Powered by Deep Web Technologies
Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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

Underground Storage Tank Regulations  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

The Underground Storage Tank Regulations is relevant to all energy projects that will require the use and building of pipelines, underground storage of any sorts, and/or electrical equipment. The...

2

Underground Storage Tanks (West Virginia)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

This rule governs the construction, installation, upgrading, use, maintenance, testing, and closure of underground storage tanks, including certification requirements for individuals who install,...

3

Underground Storage Tank Program (Vermont)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [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...

4

Underground Storage Tanks (New Jersey)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

This chapter constitutes rules for all underground storage tank facilities- including registration, reporting, permitting, certification, financial responsibility and to protect human health and...

5

Underground pumped hydroelectric storage  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

6

Underground Storage Tank Act (West Virginia)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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...

7

Georgia Underground Storage Tank Act (Georgia)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

The Georgia Underground Storage Act (GUST) provides a comprehensive program to prevent, detect, and correct releases from underground storage tanks (“USTs”) of “regulated substances” other than...

8

Underground caverns for hydrocarbon storage  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Large, international gas processing projects and growing LPG imports in developing countries are driving the need to store large quantities of hydrocarbon liquids. Even though underground storage is common in the US, many people outside the domestic industry are not familiar with the technology and the benefits underground storage can offer. The latter include lower construction and operating costs than surface storage, added safety, security and greater environmental acceptance.

Barron, T.F. [Exeter Energy Services, Houston, TX (United States)

1998-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

9

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

10

Corrective Action Investigation Plan for Corrective Action Unit 135: Area 25 Underground Storage Tanks Nevada Test Site, Nevada  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This Corrective Action Investigation Plan (CAIP) has been developed in accordance with the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) that was agreed to by the US Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV); the State of Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP); and the US Department of Defense (FFACO, 1996). The CAIP is a document that provides or references all of the specific information for investigation activities associated with Corrective Action Units (CAUs) or Corrective Action Sites (CASs). According to the FFACO, CASs are sites potentially requiring corrective action(s) and may include solid waste management units or individual disposal or release sites (FFACO, 1996). Corrective Action Units consist of one or more CASs grouped together based on geography, technical similarity, or agency responsibility for the purpose of determining corrective actions. This CAIP contains the environmental sample collection objectives and the criteria for conducting site investigation activities at CAU 135, Area 25 Underground Storage Tanks (USTs), which is located on the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The NTS is approximately 105 kilometers (km) (65 miles [mi]) northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada.

U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office

1999-05-05T23:59:59.000Z

11

Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility  

Broader source: Energy.gov [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

12

Report on technical feasibility of underground pumped hydroelectric storage in a marble quarry site in the Northeast United States  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The technical and economic aspects of constructing a very high head underground hydroelectric pumped storage were examined at a prefeasibility level. Excavation of existing caverns in the West Rutland Vermont marble quarry would be used to construct the underground space. A plant capacity of 1200 MW and 12 h of continuous capacity were chosen as plant operating conditions. The site geology, plant design, and electrical and mechanical equipment required were considered. The study concluded that the cost of the 1200 MW underground pumped storage hydro electric project at this site even with the proposed savings from marketable material amounts to between $581 and $595 per kilowatt of installed capacity on a January 1982 pricing level. System studies performed by the planning group of the New England Power System indicate that the system could economically justify up to about $442 per kilowatt on an energy basis with no credit for capacity. To accommodate the plant with the least expensive pumping energy, a coal and nuclear generation mix of approximately 65% would have to be available before the project becomes feasible. It is not expected that this condition can be met before the year 2000 or beyond. It is therefore concluded that the West Rutland underground pumped storage facility is uneconomic at this time. Several variables however could have marked influence on future planning and should be examined on periodic basis.

Chas. T. Main, Inc.

1982-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

13

Underground storage of oil and gas  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The environmental and security advantages of underground storage of oil and gas are well documented. In many cases, underground storage methods such as storage in salt domes, abandoned mines, and mined rock caverns have proven to be cost effective when compared to storage in steel tanks constructed for that purpose on the surface. In good rock conditions, underground storage of large quantities of hydrocarbon products is normally less costly--up to 50-70% of the surface alternative. Under fair or weak rock conditions, economic comparisons between surface tanks and underground caverns must be evaluated on a case to case basis. The key to successful underground storage is enactment of a realistic geotechnical approach. In addition to construction cost, storage of petroleum products underground has operational advantages over similar storage above ground. These advantages include lower maintenance costs, less fire hazards, less land requirements, and a more even storage temperature.

Bergman, S.M.

1984-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

14

Underground storage of hydrocarbons in Ontario  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The underground storage of natural gas and liquified petroleum products in geological formations is a provincially significant industry in Ontario with economic, environmental, and safety benefits for the companies and residents of Ontario. There are 21 active natural gas storage pools in Ontario, with a total working storage capacity of approximately 203 bcf (5.76 billion cubic metres). Most of these pools utilize former natural gas-producing Guelph Formation pinnacle reefs. In addition there are seventy-one solution-mined salt caverns utilized for storage capacity of 24 million barrels (3.9 million cubic metres). These caverns are constructed within salt strata of the Salina A-2 Unit and the B Unit. The steadily increasing demand for natural gas in Ontario creates a continuing need for additional storage capacity. Most of the known gas-producing pinnacle reefs in Ontario have already been converted to storage. The potential value of storage rights is a major incentive for continued exploration for undiscovered reefs in this mature play. There are numerous depleted or nearly depleted natural gas reservoirs of other types with potential for use as storage pools. There is also potential for use of solution-mined caverns for natural gas storage in Ontario.

Carter, T.R.; Manocha, J. [Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario (Canada)

1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

15

Pipelines and Underground Gas Storage (Iowa)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [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...

16

Prince George's County Underground Storage Act (Maryland)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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...

17

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

18

Underground storage tank management plan  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

NONE

1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

19

Underground Storage Tank Regulations for the Certification of Persons Who Install, Alter, and Remove Underground Storage Tanks (Mississippi)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

The Underground Storage Tank Regulations for the Certification of Persons who Install, Alter, and Remove Underground Storage Tanks applies to any project that will install, alter or remove...

20

Relevance of underground natural gas storage to geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Underground Storage of Natural Gas in the United States andEnergy Information Agency (2002). U.S. Natural Gas Storage.www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/info_glance/storage.html

Lippmann, Marcelo J.; Benson, Sally M.

2002-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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 Energy Storage Program. 1983 annual summary  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Underground Energy Storage Program approach, structure, history, and milestones are described. Technical activities and progress in the Seasonal Thermal Energy Storage and Compressed Air Energy Storage components of the program are then summarized, documenting the work performed and progress made toward resolving and eliminating technical and economic barriers associated with those technologies. (LEW)

Kannberg, L.D.

1984-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

22

,"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...

23

Underground Storage of Natural Gas (Kansas)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [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...

24

Underground gas storage in New York State: A historical perspective  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

New York State has a long history of underground gas storage activity that began with conversion of the Zoar gas field into a storage reservoir in 1916, the first in the United States. By 1961 another fourteen storage fields were developed and seven more were added between 1970 and 1991. All twenty-two operating storage reservoirs of New York were converted from depleted gas fields and are of low-deliverability, base-load type. Nineteen of these are in sandstone reservoirs of the Lower Silurian Medina Group and the Lower Devonian Oriskany Formation and three in limestone reservoirs are located in the gas producing areas of southwestern New York and are linked to the major interstate transmission lines. Recent developments in underground gas storage in New York involve mainly carbonate-reef and bedded salt-cavern storage facilities, one in Stuben County and the other in Cayuga County, are expected to begin operation by the 1996-1997 heating season.

Friedman, G.M.; Sarwar, G.; Bass, J.P. [Brooklyn College of the City Univ., Troy, NY (United States)] [and others

1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

25

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

26

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

27

Underground Natural Gas Storage Wells in Bedded Salt (Kansas)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

These regulations apply to natural gas underground storage and associated brine ponds, and includes the permit application for each new underground storage tank near surface water bodies and springs.

28

Viewing Systems for Large Underground Storage Tanks.  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Specialized remote video systems have been successfully developed and deployed in a number of large radiological Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)that tolerate the hostile tank interior, while providing high resolution video to a remotely located operator. The deployment is through 100 mm (4 in) tank openings, while incorporating full video functions of the camera, lights, and zoom lens. The usage of remote video minimizes the potential for personnel exposure to radiological and hazardous conditions, and maximizes the quality of the visual data used to assess the interior conditions of both tank and contents. The robustness of this type of remote system has a direct effect on the potential for radiological exposure that personnel may encounter. The USTs typical of the Savannah River and Hanford Department Of Energy - (DOE) sites are typically 4.5 million liter (1.2 million gal) units under earth. or concrete overburden with limited openings to the surface. The interior is both highly contaminated and radioactive with a wide variety of nuclear processing waste material. Some of the tanks are -flammable rated -to Class 1, Division 1,and personnel presence at or near the openings should be minimized. The interior of these USTs must be assessed periodically as part of the ongoing management of the tanks and as a step towards tank remediation. The systems are unique in their deployment technology, which virtually eliminates the potential for entrapment in a tank, and their ability to withstand flammable environments. A multiplicity of components used within a common packaging allow for cost effective and appropriate levels of technology, with radiation hardened components on some units and lesser requirements on other units. All units are completely self contained for video, zoom lens, lighting, deployment,as well as being self purging, and modular in construction.

Heckendorn, F.M., Robinson, C.W., Anderson, E.K. [Westinghouse Savannah River Co., Aiken, SC (United States)], Pardini, A.F. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States)

1996-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

29

100-N Area underground storage tank closures  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This report describes the removal/characterization actions concerning underground storage tanks (UST) at the 100-N Area. Included are 105-N-LFT, 182-N-1-DT, 182-N-2-DT, 182-N-3-DT, 100-N-SS-27, and 100-N-SS-28. The text of this report gives a summary of remedial activities. In addition, correspondence relating to UST closures can be found in Appendix B. Appendix C contains copies of Unusual Occurrence Reports, and validated sampling data results comprise Appendix D.

Rowley, C.A.

1993-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

30

Underground-Energy-Storage Program, 1982 annual report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Two principal underground energy storage technologies are discussed--Seasonal Thermal Energy Storage (STES) and Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES). The Underground Energy Storage Program objectives, approach, structure, and milestones are described, and technical activities and progress in the STES and CAES areas are summarized. STES activities include aquifer thermal energy storage technology studies and STES technology assessment and development. CAES activities include reservoir stability studies and second-generation concepts studies. (LEW)

Kannberg, L.D.

