanks locations  

SciTech Connect

Fluor Daniel Northwest (FDNW) has been tasked by Lockheed Martin Hanford Corporation (LMHC) to incorporate current location data for 64 of the 200-Area plateau inactive miscellaneous underground storage tanks (IMUST) into the centralized mapping computer database for the Hanford facilities. The IMUST coordinate locations and tank names for the tanks currently assigned to the Hanford Site contractors are listed in Appendix A. The IMUST are inactive tanks installed in underground vaults or buried directly in the ground within the 200-East and 200-West Areas of the Hanford Site. The tanks are categorized as tanks with a capacity of less than 190,000 liters (50,000 gal). Some of the IMUST have been stabilized, pumped dry, filled with grout, or may contain an inventory or radioactive and/or hazardous materials. The IMUST have been out of service for at least 12 years.

Brevick, C.H.

1997-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

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


281

Light weight underground pipe or cable installing device  

SciTech Connect

This invention pertains to a light weight underground pipe or cable installing device adapted for use in a narrow and deep operating trench. More particularly this underground pipe installing device employs a pair of laterally movable gates positioned adjacent the bottom of the operating trench where the earth is more solid to securely clamp the device in the operating trench to enable it to withstand the forces exerted as the actuating rod is forced through the earth from the so-called operating trench to the target trench. To accommodate the laterally movable gates positioned adjacent the bottom of the narrow pipe installing device, a pair of top operated double-acting rod clamping jaws, operated by a hydraulic cylinder positioned above the actuating rod are employed.

Schosek, W. O.

1985-01-08T23:59:59.000Z

282

depleted underground oil shale for the permanent storage of carbon  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

depleted underground oil shale for the permanent storage of carbon depleted underground oil shale for the permanent storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) generated during the oil shale extraction process. AMSO, which holds a research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) lease from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management for a 160-acre parcel of Federal land in northwest Colorado's oil-shale rich Piceance Basin, will provide technical assistance and oil shale core samples. If AMSO can demonstrate an economically viable and environmentally acceptable extraction process, it retains the right to acquire a 5,120-acre commercial lease. When subject to high temperatures and high pressures, oil shale (a sedimentary rock that is rich in hydrocarbons) can be converted into oil. Through mineralization, the CO 2 could be stored in the shale

283

Underground Injection Control Fee Schedule (West Virginia) | Department of  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Injection Control Fee Schedule (West Virginia) Injection Control Fee Schedule (West Virginia) Underground Injection Control Fee Schedule (West Virginia) < Back Eligibility Utility Fed. Government Commercial Agricultural Investor-Owned Utility State/Provincial Govt Industrial Construction Municipal/Public Utility Local Government Residential Installer/Contractor Rural Electric Cooperative Tribal Government Low-Income Residential Schools Retail Supplier Institutional Multi-Family Residential Systems Integrator Fuel Distributor Nonprofit General Public/Consumer Transportation Program Info State West Virginia Program Type Fees Provider Department of Environmental Protection This rule establishes schedules of permit fees for state under-ground injection control permits issued by the Chief of the Office of Water Resources. This rule applies to any person who is required to apply for and

284

Methodology for EIA Weekly Underground Natural Gas Storage Estimates  

Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report (EIA)

Methodology for EIA Weekly Underground Natural Gas Storage Estimates Methodology for EIA Weekly Underground Natural Gas Storage Estimates Latest Update: November 25, 2008 This report consists of the following sections: Survey and Survey Processing - a description of the survey and an overview of the program Sampling - a description of the selection process used to identify companies in the survey Estimation - how the regional estimates are prepared from the collected data Computing the 5-year Averages, Maxima, Minima, and Year-Ago Values for the Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report - the method used to prepare weekly data to compute the 5-year averages, maxima, minima, and year-ago values for the weekly report Derivation of the Weekly Historical Estimates Database - a description of the process used to generate the historical database for the

285

Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 228,019 220,410 215,229 215,377 219,838 224,572 230,226 236,154 239,871 243,782 241,829 227,519 1991 225,964 215,495 211,852 213,588 218,084 228,720 234,297 240,868 252,335 263,855 255,740 241,570 1992 221,741 209,087 205,548 208,105 217,022 225,236 236,833 247,704 258,372 267,472 258,308 237,797 1993 218,826 208,027 205,378 210,868 217,693 225,793 236,688 247,032 259,649 265,238 258,580 240,957 1994 222,694 213,205 210,208 212,114 217,678 224,185 234,433 245,426 257,120 266,215 261,645 243,875 1995 223,356 212,480 208,011 207,340 211,295 219,417 229,558 244,448 256,135 263,260 252,590 237,557

286

Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 59,806 56,937 55,229 54,606 57,328 55,249 67,314 75,921 83,365 86,778 66,668 58,461 1991 61,574 54,369 50,745 51,761 54,314 60,156 66,484 70,498 74,646 75,367 70,399 63,453 1992 59,541 59,119 59,059 60,896 64,403 67,171 70,690 75,362 78,483 79,756 74,021 67,181 1993 61,308 56,251 52,595 52,028 58,713 65,349 69,968 75,120 80,183 85,406 79,818 75,184 1994 70,826 63,733 66,678 68,028 74,061 78,089 83,551 89,773 98,223 102,035 99,841 94,306 1995 86,450 83,059 79,507 80,647 84,154 90,012 97,005 100,430 101,993 102,510 103,779 93,925

287

New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 124,150 116,994 113,349 121,215 131,103 139,757 148,861 155,592 158,419 160,981 150,947 1991 127,051 118,721 114,190 117,571 124,275 132,029 140,317 149,058 157,799 163,054 158,736 151,036 1992 146,171 131,831 119,880 122,969 132,698 142,107 153,543 163,508 169,298 172,708 169,361 158,828 1993 145,521 129,184 118,756 122,771 133,838 144,835 154,895 162,969 172,642 174,589 171,253 161,801 1994 143,310 129,129 120,675 129,563 138,273 150,582 159,688 168,628 173,584 174,977 172,352 163,470 1995 149,768 135,478 129,570 130,077 138,659 150,010 156,744 165,026 173,947 175,635 165,945 148,196

288

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

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Iowa Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 1,740 243 1,516 3,236 5,817 8,184 5,657 5,928 4,903 4,971 1,423 854 1991 1,166 155 231 1,829 4,897 8,985 6,518 8,058 11,039 10,758 2,782 860 1992 488 43 1,246 3,184 7,652 7,568 11,453 11,281 11,472 9,000 1,228 1,203 1993 0 0 733 5,547 6,489 7,776 10,550 10,150 12,351 8,152 2,437 0 1994 0 75 1,162 3,601 7,153 7,638 11,999 12,405 13,449 10,767 2,678 0 1995 0 0 251 1,041 5,294 9,889 12,219 17,805 13,756 8,855 1,283 391 1996 2 2 0 40 1,921 7,679 12,393 13,168 12,537 10,556 2,760 0

289

Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 296,629 281,511 286,917 279,978 298,202 307,083 317,720 325,432 332,591 338,392 353,804 327,277 1991 283,982 278,961 284,515 298,730 313,114 323,305 324,150 328,823 338,810 342,711 317,072 306,300 1992 288,415 280,038 276,287 282,263 290,192 301,262 318,719 326,705 339,394 346,939 330,861 299,990 1993 275,054 253,724 246,989 257,844 277,833 296,860 311,870 325,201 341,207 348,646 330,986 316,146 1994 285,115 259,794 257,148 273,797 298,007 311,154 327,281 340,312 349,174 353,630 350,671 334,502 1995 310,835 297,169 287,302 291,768 308,245 320,842 327,910 326,131 338,685 351,385 343,918 320,269

290

Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 293,785 290,491 289,197 288,193 293,815 288,808 290,947 293,015 295,663 296,921 295,421 290,602 1991 289,270 287,858 286,548 286,491 287,718 288,959 290,667 292,107 292,226 290,844 288,112 284,559 1992 281,148 279,325 278,909 279,042 280,038 280,751 281,777 282,543 282,117 280,760 277,412 271,811 1993 266,711 262,291 259,532 257,822 256,665 255,940 257,149 257,450 257,904 257,816 253,710 250,503 1994 246,679 239,940 238,777 237,993 238,931 240,738 242,090 243,176 244,948 245,981 244,275 241,603 1995 238,103 236,109 235,420 236,218 237,498 239,637 242,554 245,760 246,856 246,301 243,255 238,004

291

AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 888,010 816,597 813,746 830,132 876,457 908,444 941,985 966,686 1,002,402 1,021,144 997,644 956,234 1995 902,782 884,830 865,309 860,012 897,991 945,183 975,307 986,131 1,011,948 1,032,357 1,033,363 982,781 1996 896,744 853,207 837,980 849,221 885,715 916,778 929,559 928,785 946,748 949,983 939,649 899,689 1997 833,239 796,139 788,601 801,955 844,880 890,703 923,845 947,277 969,170 980,388 967,286 880,627 1998 828,658 780,476 768,264 773,053 823,311 872,913 900,181 925,287 965,846 1,001,548 1,009,978 953,379

292

Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 96,943 93,233 91,600 91,945 93,696 95,361 97,632 101,323 105,497 108,028 108,772 105,317 1991 99,409 90,625 87,381 86,706 88,659 89,700 93,022 97,673 102,161 119,470 106,066 101,121 1992 94,379 89,893 85,767 85,259 86,457 88,999 94,154 98,267 103,478 106,422 103,871 100,288 1993 95,109 90,016 87,368 88,414 89,388 91,515 95,971 100,516 104,709 106,058 104,160 101,505 1994 95,846 92,274 90,200 89,473 89,417 91,870 97,002 101,310 105,300 109,518 110,149 107,215 1995 101,661 95,902 93,464 92,724 93,156 94,955 97,862 101,470 106,201 110,610 111,401 106,609

293

Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 806,109 754,941 721,785 717,863 749,618 782,498 812,054 847,731 881,760 900,526 903,640 870,265 1991 801,635 753,141 727,699 720,275 751,641 781,883 810,535 844,477 877,485 904,206 885,341 851,258 1992 791,129 743,484 716,909 709,150 742,812 774,578 805,097 843,543 878,334 905,597 887,454 844,108 1993 783,875 735,236 710,377 713,214 746,899 779,762 810,546 844,320 882,456 907,957 898,655 854,691 1994 781,826 737,719 723,108 722,735 746,576 776,189 808,832 843,372 880,762 907,622 898,872 866,846 1995 803,422 745,457 721,311 716,886 745,970 774,803 804,912 837,002 868,941 899,868 885,665 841,580

294

Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 439,384 418,280 409,494 412,498 435,089 454,844 474,266 493,301 510,714 521,774 518,006 489,515 1991 477,781 454,923 439,191 448,258 461,362 490,259 505,168 523,544 538,399 546,343 533,483 506,672 1992 463,200 428,363 392,474 394,514 420,383 452,412 478,259 500,938 516,378 527,568 522,419 491,542 1993 452,510 407,121 368,376 371,641 401,431 433,291 462,741 490,248 515,994 522,961 510,471 470,120 1994 413,475 378,216 361,279 377,103 406,526 438,293 471,603 498,156 519,996 530,505 526,490 498,597 1995 448,479 410,867 391,082 385,953 413,796 445,322 472,162 495,448 513,913 522,766 498,715 455,782

295

Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 245,145 234,971 229,066 227,002 227,589 232,695 244,279 256,395 272,036 278,715 307,106 283,959 1991 247,980 246,067 240,702 238,606 244,878 254,222 257,114 260,728 271,373 282,551 273,225 274,836 1992 267,254 254,115 244,632 239,589 241,818 244,415 248,599 260,231 270,362 273,183 262,414 247,855 1993 229,148 213,533 208,832 213,112 235,850 247,585 253,023 261,780 276,136 278,233 268,816 259,719 1994 243,371 229,217 228,379 229,034 240,066 245,355 256,229 268,820 278,655 283,143 276,402 266,198 1995 251,176 239,135 228,409 230,202 239,892 252,703 252,472 252,461 269,034 280,066 272,406 255,483

296

Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 167,899 166,624 167,576 172,320 177,680 185,467 192,473 199,674 202,983 198,545 192,581 1991 183,697 180,169 176,535 181,119 183,491 186,795 192,143 195,330 198,776 198,351 191,831 189,130 1992 189,866 188,587 183,694 182,008 180,781 182,342 185,893 187,501 191,689 202,391 200,871 197,857 1993 192,736 181,774 172,140 171,465 177,888 185,725 193,275 198,075 204,437 205,524 199,683 188,970 1994 170,283 157,974 153,378 158,141 167,847 177,200 186,856 193,717 197,308 200,665 200,993 192,700 1995 179,376 166,756 162,223 165,687 178,354 185,982 192,799 196,645 203,357 205,882 196,585 185,704

297

Salt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Salt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Salt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Salt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2006-Dec 12/29 101 2007-Jan 01/05 109 01/12 107 01/19 96 01/26 91 2007-Feb 02/02 78 02/09 63 02/16 52 02/23 54 2007-Mar 03/02 59 03/09 58 03/16 64 03/23 70 03/30 78 2007-Apr 04/06 81 04/13 80 04/20 80 04/27 83 2007-May 05/04 85 05/11 88 05/18 92 05/25 97 2007-Jun 06/01 100 06/08 101 06/15 102 06/22 102 06/29 102

298

AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 7,862 17,834 34,190 160,946 247,849 262,039 269,285 244,910 208,853 134,234 47,094 16,471 1995 13,614 4,932 36,048 85,712 223,991 260,731 242,718 212,493 214,385 160,007 37,788 12,190 1996 12,276 39,022 32,753 130,232 233,717 285,798 303,416 270,223 247,897 166,356 39,330 28,875 1997 16,058 14,620 25,278 93,501 207,338 258,086 250,776 252,129 233,730 152,913 53,097 10,338 1998 21,908 13,334 48,068 139,412 254,837 234,427 234,269 207,026 178,129 144,203 52,518 28,342

299

Lower 48 States Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Lower 48 States Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 1993-Dec 12/31 2,322 1994-Jan 01/07 2,186 01/14 2,019 01/21 1,782 01/28 1,662 1994-Feb 02/04 1,470 02/11 1,303 02/18 1,203 02/25 1,149 1994-Mar 03/04 1,015 03/11 1,004 03/18 952 03/25 965 1994-Apr 04/01 953 04/08 969 04/15 1,005 04/22 1,085 04/29 1,161 1994-May 05/06 1,237 05/13 1,325 05/20 1,403 05/27 1,494

300

Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 79,285 79,603 80,373 85,161 89,985 93,156 99,475 104,348 108,323 111,705 112,191 106,545 1991 91,368 86,763 86,679 92,641 96,297 98,701 100,991 103,104 108,211 112,270 104,184 98,741 1992 89,008 87,873 85,498 85,665 89,979 94,898 99,555 100,116 106,504 107,770 107,015 100,433 1993 94,466 86,908 80,802 83,305 90,316 94,786 99,933 103,264 109,076 109,790 108,869 101,774 1994 92,881 89,305 92,689 97,058 101,796 102,770 109,298 114,566 116,697 120,326 121,207 115,933 1995 107,126 102,620 98,569 103,285 110,250 111,888 116,039 116,791 123,081 125,717 116,280 109,906

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


301

Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 456,385 449,625 443,662 508,009 518,658 531,197 544,212 538,450 539,191 556,768 562,961 526,092 1991 444,671 436,508 436,440 453,634 468,302 487,953 491,758 497,878 513,315 517,099 502,004 486,831 1992 455,054 440,895 435,515 438,408 456,948 469,532 491,515 508,950 511,787 516,598 496,232 459,458 1993 414,216 388,921 376,731 396,804 423,544 444,755 453,961 466,560 450,853 457,581 445,059 431,719 1994 381,924 342,046 350,039 374,226 407,219 419,997 446,215 462,725 485,146 495,417 500,640 478,036 1995 465,108 443,908 434,564 455,756 479,313 497,829 498,982 490,940 510,646 520,173 509,944 463,202

302

Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 66,554 61,757 56,567 52,684 52,375 56,614 62,829 68,028 73,035 74,259 80,053 1991 71,524 69,768 62,807 61,367 62,448 66,425 70,705 75,800 80,506 82,065 83,134 82,145 1992 78,319 74,888 68,199 64,030 63,685 65,682 69,830 76,095 82,007 84,134 81,041 78,303 1993 73,838 68,733 66,224 62,799 65,511 70,157 73,322 77,155 81,457 81,981 79,475 78,303 1994 72,798 67,880 65,147 60,034 65,538 67,050 71,639 76,943 82,093 82,347 80,736 77,356 1995 73,047 69,545 64,567 59,852 62,142 70,945 73,047 77,326 80,150 81,357 82,831 77,475

303

Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 50,980 47,820 48,924 49,656 52,214 53,271 55,370 58,030 60,465 61,702 59,577 58,586 1991 55,450 52,159 50,537 51,458 52,941 54,594 55,998 58,233 60,342 61,017 61,304 61,207 1992 56,350 51,413 48,752 47,855 51,162 53,850 55,670 58,057 60,123 61,373 61,882 59,775 1993 56,503 52,155 50,240 49,746 51,939 53,114 54,206 55,924 58,423 61,103 61,504 58,605 1994 52,059 49,590 50,127 51,375 53,420 54,885 56,985 58,443 59,992 61,761 60,987 59,854 1995 57,642 53,398 53,293 53,049 55,049 57,080 56,891 58,074 60,121 61,273 60,740 57,798

304

Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 27,878 27,848 27,810 27,846 27,946 28,419 28,946 29,427 29,707 29,734 29,656 29,429 1991 27,498 27,132 26,811 26,616 26,747 27,086 27,573 27,587 27,587 27,587 26,958 26,294 1992 25,642 25,124 24,681 24,523 24,507 25,016 25,868 26,532 26,966 26,770 26,404 25,781 1993 25,148 24,276 23,798 23,676 22,852 22,866 22,856 22,856 22,856 22,731 22,096 21,239 1994 19,771 18,729 17,426 17,116 17,647 18,199 18,762 19,566 19,776 19,712 19,354 18,757 1995 17,752 16,999 16,460 16,330 16,541 17,854 19,348 20,738 20,895 20,815 20,197 18,048

305

Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 516,257 477,783 453,124 462,399 511,406 619,401 671,431 711,942 717,828 719,002 665,421 1991 543,808 501,265 471,608 482,628 527,550 545,866 569,927 607,093 651,148 669,612 658,358 627,857 1992 559,416 497,895 441,187 445,158 485,227 535,829 579,713 622,943 665,414 690,920 692,280 650,707 1993 580,189 479,149 417,953 444,095 494,680 547,289 592,762 632,195 680,452 695,718 689,050 639,761 1994 532,216 455,494 434,081 475,107 527,242 583,595 634,007 677,221 700,758 716,066 696,721 656,431 1995 590,100 497,162 469,515 481,690 525,118 578,640 611,291 648,080 695,988 713,882 669,744 594,750

306

Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 1993-Dec 12/31 1,411 1994-Jan 01/07 1,323 01/14 1,199 01/21 1,040 01/28 958 1994-Feb 02/04 838 02/11 728 02/18 665 02/25 627 1994-Mar 03/04 529 03/11 531 03/18 462 03/25 461 1994-Apr 04/01 465 04/08 475 04/15 494 04/22 541 04/29 593 1994-May 05/06 636 05/13 690 05/20 731 05/27 795

307

Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 377,554 379,627 371,519 372,188 379,245 393,418 407,240 421,000 435,705 450,886 459,955 452,883 1991 405,740 373,892 361,085 367,797 387,769 411,591 425,349 435,719 453,303 477,425 464,906 433,184 1992 387,456 358,639 345,049 348,097 369,129 388,728 403,713 413,375 432,171 452,989 447,115 411,919 1993 365,128 321,651 298,841 302,181 340,366 375,731 402,638 430,431 466,345 481,609 468,227 421,634 1994 376,035 357,247 343,892 365,948 400,035 421,714 451,504 474,085 497,428 506,525 502,477 463,847 1995 412,075 372,991 364,320 374,312 392,968 420,738 441,510 442,655 466,060 480,119 455,669 408,882

308

California Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 369,842 350,519 355,192 376,146 401,513 414,633 418,894 421,696 426,235 440,326 397,785 1991 376,267 376,879 359,926 380,826 407,514 431,831 445,387 448,286 448,383 448,081 441,485 417,177 1992 374,166 357,388 341,665 355,718 382,516 404,547 418,501 431,069 445,438 455,642 446,085 390,868 1993 357,095 337,817 348,097 356,320 385,972 399,994 423,027 433,552 448,573 461,473 446,120 411,943 1994 372,605 328,438 327,546 346,463 374,574 394,821 412,465 421,818 438,754 450,997 434,260 408,636 1995 377,660 373,010 365,068 362,271 388,641 414,650 428,646 426,927 442,131 460,286 462,316 436,346

309

Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 799 683 623 539 539 539 673 807 919 1,022 1,126 1,127 1999 996 872 741 661 658 802 909 985 1,089 1,194 1,251 1,195 2000 1,031 855 792 729 711 711 711 711 711 760 874 959 2001 963 903 830 761 865 978 1,009 1,072 1,118 1,180 938 937 2002 987 988 990 990 965 962 949 945 942 940 852 852 2003 744 634 566 519 554 630 705 800 803 848 848 787 2004 684 633 621 652 685 731 794 849 854 879 867 826 2005 784 704 605 524 483 466 466 466 428 419 413 400

310

Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 82,538 81,491 81,181 82,095 83,472 85,002 83,477 83,923 85,020 84,918 81,317 1991 79,407 78,372 77,653 78,788 81,843 83,985 83,721 83,657 84,562 84,253 83,847 81,475 1992 79,888 78,880 78,837 79,448 81,080 83,708 85,758 86,968 88,154 87,853 85,260 81,824 1993 78,414 76,448 75,412 76,380 79,328 82,649 85,226 87,084 88,593 88,564 86,793 84,418 1994 81,833 79,100 79,242 80,202 82,339 83,239 85,362 85,709 87,835 88,765 88,935 86,932 1995 84,820 83,825 82,895 82,697 83,340 84,206 35,388 35,566 35,950 35,183 33,585 31,992

311

21 briefing pages total  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

briefing pages total p. 1 briefing pages total p. 1 Reservist Differential Briefing U.S. Office of Personnel Management December 11, 2009 p. 2 Agenda - Introduction of Speakers - Background - References/Tools - Overview of Reservist Differential Authority - Qualifying Active Duty Service and Military Orders - Understanding Military Leave and Earnings Statements p. 3 Background 5 U.S.C. 5538 (Section 751 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, March 11, 2009) (Public Law 111-8) Law requires OPM to consult with DOD Law effective first day of first pay period on or after March 11, 2009 (March 15 for most executive branch employees) Number of affected employees unclear p. 4 Next Steps

312

Revitalized Board Lays Out New Path amid EM's Recent Underground Tank  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Revitalized Board Lays Out New Path amid EM's Recent Underground Revitalized Board Lays Out New Path amid EM's Recent Underground Tank Waste Successes Revitalized Board Lays Out New Path amid EM's Recent Underground Tank Waste Successes August 20, 2012 - 12:00pm Addthis Cement trucks transport a specially formulated grout that is pumped into two underground waste tanks at the Savannah River Site as part of work to close the massive structures. Cement trucks transport a specially formulated grout that is pumped into two underground waste tanks at the Savannah River Site as part of work to close the massive structures. A view of the interior of the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit at the Idaho site. A view of the interior of the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit at the Idaho site. Cement trucks transport a specially formulated grout that is pumped into two underground waste tanks at the Savannah River Site as part of work to close the massive structures.

313

GRR/Elements/14-CA-c.12 - Does the DOGGR Approve the Underground Injection  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

- Does the DOGGR Approve the Underground Injection - Does the DOGGR Approve the Underground Injection Project < GRR‎ | Elements Jump to: navigation, search GRR-logo.png GEOTHERMAL REGULATORY ROADMAP Roadmap Home Roadmap Help List of Sections 14-CA-c.12 - Does the DOGGR Approve the Underground Injection Project After the end of the comment period and after reviewing any proposed revisions furnished by the Regional Board, the State Board decides whether to approve the Underground Injection Project. Logic Chain No Parents \V/ GRR/Elements/14-CA-c.12 - Does the DOGGR Approve the Underground Injection Project (this page) \V/ No Dependents Under Development Add.png Add an Element Retrieved from "http://en.openei.org/w/index.php?title=GRR/Elements/14-CA-c.12_-_Does_the_DOGGR_Approve_the_Underground_Injection_Project&oldid=539630

314

GRR/Section 14-WA-c - Underground Injection Control Permit | Open Energy  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

GRR/Section 14-WA-c - Underground Injection Control Permit GRR/Section 14-WA-c - Underground Injection Control Permit < GRR Jump to: navigation, search GRR-logo.png GEOTHERMAL REGULATORY ROADMAP Roadmap Home Roadmap Help List of Sections Section 14-WA-c - Underground Injection Control Permit 14-WA-c - Underground Injection Control Permit.pdf Click to View Fullscreen Contact Agencies Washington State Department of Ecology Regulations & Policies Chapter 173-218 WAC Non-endangerment Standard Triggers None specified The Safe Drinking Water Act requires Washington to implement technical criteria and standards to protect underground sources of drinking water from contamination. Under Chapter 173-218 WAC, the Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDE) regulates and permits underground injection control (UIC) wells in Washington. The Environmental Protection Agency

315

GRR/Section 18-WA-a - Underground Storage Tank Process | Open Energy  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

GRR/Section 18-WA-a - Underground Storage Tank Process GRR/Section 18-WA-a - Underground Storage Tank Process < GRR Jump to: navigation, search GRR-logo.png GEOTHERMAL REGULATORY ROADMAP Roadmap Home Roadmap Help List of Sections Section 18-WA-a - Underground Storage Tank Process 18-WA-a - Underground Storage Tank Process.pdf Click to View Fullscreen Contact Agencies Washington State Department of Ecology Regulations & Policies Revised Code of Washington Chapter 90.76 Washington Administrative Code Chapter 173-360 Triggers None specified Washington has a federally-approved state Underground Storage Tank (UST) program regulated by the Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDE) under Revised Code of Washington Chapter 90.76 and Washington Administrative Code Chapter 173-360. Washington defines an "Underground

316

GRR/Section 18-OR-a - State Underground Storage Tank | Open Energy  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

GRR/Section 18-OR-a - State Underground Storage Tank GRR/Section 18-OR-a - State Underground Storage Tank < GRR Jump to: navigation, search GRR-logo.png GEOTHERMAL REGULATORY ROADMAP Roadmap Home Roadmap Help List of Sections Section 18-OR-a - State Underground Storage Tank 18ORAStateUndergroundStorageTank (1).pdf Click to View Fullscreen Contact Agencies Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Regulations & Policies OAR 340-150: Underground Storage Tank Rules Triggers None specified Click "Edit With Form" above to add content 18ORAStateUndergroundStorageTank (1).pdf Error creating thumbnail: Page number not in range. Error creating thumbnail: Page number not in range. Error creating thumbnail: Page number not in range. Flowchart Narrative _ 18-OR-a.1 - Application for General Permit Registration Certificate, EPA

317

Summary Max Total Units  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Max Total Units Max Total Units *If All Splits, No Rack Units **If Only FW, AC Splits 1000 52 28 28 2000 87 59 35 3000 61 33 15 4000 61 33 15 Totals 261 153 93 ***Costs $1,957,500.00 $1,147,500.00 $697,500.00 Notes: added several refrigerants removed bins from analysis removed R-22 from list 1000lb, no Glycol, CO2 or ammonia Seawater R-404A only * includes seawater units ** no seawater units included *** Costs = (total units) X (estimate of $7500 per unit) 1000lb, air cooled split systems, fresh water Refrig Voltage Cond Unit IF-CU Combos 2 4 5 28 References Refrig Voltage C-U type Compressor HP R-404A 208/1/60 Hermetic SA 2.5 R-507 230/1/60 Hermetic MA 2.5 208/3/60 SemiHerm SA 1.5 230/3/60 SemiHerm MA 1.5 SemiHerm HA 1.5 1000lb, remote rack systems, fresh water Refrig/system Voltage Combos 12 2 24 References Refrig/system Voltage IF only

318

Total Precipitable Water  

SciTech Connect

The simulation was performed on 64K cores of Intrepid, running at 0.25 simulated-years-per-day and taking 25 million core-hours. This is the first simulation using both the CAM5 physics and the highly scalable spectral element dynamical core. The animation of Total Precipitable Water clearly shows hurricanes developing in the Atlantic and Pacific.

None

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

319

Total Sustainability Humber College  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

1 Total Sustainability Management Humber College November, 2012 SUSTAINABILITY SYMPOSIUM Green An Impending Global Disaster #12;3 Sustainability is NOT Climate Remediation #12;Our Premises "We cannot, you cannot improve it" (Lord Kelvin) "First rule of sustainability is to align with natural forces

Thompson, Michael

320

E-Print Network 3.0 - aging underground reinforced Sample Search...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

University Summary: -Infrastructure Developments in Southeast Asia: Case Study of Thailand Underground Suchatvee Suwansawat Dean of Engineering... is the second phase...

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


321

Site Characterization, Sustainability Evaluation and Life Cycle Emissions Assessment of Underground Coal Gasification.  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

??Underground Coal Gasification (UCG), although not a new concept, is now attracting considerable global attention as a viable process to provide a âcleanâ and economic… (more)

Hyder, Zeshan

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

322

You've got that Sinking Feeling: Measuring Subsidence above Abandoned Underground Mines in Ohio, USA.  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

??As a result of more than 200 years of underground coal mining, many urbanized areas throughout Ohio, USA, are susceptible to land subsidence. Approximately 6,000… (more)

Siemer, Kyle W

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

323

A system with a tracking concentrating heliostat for lighting underground spaces with beams of sunlight  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The results of the introduction of a solar-power installation for lighting and creating light effects in an underground room using mirror-concentrating systems are described.

Zh. Z. Akhadov; A. A. Abdurakhmanov; Yu. B. Sobirov; Sh. R. Kholov…

2014-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

324

Electromagnetic full wave modal analysis of frequency-dependent underground cables.  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

??In this thesis, a new method has been proposed for calculating the frequencydependent parameters of underground cables. The method uses full wave formulation for calculating… (more)

Habib, Md. Shahnoor

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

325

Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1995 1,379 1,377 1,113 1,113 1,140 1,182 1,218 1,436 2,028 1,955 1,766 1,365 1996 1,311 1,014 852 1,006 1,373 2,042 2,247 2,641 3,081 3,198 3,069 2,309 1997 1,778 1,594 1,619 1,749 2,020 2,113 2,156 2,443 2,705 2,956 2,713 2,713 1998 1,963 1,775 1,527 1,772 1,917 2,540 2,531 2,730 2,329 2,942 2,943 2,805 1999 1,992 1,878 1,566 1,703 2,173 2,383 2,618 2,699 3,101 3,024 3,158 2,969 2000 2,055 2,053 2,368 2,302 2,392 2,999 3,080 3,080 2,970 2,828 2,624 2,539 2001 2,210 2,451 1,847 2,041 1,997 2,574 2,728 2,841 2,859 2,739 5,527 5,538

326

Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 706,889 648,325 624,515 616,656 665,124 729,161 807,726 878,119 930,596 949,922 938,864 867,940 1991 743,402 679,102 654,930 682,092 729,387 786,753 845,224 891,823 911,554 952,843 894,499 818,602 1992 733,877 658,347 592,859 592,608 637,515 705,740 780,590 849,043 917,537 946,090 899,631 810,348 1993 710,139 607,908 543,589 559,454 637,732 723,706 807,040 889,450 955,444 989,143 937,100 847,136 1994 702,694 613,074 582,416 623,584 696,448 770,914 845,328 922,211 987,829 1,019,096 999,421 936,290 1995 830,235 717,515 666,164 665,004 718,094 783,569 857,995 914,295 966,578 998,665 931,432 813,622

327

West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 406,358 395,084 390,792 397,000 415,841 433,111 451,251 467,272 480,567 484,278 484,868 464,807 1991 434,160 413,996 410,940 418,771 433,924 450,027 464,274 474,984 483,421 487,004 475,927 453,446 1992 423,942 396,889 367,681 369,328 393,606 411,353 433,399 452,065 465,496 478,316 472,378 449,402 1993 417,527 374,171 344,142 349,414 388,771 415,925 435,814 454,993 475,298 482,458 468,770 435,687 1994 379,825 347,246 330,957 352,059 377,614 406,195 433,763 456,009 476,854 482,830 475,145 450,055 1995 406,251 364,959 352,876 358,628 383,018 407,328 422,458 431,357 449,075 463,546 440,460 401,144

328

AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 58,880 70,469 16,774 11,878 2,078 1,522 2,158 2,524 1,024 3,314 29,483 47,719 1995 56,732 27,801 27,857 15,789 4,280 2,252 3,265 11,858 5,401 6,025 14,354 53,469 1996 89,320 52,624 24,847 9,346 4,785 4,298 12,886 21,661 6,866 14,578 24,096 48,438 1997 73,240 41,906 22,756 15,182 4,297 3,613 5,381 8,030 7,770 12,343 22,625 88,975 1998 54,800 50,704 27,864 16,746 3,265 2,619 6,278 6,049 5,822 4,599 14,013 62,377 1999 54,762 45,467 35,081 31,196 7,773 3,792 4,982 14,342 6,642 10,488 15,128 54,531

329

AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 2,449 542 13,722 29,089 48,055 33,801 35,146 27,858 45,903 22,113 5,766 6,401 1995 2,960 9,426 8,840 10,680 42,987 47,386 37,349 22,868 31,053 25,873 15,711 3,003 1996 2,819 8,696 9,595 20,495 41,216 36,086 25,987 20,787 24,773 17,795 13,530 9,122 1997 6,982 4,857 15,669 28,479 47,040 49,438 38,542 31,080 29,596 23,973 10,066 1,975 1998 5,540 1,847 14,429 21,380 49,816 48,423 30,073 34,243 31,710 34,744 26,456 6,404 1999 4,224 3,523 10,670 17,950 41,790 42,989 40,381 26,942 30,741 20,876 18,806 4,642

330

Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 3,654 3,215 2,903 3,108 3,416 3,720 3,906 4,241 4,507 4,731 4,691 4,330 1999 4,004 3,548 3,215 3,397 3,666 3,872 4,078 4,280 4,691 4,792 4,599 4,118 2000 3,398 3,283 3,289 3,456 3,735 3,941 4,160 4,366 4,357 4,785 4,434 3,720 2001 3,183 3,135 2,844 3,275 3,788 4,180 4,424 4,728 4,988 5,013 5,073 4,875 2002 4,401 3,728 3,339 3,462 4,014 4,285 4,568 4,709 5,017 5,225 4,945 4,451 2003 3,429 2,933 2,754 3,047 3,494 3,969 4,381 5,469 6,083 6,035 6,003 5,458 2004 4,324 3,958 3,647 3,806 4,539 4,866 5,121 5,915 6,379 7,223 7,191 6,185

331

Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 6,996 5,657 4,959 6,140 7,648 8,892 9,656 10,292 10,664 10,853 10,808 10,057 1991 8,982 8,017 6,250 5,271 5,985 7,539 8,997 10,089 10,763 11,102 11,125 10,638 1992 9,070 7,530 5,944 5,502 7,074 8,614 9,809 10,819 11,272 11,445 10,346 9,766 1993 7,848 6,452 5,724 5,298 6,942 8,240 9,421 10,463 11,041 11,531 10,800 9,697 1994 8,436 7,309 6,364 5,544 6,754 8,253 9,449 10,524 11,208 11,462 11,025 10,388 1995 8,710 8,325 7,885 8,752 9,932 10,965 11,661 11,661 12,147 12,147 12,090 11,268 1996 10,016 9,076 8,424 8,293 9,015 10,188 11,321 11,758 11,862 11,655 11,103 9,863

332

AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 201,567 147,250 61,339 23,149 9,789 29,178 13,371 19,352 10,151 24,102 52,809 137,962 1995 166,242 120,089 100,955 31,916 17,279 19,712 35,082 62,364 16,966 33,762 102,735 181,097 1996 223,932 157,642 141,292 36,788 27,665 26,393 32,861 27,599 20,226 34,000 116,431 142,519 1997 204,601 103,715 43,894 54,285 24,898 34,122 65,631 42,757 30,579 32,257 113,422 180,582 1998 143,042 69,667 97,322 25,555 30,394 38,537 33,314 37,034 51,903 17,812 60,078 168,445 1999 189,816 77,848 104,690 44,930 22,829 26,085 58,109 60,549 25,888 43,790 66,980 165,046