1983-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

31

Permanent Closure of the TAN-664 Underground Storage Tank  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

32

Addendum to the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 452: Historical Underground Storage Tank Release Sites, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Revision 0  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This document constitutes an addendum to the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 452: Historical Underground Storage Tank Release Sites, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, April 1998 as described in the document Supplemental Investigation Report for FFACO Use Restrictions, Nevada Test Site, Nevada (SIR) dated November 2008. The SIR document was approved by NDEP on December 5, 2008. The approval of the SIR document constituted approval of each of the recommended UR removals. In conformance with the SIR document, this addendum consists of: • This page that refers the reader to the SIR document for additional information • The cover, title, and signature pages of the SIR document • The NDEP approval letter • The corresponding section of the SIR document This addendum provides the documentation justifying the cancellation of the URs for CASs: • 25-25-09, Spill H940825C (from UST 25-3101-1) • 25-25-14, Spill H940314E (from UST 25-3102-3) • 25-25-15, Spill H941020E (from UST 25-3152-1) These URs were established as part of Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) corrective actions and were based on the presence of contaminants at concentrations greater than the action levels established at the time of the initial investigation (FFACO, 1996). Since these URs were established, practices and procedures relating to the implementation of risk-based corrective actions (RBCA) have changed. Therefore, these URs were re-evaluated against the current RBCA criteria as defined in the Industrial Sites Project Establishment of Final Action Levels (NNSA/NSO, 2006). This re-evaluation consisted of comparing the original data (used to define the need for the URs) to risk-based final action levels (FALs) developed using the current Industrial Sites RBCA process. The re-evaluation resulted in a recommendation to remove these URs because contamination is not present at these sites above the risk-based FALs. Requirements for inspecting and maintaining these URs will be canceled, and the postings and signage at each site will be removed. Fencing and posting may be present at these sites that are unrelated to the FFACO URs such as for radiological control purposes as required by the NV/YMP Radiological Control Manual (NNSA/NSO, 2004). This modification will not affect or modify any non-FFACO requirements for fencing, posting, or monitoring at these sites.

Grant Evenson

2009-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

33

Addendum 2 to the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 454: Historical Underground Storage Tank Release Sites, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Revision 0  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This document constitutes an addendum to the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 454: Historical Underground Storage Tank Release Sites, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, April 1998 as described in the document Supplemental Investigation Report for FFACO Use Restrictions, Nevada Test Site, Nevada (SIR) dated November 2008. The SIR document was approved by NDEP on December 5, 2008. The approval of the SIR document constituted approval of each of the recommended UR removals. In conformance with the SIR document, this addendum consists of: • This page that refers the reader to the SIR document for additional information • The cover, title, and signature pages of the SIR document • The NDEP approval letter • The corresponding section of the SIR document This addendum provides the documentation justifying the cancellation of the URs for CASs: • 12-25-08, Spill H950524F (from UST 12-B-1) • 12-25-10, Spill H950919A (from UST 12-COMM-1) These URs were established as part of Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) corrective actions and were based on the presence of contaminants at concentrations greater than the action levels established at the time of the initial investigation (FFACO, 1996). Since these URs were established, practices and procedures relating to the implementation of risk-based corrective actions (RBCA) have changed. Therefore, these URs were re-evaluated against the current RBCA criteria as defined in the Industrial Sites Project Establishment of Final Action Levels (NNSA/NSO, 2006). This re-evaluation consisted of comparing the original data (used to define the need for the URs) to risk-based final action levels (FALs) developed using the current Industrial Sites RBCA process. The re-evaluation resulted in a recommendation to remove these URs because contamination is not present at these sites above the risk-based FALs. Requirements for inspecting and maintaining these URs will be canceled, and the postings and signage at each site will be removed. Fencing and posting may be present at these sites that are unrelated to the FFACO URs such as for radiological control purposes as required by the NV/YMP Radiological Control Manual (NNSA/NSO, 2004). This modification will not affect or modify any non-FFACO requirements for fencing, posting, or monitoring at these sites.

Grant Evenson

2009-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

34

ADVANCED UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE CONCEPTS REFRIGERATED-MINED CAVERN STORAGE  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Limited demand and high cost has prevented the construction of hard rock caverns in this country for a number of years. The storage of natural gas in mined caverns may prove technically feasible if the geology of the targeted market area is suitable; and economically feasible if the cost and convenience of service is competitive with alternative available storage methods for peak supply requirements. It is believed that mined cavern storage can provide the advantages of high delivery rates and multiple fill-withdrawal cycles in areas where salt cavern storage is not possible. In this research project, PB-KBB merged advanced mining technologies and gas refrigeration techniques to develop conceptual designs and cost estimates to demonstrate the commercialization potential of the storage of refrigerated natural gas in hard rock caverns. Five regions of the U.S.A. were studied for underground storage development and PB-KBB reviewed the literature to determine if the geology of these regions was suitable for siting hard rock storage caverns. Area gas market conditions in these regions were also studied to determine the need for such storage. Based on an analysis of many factors, a possible site was determined to be in Howard and Montgomery Counties, Maryland. The area has compatible geology and a gas industry infrastructure for the nearby market populous of Baltimore and Washington D.C.. As Gas temperature is lowered, the compressibility of the gas reaches an optimum value. The compressibility of the gas, and the resultant gas density, is a function of temperature and pressure. This relationship can be used to commercial advantage by reducing the size of a storage cavern for a given working volume of natural gas. This study looks at this relationship and and the potential for commercialization of the process in a storage application. A conceptual process design, and cavern design were developed for various operating conditions. Potential site locations were considered and a typical plant layout was developed. In addition a geomechanical review of the proposed cavern design was performed, evaluating the stability of the mine rooms and shafts, and the effects of the refrigerated gas temperatures on the stability of the cavern. Capital and operating cost estimates were also developed for the various temperature cases considered. The cost estimates developed were used to perform a comparative market analysis of this type of gas storage system to other systems that are commercially used in the region of the study.

NONE

1998-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

35

,"New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...  

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

,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"3292015 10:08:54 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5070NM2"...

36

,"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"...

37

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

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

This statute declares underground storage of natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas to be in the public interest if it promotes the conservation of natural gas and permits the accumulation of...

38

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

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

,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"2262015 9:17:17 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290NY2"...

39

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

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

,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"2262015 9:16:28 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5060NY2"...

40

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

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

,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"2262015 9:16:27 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5060NY2"...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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

Georgia Underground Gas Storage Act of 1972 (Georgia)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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...

42

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

43

Underground Gas Storage Reservoirs (West Virginia)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

Lays out guidelines for the conditions under which coal mining operations must notify state authorities of intentions to mine where underground gas is stored as well as map and data requirements,...

44

,"New Mexico Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators...  

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

"Sourcekey","N5030NM2","N5010NM2","N5020NM2","N5070NM2","N5050NM2","N5060NM2" "Date","New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)","New Mexico Natural Gas in...

45

,"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...

46

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

47

Underground storage tank 511-D1U1 closure plan  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

48

Numerical Simulations of Leakage from Underground LPG Storage Caverns  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

49

Closure report for underground storage tank 161-R1U1 and its associated underground piping  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Underground storage tank (UST) 161-31 R at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) was registered with the State Water Resources Control Board on June 27, 1984. UST 161-31R was subsequently renamed UST 161-R1U1 (Fig. A-1, Appendix A). UST 161-R1U1 was installed in 1976, and had a capacity of 383 gallons. This tank system consisted of a fiberglass reinforced plastic tank, approximately 320 feet of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) underground piping from Building 161, and approximately 40 feet of PVC underground piping from Building 160. The underground piping connected laboratory drains and sinks inside Buildings 160 and 161 to UST 161-R1U1. The wastewater collected in UST 161-R1U1, contained organic solvents, metals, inorganic acids, and radionuclides, most of which was produced within Building 161. On June 28, 1989, the UST 161-R1U1 piping system.around the perimeter of Building 161 failed a precision test performed by Gary Peters Enterprises (Appendix B). The 161-R1U1 tank system was removed from service after the precision test. In July 1989, additional hydrostatic tests and helium leak detection tests were performed (Appendix B) to determine the locations of the piping failures in the Building 161 piping system. The locations of the piping system failures are shown in Figure A-2 (Appendix A). On July 11, 1989, LLNL submitted an Unauthorized Release Report to Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH), Appendix C.

Mallon, B.J.; Blake, R.G.

1994-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

50

Underground storage of natural gas, liquid hydrocarbons, and carbon dioxide (Louisiana)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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...

51

Characterizing excavation damaged zone and stability of pressurized lined rock caverns for underground compressed air energy storage  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

for Underground Compressed Air Energy Storage Hyung-Mok Kimperformance of compressed air energy storage (CAES) in linedcavern (LRC); Compressed air energy storage (CAES); TOUGH-

Kim, H.M.

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

52

Advanced Underground Gas Storage Concepts: Refrigerated-Mined Cavern Storage, Final Report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Over the past 40 years, cavern storage of LPG's, petrochemicals, such as ethylene and propylene, and other petroleum products has increased dramatically. In 1991, the Gas Processors Association (GPA) lists the total U.S. underground storage capacity for LPG's and related products of approximately 519 million barrels (82.5 million cubic meters) in 1,122 separate caverns. Of this total, 70 are hard rock caverns and the remaining 1,052 are caverns in salt deposits. However, along the eastern seaboard of the U.S. and the Pacific northwest, salt deposits are not available and therefore, storage in hard rocks is required. Limited demand and high cost has prevented the construction of hard rock caverns in this country for a number of years. The storage of natural gas in mined caverns may prove technically feasible if the geology of the targeted market area is suitable; and economically feasible if the cost and convenience of service is competitive with alternative available storage methods for peak supply requirements. Competing methods include LNG facilities and remote underground storage combined with pipeline transportation to the area. It is believed that mined cavern storage can provide the advantages of high delivery rates and multiple fill withdrawal cycles in areas where salt cavern storage is not possible. In this research project, PB-KBB merged advanced mining technologies and gas refrigeration techniques to develop conceptual designs and cost estimates to demonstrate the commercialization potential of the storage of refrigerated natural gas in hard rock caverns. DOE has identified five regions, that have not had favorable geological conditions for underground storage development: New England, Mid-Atlantic (NY/NJ), South Atlantic (DL/MD/VA), South Atlantic (NC/SC/GA), and the Pacific Northwest (WA/OR). PB-KBB reviewed published literature and in-house databases of the geology of these regions to determine suitability of hard rock formations for siting storage caverns, and gas market area storage needs of these regions.

none

1998-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

53

Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecemberSteam Coal Import CostsLiquidsYear JanYearVentedYearUnderground Storage

54

Rules and Regulations for Underground Storage Facilities Used for Petroleum Products and Hazardous Materials (Rhode Island)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

These regulations apply to underground storage facilities for petroleum and hazardous waste, and seek to protect water resources from contamination. The regulations establish procedures for the...

55

Closure report for underground storage tank 141-R3U1 and its associated underground piping  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Underground storage tank UST 141-R3U1 at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), was registered with the State Water Resources Control Board on June 27, 1984. This tank system consisted of a concrete tank, lined with polyvinyl chloride, and approximately 100 feet of PVC underground piping. UST 141-R3U1 had a capacity of 450 gallons. The underground piping connected three floor drains and one sink inside Building 141 to UST 141-R3U1. The wastewater collected in UST 141-R3U1 contained organic solvents, metals, and inorganic acids. On November 30, 1987, the 141-R3U1 tank system failed a precision tank test. The 141-R3U1 tank system was subsequently emptied and removed from service pending further precision tests to determine the location of the leak within the tank system. A precision tank test on February 5, 1988, was performed to confirm the November 30, 1987 test. Four additional precision tests were performed on this tank system between February 25, 1988, and March 6, 1988. The leak was located where the inlet piping from Building 141 penetrates the concrete side of UST 141-R3U1. The volume of wastewater that entered the backfill and soil around and/or beneath UST 141-R3U1 is unknown. On December 13, 1989, the LLNL Environmental Restoration Division submitted a plan to close UST 141-R3U1 and its associated piping to the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health. UST 141-R3U1 was closed as an UST, and shall be used instead as additional secondary containment for two aboveground storage tanks.

Mallon, B.J.; Blake, R.G.

1994-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

56

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

57

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

E-Print Network [OSTI]

construction procedures was presented. A sitewpecific cost- benefit analysis is recommended as the determinant for usage of underground storage structures. Collection of cost and construction information for existing underground projects into a consolidated...A STUDY OF THE FEASIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTION OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE STRUCTURES IN SOFT SOIL A Thesis by STEPHEN ANTHONY ROSNER Submitted to the Graduate College of Texas AdcM University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree...

Rosner, Stephen Anthony

2012-06-07T23:59:59.000Z

58

Permanent Closure of MFC Biodiesel Underground Storage Tank 99ANL00013  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

59

Regulation for Underground Storage of CO2 Passed by U.S. States  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

generation. Its use, therefore, is necessary in order to achieve the CO2 emission reduction targetRegulation for Underground Storage of CO2 Passed by U.S. States Holly Javedan Massachusetts................................................................................................... 8 2.4 CO2 Ownership

60

Estimating Residual Solids Volume In Underground Storage Tanks  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Savannah River Site liquid waste system consists of multiple facilities to safely receive and store legacy radioactive waste, treat, and permanently dispose waste. The large underground storage tanks and associated equipment, known as the 'tank farms', include a complex interconnected transfer system which includes underground transfer pipelines and ancillary equipment to direct the flow of waste. The waste in the tanks is present in three forms: supernatant, sludge, and salt. The supernatant is a multi-component aqueous mixture, while sludge is a gel-like substance which consists of insoluble solids and entrapped supernatant. The waste from these tanks is retrieved and treated as sludge or salt. The high level (radioactive) fraction of the waste is vitrified into a glass waste form, while the low-level waste is immobilized in a cementitious grout waste form called saltstone. Once the waste is retrieved and processed, the tanks are closed via removing the bulk of the waste, chemical cleaning, heel removal, stabilizing remaining residuals with tailored grout formulations and severing/sealing external penetrations. The comprehensive liquid waste disposition system, currently managed by Savannah River Remediation, consists of 1) safe storage and retrieval of the waste as it is prepared for permanent disposition; (2) definition of the waste processing techniques utilized to separate the high-level waste fraction/low-level waste fraction; (3) disposition of LLW in saltstone; (4) disposition of the HLW in glass; and (5) closure state of the facilities, including tanks. This paper focuses on determining the effectiveness of waste removal campaigns through monitoring the volume of residual solids in the waste tanks. Volume estimates of the residual solids are performed by creating a map of the residual solids on the waste tank bottom using video and still digital images. The map is then used to calculate the volume of solids remaining in the waste tank. The ability to accurately determine a volume is a function of the quantity and quality of the waste tank images. Currently, mapping is performed remotely with closed circuit video cameras and still photograph cameras due to the hazardous environment. There are two methods that can be used to create a solids volume map. These methods are: liquid transfer mapping / post transfer mapping and final residual solids mapping. The task is performed during a transfer because the liquid level (which is a known value determined by a level measurement device) is used as a landmark to indicate solids accumulation heights. The post transfer method is primarily utilized after the majority of waste has been removed. This method relies on video and still digital images of the waste tank after the liquid transfer is complete to obtain the relative height of solids across a waste tank in relation to known and usable landmarks within the waste tank (cooling coils, column base plates, etc.). In order to accurately monitor solids over time across various cleaning campaigns, and provide a technical basis to support final waste tank closure, a consistent methodology for volume determination has been developed and implemented at SRS.

Clark, Jason L.; Worthy, S. Jason; Martin, Bruce A.; Tihey, John R.

2014-01-08T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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

Structural analysis of underground gunite storage tanks. Environmental Restoration Program  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This report documents the structural analysis of the 50-ft diameter underground gunite storage tanks constructed in 1943 and located in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) South Tank Farm, known as Facility 3507 in the 3500-3999 area. The six gunite tanks (W-5 through W-10) are spaced in a 2 {times} 3 matrix at 60 ft on centers with 6 ft of soil cover. Each tank (Figures 1, 2, and 3) has an inside diameter of 50 ft, a 12-ft vertical sidewall having a thickness of 6 in. (there is an additional 1.5-in. inner liner for much of the height), and a spherical domed roof (nominal thickness is 10 in.) rising another 6 ft, 3 in. at the center of the tank. The thickness of both the sidewall and the domed roof increases to 30 in. near their juncture. The tank floor is nominally 3-in. thick, except at the juncture with the wall where the thickness increases to 9 in. The tanks are constructed of gunite (a mixture of Portland cement, sand, and water in the form of a mortar) sprayed from the nozzle of a cement gun against a form or a solid surface. The floor and the dome are reinforced with one layer of welded wire mesh and reinforcing rods placed in the radial direction. The sidewall is reinforced with three layers of welded wire mesh, vertical {1/2}-in. rods, and 21 horizontal rebar hoops (attached to the vertical rods) post-tensioned to 35,000 psi stress. The haunch at the sidewall/roof junction is reinforced with 17 horizontal rebar hoops post-tensioned with 35,000 to 40,000 psi stress. The yield strength of the post-tensioning steel rods is specified to be 60,000 psi, and all other steel is 40,000 psi steel. The specified 28-day design strength of the gunite is 5,000 psi.

NONE

1995-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

62

Process for safe underground storage of materials and apparatus for storage of such materials  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

A method is disclosed for the formation of a safe storage area to hold materials, where the storage area is in the form of an underground storage cavern in a preferably rock formation maintained at a different temperature from the natural temperature of the environs surrounding the walls, floor, and the ceiling of said storage cavern. The inside of the storage cavern is with or without insulation and an inner first circulation system surrounds the cavern. The circulation system has a plurality of channels regularly distributed around the cavern and near its surface parallel to the axis of the storage space. The system of tunnels formed of the channels together encloses and surrounds the cavern. Further away from the cavern and on the outside of and in working relation to the first inner circulation system is a second outer circulation system, consisting of a plurality of regularly distributed channels formed either from the said inner tunnel system or between a second outer system of surrounding tunnels parallel to the axis of the storage space and together with said last mentioned channels enclosing the cavern and the inner circulation system. A circulating drying heat exchange medium for exchanging heat between the circulating medium and the surroundings around the first inner circulation system is introduced into the first inner circulation system and a circulating heat exchange drying medium for exchanging heat between the circulating medium and the surroundings around the second outer circulation system is also employed by maintaining heat exchange with the surroundings of first inner circulation system keeping its walls, floor, and ceiling of the cavern at a predetermined temperature above a temperature of the stored materials when storing hot materials below the temperature of the hot materials to form a temperature barrier envelope about said cavern.

Grennard, A.H.

1980-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

63

Numerical Simulations of Leakage from Underground LPG Storage Caverns  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

model contains three propane storage caverns, 10 m wide and3.2.9. The loss of propane from storage is not significant,liquefied propane) was placed in the storage caverns, and

Yamamoto, Hajime; Pruess, Karsten

2004-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

64

ERS 14.3 Underground and Above Ground Diesel Fuel Storage Tanks FPS 12.1, 1/9/01  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

The objective of this surveillance is to verify underground and above ground diesel storage tanks are maintained, monitored, configured and marked as required.  These surveillance activities...

65

ERS 14.3 Underground and Above Ground Diesel Fuel Storage Tanks FPS 12.1, 1/9/01  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

 The objective of this surveillance is to verify underground and above ground diesel storage tanks are maintained, monitored, configured and marked as required.  These surveillance activities...

66

Underground pumped storage scheme in the Bukit Timah granite of Singapore  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Pumped storage is an energy storage method that involves the pumping of water from a lower reservoir to an upper reservoir during off-peak period using low cost power and releasing of the water from the upper reservoir to produce electricity during peak load period. Because of the very small and relatively flat land area of Singapore, a conventional surface pumped storage plant is not feasible. A pumped storage plant can be constructed here by siting the upper reservoir in one of the many abandoned granite quarries and by placing the lower reservoir and the powerhouse underground in the Bukit Timah granite, which is sound, massive and impervious. The capital costs for a pumped storage plant could be the same as those of an oil-fired plant of a comparable size. When the very high cost of land in Singapore is taken into account, an underground pumped storage scheme for peaking purposes becomes attractive. 7 refs., 4 figs., 3 tabs.

Wong, I.H. [Nanyang Technological Univ. (Singapore)] [Nanyang Technological Univ. (Singapore)

1996-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

67

Underground Energy Storage Program: 1981 annual report. Volume I. Progress summary  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This is the 1981 annual report for the Underground Energy Storage Program administered by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the US Department of Energy. The two-volume document describes all of the major research funded under this program during the period March 1981 to March 1982. Volume I summarizes the activities and notable progress toward program objectives in both Seasonal Thermal Energy Storage (STES) and Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES). Major changes in program emphasis and structure are also documented.

Kannberg, L.D.

1982-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

68

Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data CenterFranconia,(Million Barrels) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs Year in Review WYear JanFeet) YearUnderground

69

Implementation plan for Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 280 and 281; Final rules for underground storage tanks  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This report presents the schedules and methods required to comply with the newly promulgated Underground Storage Tank (UST) Regulations Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 280 and 281. These rules were promulgated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on September 23, 1988, and became effective December 22, 1988. These regulations are required by Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. Their purpose is to protect the groundwater supplies of the United States in the following ways: Closing old tanks; detecting and remediating tank leaks and spills; establishing stringent standards for new tanks; and upgrade of existing tanks to new-tank standards. 3 refs., 5 tabs.