333

AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 530,741 349,007 159,102 30,353 9,093 4,218 8,493 5,462 6,537 22,750 119,120 256,340 1995 419,951 414,116 196,271 76,470 8,845 14,449 13,084 9,496 3,715 25,875 247,765 398,851 1996 435,980 333,314 236,872 66,149 12,958 4,261 2,804 5,141 5,152 24,515 213,277 269,811 1997 474,777 267,717 218,640 76,956 11,974 4,401 7,277 5,503 5,269 39,662 165,807 309,399 1998 339,858 244,813 256,560 37,278 8,764 11,317 14,830 15,207 16,026 23,854 94,110 287,801 1999 437,182 261,305 244,041 43,642 13,904 11,738 17,499 14,984 9,984 37,822 122,731 385,958

334

AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Gas Injections into Underground Storage (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 48,353 1997 45,327 35,394 89,625 83,137 107,821 99,742 71,360 95,278 116,634 117,497 49,750 33,170 1998 41,880 59,324 73,582 119,021 128,323 96,261 107,136 94,705 87,920 129,117 58,026 47,924 1999 35,830 50,772 49,673 80,879 110,064 100,132 72,348 67,286 103,587 79,714 66,465 32,984

335

New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 32,289 31,416 31,096 32,921 25,403 33,699 37,281 40,474 42,033 45,200 46,210 43,675 1991 40,230 38,226 36,059 39,127 42,052 45,061 46,102 44,144 46,786 46,696 46,457 47,414 1992 45,395 44,683 43,948 42,349 42,253 42,795 40,695 42,640 43,838 46,401 45,364 45,776 1993 43,130 38,966 38,843 35,916 38,621 39,842 40,111 37,793 38,782 40,310 37,597 37,680 1994 34,718 33,061 33,341 31,698 33,727 34,304 34,155 34,287 38,474 40,591 40,040 39,500 1995 37,356 37,353 37,790 38,013 39,236 40,341 40,358 39,269 39,788 39,823 38,746 37,256

336

AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 3,605,263 3,281,694 3,164,033 3,297,696 3,531,074 3,786,195 4,043,225 4,279,875 4,477,279 4,588,167 4,522,088 4,292,649 1995 3,905,789 3,514,201 3,360,765 3,369,823 3,576,559 3,812,014 3,968,751 4,159,006 4,362,855 4,483,271 4,279,539 3,905,710 1996 3,483,209 3,190,123 2,987,233 3,052,606 3,272,105 3,557,334 3,859,973 4,122,060 4,364,848 4,508,821 4,334,814 4,094,033 1997 3,630,708 3,381,047 3,190,271 3,205,661 3,398,322 3,660,850 3,905,985 4,151,456 4,379,374 4,493,802 4,383,068 4,084,339 1998 3,774,740 3,544,699 3,335,505 3,436,983 3,680,419 3,909,517 4,166,130 4,309,452 4,461,762 4,580,963 4,542,742 4,295,021

337

Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 6,363 5,796 5,866 6,343 6,672 6,784 6,916 6,964 7,025 7,052 7,050 6,662 1991 6,206 5,968 5,862 6,017 6,274 6,586 6,878 6,869 6,962 6,928 6,846 6,789 1992 6,341 6,211 5,883 5,675 6,064 6,371 6,668 6,848 6,974 6,970 6,962 6,759 1993 6,363 5,945 5,527 5,479 5,796 6,140 6,549 6,678 6,916 6,999 6,923 6,612 1994 6,085 5,890 5,700 5,543 5,892 6,265 6,634 6,836 6,985 6,983 6,979 6,907 1995 6,394 5,917 5,660 5,613 5,944 6,207 6,513 6,744 6,985 6,991 6,988 6,733 1996 5,952 5,692 5,470 5,558 5,924 6,219 6,506 6,716 6,918 6,951 6,920 6,693

338

AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic  

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

Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 1,433,462 1,329,400 1,322,914 1,388,877 1,498,496 1,553,493 1,643,445 1,714,361 1,785,350 1,819,344 1,810,791 1,716,773 1995 1,601,428 1,510,175 1,467,414 1,509,666 1,586,445 1,662,195 1,696,619 1,688,515 1,768,189 1,818,098 1,757,160 1,613,046 1996 1,436,765 1,325,994 1,223,139 1,264,513 1,334,894 1,395,779 1,443,970 1,525,797 1,631,006 1,686,652 1,614,154 1,519,539 1997 1,379,108 1,303,888 1,356,678 1,385,616 1,461,221 1,536,339 1,542,480 1,596,011 1,683,987 1,770,002 1,707,810 1,559,636 1998 1,456,136 1,442,993 1,420,644 1,515,050 1,610,474 1,666,304 1,739,745 1,803,097 1,840,984 1,950,772 1,945,897 1,807,163

339

Time correlations of high energy muons in an underground detector  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

We present the result of a search for correlations in the arrival times of high energy muons collected from 1995 till 2000 with the streamer tube system of the complete MACRO detector at the underground Gran Sasso Lab. Large samples of single muons (8.6 million), double muons (0.46 million) and multiple muons with multiplicities from 3 to 6 (0.08 million) were selected. These samples were used to search for time correlations of cosmic ray particles coming from the whole upper hemisphere or from selected space cones. The results of our analyses confirm with high statistics a random arrival time distribution of high energy cosmic rays.

Y. Becherini; S. Cecchini; T. Chiarusi; M. Cozzi; H. Dekhissi; J. Derkaoui; L. S. Esposito; G. Giacomelli; M. Giorgini; N. Giglietto; F. Maaroufi; G. Mandrioli; A. Margiotta; S. Manzoor; A. Moussa; L. Patrizii; V. Popa; M. Sioli; G. Sirri; M. Spurio; V. Togo

2005-02-12T23:59:59.000Z

340

Cosmic Ray Sun Shadow in Soudan 2 Underground Muon Flux  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

The absorption of cosmic rays by the sun produces a shadow at the earth. The angular offset and broadening of the shadow are determined by the magnitude and structure of the interplanetary magnetic field (IPMF) in the inner solar system. We report the first measurement of the solar cosmic ray shadow by detection of deep underground muon flux in observations made during the entire ten-year interval 1989 to 1998. The sun shadow varies significantly during this time, with a $3.3\\sigma$ shadow observed during the years 1995 to 1998.

Soudan 2 Collaboration

1999-05-24T23:59:59.000Z

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


341

SUNLAB - The Project of a Polish Underground Laboratory  

SciTech Connect

The project of the first Polish underground laboratory SUNLAB, in the Polkowice-Sieroszowice copper mine, belonging to the KGHM Polska Miedz S.A. holding, is presented. Two stages of the project are foreseen: SUNLAB1 (a small laboratory in the salt layer exhibiting extremely low level of natural radioactivity) and SUNLAB2 (a big laboratory in the anhydrite layer, able to host the next generation liquid argon detector - GLACIER, which is considered within the LAGUNA FP7 project). The results of the natural radioactivity background measurements performed in the Polkowice-Sieroszowice salt cavern are also briefly summarized.

Kisiel, J.; Dorda, J.; Konefall, A.; Mania, S.; Szeglowski, T. [Institute of Physics, University of Silesia, Universytecka 4, 40-007 Katowice (Poland); Budzanowski, M.; Haranczyk, M.; Kozak, K.; Mazur, J.; Mietelski, J. W.; Puchalska, M.; Szarska, M.; Tomankiewicz, E.; Zalewska, A. [Institute of Nuclear Physics PAN, Radzikowskiego 152, Krakow (Poland); Chorowski, M.; Polinski, J. [Wroclaw University of Technology, Wroclaw (Poland); Cygan, S.; Hanzel, S.; Markiewicz, A.; Mertuszka, P. [KGHM CUPRUM CBR, Wroclaw (Poland)

2010-11-24T23:59:59.000Z

342

Method for maximizing shale oil recovery from an underground formation  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

A method for maximizing shale oil recovery from an underground oil shale formation which has previously been processed by in situ retorting such that there is provided in the formation a column of substantially intact oil shale intervening between adjacent spent retorts, which method includes the steps of back filling the spent retorts with an aqueous slurry of spent shale. The slurry is permitted to harden into a cement-like substance which stabilizes the spent retorts. Shale oil is then recovered from the intervening column of intact oil shale by retorting the column in situ, the stabilized spent retorts providing support for the newly developed retorts.

Sisemore, Clyde J. (Livermore, CA)

1980-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

343

Superconducting gravity gradiometers for underground target recognition. Final report  

SciTech Connect

One of the most formidable intelligence challenges existing in the non-proliferation community is the detection of buried targets. The physical parameter that all buried targets share, whether the target is buried armaments, a tunnel or a bunker, is mass. In the case of buried armaments, there is an excess mass (higher density) compared to the surrounding area; for a tunnel or bunker, the mass is missing. In either case, this difference in mass generates a distinct gravitational signature. The Superconducting Gravity Gradiometer project at Sandia worked toward developing an airborne device for the detection of these underground structures.

Adriaans, M.J.

1998-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

344

Total isomerization gains flexibility  

SciTech Connect

Isomerization extends refinery flexibility to meet changing markets. TIP (Total Isomerization Process) allows conversion of paraffin fractions in the gasoline boiling region including straight run naptha, light reformate, aromatic unit raffinate, and hydrocrackate. The hysomer isomerization is compared to catalytic reforming. Isomerization routes are graphed. Cost estimates and suggestions on the use of other feedstocks are given. TIP can maximize gas production, reduce crude runs, and complement cat reforming. In four examples, TIP reduces reformer severity and increases reformer yield.

Symoniak, M.F.; Holcombe, T.C.

1983-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

345

Underground engineering at the Basalt Waste Isolation Project  

SciTech Connect

A special task group was organized by the US National Committee for Rock Mechanics and the Board on Radioactive Waste Management of the National Research Council to address issues relating to the geotechnical site characterization program for an underground facility to house high-level radioactive waste of the Basalt Waste Isolation Project (BWIP). Intended to provide an overview of the geotechnical program, the study was carried out by a task group consisting of ten members with expertise in the many disciplines required to successfully complete such a project. The task group recognized from the outset that the short time frame of this study would limit its ability to address all geotechnical issues in detail. Geotechnical issues were considered to range from specific technical aspects such as in-situ testing for rock mass permeability; rock hardness testing in the laboratory; or geologic characterizations and quantification of joints, to broader aspects of design philosophy, data collection, and treatment of uncertainty. The task group chose to focus on the broader aspects of underground design and construction, recognizing that the BWIP program utilizes a peer review group on a regular basis which reviews the specific technical questions related to geotechnical engineering. In this way, it was hoped that the review provided by the task group would complement those prepared by the BWIP peer review group.

Not Available

1987-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

346

RCRA closure plan for underground storage tank 105-C  

SciTech Connect

A Reactor Department program for repairing heat exchangers created a low level radioactive waste, which was held in underground storage tank (UST) 105-C, hereafter referred to as the tank. According to Procedures used at the facility, the waste`s pH was adjusted to the 8.0--12.0 range before shipping it to the SRS Waste Management Department. For this reason, area personnel did not anticipate that the waste which is currently contained in the tank would have corrosive hazardous characteristic. However, recent analysis indicates that waste contained in the tank has a pH of greater than 12.5, thereby constituting a hazardous waste. Because the Department of Energy-Savannah River Office (DOE-SR) could not prove that the hazardous waste had been stored in the tank for less than 90 days, the State of South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) alleged that DOE-SR was in violation of the 1976 Code of Laws of South Carolina. As agreed in Settlement Agreement 90-74-SW between the DOE and SCDHEC, this is the required closure plan for Tank 105-C. The purpose of this document is to present SCDHEC with an official plan for closing the underground storage tank. Upon approval by SCDHEC, the schedule for closure will be an enforceable portion of this agreement.

Miles, W.C. Jr.

1990-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

347

The Leica TCRA1105 Reflectorless Total Station  

SciTech Connect

This poster provides an overview of SLAC's TCRA1105 reflectorless total station for the Alignment Engineering Group. This instrument has shown itself to be very useful for planning new construction and providing quick measurements to difficult to reach or inaccessible surfaces.

Gaudreault, F.

2005-09-06T23:59:59.000Z

348

Total Sales of Kerosene  

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

End Use: Total Residential Commercial Industrial Farm All Other Period: End Use: Total Residential Commercial Industrial Farm All Other Period: Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: End Use Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History U.S. 492,702 218,736 269,010 305,508 187,656 81,102 1984-2012 East Coast (PADD 1) 353,765 159,323 198,762 237,397 142,189 63,075 1984-2012 New England (PADD 1A) 94,635 42,570 56,661 53,363 38,448 15,983 1984-2012 Connecticut 13,006 6,710 8,800 7,437 7,087 2,143 1984-2012 Maine 46,431 19,923 25,158 24,281 17,396 7,394 1984-2012 Massachusetts 7,913 3,510 5,332 6,300 2,866 1,291 1984-2012 New Hampshire 14,454 6,675 8,353 7,435 5,472 1,977 1984-2012

349

Determination of Total Solids in Biomass and Total Dissolved...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Total Solids in Biomass and Total Dissolved Solids in Liquid Process Samples Laboratory Analytical Procedure (LAP) Issue Date: 3312008 A. Sluiter, B. Hames, D. Hyman, C. Payne,...

350

Chemical and physical controls on waters discharged from abandoned underground coal mines  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...abandoned underground coal mines D. L. Lopez M...mines in high-sulphur coal are a major source of acid mine drainage in Appalachia. Studies of mines in...abandoned underground coal mines, tailing deposits...1995, with records of mining dating to as early as...

D. L. López; M. W. Stoertz

351

AHIGHLY INSTRUMENTED UNDERGROUND RESEARCH GALLERY AS A MONITORING CONCEPT FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE CELLS -DATA  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

AHIGHLY INSTRUMENTED UNDERGROUND RESEARCH GALLERY AS A MONITORING CONCEPT FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE monitoring system of underground disposal for the French long-lived, intermediate and high level radioactive is a concrete liner in a tunnel aiming at support the mechanical pressure of the host rock. A 3.6 meter long

Boyer, Edmond

352

Permanent Closure of MFC Biodiesel Underground Storage Tank 99ANL00013  

SciTech Connect

This closure package documents the site assessment and permanent closure of the Materials and Fuels Complex biodiesel underground storage tank 99ANL00013 in accordance with the regulatory requirements established in 40 CFR 280.71, “Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements for Owners and Operators of Underground Storage Tanks: Out-of-Service UST Systems and Closure.”

Kerry L. Nisson

2012-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

353

Hydrologic resources management program and underground test area operable unit fy 1997  

SciTech Connect

This report present the results of FY 1997 technical studies conducted by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) as part of the Hydrology and Radionuclide Migration Program (HRMP) and Underground Test Area Operable Unit (UGTA). The HRMP is sponsored by the US Department of Energy to assess the environmental (radiochemical and hydrologic) consequences of underground nuclear weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site.

Smith, D. F., LLNL

1998-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

354

Supersonic Air Jets Preserve Tree Roots in Underground Pipeline Installation1  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Supersonic Air Jets Preserve Tree Roots in Underground Pipeline Installation1 Rob Gross 2 trenching operations for pipeline installation. Although mechanical soil excavation using heavy equipment are routinely installed, repaired, and replaced underground. During soil excavation, tree and other plant roots

Standiford, Richard B.

355

State of the art analysis of online fault location on AC cables in underground transmission systems  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

, such as 400 kV transmission lines, will also be undergrounded gradually as more experience is gath- ered of underground cables for the transmission level. In Denmark, as a leading country, the entire 150 kV and 132 kV on transmission level fault location methods have been focused on overhead lines. Because of the very different

Bak, Claus Leth

356

A life cycle comparison of greenhouse emissions for power generation from coal mining and underground coal gasification  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

For the emissions from energy and equipment use of underground coal mining, the data from the office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s (EERE) hypothetical eastern U.S. underground coalmine is used (EERE

Zeshan Hyder; Nino S. Ripepi…

2014-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

357

Evaluating the Effects of Underground Nuclear Testing Below the Water Table on Groundwater and Radionuclide Migration in the  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Evaluating the Effects of Underground Nuclear Testing Below the Water Table on Groundwater, using FEHM, evaluate perturbed groundwater behavior associated with underground nuclear tests to an instantaneous pressurization event caused by a nuclear test when different permeability and porosity

358

Total Marketed Production ..............  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

billion cubic feet per day) billion cubic feet per day) Total Marketed Production .............. 68.95 69.77 70.45 71.64 71.91 71.70 71.46 71.57 72.61 72.68 72.41 72.62 70.21 71.66 72.58 Alaska ......................................... 1.04 0.91 0.79 0.96 1.00 0.85 0.77 0.93 0.97 0.83 0.75 0.91 0.93 0.88 0.87 Federal GOM (a) ......................... 3.93 3.64 3.44 3.82 3.83 3.77 3.73 3.50 3.71 3.67 3.63 3.46 3.71 3.70 3.62 Lower 48 States (excl GOM) ...... 63.97 65.21 66.21 66.86 67.08 67.08 66.96 67.14 67.92 68.18 68.02 68.24 65.58 67.07 68.09 Total Dry Gas Production .............. 65.46 66.21 66.69 67.79 68.03 67.83 67.61 67.71 68.69 68.76 68.50 68.70 66.55 67.79 68.66 Gross Imports ................................ 8.48 7.60 7.80 7.95 8.27 7.59 7.96 7.91 7.89 7.17 7.61 7.73 7.96 7.93 7.60 Pipeline ........................................