Stupka, R.C.

1989-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

70

Borehole Miner - Extendible Nozzle Development for Radioactive Waste Dislodging and Retrieval from Underground Storage Tanks  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This report summarizes development of borehole-miner extendible-nozzle water-jetting technology for dislodging and retrieving salt cake, sludge} and supernate to remediate underground storage tanks full of radioactive waste. The extendible-nozzle development was based on commercial borehole-miner technology.

CW Enderlin; DG Alberts; JA Bamberger; M White

1998-09-25T23:59:59.000Z

71

Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecemberSteamYearTexas--StateWinterYearFeet) Year Jan Feb% ofYear3.99Underground

72

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

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecemberSteamYearTexas--StateWinterYearFeet)per Thousand CubicUnderground

73

Utah Underground Storage Tank Installation Permit | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data CenterFranconia, Virginia:FAQ < RAPID Jump to:Seadov PtyInformation UC 19-6-401UpsonUtah State Historic PreservationUnderground

74

Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data CenterFranconia,(Million Barrels) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs Year2per Thousand CubicYear Jan Feb Mar AprUnderground

75

Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data CenterFranconia,(Million Barrels) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing ReservoirsYear-Month Week 1 Week 2 WeekCrude2.97 3.98Underground

76

Georgia Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 0 1 0 058.5 57.1Cubic Feet) Underground

77

Enabling Utility-Scale Electrical Energy Storage through Underground Hydrogen-Natural Gas Co-Storage.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??Energy storage technology is needed for the storage of surplus baseload generation and the storage of intermittent wind power, because it can increase the flexibility… (more)

Peng, Dan

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

78

Design of an underground compressed hydrogen gas storage.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??Hydrogen has received significant attention throughout the past decade as the United States focuses on diversifying its energy portfolio to include sources of energy beyond… (more)

Powell, Tobin Micah

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

79

Numerical Simulation of Underground Solar Thermal Energy Storage.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??The United States Department of Energy indicates that 97% of all homes in the US use fossil fuels either directly or indirectly for space heating.… (more)

Sweet, Marshall

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

80

Steam reforming as a method to treat Hanford underground storage tank (UST) wastes  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This report summarizes a Sandia program that included partnerships with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Synthetica Technologies, Inc. to design and test a steam reforming system for treating Hanford underground storage tank (UST) wastes. The benefits of steam reforming the wastes include the resolution of tank safety issues and improved radionuclide separations. Steam reforming destroys organic materials by first gasifying, then reacting them with high temperature steam. Tests indicate that up to 99% of the organics could be removed from the UST wastes by steam exposure. In addition, it was shown that nitrates in the wastes could be destroyed by steam exposure if they were first distributed as a thin layer on a surface. High purity alumina and nickel alloys were shown to be good candidates for materials to be used in the severe environment associated with steam reforming the highly alkaline, high nitrate content wastes. Work was performed on designing, building, and demonstrating components of a 0.5 gallon per minute (gpm) system suitable for radioactive waste treatment. Scale-up of the unit to 20 gpm was also considered and is feasible. Finally, process demonstrations conducted on non-radioactive waste surrogates were carried out, including a successful demonstration of the technology at the 0.1 gpm scale.

Miller, J.E.; Kuehne, P.B. [eds.] [and others

1995-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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

Underground storage tank 431-D1U1, Closure Plan  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This document contains information about the decommissioning of Tank 431-D1U1. This tank was installed in 1965 for diesel fuel storage. This tank will remain in active usage until closure procedures begin. Soils and ground water around the tank will be sampled to check for leakage. Appendices include; proof of proper training for workers, health and safety briefing record, task hazard analysis summary, and emergency plans.

Mancieri, S.

1993-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

82

AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)WyomingSquareEnd-UseStorage (Million Cubic(Million

83

AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)WyomingSquareEnd-UseStorage (Million

84

AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)WyomingSquareEnd-UseStorage (MillionCapacity

85

AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)WyomingSquareEnd-UseStorageGas) (Million Cubic

86

AGA Eastern Consuming Region Underground Natural Gas Storage - All  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)WyomingSquareEnd-UseStorageGas)

87

AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)WyomingSquareEnd-UseStorageGas)(Million Cubic

88

AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)WyomingSquareEnd-UseStorageGas)(Million

89

AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)WyomingSquareEnd-UseStorageGas)(MillionCubic

90

Polymers for subterranean containment barriers for underground storage tanks (USTs). Letter report on FY 1992 activities  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The US Department of Energy (DOE) set up the Underground Storage Tank Integrated Demonstration Program (USTID) to demonstrate technologies for the retrieval and treatment of tank waste, and closure of underground storage tanks (USTs). There are more than 250 underground storage tanks throughout the DOE complex. These tanks contain a wide variety of wastes including high level, low level, transuranic, mixed and hazardous wastes. Many of the tanks have performed beyond the designed lifetime resulting in leakage and contamination of the local geologic media and groundwater. To mitigate this problem it has been proposed that an interim subterranean containment barrier be placed around the tanks. This would minimize or prevent future contamination of soil and groundwater in the event that further tank leakages occur before or during remediation. Use of interim subterranean barriers can also provide sufficient time to evaluate and select appropriate remediation alternatives. The DOE Hanford site was chosen as the demonstration site for containment barrier technologies. A panel of experts for the USTID was convened in February, 1992, to identify technologies for placement of subterranean barriers. The selection was based on the ability of candidate grouts to withstand high radiation doses, high temperatures and aggressive tank waste leachates. The group identified and ranked nine grouting technologies that have potential to place vertical barriers and five for horizontal barriers around the tank. The panel also endorsed placement technologies that require minimal excavation of soil surrounding the tanks.

Heiser, J.H.; Colombo, P.; Clinton, J.

1992-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

91

CLOSURE REPORT FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION UNIT 204: STORAGE BUNKERS, NEVADA TEST SITE, NEVADA  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 330 consists of four Corrective Action Sites (CASs) located in Areas 6, 22, and 23 of the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The unit is listed in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO, 1996) as CAU 330: Areas 6, 22, and 23 Tanks and Spill Sites. CAU 330 consists of the following CASs: CAS 06-02-04, Underground Storage Tank (UST) and Piping CAS 22-99-06, Fuel Spill CAS 23-01-02, Large Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) Farm CAS 23-25-05, Asphalt Oil Spill/Tar Release

NONE

2006-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

92

Relevance of underground natural gas storage to geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The practice of underground natural gas storage (UNGS), which started in the USA in 1916, provides useful insight into the geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide--the dominant anthropogenic greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere. In many ways, UNGS is directly relevant to geologic CO{sub 2} storage because, like CO{sub 2}, natural gas (essentially methane) is less dense than water. Consequently, it will tend to rise to the top of any subsurface storage structure located below the groundwater table. By the end of 2001 in the USA, about 142 million metric tons of natural gas were stored underground in depleted oil and gas reservoirs and brine aquifers. Based on their performance, UNGS projects have shown that there is a safe and effective way of storing large volumes of gases in the subsurface. In the small number of cases where failures did occur (i.e., leakage of the stored gas into neighboring permeable layers), they were mainly related to improper well design, construction, maintenance, and/or incorrect project operation. In spite of differences in the chemical and physical properties of the gases, the risk-assessment, risk-management, and risk-mitigation issues relevant to UNGS projects are also pertinent to geologic CO{sub 2} sequestration.

Lippmann, Marcelo J.; Benson, Sally M.

2002-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

93

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

94

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

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: EnergyShale ProvedTexas"BruneiReserves in NonproducingU.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage - All

95

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

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: EnergyShale ProvedTexas"BruneiReserves in NonproducingU.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage -

96

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

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: EnergyShale ProvedTexas"BruneiReserves in NonproducingU.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage

97

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

Open Energy Info (EERE)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data CenterFranconia, Virginia:FAQ < RAPID Jump to:Seadov PtyInformation UC 19-6-401 et seq. - Utah Underground Storage Tank Act Jump to:

98

Underground Energy Storage Program: 1981 annual report. Volume II. Technical summaries  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This is the 1981 annual report for the Underground Energy Storage Program administered by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the US Department of Energy. The two-volume document describes all of the major research funded under this program during the period March 1981 to March 1982. Volume II presents the amplified technical summaries of individual tasks and projects conducted during this reporting period. The activities of the authors reporting herein were actually broader in scope than may be reflected by the mini-reports. Readers wishing additional information on specific topics are invited to contact individual authors. The work described here represents one segment of a continuing effort to encourage development and implementation of advanced energy storage technology. The results and progress reported here rely on earlier studies and will, in turn, provide a basis for continued efforts to develop the STES and CAES technologies.

Kannberg, L.D.

1982-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

99

DOE underground storage tank waste remediation chemical processing hazards. Part I: Technology dictionary  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This document has been prepared to aid in the development of Regulating guidelines for the Privatization of Hanford underground storage tank waste remediation. The document has been prepared it two parts to facilitate their preparation. Part II is the primary focus of this effort in that it describes the technical basis for established and potential chemical processing hazards associated with Underground Storage Tank (UST) nuclear waste remediation across the DOE complex. The established hazards involve those at Sites for which Safety Analysis Reviews (SARs) have already been prepared. Potential hazards are those involving technologies currently being developed for future applications. Part I of this document outlines the scope of Part II by briefly describing the established and potential technologies. In addition to providing the scope, Part I can be used as a technical introduction and bibliography for Regulatory personnel new to the UST waste remediation, and in particular Privatization effort. Part II of this document is not intended to provide examples of a SAR Hazards Analysis, but rather provide an intelligence gathering source for Regulatory personnel who must eventually evaluate the Privatization SAR Hazards Analysis.

DeMuth, S.F.

1996-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

100

Energy Storage Activities in the United States Electricity Grid...  

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

Activities in the United States Electricity Grid Electricity Advisory Committee Energy Storage Technologies Subcommittee Members Ralph Masiello, Subcommittee Chair Senior...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ICE STORAGE AIR CONDITIONING (ISAC) UNITS  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

cooling with the compressor). Yes No #12;STATE OF CALIFORNIA ICE STORAGE AIR CONDITIONING (ISAC) UNITS CECSTATE OF CALIFORNIA ICE STORAGE AIR CONDITIONING (ISAC) UNITS CEC-CF-6R-MECH-08 (Revised 08/09) CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION INSTALLATION CERTIFICATE CF-6R-MECH-08 Ice Storage Air Conditioning (ISAC) Units

102

Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 130: Storage Tanks Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Revision 0  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This Closure Report (CR) presents information supporting the closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 130: Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada. This CR complies with the requirements of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order that was agreed to by the State of Nevada; U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Management; U.S. Department of Defense; and DOE, Legacy Management. The corrective action sites (CASs) within CAU 130 are located within Areas 1, 7, 10, 20, 22, and 23 of the Nevada Test Site. Corrective Action Unit 130 is comprised of the following CASs: • 01-02-01, Underground Storage Tank • 07-02-01, Underground Storage Tanks • 10-02-01, Underground Storage Tank • 20-02-03, Underground Storage Tank • 20-99-05, Tar Residue • 22-02-02, Buried UST Piping • 23-02-07, Underground Storage Tank This CR provides documentation supporting the completed corrective action investigations and provides data confirming that the closure objectives for CASs within CAU 130 were met. To achieve this, the following actions were performed: • Reviewed the current site conditions, including the concentration and extent of contamination. • Implemented any corrective actions necessary to protect human health and the environment. • Properly disposed of corrective action and investigation-derived wastes. From August 4 through September 30, 2008, closure activities were performed as set forth in the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration Plan for CAU 130, Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada. The purposes of the activities as defined during the data quality objectives process were: • Determine whether contaminants of concern (COCs) are present. • If COCs are present, determine their nature and extent, implement appropriate corrective actions, confirm that no residual contamination is present, and properly dispose of wastes. Constituents detected during the closure activities were evaluated against final action levels to identify COCs for CAU 130. Assessment of the data generated from closure activities indicates that no further action is necessary because no COCs were identified at any CAU 130 CAS. Debris removal from these CASs was considered a best management practice because no contamination was detected. The DOE, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office provides the following recommendations: • No further corrective action is required at all CAU 130 CASs. • A Notice of Completion to DOE, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office, is requested from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection for closure of CAU 130. • Corrective Action Unit 130 should be moved from Appendix III to Appendix IV of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order.

Alfred Wickline

2009-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

103

Review of sensors for the in situ chemical characterization of the Hanford underground storage tanks  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), in the Technical Task Plan (TTP) SF-2112-03 subtask 2, is responsible for the conceptual design of a Raman probe for inclusion in the in-tank cone penetrometer. As part of this task, LLNL is assigned the further responsibility of generating a report describing a review of sensor technologies other than Raman that can be incorporated in the in-tank cone penetrometer for the chemical analysis of the tank environment. These sensors would complement the capabilities of the Raman probe, and would give information on gaseous, liquid, and solid state species that are insensitive to Raman interrogation. This work is part of a joint effort involving several DOE laboratories for the design and development of in-tank cone penetrometer deployable systems for direct UST waste characterization at Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Underground Storage Tank Integrated Demonstration (UST-ID).

Kyle, K.R.; Mayes, E.L.

1994-07-29T23:59:59.000Z

104

Assessment of concentration mechanisms for organic wastes in underground storage tanks at Hanford  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) has conducted an initial conservative evaluation of physical and chemical processes that could lead to significant localized concentrations of organic waste constituents in the Hanford underground storage tanks (USTs). This evaluation was part of ongoing studies at Hanford to assess potential safety risks associated with USTs containing organics. Organics in the tanks could pose a potential problem if localized concentrations are high enough to propagate combustion and are in sufficient quantity to produce a large heat and/or gas release if in contact with a suitable oxidant. The major sources of oxidants are oxygen in the overhead gas space of the tanks and sodium nitrate and nitrite either as salt cake solids or dissolved in the supernatant and interstitial liquids.

Gerber, M.A.; Burger, L.L.; Nelson, D.A.; Ryan, J.L. [Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (United States); Zollars, R.L. [Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA (United States)

1992-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

105

,"Underground Natural Gas Storage - Storage Fields Other than Salt Caverns"  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data CenterFranconia, Virginia:FAQ < RAPID Jump to:SeadovCooperativeA2.Reformulated, Average Refiner GasolineAll Operators"Storage

106

Stress evaluation of the primary tank of a double-shell underground storage tank facility  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

A facility called the Multi-Function Waste Tank Facility (MWTF) is being designed at the Department of Energy`s Hanford site. The MWTF is expected to be completed in 1998 and will consist of six underground double-shell waste storage tanks and associated systems. These tanks will provide safe and environmentally acceptable storage capacity to handle waste generated during single-shell and double-shell tank safety mitigation and remediation activities. This paper summarizes the analysis and qualification of the primary tank structure of the MWTF, as performed by ICF Kaiser Hanford during the latter phase of Title 1 (Preliminary) design. Both computer finite element analysis (FEA) and hand calculations methods based on the so-called Tank Seismic Experts Panel (TSEP) Guidelines were used to perform the analysis and evaluation. Based on the evaluations summarized in this paper, it is concluded that the primary tank structure of the MWTF satisfies the project design requirements. In addition, the hand calculations performed using the methodologies provided in the TSEP Guidelines demonstrate that, except for slosh height, the capacities exceed the demand. The design accounts for the adverse effect of the excessive slosh height demand, i.e., inadequate freeboard, by increasing the hydrodynamic wall and roof pressures appropriately, and designing the tank for such increased pressures.

Atalay, M.B. [ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc., Oakland, CA (United States); Stine, M.D. [ICF Kaiser Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States); Farnworth, S.K. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States)

1994-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

107

Cryograb: A Novel Approach to the Retrieval of Waste from Underground Storage Tanks - 13501  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The UK's National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) is investigating the use of cryogenic technology for the recovery of nuclear waste. Cryograb, freezing the waste on a 'cryo-head' and then retrieves it as a single mass which can then be treated or stabilized as necessary. The technology has a number of benefits over other retrieval approaches in that it minimizes sludge disturbance thereby reducing effluent arising and it can be used to de-water, and thereby reduce the volume of waste. The technology has been successfully deployed for a variety of nuclear and non-nuclear waste recovery operations. The application of Cryograb for the recovery of waste from US underground storage tanks is being explored through a US DOE International Technology Transfer and Demonstration programme. A sample deployment being considered involves the recovery of residual mounds of sludge material from waste storage tanks at Savannah River. Operational constraints and success criteria were agreed prior to the completion of a process down selection exercise which specified the preferred configuration of the cryo-head and supporting plant. Subsequent process modeling identified retrieval rates and temperature gradients through the waste and tank infrastructure. The work, which has been delivered in partnership with US DOE, SRNL, NuVision Engineering and Frigeo AB has demonstrated the technical feasibility of the approach (to TRL 2) and has resulted in the allocation of additional funding from DOE to take the programme to bench and cold pilot-scale trials. (authors)

O'Brien, Luke; Baker, Stephen; Bowen, Bob [UK National Nuclear Laboratory, Chadwick House, Warrington (United Kingdom)] [UK National Nuclear Laboratory, Chadwick House, Warrington (United Kingdom); Mallick, Pramod; Smith, Gary [US Department of Energy (United States)] [US Department of Energy (United States); King, Bill [Savannah River National Laboratory (United States)] [Savannah River National Laboratory (United States); Judd, Laurie [NuVision Engineering (United States)] [NuVision Engineering (United States)

2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

108

RCRA/UST, superfund, and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: RCRA subtitle I. Underground storage tanks (40 cfr part 280). Updated as of July 1996  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This module explains the Underground Storage Tank Regulatory Program established in 1988, that includes technical requirements to prevent, protect, and clean up releases from Underground Storage Tanks (USTs), as well as financial responsibility requirements to guarantee that UST owners and operators have enough money set aside to clean up releases and compensate third parties. Describes the Universe of USTs and the technical and financial requirements that apply to them. Defines underground storage tank and provides criteria for determining which USTs are subject to regulation. Discusses deadlines for upgrading tanks and the closure and corrective action requirements.

NONE

1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

109

Underground storage tank management plan, Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant was established to locate UST systems at the facility and to ensure that all operating UST systems are free of leaks. UST systems have been removed or upgraded in accordance with Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) regulations and guidance. With the closure of a significant portion of the USTs, the continuing mission of the UST Management Program is to manage the remaining active UST systems and continue corrective actions in a safe regulatory compliant manner. This Program outlines the compliance issues that must be addressed, reviews the current UST inventory and compliance approach, and presents the status and planned activities associated with each UST system. The UST Program provides guidance for implementing TDEC regulations and guidelines for petroleum UST systems. The plan is divided into three major sections: (1) regulatory requirements, (2) active UST sites, and (3) out-of-service UST sites. These sections describe in detail the applicable regulatory drivers, the UST sites addressed under the Program, and the procedures and guidance for compliance.

NONE

1997-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

110

Analysis of Underground Storage Tanks System Materials to Increased Leak Potential Associated with E15 Fuel  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 was enacted by Congress to move the nation toward increased energy independence by increasing the production of renewable fuels to meet its transportation energy needs. The law establishes a new renewable fuel standard (RFS) that requires the nation to use 36 billion gallons annually (2.3 million barrels per day) of renewable fuel in its vehicles by 2022. Ethanol is the most widely used renewable fuel in the US, and its production has grown dramatically over the past decade. According to EISA and RFS, ethanol (produced from corn as well as cellulosic feedstocks) will make up the vast majority of the new renewable fuel requirements. However, ethanol use limited to E10 and E85 (in the case of flex fuel vehicles or FFVs) will not meet this target. Even if all of the E0 gasoline dispensers in the country were converted to E10, such sales would represent only about 15 billion gallons per year. If 15% ethanol, rather than 10% were used, the potential would be up to 22 billion gallons. The vast majority of ethanol used in the United States is blended with gasoline to create E10, that is, gasoline with up to 10% ethanol. The remaining ethanol is sold in the form of E85, a gasoline blend with as much as 85% ethanol that can only be used in FFVs. Although DOE remains committed to expanding the E85 infrastructure, that market will not be able to absorb projected volumes of ethanol in the near term. Given this reality, DOE and others have begun assessing the viability of using intermediate ethanol blends as one way to transition to higher volumes of ethanol. In October of 2010, the EPA granted a partial waiver to the Clean Air Act allowing the use of fuel that contains up to 15% ethanol for the model year 2007 and newer light-duty motor vehicles. This waiver represents the first of a number of actions that are needed to move toward the commercialization of E15 gasoline blends. On January 2011, this waiver was expanded to include model year 2001 light-duty vehicles, but specifically prohibited use in motorcycles and off-road vehicles and equipment. UST stakeholders generally consider fueling infrastructure materials designed for use with E0 to be adequate for use with E10, and there are no known instances of major leaks or failures directly attributable to ethanol use. It is conceivable that many compatibility issues, including accelerated corrosion, do arise and are corrected onsite and, therefore do not lead to a release. However, there is some concern that higher ethanol concentrations, such as E15 or E20, may be incompatible with current materials used in standard gasoline fueling hardware. In the summer of 2008, DOE recognized the need to assess the impact of intermediate blends of ethanol on the fueling infrastructure, specifically located at the fueling station. This includes the dispenser and hanging hardware, the underground storage tank, and associated piping. The DOE program has been co-led and funded by the Office of the Biomass Program and Vehicle Technologies Program with technical expertise from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The infrastructure material compatibility work has been supported through strong collaborations and testing at Underwriters Laboratories (UL). ORNL performed a compatibility study investigating the compatibility of fuel infrastructure materials to gasoline containing intermediate levels of ethanol. These results can be found in the ORNL report entitled Intermediate Ethanol Blends Infrastructure Materials Compatibility Study: Elastomers, Metals and Sealants (hereafter referred to as the ORNL intermediate blends material compatibility study). These materials included elastomers, plastics, metals and sealants typically found in fuel dispenser infrastructure. The test fuels evaluated in the ORNL study were SAE standard test fuel formulations used to assess material-fuel compatibility within a relatively short timeframe. Initially, these material studies included test fuels of Fuel C,

Kass, Michael D [ORNL; Theiss, Timothy J [ORNL; Janke, Christopher James [ORNL; Pawel, Steven J [ORNL

2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

111

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Wiersma, B.; Hansen, A.