359

GRR/Section 18-UT-a - Underground Storage Tank | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

GRR/Section 18-UT-a - Underground Storage Tank GRR/Section 18-UT-a - Underground Storage Tank < GRR Jump to: navigation, search GRR-logo.png GEOTHERMAL REGULATORY ROADMAP Roadmap Home Roadmap Help List of Sections Section 18-UT-a - Underground Storage Tank 18UTAUndergroundStorageTank (1).pdf Click to View Fullscreen Contact Agencies Utah Department of Environmental Quality Regulations & Policies Utah Underground Storage Tank Act Triggers None specified Click "Edit With Form" above to add content 18UTAUndergroundStorageTank (1).pdf Error creating thumbnail: Page number not in range. Error creating thumbnail: Page number not in range. Error creating thumbnail: Page number not in range. Flowchart Narrative Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Environmental Response and Remediation oversees the underground storage tank (UST) program in

360

The Strip and Underground Mine Siting Act (Montana) | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

The Strip and Underground Mine Siting Act (Montana) The Strip and Underground Mine Siting Act (Montana) The Strip and Underground Mine Siting Act (Montana) < Back Eligibility Utility Investor-Owned Utility Industrial Construction Municipal/Public Utility Installer/Contractor Rural Electric Cooperative Program Info State Montana Program Type Siting and Permitting Provider Montana Department of Environmental Quality The policy of the state is to provide adequate remedies to protect the environmental life support system from degradation and to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources from strip and underground mining. This Act grants the Department of Environmental Quality the authority to review and approve or disapprove new strip-mine and new underground-mine site locations and reclamation plans and to adopt relevant

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


361

GRR/Section 18-TX-a - Underground Storage Tank Process | Open Energy  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

TX-a - Underground Storage Tank Process TX-a - Underground Storage Tank Process < GRR Jump to: navigation, search GRR-logo.png GEOTHERMAL REGULATORY ROADMAP Roadmap Home Roadmap Help List of Sections Section 18-TX-a - Underground Storage Tank Process 18TXAUndergroundStorageTanks (1).pdf Click to View Fullscreen Contact Agencies Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Regulations & Policies 30 Texas Administrative Code 334 - Underground and Aboveground Storage Tanks 30 Texas Administrative Code 37 - Financial Assurance for Petroleum Underground Storage Tanks Triggers None specified Click "Edit With Form" above to add content 18TXAUndergroundStorageTanks (1).pdf Error creating thumbnail: Page number not in range. Error creating thumbnail: Page number not in range. Error creating thumbnail: Page number not in range.

362

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

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

U.S. Underground Nuclear Test Conducted | National Nuclear Security U.S. Underground Nuclear Test Conducted | National Nuclear Security Administration Our Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Continuing Management Reform Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Us Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Media Room Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Speeches Events Social Media Video Gallery Photo Gallery NNSA Archive Federal Employment Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog Home > About Us > Our History > NNSA Timeline > Last U.S. Underground Nuclear Test Conducted Last U.S. Underground Nuclear Test Conducted September 23, 1992 USA Last U.S. Underground Nuclear Test Conducted

363

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

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

U.S. Underground Nuclear Test Conducted | National Nuclear Security U.S. Underground Nuclear Test Conducted | National Nuclear Security Administration Our Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Continuing Management Reform Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Us Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Media Room Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Speeches Events Social Media Video Gallery Photo Gallery NNSA Archive Federal Employment Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog Home > About Us > Our History > NNSA Timeline > Last U.S. Underground Nuclear Test Conducted Last U.S. Underground Nuclear Test Conducted September 23, 1992 USA Last U.S. Underground Nuclear Test Conducted

364

A Large Underground Liquid Argon Detector without a Cryostat? Kirk T McDonald (kirkmcd@princeton.edu)  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

, fabrication of this type of tank in an underground cavern is likely to be prohibitively expensive. Here, we

McDonald, Kirk

365

Experiment Profile: COUPP NAME: Chicagoland Observatory for Underground Particle  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

COUPP COUPP NAME: Chicagoland Observatory for Underground Particle Physics, or COUPP WHAT WILL THIS TELL US ABOUT THE WORLD? Everything you see, visible matter, makes up 4 percent of the universe. Dark matter and dark energy makes up the rest of the universe. Physicists understand that dark matter acts as an invisible source of gravity, but little more. COUPP seeks to pinpoint what particles make up dark matter, which will help explain how the universe came to exist. Without the added gravitational attraction of dark matter, stars and galaxies would never have formed. The expansion of the universe after the Big Bang would have dispersed visible matter too quickly. WHY IS THIS EXPERIMENT NEEDED NOW? Physicists have narrowed the hunt for what particles constitute dark

366

Thermophysical models of underground coal gasification and FEM analysis  

SciTech Connect

In this study, mathematical models of the coupled thermohydromechanical process of coal rock mass in an underground coal gasification panel are established. Combined with the calculation example, the influence of heating effects on the observed values and simulated values for pore water pressure, stress, and displacement in the gasification panel are fully discussed and analyzed. Calculation results indicate that 38, 62, and 96 days after the experiment, the average relative errors for the calculated values and measured values for the temperature and water pressure were between 8.51-11.14% and 3-10%, respectively; with the passage of gasification time, the calculated errors for the vertical stress and horizontal stress gradually declined, but the simulated errors for the horizontal and vertical displacements both showed a rising trend. On the basis of the research results, the calculated values and the measured values agree with each other very well.

Yang, L.H. [China University of Mining & Technology, Xuzhou (China)

2007-11-15T23:59:59.000Z

367

Diesel exhaust emissions from engines for use in underground mines  

SciTech Connect

Experimental data were obtained from two medium-duty diesel engines derated to qualify for use in underground mines. Gaseous and particulate emissions from these engines were measured and results provide information on the effect of exhaust treatment devices on the emissions. The devices in the study were a catalyst, a particulate trap, and an exhaust gas cooler of the water scrubber type. Emission levels of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons were observed to be very low in comparison with emission levels of comparable engines in full-rated operation. Oxides of nitrogen and benzo(a)pyrene content of the exhaust also were found to be somewhat low in comparison with previous findings. For particulate reduction, the combination of a particulate trap and a scrubber was observed to be the most effective combination tried; in some cases, over 60% particulate reduction was effected by the trap-scrubber combination.

Eccleston, B.H.; Seizinger, D.E.; Clingenpeel, J.M.

1981-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

368

Proceedings of the ninth annual underground coal gasification symposium  

SciTech Connect

The Ninth Underground Coal Gasification Symposium was held August 7 to 10, 1983 at the Indian Lakes Resort and Conference Center in Bloomingdale, Illinois. Over one-hundred attendees from industry, academia, National Laboratories, State Government, and the US Government participated in the exchange of ideas, results and future research plans. Representatives from six countries including France, Belgium, United Kingdom, The Netherlands, West Germany, and Brazil also participated by presenting papers. Fifty papers were presented and discussed in four formal sessions and two informal poster sessions. The presentations described current and future field testing plans, interpretation of field test data, environmental research, laboratory studies, modeling, and economics. All papers were processed for inclusion in the Energy Data Base.

Wieber, P.R.; Martin, J.W.; Byrer, C.W. (eds.)

1983-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

369

Total Space Heat-  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Released: September, 2008 Released: September, 2008 Total Space Heat- ing Cool- ing Venti- lation Water Heat- ing Light- ing Cook- ing Refrig- eration Office Equip- ment Com- puters Other All Buildings* ........................... 3,037 115 397 384 52 1,143 22 354 64 148 357 Building Floorspace (Square Feet) 1,001 to 5,000 ........................... 386 19 43 18 11 93 7 137 8 12 38 5,001 to 10,000 .......................... 262 12 35 17 5 83 4 56 6 9 35 10,001 to 25,000 ........................ 407 20 46 44 8 151 3 53 9 19 54 25,001 to 50,000 ........................ 350 15 55 50 9 121 2 34 7 16 42 50,001 to 100,000 ...................... 405 16 57 65 7 158 2 29 6 18 45 100,001 to 200,000 .................... 483 16 62 80 5 195 1 24 Q 31 56 200,001 to 500,000 .................... 361 8 51 54 5 162 1 9 8 19 43 Over 500,000 ............................. 383 8 47 56 3 181 2 12 8 23 43 Principal Building Activity

370

Underground Storage Tank Integrated Demonstration (UST-ID). Technology summary  

SciTech Connect

The DOE complex currently has 332 underground storage tanks (USTs) that have been used to process and store radioactive and chemical mixed waste generated from weapon materials production. Very little of the over 100 million gallons of high-level and low-level radioactive liquid waste has been treated and disposed of in final form. Two waste storage tank design types are prevalent across the DOE complex: single-shell wall and double-shell wall designs. They are made of stainless steel, concrete, and concrete with carbon steel liners, and their capacities vary from 5000 gallons (19 m{sup 3}) to 10{sup 6} gallons (3785 m{sup 3}). The tanks have an overburden layer of soil ranging from a few feet to tens of feet. Responding to the need for remediation of tank waste, driven by Federal Facility Compliance Agreements (FFCAs) at all participating sites, the Underground Storage Tank Integrated Demonstration (UST-ID) Program was created by the US DOE Office of Technology Development in February 1991. Its mission is to focus the development, testing, and evaluation of remediation technologies within a system architecture to characterize, retrieve, treat to concentrate, and dispose of radioactive waste stored in USTs at DOE facilities. The ultimate goal is to provide safe and cost-effective solutions that are acceptable to the public and the regulators. The UST-ID has focused on five DOE locations: the Hanford Site, which is the host site, in Richland, Washington; the Fernald Site in Fernald, Ohio; the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho; the Oak Ridge Reservation in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and the Savannah River Site in Savannah River, South Carolina.

Not Available

1994-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

371

Determination of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) Using Total Carbon Analysis  

SciTech Connect

Several methods have been proposed to replace the Freon(TM)-extraction method to determine total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) content. For reasons of cost, sensitivity, precision, or simplicity, none of the replacement methods are feasible for analysis of radioactive samples at our facility. We have developed a method to measure total petroleum hydrocarbon content in aqueous sample matrixes using total organic carbon (total carbon) determination. The total carbon content (TC1) of the sample is measured using a total organic carbon analyzer. The sample is then contacted with a small volume of non-pokar solvent to extract the total petroleum hydrocarbons. The total carbon content of the resultant aqueous phase of the extracted sample (TC2) is measured. Total petroleum hydrocarbon content is calculated (TPH = TC1-TC2). The resultant data are consistent with results obtained using Freon(TM) extraction followed by infrared absorbance.

Ekechukwu, A.A.

2002-05-10T23:59:59.000Z

372

Total Space Heat-  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Revised: December, 2008 Revised: December, 2008 Total Space Heat- ing Cool- ing Venti- lation Water Heat- ing Light- ing Cook- ing Refrig- eration Office Equip- ment Com- puters Other All Buildings ............................. 91.0 33.0 7.2 6.1 7.0 18.7 2.7 5.3 1.0 2.2 7.9 Building Floorspace (Square Feet) 1,001 to 5,000 ........................... 99.0 30.7 6.7 2.7 7.1 13.9 7.1 19.9 1.1 1.7 8.2 5,001 to 10,000 .......................... 80.0 30.1 5.5 2.6 6.1 13.6 5.2 8.2 0.8 1.4 6.6 10,001 to 25,000 ........................ 71.0 28.2 4.5 4.1 4.1 14.5 2.3 4.5 0.8 1.6 6.5 25,001 to 50,000 ........................ 79.0 29.9 6.8 5.9 6.3 14.9 1.7 3.9 0.8 1.8 7.1 50,001 to 100,000 ...................... 88.7 31.6 7.6 7.6 6.5 19.6 1.7 3.4 0.7 2.0 8.1 100,001 to 200,000 .................... 104.2 39.1 8.2 8.9 7.9 22.9 1.1 2.9 Q 3.2 8.7 200,001 to 500,000 ....................

373

Total Space Heat-  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Revised: December, 2008 Revised: December, 2008 Total Space Heat- ing Cool- ing Venti- lation Water Heat- ing Light- ing Cook- ing Refrig- eration Office Equip- ment Com- puters Other All Buildings ............................. 91.0 33.0 7.2 6.1 7.0 18.7 2.7 5.3 1.0 2.2 7.9 Building Floorspace (Square Feet) 1,001 to 5,000 ........................... 99.0 30.7 6.7 2.7 7.1 13.9 7.1 19.9 1.1 1.7 8.2 5,001 to 10,000 .......................... 80.0 30.1 5.5 2.6 6.1 13.6 5.2 8.2 0.8 1.4 6.6 10,001 to 25,000 ........................ 71.0 28.2 4.5 4.1 4.1 14.5 2.3 4.5 0.8 1.6 6.5 25,001 to 50,000 ........................ 79.0 29.9 6.8 5.9 6.3 14.9 1.7 3.9 0.8 1.8 7.1 50,001 to 100,000 ...................... 88.7 31.6 7.6 7.6 6.5 19.6 1.7 3.4 0.7 2.0 8.1 100,001 to 200,000 .................... 104.2 39.1 8.2 8.9 7.9 22.9 1.1 2.9 Q 3.2 8.7 200,001 to 500,000 ....................

374

U.S. Total Exports  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Babb, MT Havre, MT Port of Morgan, MT Pittsburg, NH Grand Island, NY Massena, NY Niagara Falls, NY Waddington, NY Sumas, WA Sweetgrass, MT Total to Chile Sabine Pass, LA Total to China Kenai, AK Sabine Pass, LA Total to India Freeport, TX Sabine Pass, LA Total to Japan Cameron, LA Kenai, AK Sabine Pass, LA Total to Mexico Douglas, AZ Nogales, AZ Calexico, CA Ogilby Mesa, CA Otay Mesa, CA Alamo, TX Clint, TX Del Rio, TX Eagle Pass, TX El Paso, TX Hidalgo, TX McAllen, TX Penitas, TX Rio Bravo, TX Roma, TX Total to Portugal Sabine Pass, LA Total to Russia Total to South Korea Freeport, TX Sabine Pass, LA Total to Spain Cameron, LA Sabine Pass, LA Total to United Kingdom Sabine Pass, LA Period: Monthly Annual

375

Remote controlled underground mining system preliminary design and concept plans. Final report  

SciTech Connect

The proposed mining technique has the potential to mine coal from underground horizontal or pitching seams in the 9-foot thickness range at an estimated cost ranging from $7.987 to $10.152 per ton. The estimate is established on conclusions drawn from: (1) the anticipated mining rate, in terms of tons per hour, that the mining system's hardware is expected to achieve as an average; (2) the approximate cost of the mining hardware amortized on a production service life expectancy of 4,000,000 tons; (3) logistics pertinent to continuous mine production, requiring the operation of two Mining Rigs simultaneously with operating crews totaling to 9 men per shift; (4) the angle of the mine bores into pitching seams extend, whenever possible, to no more than 30/sup 0/ from the horizontal; (5) mine bores extend to maximum feasible or permissible length. A bore length of 2500 feet is considered feasible; and (6) gas recovery from the mine bores can be accomplished with relative ease. The value of this, however, has not been determined since its handling as a recoverable requires investigation on hardware assemblies necessary to its processing, and the volume that must exist to invite a commercially attractive effort.

Haspert, J.C.

1984-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

376

Patterns of solidarity: A case study of self-organization in underground mining  

SciTech Connect

This case study in underground coal mining is informed by some notions of scholars who have written in widely divergent traditions and disciplines. Two major themes dealt with are labor's subjective moment and workplace culture. Regarding the subjective moment of labor, it is argued that there is an expressive element in work which defies reductions to some exchange principle. The struggle, for those articulating capitalist work processes, is to keep this purposive activity from being diverted totally to alien ends. The mediating element in this struggle, which structural Marxists have ignored in their analyses of capitalist workplaces, is culture. There is created a network of lasting relationships in the work group over and above any interdependence engendered by the division of labor. This shared culture allows for a collective recognition of the common product of group work, the shared nature of a particular work process, even the liberating potential of social relations themselves. The group's internalization of these social facts provides a base from which workers can mount an unceasing effort to control their workplace.

Vaught, C.

1991-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

377

Relation between total quanta and total energy for aquatic ...  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Jan 22, 1974 ... havior of the ratio of total quanta to total energy (Q : W) within the spectral region of photosynthetic ..... For blue-green waters, where hRmax lies.

2000-01-02T23:59:59.000Z

378

,"AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"  

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

Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5030872m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5030872m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov"

379

,"AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"  

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

Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5030882m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5030882m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov"

380

,"AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"  

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

Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5030892m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5030892m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov"

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


381

Thermal characterisation of a lightweight mortar containing expanded perlite for underground insulation  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

This paper aims to investigate the use of expanded perlite in mortar, for further application of shotcrete to thermal insulation of underground mines. Mixes were designed according to the typical proportions of underground shotcrete, with the sand volumetrically substituted by expanded perlite. Tests of samples were conducted at four ages. Transient plane source technique was utilised to measure the thermal properties. The results showed reduced weight, decreased thermal conductivity, deteriorated thermal diffusivity, and sacrificed mechanical strength with perlite addition. Experimental data analysis and explanation in this paper would establish useful fundamentals for further application of expanded perlite to underground shotcrete.

W.V. Liu; D.B. Apel; V. Bindiganavile

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

382

ARM - Measurement - Net broadband total irradiance  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

govMeasurementsNet broadband total irradiance govMeasurementsNet broadband total irradiance ARM Data Discovery Browse Data Comments? We would love to hear from you! Send us a note below or call us at 1-888-ARM-DATA. Send Measurement : Net broadband total irradiance The difference between upwelling and downwelling, covering longwave and shortwave radiation. Categories Radiometric Instruments The above measurement is considered scientifically relevant for the following instruments. Refer to the datastream (netcdf) file headers of each instrument for a list of all available measurements, including those recorded for diagnostic or quality assurance purposes. ARM Instruments EBBR : Energy Balance Bowen Ratio Station SEBS : Surface Energy Balance System External Instruments ECMWF : European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts Model

383

Final Report: Detection and Characterization of Underground Facilities by Stochastic Inversion and Modeling of Data from the New Generation of Synthetic Aperture Satellites  

SciTech Connect

Many clandestine development and production activities can be conducted underground to evade surveillance. The purpose of the study reported here was to develop a technique to detect underground facilities by broad-area search and then to characterize the facilities by inversion of the collected data. This would enable constraints to be placed on the types of activities that would be feasible at each underground site, providing a basis the design of targeted surveillance and analysis for more complete characterization. Excavation of underground cavities causes deformation in the host material and overburden that produces displacements at the ground surface. Such displacements are often measurable by a variety of surveying or geodetic techniques. One measurement technique, Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR), uses data from satellite-borne (or airborne) synthetic aperture radars (SARs) and so is ideal for detecting and measuring surface displacements in denied access regions. Depending on the radar frequency and the acquisition mode and the surface conditions, displacement maps derived from SAR interferograms can provide millimeter- to centimeter-level measurement accuracy on regional and local scales at spatial resolution of {approx}1-10 m. Relatively low-resolution ({approx}20 m, say) maps covering large regions can be used for broad-area detection, while finer resolutions ({approx}1 m) can be used to image details of displacement fields over targeted small areas. Surface displacements are generally expected to be largest during or a relatively short time after active excavation, but, depending on the material properties, measurable displacement may continue at a decreasing rate for a considerable time after completion. For a given excavated volume in a given geological setting, the amplitude of the surface displacements decreases as the depth of excavation increases, while the area of the discernable displacement pattern increases. Therefore, the ability to detect evidence for an underground facility using InSAR depends on the displacement sensitivity and spatial resolution of the interferogram, as well as on the size and depth of the facility and the time since its completion. The methodology development described in this report focuses on the exploitation of synthetic aperture radar data that are available commercially from a number of satellite missions. Development of the method involves three components: (1) Evaluation of the capability of InSAR to detect and characterize underground facilities ; (2) inversion of InSAR data to infer the location, depth, shape and volume of a subsurface facility; and (3) evaluation and selection of suitable geomechanical forward models to use in the inversion. We adapted LLNL's general-purpose Bayesian Markov Chain-Monte Carlo procedure, the 'Stochastic Engine' (SE), to carry out inversions to characterize subsurface void geometries. The SE performs forward simulations for a large number of trial source models to identify the set of models that are consistent with the observations and prior constraints. The inverse solution produced by this kind of stochastic method is a posterior probability density function (pdf) over alternative models, which forms an appropriate input to risk-based decision analyses to evaluate subsequent response strategies. One major advantage of a stochastic inversion approach is its ability to deal with complex, non-linear forward models employing empirical, analytical or numerical methods. However, while a geomechanical model must incorporate adequate physics to enable sufficiently accurate prediction of surface displacements, it must also be computationally fast enough to render the large number of forward realizations needed in stochastic inversion feasible. This latter requirement prompted us first to investigate computationally efficient empirical relations and closed-form analytical solutions. However, our evaluation revealed severe limitations in the ability of existing empirical and analytical forms to predict deformations from undergro

Foxall, W; Cunningham, C; Mellors, R; Templeton, D; Dyer, K; White, J

2012-02-27T23:59:59.000Z

384

Measurement of the Surface and Underground Neutron Spectra with the UMD/NIST Fast Neutron Spectrometers.  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

?? The typical fast neutron detector falls into one of two categories, Bonner sphere spectrometers and liquid scintillator proton recoil detectors. These two detector types… (more)

Langford, Thomas J.

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

385

CO2 Storage in Shallow Underground and Surface Coal Mines: Challenges and Opportunities  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Brine saturated with C-type (alkaline) fly ash that reacts with flue gas can provide an additional mechanism of chemical trapping (5). ... In addition, we thank Robert Virta, Mineral Commodity Specialist with the U.S. Geological Survey, for providing a digital map of swelling clay in high-resolution raster format, Garrett Veloski, for vectorization of the raster data, and Robert Dilmore, for developing the GIS database for the clay-and-coal map, expert advice on verifying the mineral stabilization aspects, and editorial input. ... Ozdemir, E. Chemistry of the adsorption of carbon dioxide by Argonne premium coals and a model to simulate CO2 sequestration in coal seams. ...

Vyacheslav N. Romanov; Terry E. Ackman; Yee Soong; Robert L. Kleinman

2009-01-29T23:59:59.000Z

386

Modeling Surface Waves from Aboveground and Underground Explosions in Alluvium and Limestone  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...reinke@dtra.mil The May 2012 HUMBLE REDWOOD III (HRIII) experiment series...alluvium conducted as part of the HUMBLE REDWOOD I and II (HRI and HRII) experiments...limestone as part of the May 2012 HUMBLE REDWOOD III (HRIII) experiment series...

Jessie L. Bonner; David R. Russell; Robert E. Reinke

387

GRR/Elements/14-CA-c.3 - Application For Proposed Underground Injection  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

CA-c.3 - Application For Proposed Underground Injection CA-c.3 - Application For Proposed Underground Injection Project < GRR‎ | Elements Jump to: navigation, search GRR-logo.png GEOTHERMAL REGULATORY ROADMAP Roadmap Home Roadmap Help List of Sections 14-CA-c.3 - Application For Proposed Underground Injection Project Under the Memorandum of Agreement Between State Water Resources Control Board and DOGGR geothermal operators must file an application for underground geothermal wastewater injection with the appropriate DOGGR district office. The application must include: A chemical analysis to characterize the proposed injection fluid; A chemical analysis from the proposed zone of injection considering the characteristics of the zone; and The depth, location, and injection formation of the proposed well. Logic Chain

388

GRR/Section 18-CO-a - Underground Storage Tank Permit | Open Energy  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

GRR/Section 18-CO-a - Underground Storage Tank Permit GRR/Section 18-CO-a - Underground Storage Tank Permit < GRR Jump to: navigation, search GRR-logo.png GEOTHERMAL REGULATORY ROADMAP Roadmap Home Roadmap Help List of Sections Section 18-CO-a - Underground Storage Tank Permit 18COAUndergroundStorageTankPermit (1).pdf Click to View Fullscreen Contact Agencies Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Regulations & Policies Solid Waste Disposal Act 7 CCR 1101-14 Article 2 Underground Storage Tanks Triggers None specified Click "Edit With Form" above to add content 18COAUndergroundStorageTankPermit (1).pdf Error creating thumbnail: Page number not in range. Error creating thumbnail: Page number not in range. Error creating thumbnail: Page number not in range. Flowchart Narrative The design, installation, registration, construction, and operation of

389

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

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Underground Storage of Carbon Dioxide-as a Solid Underground Storage of Carbon Dioxide-as a Solid Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) ASCR Home About Research Facilities Science Highlights Benefits of ASCR Funding Opportunities Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee (ASCAC) News & Resources Contact Information Advanced Scientific Computing Research U.S. Department of Energy SC-21/Germantown Building 1000 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20585 P: (301) 903-7486 F: (301) 903-4846 E: sc.ascr@science.doe.gov More Information » July 2012 Underground Storage of Carbon Dioxide-as a Solid Nanoscale features in rocks enable more carbon dioxide to be trapped as a solid carbonate material underground. Print Text Size: A A A Subscribe FeedbackShare Page Click to enlarge photo. Enlarge Photo Image courtesy of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

390

NNSA Commemorates the 20th Anniversary of the Last Underground Nuclear Test  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

the 20th Anniversary of the Last Underground Nuclear Test the 20th Anniversary of the Last Underground Nuclear Test | National Nuclear Security Administration Our Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Continuing Management Reform Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Us Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Media Room Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Speeches Events Social Media Video Gallery Photo Gallery NNSA Archive Federal Employment Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog Home > Media Room > Video Gallery > NNSA Commemorates the 20th Anniversary of the ... NNSA Commemorates the 20th Anniversary of the Last Underground Nuclear Test NNSA Commemorates the 20th Anniversary of the Last Underground Nuclear Test

391

GRR/Section 18-NV-a - Underground Storage Tank | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

a - Underground Storage Tank a - Underground Storage Tank < GRR Jump to: navigation, search GRR-logo.png GEOTHERMAL REGULATORY ROADMAP Roadmap Home Roadmap Help List of Sections Section 18-NV-a - Underground Storage Tank 18NVAUndergroundStorageTank.pdf Click to View Fullscreen Contact Agencies Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Regulations & Policies Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) Triggers None specified Click "Edit With Form" above to add content 18NVAUndergroundStorageTank.pdf Error creating thumbnail: Page number not in range. Error creating thumbnail: Page number not in range. Error creating thumbnail: Page number not in range. Flowchart Narrative The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) administers the Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program for the State of Nevada.

392

DOE to host workshop to explore use of WIPP as 'next generation' underground laboratory  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Workshop to Explore Use of WIPP Workshop to Explore Use of WIPP As 'Next Generation' Underground Laboratory CARLSBAD, N.M., June 9, 2000 - The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Carlsbad Area Office is sponsoring the "Workshop on the Next Generation U.S. Underground Science Facility" June 12-14 at the Pecos River Village Conference Center, 711 Muscatel, in Carlsbad. The purpose of the workshop is to explore the potential use of the DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) underground as a next generation laboratory for conducting nuclear and particle astrophysics and other basic science research, and how that might be accomplished. "WIPP's underground environment represents one of only a few choices open to the research community for siting experiments that require shielding from cosmic rays," said Dr.

393

GRR/Section 18-MT-a - Underground Storage Tanks | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

MT-a - Underground Storage Tanks MT-a - Underground Storage Tanks < GRR Jump to: navigation, search GRR-logo.png GEOTHERMAL REGULATORY ROADMAP Roadmap Home Roadmap Help List of Sections Section 18-MT-a - Underground Storage Tanks 18MTAUndergroundStorageTanks (2).pdf Click to View Fullscreen Contact Agencies Montana Department of Environmental Quality Regulations & Policies Montana Code Annotated 75-11-501 Administrative Rules of Montana 17-56 Triggers None specified Click "Edit With Form" above to add content 18MTAUndergroundStorageTanks (2).pdf Error creating thumbnail: Page number not in range. Error creating thumbnail: Page number not in range. Error creating thumbnail: Page number not in range. Flowchart Narrative A developer must obtain an Underground Storage Tank Installation Permit

394

GRR/Section 18-ID-a - Underground Storage Tank Systems | Open Energy  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

GRR/Section 18-ID-a - Underground Storage Tank Systems GRR/Section 18-ID-a - Underground Storage Tank Systems < GRR Jump to: navigation, search GRR-logo.png GEOTHERMAL REGULATORY ROADMAP Roadmap Home Roadmap Help List of Sections Section 18-ID-a - Underground Storage Tank Systems 18IDAUndergroundStorageTankSystems.pdf Click to View Fullscreen Contact Agencies Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Regulations & Policies IDAPA 58.01.07 Rules Regulating Underground Storage Tank Systems Triggers None specified Click "Edit With Form" above to add content 18IDAUndergroundStorageTankSystems.pdf Error creating thumbnail: Page number not in range. Error creating thumbnail: Page number not in range. Error creating thumbnail: Page number not in range. Flowchart Narrative The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) requires notification

395

IDAPA 58.01.07 - Rules Regulating Underground Storage Tank Systems...  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Rules Regulating Underground Storage Tank Systems Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- StatuteStatute: IDAPA 58.01.07 - Rules...

396

UC 19-6-401 et seq. - Utah Underground Storage Tank Act | Open...  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

UC 19-6-401 et seq. - Utah Underground Storage Tank Act Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- StatuteStatute: UC 19-6-401 et seq. -...

397

Field Study on PM1 Air Pollution in a Residential Underground Parking Lot  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

PM1 (fine particles with a diameter smaller than 1 ?m) number concentrations are more straightforward compared with particle mass concentrations for air quality assessment in underground parking lots. PM1 ... PM1...

Yu Zhao; Jianing Zhao

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

398

Preliminary Notice of Violation, Pacific Underground Construction, Inc.- WEA-2009-02  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

Issued to Pacific Underground Construction, Inc. related to a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe explosion that occurred in Sector 30 of the linear accelerator facility at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC).

399

MCA 75-11-501 et seq. - Montana Underground Storage Tank Act...  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

ActLegal Abstract Sets forth statutory requirements for regulating underground storage tanks. Published NA Year Signed or Took Effect 1997 Legal Citation 75-11-501 et seq., MCA...

400

7 C.C.R. 1101-14 - Underground Storage Tanks and Aboveground...  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

1101-14 - Underground Storage Tanks and Aboveground Storage tanks Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: 7 C.C.R....

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


401

OAR 340-150 - DEQ Underground Storage Tank Rules | Open Energy...  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Storage Tank RulesLegal Abstract Provide for the regulation of underground storage tanks. Published NA Year Signed or Took Effect 2003 Legal Citation OAR 340-150 (1990) DOI...

402

Head of EM Visits Waste Isolation Pilot Plant for First Underground...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Secretary Mark Whitney today visited the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, N.M., where he became the first non-WIPP employee to tour the underground facility...

403

EA-1219: Hoe Creek Underground Coal Gasification Test Site Remediation, Campbell County, Wyoming  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

This EA evaluates the environmental impacts for the proposed Hoe Creek Underground Coal Gasification Test Site Remediation that would be performed at the Hoe Creek site in Campbell County, Wyoming.

404

Thermal Imaging of Vegetation to Detect CO2 Gas Leaking From Underground  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Thermal imaging of vegetation has been used to detect CO2 gas leaking from an underground gas reservoir. Plant stress caused by increased soil gas concentration results in warmer...

Shaw, Joseph A; Johnson, Jennifer E; Lawrence, Rick; Nugent, Paul W

405

Assessment of ground subsidence hazard near an abandoned underground coal mine using GIS  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

This study constructs a hazard map for ground subsidence around abandoned underground coal mines (AUCMs) at Samcheok City in ... ) model, and a Geographic Information System (GIS). To evaluate the factors related...

Ki-Dong Kim; Saro Lee; Hyun-Joo Oh; Jong-Kuk Choi; Joong-Sun Won

2006-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

406

INDUCED SEISMICITY MONITORING OF AN UNDERGROUND SALT CAVITY UNDER A TRANSIENT PRESSURE EXPERIMENT  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

to 125 m in cemented boreholes drilled in thé vicinity of thé study area. The underground cavity under and Monitoring, Seismic Introduction A large research project within thé GISOS1 program has been launched

Paris-Sud XI, Université de

407

Tectonic Strain Release by Underground Nuclear Explosions and its Effect on Seismic Discrimination  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......patterns to geologic structure in Yucca Flats Nevada Test Site, in Nevada Test Site, ed. Eckel E. B., Geol. Soc. Am. Mem...of the Benham underground nuclear explosion, Nevada Test Site, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 59, 2209-2220......

M. Nafi Toksöz; Harold H. Kehrer

1972-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

408

SURVEY OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND OPENINGS FOR IN-SITU EXPERIMENTAL FACILITIES  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

layouts of underground powerhouse Figure 2. Figure 3. FigureG' adit accessible fro? powerhouse deck, through 4 x 7 f tU.S. Corps of Engineers powerhouse facilities offer possible

Wollenberg, H.

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

409

Measurement of Cosmic Ray Flux in China JinPing underground Laboratory  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

China JinPing underground Laboratory (CJPL) is the deepest underground laboratory presently running in the world. In such a deep underground laboratory, the cosmic ray flux is a very important and necessary parameter for rare event experiments. A plastic scintillator telescope system has been set up to measure the cosmic ray flux. The performance of the telescope system has been studied using the cosmic ray on the ground laboratory near CJPL. Based on the underground experimental data taken from November 2010 to December 2011 in CJPL, which has effective live time of 171 days, the cosmic ray muon flux in CJPL is measured to be (2.0+-0.4)*10^(-10)/(cm^2)/(s). The ultra-low cosmic ray background guarantees CJPL's ideal environment for dark matter experiment.

Wu, Yu-Cheng; Yue, Qian; LI, Yuan-Jing; Cheng, Jian-Ping; Kang, Ke-Jun; Chen, Yun-Hua; Li, Jin; Li, Jian-Min; Li, Yu-Lan; Liu, Shu-Kui; Ma, Hao; Ren, Jin-Bao; Shen, Man-Bin; Wang, Ji-Min; Wu, Shi-Yong; Xue, Tao; YI, Nan; Zeng, Xiong-Hui; Zeng, Zhi; Zhu, Zhong-Hua

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

410

Measurement of cosmic ray flux in the China JinPing underground laboratory  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The China JinPing underground Laboratory (CJPL) is the deepest underground laboratory running in the world at present. In such a deep underground laboratory, the cosmic ray flux is a very important and necessary parameter for rare-event experiments. A plastic scintillator telescope system has been set up to measure the cosmic ray flux. The performance of the telescope system has been studied using the cosmic rays on the ground laboratory near the CJPL. Based on the underground experimental data taken from November 2010 to December 2011 in the CJPL, which has an effective live time of 171 days, the cosmic ray muon flux in the CJPL is measured to be (2.0±0.4)?10?10/(cm2s). The ultra-low cosmic ray background guarantees an ideal environment for dark matter experiments at the CJPL.

Wu Yu-Cheng (???); Hao Xi-Qing (???); Yue Qian (??); Li Yuan-Jing (???); Cheng Jian-Ping (???); Kang Ke-Jun (???); Chen Yun-Hua (???); Li Jin (??); Li Jian-Min (???); Li Yu-Lan (???); Liu Shu-Kui (???); Ma Hao (??); Ren Jin-Bao (???); Shen Man-Bin (???); Wang Ji-Min (???); Wu Shi-Yong (???); Xue Tao (??); Yi Nan (??); Zeng Xiong-Hui (???); Zeng Zhi (??); Zhu Zhong-Hua (???)

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

411

U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Developments: 1998-2005  

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

S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Developments: 1998-2005 S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Developments: 1998-2005 Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, October 2006 1 This special report examines the current status of the underground natural gas storage sector in the United States and how it has changed since 1998, particularly in regards to deliverability from storage, working gas capacity, ownership, and operational capabilities. In addition, it includes a discussion and an analysis of underground natural gas storage expansions in 2005 and an examination of the level of proposed additional storage expansions over the next several years. Questions or comments on the contents of this article should be directed to James Tobin at james.tobin@eia.doe.gov or (202) 586-4835.

412

NNSA Commemorates the 20th Anniversary of the Last Underground Nuclear Test  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

the 20th Anniversary of the Last Underground Nuclear Test the 20th Anniversary of the Last Underground Nuclear Test | National Nuclear Security Administration Our Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Continuing Management Reform Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Us Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Media Room Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Speeches Events Social Media Video Gallery Photo Gallery NNSA Archive Federal Employment Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog Home > Media Room > Video Gallery > NNSA Commemorates the 20th Anniversary of the ... NNSA Commemorates the 20th Anniversary of the Last Underground Nuclear Test NNSA Commemorates the 20th Anniversary of the Last Underground Nuclear Test

413

Characterizing a lignite formation before and after an underground coal gasification experiment  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

CHARACTERIZING A LIGNITE FORMATION BEFORE AND AFTER AN UNDERGROUND COAL GASIFICATION EXPERIMENT A Thesis by USMAN AHMED Submitted to the Graduate College of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree... of MASTER OF SCIENCE Nay, 1981 Major Subject: Petrol eum Engineering CHARACTERIZING A LIGNITE FORMATION BEFORE AND AFTER AN UNDERGROUND COAL GASIFICATION EXPERIMENT A Thesis by USMAN AHMED approved as to sty1e and content by: airma o i ee Head f...