2013-11-13T23:59:59.000Z

112

Evaluation of advanced turbomachinery for underground pumped hydroelectric storage. Part 3. Multistage unregulated pump/turbines for operating heads of 1000 to 1500 m  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This is the final report in a series of three on studies of advanced hydraulic turbomachinery for underground pumped hydroelectric storage. All three reports address Francis-type, reversible pump/turbines. The first report covered single-stage regulated units; the second report covered two-stage regulated units; the present report covers multistage unregulated units. Multistage unregulated pump/turbines offer an economically attractive option for heads of 1000 to 1500 m. The feasibility of developing such machines for capacities up to 500 MW and operating heads up to 1500 m has been evaluated. Preliminary designs have been generated for six multistage pump/turbines. The designs are for nominal capacities of 350 and 500 MW and for operating heads of 1000, 1250, and 1500 m. Mechanical, hydraulic, and economic analyses indicate that these machines will behave according to the criteria used to design them and that they can be built at a reasonable cost with no unsolvable problems. Efficiencies of 85.8% and 88.5% in the generating and pumping modes, respectively, can be expected for the 500-MW, 1500-m unit. Performances of the other five machines are at least comparable, and usually better. Over a 1000 to 1500-m head range, specific $/kW costs of the pump/turbines in mid-1978 US dollars vary from 19.0 to 23.1 for the 500-MW machines, and from 21.0 to 24.1 for the 350-MW machines.

Frigo, A.A.; Pistner, C.

1980-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

113

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

114

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

115

Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan for Corrective Action Unit 124: Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada (Draft), Revision 0  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan addresses closure for Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 124, Areas 8, 15, and 16 Storage Tanks, identified in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order. Corrective Action Unit 124 consists of five Corrective Action Sites (CASs) located in Areas 8, 15, and 16 of the Nevada Test Site as follows: • 08-02-01, Underground Storage Tank • 15-02-01, Irrigation Piping • 16-02-03, Underground Storage Tank • 16-02-04, Fuel Oil Piping • 16-99-04, Fuel Line (Buried) and UST This plan provides the methodology of field activities necessary to gather information to close each CAS. There is sufficient information and process knowledge from historical documentation and investigations of similar sites regarding the expected nature and extent of potential contaminants to recommend closure of CAU 124 using the SAFER process.

Alfred Wickline

2007-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

116

An Underground Storage Tank Integrated Demonstration report. Volume 1, Waste Characterization Data and Technology Development Needs Assessment  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Waste Characterization Data and Technology Development Needs Assessment provides direct support to the Underground Storage Tank Integrated Demonstration (UST-ID). Key users of the study`s products may also include individuals and programs within the US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Technology Development (EM-50), the Office of Waste Operations (EM-30), and the Office of Environmental Restoration (EM-40). The goal of this work is to provide the UST-ID with a procedure for allocating funds across competing characterization technologies in a timely and defensible manner. It resulted in three primary products: 1. It organizes and summarizes information on underground storage tank characterization data needs. 2. It describes current technology development activity related to each need and flags areas where technology development may be beneficial. 3. It presents a decision process, with supporting software, for evaluating, prioritizing, and integrating possible technology development funding packages. The data presented in this document can be readily updated as the needs of the Waste Operations and Environmental Restoration programs mature and as new and promising technology development options emerge.

Quadrel, M.J.; Hunter, V.L.; Young, J.K. [Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (United States); Lini, D.C.; Goldberg, C. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States)

1993-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

117

Request for closure, underground storage tank 2130-U: Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Facility ID {number_sign}0-010117  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This document presents a summary of the activities and analytical data related to the removal of underground storage tank (UST) 2130-U, previously located at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant. Removal of this tank was conducted in accordance with Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) regulation 1200-1-15 (1992). A completed copy of the State of Tennessee, Division of Underground Storage Tanks, Permanent Closure Report Form is included as Appendix A of this document Based on the information and data presented herein, the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant requests permanent closure for the tank 2130-U site.

Not Available

1993-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

118

The value of underground storage in today`s natural gas industry  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The report consists of three chapters and four appendices. Chapter 1 provides basic information on the role of storage in today`s marketplace where natural gas is treated as a commodity. Chapter 2 provides statistical analyses of the relationship between storage and spot prices on both a monthly and daily basis. For the daily analysis, temperature data were used a proxy for storage withdrawals, providing a new means of examining the short-term relationship between storage and spot prices. Chapter 3 analyzes recent trends in storage management and use, as well as plans for additions to storage capacity. It also reviews the status of the new uses of storage resulting from Order 636, that is, market-based rates and capacity release. Appendix A serves as a stand-along primer on storage operations, and Appendix B provides further data on plans for the expansion of storage capacity. Appendix C explains recent revisions made to working gas and base gas capacity on the part of several storage operators in 1991 through 1993. The revisions were significant, and this appendix provides a consistent historical data series that reflects these changes. Finally, Appendix D presents more information on the regression analysis presented in Chapter 2. 19 refs., 21 figs., 5 tabs.

NONE

1995-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

119

Notification for Underground Storage Tanks (EPA Form 7530-1) | Open Energy  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data CenterFranconia, Virginia: Energy ResourcesLoading map...(Utility Company)References ↑Information Notification for Underground

120

,"Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: EnergyShale ProvedTexas"BruneiReserves in NonproducingU.S. Underground

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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

Petroleum cleanup in the United States: A historical review and comparison of state programs.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??Cleanup of leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites has been a priority for the United States of America (USA) for more than 20 years due… (more)

Terwilliger, Timothy A

2006-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

122

Preliminary studies of tunnel interface response modeling using test data from underground storage facilities.  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

In attempting to detect and map out underground facilities, whether they be large-scale hardened deeply-buried targets (HDBT's) or small-scale tunnels for clandestine border or perimeter crossing, seismic imaging using reflections from the tunnel interface has been seen as one of the better ways to both detect and delineate tunnels from the surface. The large seismic impedance contrast at the tunnel/rock boundary should provide a strong, distinguishable seismic response, but in practice, such strong indicators are often lacking. One explanation for the lack of a good seismic reflection at such a strong contrast boundary is that the damage caused by the tunneling itself creates a zone of altered seismic properties that significantly changes the nature of this boundary. This report examines existing geomechanical data that define the extent of an excavation damage zone around underground tunnels, and the potential impact on rock properties such as P-wave and S-wave velocities. The data presented from this report are associated with sites used for the development of underground repositories for the disposal of radioactive waste; these sites have been excavated in volcanic tuff (Yucca Mountain) and granite (HRL in Sweden, URL in Canada). Using the data from Yucca Mountain, a numerical simulation effort was undertaken to evaluate the effects of the damage zone on seismic responses. Calculations were performed using the parallelized version of the time-domain finitedifference seismic wave propagation code developed in the Geophysics Department at Sandia National Laboratories. From these numerical simulations, the damage zone does not have a significant effect upon the tunnel response, either for a purely elastic case or an anelastic case. However, what was discovered is that the largest responses are not true reflections, but rather reradiated Stoneley waves generated as the air/earth interface of the tunnel. Because of this, data processed in the usual way may not correctly image the tunnel. This report represents a preliminary step in the development of a methodology to convert numerical predictions of rock properties to an estimation of the extent of rock damage around an underground facility and its corresponding seismic velocity, and the corresponding application to design a testing methodology for tunnel detection.

Sobolik, Steven Ronald; Bartel, Lewis Clark

2010-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

123

,"Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: EnergyShale ProvedTexas"BruneiReserves in NonproducingU.S. UndergroundVolume (MMcf)"

124

Underground natural gas storage reservoir management: Phase 2. Final report, June 1, 1995--March 30, 1996  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Gas storage operators are facing increased and more complex responsibilities for managing storage operations under Order 636 which requires unbundling of storage from other pipeline services. Low cost methods that improve the accuracy of inventory verification are needed to optimally manage this stored natural gas. Migration of injected gas out of the storage reservoir has not been well documented by industry. The first portion of this study addressed the scope of unaccounted for gas which may have been due to migration. The volume range was estimated from available databases and reported on an aggregate basis. Information on working gas, base gas, operating capacity, injection and withdrawal volumes, current and non-current revenues, gas losses, storage field demographics and reservoir types is contained among the FERC Form 2, EIA Form 191, AGA and FERC Jurisdictional databases. The key elements of this study show that gas migration can result if reservoir limits have not been properly identified, gas migration can occur in formation with extremely low permeability (0.001 md), horizontal wellbores can reduce gas migration losses and over-pressuring (unintentionally) storage reservoirs by reinjecting working gas over a shorter time period may increase gas migration effects.

Ortiz, I.; Anthony, R.V.

1996-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

125

Toroidal constant-tension superconducting magnetic energy storage units  

DOE Patents [OSTI]

A superconducting magnetic energy storage unit is provided in which the magnet is wound in a toroidal fashion such that the magnetic field produced is contained only within the bore of the magnet, and thus producing a very low external field. The superconducting magnet includes a coolant channel disposed through the wire. The bore of the magnet comprises a storage volume in which cryogenic coolant is stored, and this volume supplies the coolant to be delivered to the coolant channel in the magnet. 6 figs.

Herring, J.S.