Ahmed, Usman

2012-06-07T23:59:59.000Z

414

California Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 1991 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 1992 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 250,206 1993 250,206 250,206 247,228 246,345 247,699 247,950 247,109 248,215 248,944 251,050 247,420 247,425 1994 251,384 251,384 251,384 251,384 251,384 251,384 251,384 251,384 247,435 247,435 247,435 247,435 1995 247,419 247,419 247,419 247,419 247,419 247,419 247,419 247,419 247,419 247,419 247,419 247,419

415

Montana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 184,212 180,918 178,620 181,242 179,235 181,374 183,442 187,348 185,848 181,029 1991 179,697 178,285 176,975 176,918 178,145 179,386 181,094 182,534 182,653 181,271 178,539 174,986 1992 111,256 109,433 109,017 109,150 110,146 110,859 111,885 112,651 112,225 110,868 107,520 101,919 1993 96,819 92,399 89,640 87,930 86,773 86,048 87,257 87,558 88,012 87,924 85,137 81,930 1994 78,106 72,445 71,282 70,501 71,440 73,247 74,599 75,685 77,456 78,490 76,784 74,111 1995 70,612 68,618 67,929 68,727 70,007 72,146 75,063 78,268 79,364 78,810 75,764 70,513

416

Indiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 22,371 18,661 17,042 17,387 20,796 23,060 26,751 30,924 33,456 34,200 30,588 1991 24,821 19,663 16,425 15,850 17,767 18,744 22,065 26,710 31,199 37,933 35,015 30,071 1992 23,328 18,843 14,762 14,340 15,414 17,948 23,103 27,216 32,427 35,283 32,732 29,149 1993 23,702 18,626 15,991 17,160 18,050 20,109 24,565 29,110 33,303 34,605 32,707 30,052 1994 23,623 20,052 18,102 17,396 17,194 19,647 24,780 29,088 33,077 35,877 36,408 33,424 1995 27,732 21,973 19,542 18,899 19,227 21,026 23,933 27,541 31,972 36,182 36,647 31,830

417

Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 33,234 33,553 34,322 39,110 43,935 47,105 53,425 58,298 62,273 65,655 66,141 60,495 1991 43,838 39,280 39,196 45,157 48,814 50,833 52,841 54,954 60,062 64,120 56,034 50,591 1992 40,858 39,723 37,350 37,516 41,830 46,750 51,406 51,967 58,355 59,621 59,164 52,385 1993 46,427 38,859 32,754 35,256 42,524 46,737 51,884 55,215 61,028 60,752 38,314 31,086 1994 21,838 17,503 20,735 25,099 29,837 30,812 37,339 42,607 44,739 47,674 48,536 43,262 1995 32,938 27,069 23,018 27,735 34,699 36,337 40,488 41,240 47,530 50,166 40,729 32,224

418

Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 352,686 352,686 352,686 351,920 352,686 352,686 353,407 353,407 353,407 353,407 359,236 358,860 1991 349,459 348,204 334,029 335,229 353,405 349,188 350,902 352,314 353,617 354,010 353,179 355,754 1992 358,198 353,313 347,361 341,498 344,318 347,751 357,498 358,432 359,300 359,504 359,321 362,275 1993 362,222 358,438 351,469 354,164 360,814 359,349 359,455 359,510 359,530 361,433 360,977 360,971 1994 360,026 357,906 358,611 360,128 361,229 361,294 361,339 361,335 361,335 361,335 361,238 362,038 1995 357,538 357,538 357,538 356,900 357,006 356,909 357,848 357,895 357,967 357,994 357,994 358,094

419

Kansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 65,683 55,509 49,604 47,540 48,128 53,233 64,817 76,933 92,574 99,253 115,704 93,290 1991 59,383 54,864 49,504 47,409 53,752 61,489 64,378 67,930 78,575 89,747 80,663 82,273 1992 76,311 63,152 53,718 48,998 51,053 53,700 57,987 69,653 79,756 82,541 73,094 61,456 1993 44,893 33,024 27,680 26,796 46,806 58,528 64,198 75,616 89,955 92,825 87,252 76,184 1994 52,998 41,644 39,796 40,779 49,519 55,059 64,664 77,229 86,820 91,309 84,568 74,364 1995 59,292 47,263 37,998 39,071 48,761 60,148 65,093 65,081 81,654 93,880 90,905 73,982

420

Alabama Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1995 499 497 233 233 260 302 338 556 1,148 1,075 886 485 1996 431 364 202 356 493 971 1,164 1,553 1,891 2,008 1,879 1,119 1997 588 404 429 559 830 923 966 1,253 1,515 1,766 1,523 1,523 1998 773 585 337 582 727 1,350 1,341 1,540 1,139 1,752 1,753 1,615 1999 802 688 376 513 983 1,193 1,428 1,509 1,911 1,834 1,968 1,779 2000 865 863 1,178 1,112 1,202 1,809 1,890 1,890 1,780 1,638 1,434 1,349 2001 1,020 1,261 657 851 807 1,384 1,538 1,651 1,669 1,549 2,837 2,848 2002 2,435 2,119 1,849 2,106 2,206 2,076 2,326 2,423 2,423 1,863 2,259 2,117

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


421

Washington Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Washington Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 21,300 21,300 21,300 21,300 0 21,300 21,300 21,300 21,300 21,300 21,300 1991 21,300 21,300 21,300 21,300 21,300 21,300 21,300 21,300 21,300 18,800 18,800 18,800 1992 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 1993 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 1994 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 1995 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 21,123

422

Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 27,491 22,694 17,504 13,313 17,552 23,767 28,965 33,972 35,196 34,955 34,660 1991 26,266 24,505 17,544 16,115 17,196 21,173 25,452 30,548 35,254 36,813 37,882 36,892 1992 33,082 29,651 22,962 18,793 18,448 20,445 24,593 30,858 36,770 38,897 35,804 33,066 1993 28,629 23,523 21,015 17,590 20,302 24,947 28,113 31,946 36,247 34,224 30,426 29,254 1994 24,249 19,331 16,598 11,485 16,989 18,501 23,590 28,893 34,044 34,298 32,687 29,307 1995 24,948 21,446 16,467 12,090 14,043 19,950 25,757 29,774 32,507 33,707 35,418 30,063

423

Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas  

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

Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 -2,863 -1,902 -2,297 -1,134 -1,671 -1,997 -907 -144 629 992 2,290 1,354 1991 30,778 27,964 37,141 36,920 15,424 -18,322 -46,969 -63,245 -61,004 -48,820 -54,587 -34,458 1992 6,870 -8,479 -43,753 -43,739 -33,236 -8,601 3,190 9,732 8,583 15,815 27,780 16,330 1993 16,748 -23,871 -27,342 -13,729 -7,043 -138 11,093 8,174 14,808 2,868 -4,885 -9,642 1994 -45,776 -23,124 8,987 25,048 32,148 34,360 39,360 43,202 18,502 20,447 7,409 15,602 1995 60,371 42,037 36,507 9,811 2,098 -569 -19,226 -25,702 -1,403 1,156 -23,733 -57,737

424

Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 46,050 46,050 46,050 46,050 46,050 46,050 46,050 46,050 46,050 46,050 46,050 46,050 1991 47,530 47,483 47,483 47,483 47,483 47,868 48,150 48,150 48,150 48,150 48,150 48,150 1992 48,150 48,150 48,149 48,149 48,149 48,149 48,149 48,149 48,149 48,149 47,851 48,049 1993 48,039 48,049 48,049 48,049 47,792 48,049 48,049 48,049 48,049 49,038 70,555 70,688 1994 71,043 71,801 71,955 71,959 71,959 71,959 71,959 71,959 71,959 72,652 72,671 72,671 1995 74,188 75,551 75,551 75,551 75,551 75,551 75,551 75,551 75,551 75,551 75,551 77,682

425

Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 262,136 262,136 262,136 262,136 262,136 262,136 262,136 262,136 262,136 262,136 262,136 1991 264,324 264,324 264,304 264,497 265,121 265,448 265,816 266,390 262,350 266,030 267,245 267,245 1992 267,245 267,245 265,296 262,230 262,454 263,788 266,852 260,660 257,627 258,575 259,879 262,144 1993 261,841 255,035 251,684 252,604 253,390 254,839 253,518 254,115 254,299 254,043 254,646 251,132 1994 263,981 263,749 263,836 264,541 265,702 266,435 266,702 266,702 266,702 266,702 266,702 266,702 1995 266,702 266,702 266,643 266,702 266,702 266,702 266,702 266,702 266,702 266,702 266,702 267,311

426

California Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 125,898 106,575 111,248 132,203 157,569 170,689 174,950 177,753 182,291 196,681 196,382 153,841 1991 132,323 132,935 115,982 136,883 163,570 187,887 201,443 204,342 199,994 199,692 193,096 168,789 1992 125,777 109,000 93,277 107,330 134,128 156,158 170,112 182,680 197,049 207,253 197,696 140,662 1993 106,890 87,612 100,869 109,975 138,272 152,044 175,917 185,337 199,629 210,423 198,700 164,518 1994 121,221 77,055 76,162 95,079 123,190 143,437 161,081 170,434 191,319 203,562 186,826 161,202 1995 130,241 125,591 117,650 114,852 141,222 167,231 181,227 179,508 194,712 212,867 214,897 188,927

427

Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 115,418 117,492 109,383 110,052 117,110 131,282 145,105 158,865 173,570 188,751 197,819 190,747 1991 141,417 109,568 96,781 103,300 122,648 146,143 159,533 169,329 190,953 211,395 197,661 165,940 1992 120,212 91,394 79,753 85,867 106,675 124,940 136,861 152,715 174,544 194,414 187,236 149,775 1993 103,287 66,616 47,157 49,577 86,976 120,891 149,120 176,316 212,046 227,566 213,581 170,503 1994 112,054 93,499 80,056 101,407 134,333 155,279 184,802 207,383 230,726 239,823 235,775 197,145 1995 145,373 106,289 97,677 107,610 126,266 154,036 174,808 175,953 199,358 213,417 188,967 141,572

428

AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 280,414 208,968 200,997 216,283 261,894 293,909 326,049 349,274 387,670 405,477 381,931 342,394 1995 288,908 270,955 251,410 246,654 284,291 328,371 362,156 372,718 398,444 418,605 419,849 366,944 1996 280,620 236,878 221,371 232,189 268,812 299,619 312,736 313,747 330,116 333,134 322,501 282,392 1997 216,113 179,067 171,563 184,918 227,756 273,507 306,641 330,075 351,975 363,189 350,107 263,455 1998 211,982 163,084 150,923 155,766 206,048 254,643 281,422 305,746 346,135 379,917 388,380 330,906

429

Wyoming Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 53,604 51,563 52,120 53,225 54,581 56,980 58,990 61,428 62,487 60,867 1991 54,085 53,423 53,465 53,581 54,205 56,193 58,416 60,163 61,280 61,366 59,373 57,246 1992 30,371 28,356 27,542 27,461 27,843 28,422 29,588 29,692 30,555 29,505 27,746 23,929 1993 20,529 18,137 17,769 18,265 19,253 21,322 23,372 24,929 26,122 27,044 24,271 21,990 1994 21,363 18,661 19,224 20,115 21,689 22,447 23,568 25,072 26,511 27,440 26,978 25,065 1995 22,086 20,762 19,352 18,577 19,027 20,563 22,264 23,937 25,846 27,025 26,298 24,257

430

Tennessee Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 459 343 283 199 199 199 333 467 579 682 786 787 1999 656 532 401 321 318 462 569 645 749 854 911 855 2000 691 515 452 389 371 371 371 371 371 420 534 619 2001 623 563 490 421 525 638 669 732 778 840 598 597 2002 647 648 650 650 625 622 609 605 602 600 512 512 2003 404 294 226 179 214 290 365 460 463 508 508 447 2004 344 293 281 312 345 391 454 509 514 539 527 486 2005 444 364 265 184 143 126 126 126 88 79 73 60 2006 52 52 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44

431

Simulation of neutrons produced by high-energy muons underground  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

This article describes the Monte Carlo simulation used to interpret the measurement of the muon-induced neutron flux in the Boulby Underground Laboratory (North Yorkshire, UK), recently performed using a large scintillator veto deployed around the ZEPLIN-II WIMP detector. Version 8.2 of the GEANT4 toolkit was used after relevant benchmarking and validation of neutron production models. In the direct comparison between Monte Carlo and experimental data, we find that the simulation produces a 1.8 times higher neutron rate, which we interpret as over-production in lead by GEANT4. The dominance of this material in neutron production allows us to estimate the absolute neutron yield in lead as (1.31 ± 0.06)×10?3 neutrons/muon/(g/cm2) for a mean muon energy of 260 GeV. Simulated nuclear recoils due to muon-induced neutrons in the ZEPLIN-II target volume (?1-year exposure) showed that, although a small rate of events is expected from this source of background in the energy range of interest for dark matter searches, no event survives an anti-coincidence cut with the veto.

A. Lindote; H.M. Araújo; V.A. Kudryavtsev; M. Robinson

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

432

Overall requirements for an advanced underground coal extraction system  

SciTech Connect

This report presents overall requirements on underground mining systems suitable for coal seams exploitable in the year 2000, with particular relevance to the resources of Central Appalachia. These requirements may be summarized as follows: (1) Production Cost: demonstrate a return on incremental investment of 1.5 to 2.5 times the value required by a low-risk capital project. (2) Miner Safety: achieve at least a 50% reduction in deaths and disabling injuries per million man-hours. (3) Miner Health: meet the intent of all applicable regulations, with particular attention to coal dust, carcinogens, and mutagens; and with continued emphasis on acceptable levels of noise and vibration, lighting, humidity and temperature, and adequate work space. (4) Environmental Impact: maintain the value of mined and adjacent lands at the pre-mining value following reclamation; mitigation of off-site impacts should not cost more than the procedures used in contemporary mining. (5) Coal Conservation: the recovery of coal from the seam being mined should be at least as good as the best available contemporary technology operating in comparable conditions. No significant trade-offs between production cost and other performance indices were found.

Goldsmith, M.; Lavin, M.L.

1980-10-15T23:59:59.000Z

433

Calculations on seismic coupling of underground explosions in salt  

SciTech Connect

This report details the results of a theoretical study of seismic coupling and decoupling of underground explosions in a salt medium. A series of chemical and nuclear explosions was carried out years ago in salt domes for the Cowboy and the Dribble programs to provide experimental data on seismic coupling for both tamped explosions and explosions in cavities. The Cowboy program consisted of a series of chemical explosions, and the Dribble program consisted of the tamped nuclear Salmon event, the Sterling nuclear event in the Salmon cavity, and an associated site calibration effort. This report presents the results of extensive computer calculations, which are in satisfactory agreement with the experimental data. The calculations were extended to give general results on seismic coupling in salt. The measure of seismic coupling for most of this work was the residual reduced displacement potential (residual RDP). The decoupling associated with a shot in a cavity was expressed as the ratio of the resulting residual RDP to that of an equal-sized tamped shot.

Heusinkveld, M.E.

1981-01-20T23:59:59.000Z

434

The commercial feasibility of underground coal gasification in southern Thailand  

SciTech Connect

Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) is a clean coal technology with the commercial potential to provide low- or medium-Btu gas for the generation of electric power. While the abundance of economic coal and natural gas reserves in the United States of America (USA) has delayed the commercial development of this technology in the USA, potential for commercial development of UCG-fueled electric power generation currently exists in many other nations. Thailand has been experiencing sustained economic growth throughout the past decade. The use of UCG to provide electric power to meet the growing power demand appears to have commercial potential. A project to determine the commercial feasibility of UCG-fueled electric power generation at a site in southern Thailand is in progress. The objective of the project is to determine the commercial feasibility of using UCG for power generation in the Krabi coal mining area located approximately 1,000 kilometers south of Bangkok, Thailand. The project team has developed a detailed methodology to determine the technical feasibility, environmental acceptability, and commercial economic potential of UCG at a selected site. In the methodology, hydrogeologic conditions of the coal seam and surrounding strata are determined first. These results and information describing the local economic conditions are then used to assess the commercial potential of the UCG application. The methodology for evaluating the Krabi UCG site and current project status are discussed in this paper.

Solc, J.; Young, B.C.; Harju, J.A.; Schmit, C.R. [Univ. of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND (United States). Energy and Environmental Research Center; Boysen, J.E. [B.C. Technologies, Ltd., Laramie, WY (United States); Kuhnel, R.A. [IIASES, Delft (Netherlands)

1996-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

435

Evaluating the feasibility of underground coal gasification in Thailand  

SciTech Connect

Underground coal gasification (UCG) is a clean coal technology that converts in situ coal into a low- to medium-grade product gas without the added expense of mining and reclamation. Potential candidates for UCG are those coal resources that are not economically recoverable or that are otherwise unacceptable for conventional coal utilization processes. The Energy and Environmental Research Center (EERC), through the sponsorship of the US Trade and Development Agency and in collaboration with the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT), is undertaking a feasibility study for the application of UCG in the Krabi coal mining area, 620 miles south of Bangkok in Thailand. The EERC`s objective for this project is to determine the technical, environmental, and economic feasibility of demonstrating and commercializing UCG at a selected site in the Krabi coal mining area. This paper addresses the preliminary developments and ongoing strategy for evaluating the selected UCG site. The technical, environmental, and economic factors for successful UCG operation are discussed, as well as the strategic issues pertaining to future energy expansion in southern Thailand.

Young, B.C.; Harju, J.A.; Schmit, C.R.; Solc, J. [Univ. of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND (United States). Energy and Environmental Research Center; Boysen, J. [B.C. Technologies, Ltd., Laramie, WY (United States); Kuehnel, R.A. [International Inst. for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences, Delft (Netherlands)

1996-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

436

Underground storage tank compliance activities at the Hanford Site  

SciTech Connect

The Hanford Site covers 560 mi{sup 2} of semi-arid land that is owned by the US Government and managed by the US Department of Energy-Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL). It is located in the Columbia Basin and northwest of the City of Richland, Washington, which lies approximately 5 mi from the southernmost portion of the Hanford Site boundary and is the nearest population center. In early 1943, the US Army Corps of Engineers selected the Hanford Site for the production and purification of plutonium. The purpose of this report is fourfold: it describes the underground storage tanks (UST) at the Hanford Site regulated by title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 280 (EPA 1988a); it defines the compliance programs completed, underway, or planned by the affected Hanford Site contractors; it provides costs of program compliance; and it defines long-range planning to comply with 40 CFR 280 after 1998. 5 refs., 1 fig., 2 tabs.

Morton, M.R.; Mihalic, M.A.

1990-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

437

Lateral distribution of muon pairs in deep underground muon showers  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The lateral distribution of muon showers deep underground in the Utah muon detector has been studied. The results are presented in the form of a decoherence curve, which is defined to be the rate of pairs of coincident muons in two small detectors (as a function of their separation) divided by the product of the areas of the detectors. Rates are measured for separations from 1 to greater than 60 m for depths ranging from 2.4 × 105 gcm-2 to 5.6 × 105 gcm-2 and zenith angles ranging from 42.5 to 62.5 degrees. Significant improvements on previously reported data have been made due to increased detector-memory size, improved triggering efficiency, longer running time and better statistical analysis. When the decoherence curve is parameterized by the function R(x)=R0e-xx0 the value of the mean separation x0 at 47.5°, 2.4 × 105 gcm-2 is 11.21 ± 0.38 m. In a modified scaling model this separation suggests an average transverse momentum of roughly 0.65 GeV/c for muons from hadron-air collisions with energy > 10 TeV.

G. H. Lowe; H. E. Bergeson; J. W. Keuffel; M. O. Larson; J. L. Morrison; W. J. West

1976-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

438

Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 163,571 125,097 100,438 110,479 158,720 215,000 265,994 318,024 358,535 364,421 359,766 306,561 1991 194,349 153,061 137,579 147,399 174,145 196,678 219,025 254,779 297,531 315,601 305,179 272,103 1992 201,218 144,582 93,826 103,660 140,908 188,078 222,215 264,511 306,113 331,416 332,959 288,433 1993 217,967 120,711 66,484 89,931 133,866 187,940 233,308 272,685 320,921 334,285 328,073 278,791 1994 172,190 97,587 75,470 114,979 166,013 222,300 272,668 315,887 339,424 354,731 335,483 294,393 1995 232,561 139,624 111,977 124,790 168,112 221,731 253,442 290,185 338,021 355,887 311,749 236,656

439

Michigan Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 311,360 252,796 228,986 221,127 269,595 333,981 410,982 481,628 534,303 553,823 542,931 472,150 1991 348,875 285,217 262,424 287,946 315,457 372,989 431,607 478,293 498,086 539,454 481,257 405,327 1992 320,447 244,921 179,503 179,306 224,257 292,516 367,408 435,817 504,312 532,896 486,495 397,280 1993 296,403 194,201 133,273 148,416 222,106 303,407 386,359 468,790 534,882 568,552 516,491 426,536 1994 282,144 193,338 162,719 203,884 276,787 351,286 425,738 502,577 568,235 599,504 579,874 516,887 1995 410,946 298,325 247,016 245,903 299,050 364,569 438,995 492,773 545,157 577,585 511,573 392,896

440

Oklahoma Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 129,245 118,053 119,532 116,520 130,817 139,698 150,336 158,048 165,206 171,008 180,706 154,515 1991 111,225 106,204 111,759 125,973 140,357 150,549 151,393 156,066 166,053 169,954 144,316 133,543 1992 115,658 107,281 103,919 109,690 117,435 128,505 145,962 153,948 166,637 174,182 154,096 123,225 1993 46,462 26,472 19,429 30,902 49,259 67,110 82,104 95,435 111,441 118,880 101,220 86,381 1994 56,024 35,272 32,781 49,507 73,474 86,632 102,758 115,789 124,652 129,107 126,148 109,979 1995 86,312 72,646 62,779 67,245 83,722 96,319 103,388 101,608 113,587 126,287 116,265 92,617

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


441

Mujeres Hombres Total Hombres Total 16 5 21 0 10  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Julio de 2011 Tipo de Discapacidad Sexo CENTRO 5-Distribución del estudiantado con discapacidad por centro, tipo de discapacidad, sexo y totales. #12;

Autonoma de Madrid, Universidad

442

Relation between total quanta and total energy for aquatic ...  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Jan 22, 1974 ... ment of the total energy and vice versa. From a measurement of spectral irradi- ance ... unit energy (for the wavelength region specified).

2000-01-02T23:59:59.000Z

443

Optimization of enzyme extractions for total folate in cereals and determination of total folate in breakfast cereals and snack foods.  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

??The trienzyme digestion including protease, [alpha]-amylase, and conjugase for the extraction of total folate from cereals was optimized using response surface methodology. CRM121 wholemeal, oat,… (more)

Cho, Sungeun

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

444

Total Synthesis of Convex Polyhedral Hydrocarbons The Platonic Solids  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

O H H Total Synthesis of Convex Polyhedral Hydrocarbons The Platonic Solids O O t-BuO3C Br O O Br Br Ph PhPh Ph PhPh Ph Ph COOH HOOC Total Synthesis of Convex Polyhedral Hydrocarbons The Five Matter Icosahedron Water · Polyhedron: a closed surface made up of polygonal regions. · Regular

Stoltz, Brian M.

445

Total.................................................................  

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

49.2 49.2 15.1 15.6 11.1 7.0 5.2 8.0 Have Cooling Equipment............................... 93.3 31.3 15.1 15.6 11.1 7.0 5.2 8.0 Use Cooling Equipment................................ 91.4 30.4 14.6 15.4 11.1 6.9 5.2 7.9 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............... 1.9 1.0 0.5 Q Q Q Q Q Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................... 17.8 17.8 N N N N N N Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System............................................. 65.9 3.9 15.1 15.6 11.1 7.0 5.2 8.0 Without a Heat Pump................................ 53.5 3.5 12.9 12.7 8.6 5.5 4.2 6.2 With a Heat Pump..................................... 12.3 0.4 2.2 2.9 2.5 1.5 1.0 1.8 Window/Wall Units........................................ 28.9 27.5 0.5 Q 0.3 Q Q Q 1 Unit......................................................... 14.5 13.5 0.3 Q Q Q N Q 2 Units.......................................................

446

Total........................................................................  

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

7.1 7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 Q Q Q 0.2 Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 7.1 6.8 7.9 11.9 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 7.1 6.6 7.9 11.4 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 N Q N 0.5 Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 3.8 0.4 3.8 8.4 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 1.8 Q 3.1 6.0 For One Housing Unit................................... 42.9 1.5 Q 3.1 6.0 For Two Housing Units................................. 1.8 Q N Q Q Steam or Hot Water System............................. 8.2 1.9 Q Q 0.2 For One Housing Unit................................... 5.1 0.8 Q N Q For Two Housing Units.................................

447

Total........................................................................  

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

5.6 5.6 17.7 7.9 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 Q Q N Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 25.6 17.7 7.9 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 25.6 17.7 7.9 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 N N N Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 18.4 13.1 5.3 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 16.2 11.6 4.7 For One Housing Unit................................... 42.9 15.5 11.0 4.5 For Two Housing Units................................. 1.8 0.7 0.6 Q Steam or Hot Water System............................. 8.2 1.6 1.2 0.4 For One Housing Unit................................... 5.1 1.1 0.9 Q For Two Housing Units.................................

448

Total...........................................................................  

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

4.2 4.2 7.6 16.6 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................. 17.8 10.3 3.1 7.3 Have Cooling Equipment.......................................... 93.3 13.9 4.5 9.4 Use Cooling Equipment........................................... 91.4 12.9 4.3 8.5 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it.......................... 1.9 1.0 Q 0.8 Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 10.5 3.9 6.5 Without a Heat Pump........................................... 53.5 8.7 3.2 5.5 With a Heat Pump............................................... 12.3 1.7 0.7 1.0 Window/Wall Units.................................................. 28.9 3.6 0.6 3.0 1 Unit................................................................... 14.5 2.9 0.5 2.4 2 Units.................................................................

449

Total...........................................................  

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

Q Q Million U.S. Housing Units Renter- Occupied Housing Units (millions) Type of Renter-Occupied Housing Unit U.S. Housing Units (millions Single-Family Units Apartments in Buildings With-- Living Space Characteristics Detached Attached Table HC4.2 Living Space Characteristics by Renter-Occupied Housing Units, 2005 2 to 4 Units 5 or More Units Mobile Homes Energy Information Administration 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Preliminary Housing Characteristics Tables Million U.S. Housing Units Renter- Occupied Housing Units (millions) Type of Renter-Occupied Housing Unit U.S. Housing Units (millions Single-Family Units Apartments in Buildings With-- Living Space Characteristics Detached Attached Table HC4.2 Living Space Characteristics by Renter-Occupied Housing Units, 2005

450

Total....................................................................................  

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

Personal Computers Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 14.2 7.2 2.8 4.2 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 26.6 14.5 4.1 7.9 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 20.5 11.0 3.4 6.1 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 6.1 3.5 0.7 1.9 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2 Hours..................................................... 13.6 5.0 2.6 1.0 1.3 2 to 15 Hours............................................................. 29.1 10.3 5.9 1.6 2.9 16 to 40 Hours........................................................... 13.5 4.1 2.3 0.6 1.2 41 to 167 Hours.........................................................

451

Total..............................................................  

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

,171 ,171 1,618 1,031 845 630 401 Census Region and Division Northeast................................................... 20.6 2,334 1,664 562 911 649 220 New England.......................................... 5.5 2,472 1,680 265 1,057 719 113 Middle Atlantic........................................ 15.1 2,284 1,658 670 864 627 254 Midwest...................................................... 25.6 2,421 1,927 1,360 981 781 551 East North Central.................................. 17.7 2,483 1,926 1,269 999 775 510 West North Central................................. 7.9 2,281 1,930 1,566 940 796 646 South.......................................................... 40.7 2,161 1,551 1,295 856 615 513 South Atlantic......................................... 21.7 2,243 1,607 1,359 896 642 543 East South Central.................................

452

Total.........................................................................................  

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

..... ..... 111.1 7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer...................................... 35.5 3.0 2.0 2.7 3.1 Use a Personal Computer.................................................. 75.6 4.2 5.0 5.3 9.0 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model............................................................. 58.6 3.2 3.9 4.0 6.7 Laptop Model................................................................. 16.9 1.0 1.1 1.3 2.4 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2 Hours......................................................... 13.6 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.4 2 to 15 Hours................................................................. 29.1 1.7 2.1 1.9 3.4 16 to 40 Hours............................................................... 13.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.8 41 to 167 Hours.............................................................

453

Total.............................................................................  

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

Cooking Appliances Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day......................................... 8.2 2.6 0.7 1.9 2 Times A Day...................................................... 24.6 6.6 2.0 4.6 Once a Day........................................................... 42.3 8.8 2.9 5.8 A Few Times Each Week...................................... 27.2 4.7 1.5 3.1 About Once a Week.............................................. 3.9 0.7 Q 0.6 Less Than Once a Week....................................... 4.1 0.7 0.3 0.4 No Hot Meals Cooked........................................... 0.9 0.2 Q Q Conventional Oven Use an Oven......................................................... 109.6 23.7 7.5 16.2 More Than Once a Day..................................... 8.9 1.7 0.4 1.3 Once a Day.......................................................

454

Total..............................................................................  

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

0.7 0.7 21.7 6.9 12.1 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................................ 17.8 1.4 0.8 0.2 0.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................. 93.3 39.3 20.9 6.7 11.8 Use Cooling Equipment.............................................. 91.4 38.9 20.7 6.6 11.7 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................. 1.9 0.5 Q Q Q Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................... 65.9 32.1 17.6 5.2 9.3 Without a Heat Pump.............................................. 53.5 23.2 10.9 3.8 8.4 With a Heat Pump................................................... 12.3 9.0 6.7 1.4 0.9 Window/Wall Units..................................................... 28.9 8.0 3.4 1.7 2.9 1 Unit......................................................................

455

Total....................................................................  

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

14.7 14.7 7.4 12.5 12.5 18.9 18.6 17.3 9.2 Household Size 1 Person.......................................................... 30.0 4.6 2.5 3.7 3.2 5.4 5.5 3.7 1.6 2 Persons......................................................... 34.8 4.3 1.9 4.4 4.1 5.9 5.3 5.5 3.4 3 Persons......................................................... 18.4 2.5 1.3 1.7 1.9 2.9 3.5 2.8 1.6 4 Persons......................................................... 15.9 1.9 0.8 1.5 1.6 3.0 2.5 3.1 1.4 5 Persons......................................................... 7.9 0.8 0.4 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.5 0.9 6 or More Persons........................................... 4.1 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.4 2005 Annual Household Income Category Less than $9,999............................................. 9.9 1.9 1.1 1.3 0.9 1.7 1.3 1.1 0.5 $10,000 to $14,999..........................................

456

Total....................................................................................  

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

25.6 25.6 40.7 24.2 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 6.9 8.1 14.2 6.4 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 13.7 17.5 26.6 17.8 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 10.4 14.1 20.5 13.7 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 3.3 3.4 6.1 4.1 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2 Hours..................................................... 13.6 2.4 3.4 5.0 2.9 2 to 15 Hours............................................................. 29.1 5.2 7.0 10.3 6.6 16 to 40 Hours........................................................... 13.5 3.1 2.8 4.1 3.4 41 to 167 Hours.........................................................

457

Total....................................................................................  

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

4.2 4.2 7.6 16.6 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 6.4 2.2 4.2 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 17.8 5.3 12.5 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 13.7 4.2 9.5 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 4.1 1.1 3.0 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2 Hours..................................................... 13.6 2.9 0.9 2.0 2 to 15 Hours............................................................. 29.1 6.6 2.0 4.6 16 to 40 Hours........................................................... 13.5 3.4 0.9 2.5 41 to 167 Hours......................................................... 6.3

458

Total..................................................................  

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

33.0 33.0 8.0 3.4 5.9 14.4 1.2 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment..................... 17.8 6.5 1.6 0.9 1.3 2.4 0.2 Have Cooling Equipment................................. 93.3 26.5 6.5 2.5 4.6 12.0 1.0 Use Cooling Equipment.................................. 91.4 25.7 6.3 2.5 4.4 11.7 0.8 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it................. 1.9 0.8 Q Q 0.2 0.3 Q Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System.............................................. 65.9 14.1 3.6 1.5 2.1 6.4 0.6 Without a Heat Pump.................................. 53.5 12.4 3.1 1.3 1.8 5.7 0.6 With a Heat Pump....................................... 12.3 1.7 0.6 Q 0.3 0.6 Q Window/Wall Units....................................... 28.9 12.4 2.9 1.0 2.5 5.6 0.4 1 Unit.......................................................... 14.5 7.3 1.2 0.5 1.4 3.9 0.2 2 Units.........................................................

459

Total....................................................................................  

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

Cooking Appliances Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day................................................. 8.2 3.7 1.6 1.4 1.5 2 Times A Day.............................................................. 24.6 10.8 4.1 4.3 5.5 Once a Day................................................................... 42.3 17.0 7.2 8.7 9.3 A Few Times Each Week............................................. 27.2 11.4 4.7 6.4 4.8 About Once a Week..................................................... 3.9 1.7 0.6 0.9 0.8 Less Than Once a Week.............................................. 4.1 2.2 0.6 0.8 0.5 No Hot Meals Cooked................................................... 0.9 0.4 Q Q Q Conventional Oven Use an Oven................................................................. 109.6 46.2 18.8

460

Total...................................................................  

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

Single-Family Units Single-Family Units Detached Type of Housing Unit Table HC2.7 Air Conditioning Usage Indicators by Type of Housing Unit, 2005 Million U.S. Housing Units Air Conditioning Usage Indicators Attached 2 to 4 Units 5 or More Units Mobile Homes Apartments in Buildings With-- Housing Units (millions) Energy Information Administration 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Preliminary Housing Characteristics Tables Single-Family Units Detached Type of Housing Unit Table HC2.7 Air Conditioning Usage Indicators by Type of Housing Unit, 2005 Million U.S. Housing Units Air Conditioning Usage Indicators Attached 2 to 4 Units 5 or More Units Mobile Homes Apartments in Buildings With-- Housing Units (millions) At Home Behavior Home Used for Business

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


461

Total.............................................................................  

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

Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................... Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................... 17.8 2.1 1.8 0.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................ 93.3 23.5 16.0 7.5 Use Cooling Equipment............................................. 91.4 23.4 15.9 7.5 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................ 1.9 Q Q Q Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 17.3 11.3 6.0 Without a Heat Pump............................................. 53.5 16.2 10.6 5.6 With a Heat Pump................................................. 12.3 1.1 0.8 0.4 Window/Wall Units.................................................. 28.9 6.6 4.9 1.7 1 Unit..................................................................... 14.5 4.1 2.9 1.2 2 Units...................................................................

462

Total..............................................................................  

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

20.6 20.6 25.6 40.7 24.2 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................................ 17.8 4.0 2.1 1.4 10.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................. 93.3 16.5 23.5 39.3 13.9 Use Cooling Equipment.............................................. 91.4 16.3 23.4 38.9 12.9 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................. 1.9 0.3 Q 0.5 1.0 Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................... 65.9 6.0 17.3 32.1 10.5 Without a Heat Pump.............................................. 53.5 5.5 16.2 23.2 8.7 With a Heat Pump................................................... 12.3 0.5 1.1 9.0 1.7 Window/Wall Units..................................................... 28.9 10.7 6.6 8.0 3.6 1 Unit......................................................................

463

Total....................................................................................  

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

5.6 5.6 17.7 7.9 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 8.1 5.6 2.5 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 17.5 12.1 5.4 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 14.1 10.0 4.0 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 3.4 2.1 1.3 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2 Hours..................................................... 13.6 3.4 2.5 0.9 2 to 15 Hours............................................................. 29.1 7.0 4.8 2.3 16 to 40 Hours........................................................... 13.5 2.8 2.1 0.7 41 to 167 Hours......................................................... 6.3

464

Total...................................................................  

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

15.2 15.2 7.8 1.0 1.2 3.3 1.9 For Two Housing Units............................. 0.9 Q N Q 0.6 N Heat Pump.................................................. 9.2 7.4 0.3 Q 0.7 0.5 Portable Electric Heater............................... 1.6 0.8 Q Q Q 0.3 Other Equipment......................................... 1.9 0.7 Q Q 0.7 Q Fuel Oil........................................................... 7.7 5.5 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.2 Steam or Hot Water System........................ 4.7 2.9 Q 0.7 0.8 N For One Housing Unit.............................. 3.3 2.9 Q Q Q N For Two Housing Units............................. 1.4 Q Q 0.5 0.8 N Central Warm-Air Furnace........................... 2.8 2.4 Q Q Q 0.2 Other Equipment......................................... 0.3 0.2 Q N Q N Wood..............................................................

465

Total...............................................................  