1992-11-03T23:59:59.000Z

126

PEGASUS, a European research project on the effects of gas in underground storage facilities for radioactive waste  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Whereas the subject of gas generation and possible gas release from radioactive waste repositories has gained in interest on the international scene, the Commission of the European Communities has increased its research efforts on this issue. In particular in the 4th five year R and D program on Management and Storage of Radioactive Waste (1990--1994), a framework has been set up in which research efforts on the subject of gas generation and migration, supported by the CEC, are brought together and coordinated. In this project, called PEGASUS, Project on the Effects of GAS in Underground Storage facilities for radioactive waste, about 20 organizations and research institutes from 7 European countries are involved. The project covers both experimental and theoretical studies of the processes of gas formation and possible gas release from the different waste types, LLW, ILW and HLW, under typical repository conditions in suitable geological formations as clay, salt and granite. In this paper an overview is given of the various studies undertaken in the project as well as some first results presented.

Haijtink, B.; McMenamin, T. [Commission of the European Communities, Brussels (Belgium)

1993-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

127

Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan for Corrective Action Unit 130: Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Revision 0  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan addresses the actions needed to achieve closure for Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 130, Storage Tanks, identified in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) (1996, as amended February 2008). Corrective Action Unit 130 consists of the seven following corrective action sites (CASs) located in Areas 1, 7, 10, 20, 22, and 23 of the Nevada Test Site: • 01-02-01, Underground Storage Tank • 07-02-01, Underground Storage Tanks • 10-02-01, Underground Storage Tank • 20-02-03, Underground Storage Tank • 20-99-05, Tar Residue • 22-02-02, Buried UST Piping • 23-02-07, Underground Storage Tank This plan provides the methodology for field activities needed to gather the necessary information for closing each CAS. There is sufficient information and process knowledge from historical documentation and investigations of similar sites regarding the expected nature and extent of potential contaminants to recommend closure of CAU 130 using the SAFER process. Additional information will be obtained by conducting a field investigation before selecting the appropriate corrective action for each CAS. The results of the field investigation will support a defensible recommendation that no further corrective action is necessary. This will be presented in a Closure Report that will be prepared and submitted to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) for review and approval. The sites will be investigated based on the data quality objectives (DQOs) finalized on April 3, 2008, by representatives of NDEP; U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office; Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture; and National Security Technologies, LLC. The DQO process was used to identify and define the type, amount, and quality of data needed to determine and implement appropriate corrective actions for each CAS in CAU 130. The DQO process developed for this CAU identified the following expected closure options: (1) investigation and confirmation that no contamination exists above the final action levels, leading to a no further action declaration; (2) characterization of the nature and extent of contamination, leading to closure in place with use restrictions; or (3) clean closure by remediation and verification. The following text summarizes the SAFER activities that will support the closure of CAU 130: • Perform site preparation activities (e.g., utilities clearances, geophysical surveys). • Move or remove and dispose of debris at various CASs, as required. • Collect environmental samples from designated target populations (e.g., stained soil) to confirm or disprove the presence of contaminants of concern (COCs) as necessary to supplement existing information. • If no COCs are present at a CAS, establish no further action as the corrective action. • If COCs exist, collect environmental samples from designated target populations (e.g., clean soil adjacent to contaminated soil) and submit for laboratory analyses to define the extent of COC contamination. • If a COC is present at a CAS, either: - Establish clean closure as the corrective action. The material to be remediated will be removed, disposed of as waste, and verification samples will be collected from remaining soil, or - Establish closure in place as the corrective action and implement the appropriate use restrictions. • Obtain consensus from NDEP that the preferred closure option is sufficient to protect human health and the environment. • Close the underground storage tank(s) and their contents, if any, in accordance with Nevada Administrative Code regulations. • Remove the lead brick(s) found at any CAS in accordance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

Alfred Wickline

2008-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

128

Author's personal copy Opportunities and barriers to pumped-hydro energy storage in the United States  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

available commercially for grid-tied electricity storage, pumped- hydro energy storage (PHES) and compressed air energy storage (CAES). Of the two, PHES is far more widely adopted. In the United StatesAuthor's personal copy Opportunities and barriers to pumped-hydro energy storage in the United

Jackson, Robert B.

129

Method and apparatus for operating an improved thermocline storage unit  

DOE Patents [OSTI]

A method and apparatus for operating a thermocline storage unit in which an insulated barrier member is provided substantially at the interface region between the hot and cold liquids in the storage tank. The barrier member physically and thermally separates the hot and cold liquids substantially preventing any diffusing or mixing between them and substantially preventing any heat transfer therebetween. The barrier member follows the rise and fall of the interface region between the liquids as the tank is charged and discharged. Two methods of maintaining it in the interface region are disclosed. With the structure and operation of the present invention and in particular the significant reduction in diffusing or mixing between the hot and cold liquids as well as the significant reduction in the thermal heat transfer between them, the performance of the storage tank is improved. More specifically, the stability of the interface region or thermocline is enhanced and the thickness of the thermocline is reduced producing a corresponding increase in the steepness of the temperature gradient across the thermocline and a more efficiently operating thermocline storage unit.

Copeland, Robert J. (Lakewood, CO)

1985-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

130

Method and apparatus for operating an improved thermocline storage unit  

DOE Patents [OSTI]

A method and apparatus for operating a thermocline storage unit in which an insulated barrier member is provided substantially at the interface region between the hot and cold liquids in the storage tank. The barrier member physically and thermally separates the hot and cold liquids substantially preventing any diffusing or mixing between them and substantially preventing any heat transfer there between. The barrier member follows the rise and fall of the interface region between the liquids as the tank is charged and discharged. Two methods of maintaining it in the interface region are disclosed. With the structure and operation of the present invention and in particular the significant reduction in diffusing or mixing between the hot and cold liquids as well as the significant reduction in the thermal heat transfer between them, the performance of the storage tank is improved. More specifically, the stability of the interface region or thermocline is enhanced and the thickness of the thermocline is reduced producing a corresponding increase in the steepness of the temperature gradient across the thermocline and a more efficiently operating thermocline storage unit.

Copeland, R.J.

1982-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

131

Evaluating the effects of the number of caverns on the performance of underground oil storage facilities  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Three dimensional finite element calculations were performed to investigate the effect field size, in terms of the number of caverns, on the performance of SPR oil storage caverns leached in domal salt (interms of surface subsidence, storage losses, and cavern integrity). The calculations were performed for cavern fields containing 1, 7, 19, and an infinite number of caverns. The magnitude and volume of subsidence was significantly affected by increasing the number of caverns (nearly an order of magnitude increase was predicted for each increase in field size), while the extent of subsidence (approximately 2000 m fromthe center of the field) and storage loss were not. Furthermore, the percentage of storage loss volume manifested as surface subsidence increased as the cavern field was enlarged. This was attributed to elasticvolumetric dilatation of overlying strata. The multiple cavern calculations demonstrate that storage losses are greater for caverns farther from the center of the caverns field. Based on an accumulated strain stability criteria, the larger cavern fields are predicted to have a shorter life. This criteria also indicates that caverns on the periphery of a field may show signs of instability before the inner caverns. The West Hackberry site (containing 22 caverns) subsidence data closely agrees with the 19 cavern model subsidence predictions, providing confidence in the calculations. Even a 19 cavern field, substantially large by SPR standards, does not approach the behavior predicted by infinite cavern models (which are frequently used because they are economical). This demonstrates that 3D modeling is required to accurately investigate the performance of a multi-cavern array. Although based on a typical SPR cavern design, the results of this study describe mechanics common to all multi-cavern fields and should, in general, be useful tocavern engineers and architects.

Hoffman, E.L.; Ehgartner, B.L.

1992-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

132

United States National Waste Terminal Storage argillaceous rock studies  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The past and present argillaceous rock studies for the US National Waste Terminal Storage Program consist of: (1) evaluation of the geological characteristics of several widespread argillaceous formations in the United States; (2) laboratory studies of the physical and chemical properties of selected argillaceous rock samples; and (3) two full-scale in situ surface heater experiments that simulate the emplacement of heat-generating radioactive waste in argillaceous rock.

Brunton, G.D.

1981-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

133

,"Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy SourcesWyoming"CoalbedOhio"Associated-Dissolved NaturalPriceLNG Storage

134

AQUIFER THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE-A SURVEY  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

High temperature underground thermal energy storage, inProceedings, Thermal Energy Storage in Aquifers Workshop:underground thermal energy storage, in ATES newsletter:

Tsang, Chin Fu

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

135

AQUIFER THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE-A SURVEY  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

1978, High temperature underground thermal energy storage,in Proceedings, Thermal Energy Storage in Aquifers Workshop:High temperature underground thermal energy storage, in ATES

Tsang, Chin Fu

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

136

,"Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy SourcesWyoming"CoalbedOhio"Associated-Dissolved NaturalPriceLNG Storage NetPriceNet

137

AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)WyomingSquareEnd-UseStorage

138

AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)WyomingSquareEnd-UseStorageGas) (Million

139

AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)WyomingSquareEnd-UseStorageGas) (MillionWorking

140

,"Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: EnergyShale ProvedTexas"Brunei (Dollars per ThousandPrice Sold to9"3LNG StorageNet

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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

,"Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: EnergyShale ProvedTexas"Brunei (Dollars per ThousandPrice Sold to9"3LNG StorageNetVolume

142

,"Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: EnergyShale ProvedTexas"BruneiReserves in NonproducingU.S.Summary"LNG Storage NetPriceNet

143

,"Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: EnergyShale ProvedTexas"BruneiReserves in NonproducingU.S.Summary"LNG Storage

144

Modeling of coupled thermodynamic and geomechanical performance of underground compressed air energy storage (CAES) in lined rock caverns  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

We applied coupled nonisothermal, multiphase fluid flow and geomechanical numerical modeling to study the coupled thermodynamic and geomechanical performance of underground compressed air energy storage (CAES) in concrete-lined rock caverns. The paper focuses on CAES in lined caverns at relatively shallow depth (e.g., 100 m depth) in which a typical CAES operational pressure of 5 to 8 MPa is significantly higher than both ambient fluid pressure and in situ stress. We simulated a storage operation that included cyclic compression and decompression of air in the cavern, and investigated how pressure, temperature and stress evolve over several months of operation. We analyzed two different lining options, both with a 50 cm thick low permeability concrete lining, but in one case with an internal synthetic seal such as steel or rubber. For our simulated CAES system, the thermodynamic analysis showed that 96.7% of the energy injected during compression could be recovered during subsequent decompression, while 3.3% of the energy was lost by heat conduction to the surrounding media. Our geomechanical analysis showed that tensile effective stresses as high as 8 MPa could develop in the lining as a result of the air pressure exerted on the inner surface of the lining, whereas thermal stresses were relatively smaller and compressive. With the option of an internal synthetic seal, the maximum effective tensile stress was reduced from 8 to 5 MPa, but was still in substantial tension. We performed one simulation in which the tensile tangential stresses resulted in radial cracks and air leakage though the lining. This air leakage, however, was minor (about 0.16% of the air mass loss from one daily compression) in terms of CAES operational efficiency, and did not significantly impact the overall energy balance of the system. However, despite being minor in terms of energy balance, the air leakage resulted in a distinct pressure increase in the surrounding rock that could be quickly detected using pressure monitoring outside the concrete lining.