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

Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................. Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................. 17.8 5.3 4.7 2.8 1.9 3.1 3.6 7.5 Have Cooling Equipment.............................. 93.3 21.5 24.1 17.8 11.2 18.8 13.0 31.1 Use Cooling Equipment............................... 91.4 21.0 23.5 17.4 11.0 18.6 12.6 30.3 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............. 1.9 0.5 0.6 0.4 Q Q 0.5 0.8 Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System............................................ 65.9 11.0 16.5 13.5 8.7 16.1 6.4 17.2 Without a Heat Pump.............................. 53.5 9.4 13.6 10.7 7.1 12.7 5.4 14.5 With a Heat Pump................................... 12.3 1.7 2.8 2.8 1.6 3.4 1.0 2.7 Window/Wall Units...................................... 28.9 10.5 8.1 4.5 2.7 3.1 6.7 14.1 1 Unit....................................................... 14.5 5.8 4.3 2.0 1.1 1.3 3.4 7.4 2 Units.....................................................

466

Total.............................................................................  

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

Cooking Appliances Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day......................................... 8.2 1.4 1.0 0.4 2 Times A Day...................................................... 24.6 5.8 3.5 2.3 Once a Day........................................................... 42.3 10.7 7.8 2.9 A Few Times Each Week...................................... 27.2 5.6 4.0 1.6 About Once a Week.............................................. 3.9 0.9 0.6 0.3 Less Than Once a Week....................................... 4.1 1.1 0.7 0.4 No Hot Meals Cooked........................................... 0.9 Q Q N Conventional Oven Use an Oven......................................................... 109.6 25.3 17.6 7.7 More Than Once a Day..................................... 8.9 1.3 0.8 0.5 Once a Day.......................................................

467

Total...............................................................  

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

26.7 26.7 28.8 20.6 13.1 22.0 16.6 38.6 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ........... 35.5 17.1 10.8 4.2 1.8 1.6 10.3 20.6 Use a Personal Computer......................... 75.6 9.6 18.0 16.4 11.3 20.3 6.4 17.9 Number of Desktop PCs 1.......................................................... 50.3 8.3 14.2 11.4 7.2 9.2 5.3 14.2 2.......................................................... 16.2 0.9 2.6 3.7 2.9 6.2 0.8 2.6 3 or More............................................. 9.0 0.4 1.2 1.3 1.2 5.0 0.3 1.1 Number of Laptop PCs 1.......................................................... 22.5 2.2 4.6 4.5 2.9 8.3 1.4 4.0 2.......................................................... 4.0 Q 0.4 0.6 0.4 2.4 Q 0.5 3 or More............................................. 0.7 Q Q Q Q 0.4 Q Q Type of Monitor Used on Most-Used PC Desk-top

468

Total...............................................................  

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

20.6 20.6 25.6 40.7 24.2 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ........... 35.5 6.9 8.1 14.2 6.4 Use a Personal Computer......................... 75.6 13.7 17.5 26.6 17.8 Number of Desktop PCs 1.......................................................... 50.3 9.3 11.9 18.2 11.0 2.......................................................... 16.2 2.9 3.5 5.5 4.4 3 or More............................................. 9.0 1.5 2.1 2.9 2.5 Number of Laptop PCs 1.......................................................... 22.5 4.7 4.6 7.7 5.4 2.......................................................... 4.0 0.6 0.9 1.5 1.1 3 or More............................................. 0.7 Q Q Q 0.3 Type of Monitor Used on Most-Used PC Desk-top CRT (Standard Monitor)................... 45.0 7.9 11.4 15.4 10.2 Flat-panel LCD.................................

469

Total................................................................  

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

111.1 26.7 28.8 20.6 13.1 22.0 16.6 38.6 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment....... 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 Q 0.2 0.3 0.6 Have Main Space Heating Equipment.......... 109.8 26.2 28.5 20.4 13.0 21.8 16.3 37.9 Use Main Space Heating Equipment............ 109.1 25.9 28.1 20.3 12.9 21.8 16.0 37.3 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It.............. 0.8 0.3 0.3 Q Q N 0.4 0.6 Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.................................................. 58.2 12.2 14.4 11.3 7.1 13.2 7.6 18.3 Central Warm-Air Furnace........................ 44.7 7.5 10.8 9.3 5.6 11.4 4.6 12.0 For One Housing Unit........................... 42.9 6.9 10.3 9.1 5.4 11.3 4.1 11.0 For Two Housing Units......................... 1.8 0.6 0.6 Q Q Q 0.4 0.9 Steam or Hot Water System..................... 8.2 2.4 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.5 3.6 For One Housing Unit...........................

470

Total...........................................................  

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

Q Q Table HC3.2 Living Space Characteristics by Owner-Occupied Housing Units, 2005 2 to 4 Units 5 or More Units Mobile Homes Million U.S. Housing Units Owner- Occupied Housing Units (millions) Type of Owner-Occupied Housing Unit Housing Units (millions) Single-Family Units Apartments in Buildings With-- Living Space Characteristics Detached Attached Energy Information Administration 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Preliminary Housing Characteristics Tables Table HC3.2 Living Space Characteristics by Owner-Occupied Housing Units, 2005 2 to 4 Units 5 or More Units Mobile Homes Million U.S. Housing Units Owner- Occupied Housing Units (millions) Type of Owner-Occupied Housing Unit Housing Units (millions)

471

Total........................................................................  

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

25.6 25.6 40.7 24.2 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 Q Q Q 0.7 Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 20.5 25.6 40.3 23.4 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 20.5 25.6 40.1 22.9 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 N N Q 0.6 Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 11.4 18.4 13.6 14.7 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 6.1 16.2 11.0 11.4 For One Housing Unit................................... 42.9 5.6 15.5 10.7 11.1 For Two Housing Units................................. 1.8 0.5 0.7 Q 0.3 Steam or Hot Water System............................. 8.2 4.9 1.6 1.0 0.6 For One Housing Unit................................... 5.1 3.2 1.1 0.4

472

Total...........................................................................  

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

0.6 0.6 15.1 5.5 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................. 17.8 4.0 2.4 1.7 Have Cooling Equipment.......................................... 93.3 16.5 12.8 3.8 Use Cooling Equipment........................................... 91.4 16.3 12.6 3.7 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it.......................... 1.9 0.3 Q Q Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 6.0 5.2 0.8 Without a Heat Pump........................................... 53.5 5.5 4.8 0.7 With a Heat Pump............................................... 12.3 0.5 0.4 Q Window/Wall Units.................................................. 28.9 10.7 7.6 3.1 1 Unit................................................................... 14.5 4.3 2.9 1.4 2 Units.................................................................

473

Total.......................................................................  

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

4.2 4.2 7.6 16.6 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ................... 35.5 6.4 2.2 4.2 Use a Personal Computer................................ 75.6 17.8 5.3 12.5 Number of Desktop PCs 1.................................................................. 50.3 11.0 3.4 7.6 2.................................................................. 16.2 4.4 1.3 3.1 3 or More..................................................... 9.0 2.5 0.7 1.8 Number of Laptop PCs 1.................................................................. 22.5 5.4 1.5 3.9 2.................................................................. 4.0 1.1 0.3 0.8 3 or More..................................................... 0.7 0.3 Q Q Type of Monitor Used on Most-Used PC Desk-top CRT (Standard Monitor)...........................

474

Total....................................................................................  

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

111.1 47.1 19.0 22.7 22.3 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 16.9 6.5 4.6 7.6 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 30.3 12.5 18.1 14.7 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 22.9 9.8 14.1 11.9 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 7.4 2.7 4.0 2.9 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2 Hours..................................................... 13.6 5.7 1.8 2.9 3.2 2 to 15 Hours............................................................. 29.1 11.9 5.1 6.5 5.7 16 to 40 Hours........................................................... 13.5 5.5 2.5 3.3 2.2 41 to 167 Hours.........................................................

475

Total........................................................................  

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

7.1 7.1 19.0 22.7 22.3 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 0.7 Q 0.2 Q Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 46.3 18.9 22.5 22.1 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 45.6 18.8 22.5 22.1 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 0.7 Q N N Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 27.0 11.9 14.9 4.3 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 19.8 8.6 12.8 3.6 For One Housing Unit................................... 42.9 18.8 8.3 12.3 3.5 For Two Housing Units................................. 1.8 1.0 0.3 0.4 Q Steam or Hot Water System............................. 8.2 4.4 2.1 1.4 0.3 For One Housing Unit................................... 5.1 2.1 1.6 1.0

476

Total........................................................................  

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

15.1 15.1 5.5 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 Q Q Q Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 20.5 15.1 5.4 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 20.5 15.1 5.4 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 N N N Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 11.4 9.1 2.3 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 6.1 5.3 0.8 For One Housing Unit................................... 42.9 5.6 4.9 0.7 For Two Housing Units................................. 1.8 0.5 0.4 Q Steam or Hot Water System............................. 8.2 4.9 3.6 1.3 For One Housing Unit................................... 5.1 3.2 2.2 1.0 For Two Housing Units.................................

477

Total..........................................................  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

... 2.8 0.7 0.5 0.2 Million U.S. Housing Units Home Electronics Usage Indicators Table HC12.12 Home Electronics Usage Indicators by Midwest Census Region,...

478

Total..........................................................  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

... 13.2 1.8 1.2 0.5 Table HC11.10 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by Northeast Census Region, 2005 Million U.S. Housing Units Home Appliances...

479

Total..........................................................  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

... 2.8 1.1 0.7 Q 0.4 Million U.S. Housing Units Home Electronics Usage Indicators Table HC13.12 Home Electronics Usage Indicators by South Census Region,...

480

Total..........................................................  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

... 13.2 3.1 1.0 2.2 Table HC14.10 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by West Census Region, 2005 Million U.S. Housing Units Home Appliances...

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


481

Total..........................................................  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

States New York Florida Texas California Million U.S. Housing Units Home Electronics Usage Indicators Table HC15.12 Home Electronics Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated...

482

Total..........................................................  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

... 13.2 2.7 3.5 2.2 1.3 3.5 1.3 3.8 Table HC7.10 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by Household Income, 2005 Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal...

483

Total..........................................................  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

... 13.2 3.4 2.0 1.4 Table HC12.10 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by Midwest Census Region, 2005 Million U.S. Housing Units Home Appliances...

484

Total..........................................................  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

Census Region Northeast Midwest South West Million U.S. Housing Units Home Electronics Usage Indicators Table HC10.12 Home Electronics Usage Indicators by U.S. Census Region, 2005...

485

Total..........................................................  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

(as Self-Reported) City Town Suburbs Rural Million U.S. Housing Units Home Electronics Usage Indicators Table HC8.12 Home Electronics Usage Indicators by UrbanRural Location,...

486

Total..........................................................  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

... 13.2 4.4 2.5 3.0 3.4 Table HC8.10 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by UrbanRural Location, 2005 Million U.S. Housing Units UrbanRural...

487

Total..........................................................  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

... 2.8 0.6 Q 0.5 Million U.S. Housing Units Home Electronics Usage Indicators Table HC14.12 Home Electronics Usage Indicators by West Census Region, 2005...

488

Total..........................................................  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

... 13.2 4.9 2.3 1.1 1.5 Table HC13.10 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by South Census Region, 2005 Million U.S. Housing Units South Census Region...

489

Total..........................................................  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

... 51.9 7.0 4.8 2.2 Not Asked (Mobile Homes or Apartment in Buildings with 5 or More Units)... 23.7...

490

Total..........................................................  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Housing Units Living Space Characteristics Attached 2 to 4 Units 5 or More Units Mobile Homes Apartments in Buildings With-- Housing Units (millions) Single-Family Units Detached...

491

Total..........................................................  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0.7 21.7 6.9 12.1 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment... 1.2 Q Q N Q Have Main Space Heating Equipment... 109.8 40.3 21.4 6.9 12.0 Use Main Space Heating...

492

Total  

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

Normal ButaneButylene Other Liquids Oxygenates Fuel Ethanol MTBE Other Oxygenates Biomass-based Diesel Other Renewable Diesel Fuel Other Renewable Fuels Gasoline Blending...

493

Total  

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

Normal ButaneButylene Other Liquids Oxygenates Fuel Ethanol MTBE Other Oxygenates Biomass-based Diesel Fuel Other Renewable Diesel Fuel Other Renewable Fuels Gasoline Blending...

494

Total.............................................................................  

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

Cooking Appliances Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day......................................... 8.2 1.2 1.0 0.2 2 Times A Day...................................................... 24.6 4.0 2.7 1.2 Once a Day........................................................... 42.3 7.9 5.4 2.5 A Few Times Each Week...................................... 27.2 6.0 4.8 1.2 About Once a Week.............................................. 3.9 0.6 0.5 Q Less Than Once a Week....................................... 4.1 0.6 0.4 Q No Hot Meals Cooked........................................... 0.9 0.3 Q Q Conventional Oven Use an Oven......................................................... 109.6 20.3 14.9 5.4 More Than Once a Day..................................... 8.9 1.4 1.2 0.3 Once a Day.......................................................

495

Total...............................................................  

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

47.1 47.1 19.0 22.7 22.3 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ........... 35.5 16.9 6.5 4.6 7.6 Use a Personal Computer......................... 75.6 30.3 12.5 18.1 14.7 Number of Desktop PCs 1.......................................................... 50.3 21.1 8.3 10.7 10.1 2.......................................................... 16.2 6.2 2.8 4.1 3.0 3 or More............................................. 9.0 2.9 1.4 3.2 1.6 Number of Laptop PCs 1.......................................................... 22.5 9.1 3.6 6.0 3.8 2.......................................................... 4.0 1.5 0.6 1.3 0.7 3 or More............................................. 0.7 0.3 Q Q Q Type of Monitor Used on Most-Used PC Desk-top CRT (Standard Monitor)................... 45.0 17.7 7.5 10.2 9.6 Flat-panel LCD.................................

496

Total........................................................  

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

111.1 24.5 1,090 902 341 872 780 441 Census Region and Division Northeast............................................. 20.6 6.7 1,247 1,032 Q 811 788 147 New England.................................... 5.5 1.9 1,365 1,127 Q 814 748 107 Middle Atlantic.................................. 15.1 4.8 1,182 978 Q 810 800 159 Midwest................................................ 25.6 4.6 1,349 1,133 506 895 810 346 East North Central............................ 17.7 3.2 1,483 1,239 560 968 842 351 West North Central........................... 7.9 1.4 913 789 329 751 745 337 South................................................... 40.7 7.8 881 752 572 942 873 797 South Atlantic................................... 21.7 4.9 875 707 522 1,035 934 926 East South Central........................... 6.9 0.7 Q Q Q 852 826 432 West South Central..........................

497

Total...............................................................  

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

0.7 0.7 21.7 6.9 12.1 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ........... 35.5 14.2 7.2 2.8 4.2 Use a Personal Computer......................... 75.6 26.6 14.5 4.1 7.9 Number of Desktop PCs 1.......................................................... 50.3 18.2 10.0 2.9 5.3 2.......................................................... 16.2 5.5 3.0 0.7 1.8 3 or More............................................. 9.0 2.9 1.5 0.5 0.8 Number of Laptop PCs 1.......................................................... 22.5 7.7 4.3 1.1 2.4 2.......................................................... 4.0 1.5 0.9 Q 0.4 3 or More............................................. 0.7 Q Q Q Q Type of Monitor Used on Most-Used PC Desk-top CRT (Standard Monitor)................... 45.0 15.4 7.9 2.8 4.8 Flat-panel LCD.................................

498

Total.................................................................  

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

26.7 26.7 28.8 20.6 13.1 22.0 16.6 38.6 Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day.............................. 8.2 2.9 2.5 1.3 0.5 1.0 2.4 4.6 2 Times A Day........................................... 24.6 6.5 7.0 4.3 3.2 3.6 4.8 10.3 Once a Day................................................ 42.3 8.8 9.8 8.7 5.1 10.0 5.0 12.9 A Few Times Each Week........................... 27.2 5.6 7.2 4.7 3.3 6.3 3.2 7.5 About Once a Week................................... 3.9 1.1 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.4 1.4 Less Than Once a Week............................ 4.1 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.7 1.4 No Hot Meals Cooked................................ 0.9 0.5 Q Q Q Q 0.2 0.5 Conventional Oven Use an Oven.............................................. 109.6 26.1 28.5 20.2 12.9 21.8 16.3 37.8 More Than Once a Day..........................

499

Total..................................................................  

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

. . 111.1 14.7 7.4 12.5 12.5 18.9 18.6 17.3 9.2 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment..................... 17.8 3.9 1.8 2.2 2.1 3.1 2.6 1.7 0.4 Have Cooling Equipment................................. 93.3 10.8 5.6 10.3 10.4 15.8 16.0 15.6 8.8 Use Cooling Equipment.................................. 91.4 10.6 5.5 10.3 10.3 15.3 15.7 15.3 8.6 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it................. 1.9 Q Q Q Q 0.6 0.4 0.3 Q Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System.............................................. 65.9 3.7 2.6 6.1 6.8 11.2 13.2 13.9 8.2 Without a Heat Pump.................................. 53.5 3.6 2.3 5.5 5.8 9.5 10.1 10.3 6.4 With a Heat Pump....................................... 12.3 Q 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.7 3.1 3.6 1.7 Window/Wall Units....................................... 28.9 7.3 3.2 4.5 3.7 4.8 3.0 1.9 0.7 1 Unit..........................................................

500

Total..............................................  

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

111.1 86.6 2,720 1,970 1,310 1,941 1,475 821 1,059 944 554 Census Region and Division Northeast.................................... 20.6 13.9 3,224 2,173 836 2,219 1,619 583 903 830 Q New England.......................... 5.5 3.6 3,365 2,154 313 2,634 1,826 Q 951 940 Q Middle Atlantic........................ 15.1 10.3 3,167 2,181 1,049 2,188 1,603 582 Q Q Q Midwest...................................... 25.6 21.0 2,823 2,239 1,624 2,356 1,669 1,336 1,081 961 778 East North Central.................. 17.7 14.5 2,864 2,217 1,490 2,514 1,715 1,408 907 839 553 West North Central................. 7.9 6.4 2,729 2,289 1,924 1,806 1,510 1,085 1,299 1,113 1,059 South.......................................... 40.7 33.0 2,707 1,849 1,563 1,605 1,350 954 1,064 970 685 South Atlantic......................... 21.7 16.8 2,945 1,996 1,695 1,573 1,359 909 1,044 955