Rutqvist, J.; Kim, H. -M.; Ryu, D. -W.; Synn, J. -H.; Song, W. -K.

2012-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

145

South Tank Farm underground storage tank inspection using the topographical mapping system for radiological and hazardous environments  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

During the winter of 1997 the Topographical Mapping System (TMS) for hazardous and radiological environments and the Interactive Computer-Enhanced Remote-Viewing System (ICERVS) were used to perform wall inspections on underground storage tanks (USTs) W5 and W6 of the South Tank Farm (STF) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). The TMS was designed for deployment in the USTs at the Hanford Site. Because of its modular design, the TMS was also deployable in the USTs at ORNL. The USTs at ORNL were built in the 1940s and have been used to store radioactive waste during the past 50 years. The tanks are constructed with an inner layer of Gunite{trademark} that has been spalling, leaving sections of the inner wall exposed. Attempts to quantify the depths of the spalling with video inspection have proven unsuccessful. The TMS surface-mapping campaign in the STF was initiated to determine the depths of cracks, crevices, and/or holes in the tank walls and to identify possible structural instabilities in the tanks. The development of the TMS and the ICERVS was initiated by DOE for the purpose of characterization and remediation of USTs at DOE sites across the country. DOE required a three-dimensional, topographical mapping system suitable for use in hazardous and radiological environments. The intended application is mapping the interiors of USTs as part of DOE`s waste characterization and remediation efforts, to obtain both baseline data on the content of the storage tank interiors and changes in the tank contents and levels brought about by waste remediation steps. Initially targeted for deployment at the Hanford Site, the TMS has been designed to be a self-contained, compact, and reconfigurable system that is capable of providing rapid variable-resolution mapping information in poorly characterized workspaces with a minimum of operator intervention.

Armstrong, G.A.; Burks, B.L.; Hoesen, S.D. van

1997-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

146

Modeling of coupled thermodynamic and geomechanical performance of underground compressed air energy storage (CAES) in lined rock caverns  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Williams, Compressed air energy storage: Theory, resources,study for the compressed air energy storage technology byplant for compressed air energy storage power generation,

Rutqvist, J.

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

147

Modeling of coupled thermodynamic and geomechanical performance of underground compressed air energy storage (CAES) in lined rock caverns  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Williams, Compressed air energy storage: Theory, resources,for the compressed air energy storage technology by thefor compressed air energy storage power generation, Japan

Rutqvist, J.

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

148

French Project PLUSPAC: Development of a hydrogen storage unit for an optimisation of stationary FC systems  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

1/11 French Project PLUSPAC: Development of a hydrogen storage unit for an optimisation of the objectives of the French project PLUSPAC (Local Production and hydrogen Storage Unit for an optimisation is to evaluate the performances of hydrogen storage in metal hydrides for the energetic optimisation

Paris-Sud XI, Université de

149

Linear Scarifying End-Effector Developed For Wall Cleaning In Underground Storage Tanks  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This paper describes the development and performance of a Linear Scarifying End-Effector (LSEE) designed and fabricated for deployment by a remotely operated vehicle. The end-effector was designed to blast or scarify in-grained residual contamination from gunite tank walls using high-pressure water jets after the bulk sludge had been removed from the tanks using an integrated suite of remotely operated tools. Two generations of the LSEE were fabricated, tested, and deployed in the gunite tanks at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, with varying levels of success. Because the LSEE was designed near the end of a four-year project to clean up the gunite tanks at Oak Ridge, a number of design constraints existed. The end-effector had to utilize pneumatic, hydraulic and electrical interfaces already available at the site; and to be deployable through one of the containment structures already in place for the other remote systems. Another primary design consideration was that the tool had to effectively extend the reach of an existing remotely operated vehicle from six ft. to at least ten ft. to allow cleaning the tank walls from floor to ceiling. In addition, the combined weight and thrust of the LSEE had to be manageable by the manipulator mounted on the vehicle. Finally, the end-effector had to follow an autonomous scarifying path such that the vehicle was only required to reposition the unit at the end of each pass after the mist had cleared from the tank. The prototypes successfully met each of these challenges, but did encounter other difficulties during actual tank operations.

Fitzgerald, C.L.F.

2001-02-04T23:59:59.000Z

150

A Strategy for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in the United...  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

to: navigation, search Tool Summary LAUNCH TOOL Name: A Strategy for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in the United Kingdom and Beyond Focus Area: Clean Fossil Energy Topics:...

151

EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Salt Cavern Storage Reservoir...  

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

Salt Cavern Underground Natural Gas Storage Reservoir Configuration Salt Cavern Underground Natural Gas Storage Reservoir Configuration Source: PB Energy Storage Services Inc....

152

Carbon storage and sequestration by trees in urban and community areas of the United States  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Carbon storage and sequestration by trees in urban and community areas of the United States David J forestry Tree cover Forest inventory a b s t r a c t Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees to determine total urban forest carbon storage and annual sequestration by state and nationally. Urban whole

153

METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF WASTE GROUPS FOR THE LARGE UNDERGROUND WASTE STORAGE TANKS AT THE HANFORD SITE  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Hanford Site contains 177 large underground radioactive waste storage tanks (28 double-shell tanks and 149 single-shell tanks). These tanks are categorized into one of three waste groups (A, B, and C) based on their waste and tank characteristics. These waste group assignments reflect a tank's propensity to retain a significant volume of flammable gases and the potential of the waste to release retained gas by a buoyant displacement gas release event. Assignments of waste groups to the 177 double-shell tanks and single-shell tanks, as reported in this document, are based on a Monte Carlo analysis of three criteria. The first criterion is the headspace flammable gas concentration following release of retained gas. This criterion determines whether the tank contains sufficient retained gas such that the well-mixed headspace flammable gas concentration would reach 100% of the lower flammability limit if the entire tank's retained gas were released. If the volume of retained gas is not sufficient to reach 100% of the lower flammability limit, then flammable conditions cannot be reached and the tank is classified as a waste group C tank independent of the method the gas is released. The second criterion is the energy ratio and considers whether there is sufficient supernatant on top of the saturated solids such that gas-bearing solids have the potential energy required to break up the material and release gas. Tanks that are not waste group C tanks and that have an energy ratio < 3.0 do not have sufficient potential energy to break up material and release gas and are assigned to waste group B. These tanks are considered to represent a potential induced flammable gas release hazard, but no spontaneous buoyant displacement flammable gas release hazard. Tanks that are not waste group C tanks and have an energy ratio {ge} 3.0, but that pass the third criterion (buoyancy ratio < 1.0, see below) are also assigned to waste group B. Even though the designation as a waste group B (or A) tank identifies the potential for an induced flammable gas release hazard, the hazard only exists for specific operations that can release the retained gas in the tank at a rate and quantity that results in reaching 100% of the lower flammability limit in the tank headspace. The identification and evaluation of tank farm operations that could cause an induced flammable gas release hazard in a waste group B (or A) tank are included in other documents. The third criterion is the buoyancy ratio. This criterion addresses tanks that are not waste group C double-shell tanks and have an energy ratio {ge} 3.0. For these double-shell tanks, the buoyancy ratio considers whether the saturated solids can retain sufficient gas to exceed neutral buoyancy relative to the supernatant layer and therefore have buoyant displacement gas release events. If the buoyancy ratio is {ge} 1.0, that double-shell tank is assigned to waste group A. These tanks are considered to have a potential spontaneous buoyant displacement flammable gas release hazard in addition to a potential induced flammable gas release hazard. This document categorizes each of the large waste storage tanks into one of several categories based on each tank's waste characteristics. These waste group assignments reflect a tank's propensity to retain a significant volume of flammable gases and the potential of the waste to release retained gas by a buoyant displacement event. Revision 8 is the annual update of the calculations of the flammable gas Waste Groups for DSTs and SSTs.

WEBER RA

2009-01-16T23:59:59.000Z

154

METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF WASTE GROUPS FOR THE LARGE UNDERGROUND WASTE STORAGE TANKS AT THE HANFORD SITE  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This document categorizes each of the large waste storage tanks into one of several categories based on each tank's waste characteristics. These waste group assignments reflect a tank's propensity to retain a significant volume of flammable gases and the potential of the waste to release retained gas by a buoyant displacement event. Revision 7 is the annual update of the calculations of the flammable gas Waste Groups for DSTs and SSTs. The Hanford Site contains 177 large underground radioactive waste storage tanks (28 double-shell tanks and 149 single-shell tanks). These tanks are categorized into one of three waste groups (A, B, and C) based on their waste and tank characteristics. These waste group assignments reflect a tank's propensity to retain a significant volume of flammable gases and the potential of the waste to release retained gas by a buoyant displacement gas release event. Assignments of waste groups to the 177 double-shell tanks and single-shell tanks, as reported in this document, are based on a Monte Carlo analysis of three criteria. The first criterion is the headspace flammable gas concentration following release of retained gas. This criterion determines whether the tank contains sufficient retained gas such that the well-mixed headspace flammable gas concentration would reach 100% of the lower flammability limit if the entire tank's retained gas were released. If the volume of retained gas is not sufficient to reach 100% of the lower flammability limit, then flammable conditions cannot be reached and the tank is classified as a waste group C tank independent of the method the gas is released. The second criterion is the energy ratio and considers whether there is sufficient supernatant on top of the saturated solids such that gas-bearing solids have the potential energy required to break up the material and release gas. Tanks that are not waste group C tanks and that have an energy ratio < 3.0 do not have sufficient potential energy to break up material and release gas and are assigned to waste group B. These tanks are considered to represent a potential induced flammable gas release hazard, but no spontaneous buoyant displacement flammable gas release hazard. Tanks that are not waste group C tanks and have an energy ratio {ge} 3.0, but that pass the third criterion (buoyancy ratio < 1.0, see below) are also assigned to waste group B. Even though the designation as a waste group B (or A) tank identifies the potential for an induced flammable gas release hazard, the hazard only exists for specific operations that can release the retained gas in the tank at a rate and quantity that results in reaching 100% of the lower flammability limit in the tank headspace. The identification and evaluation of tank farm operations that could cause an induced flammable gas release hazard in a waste group B (or A) tank are included in other documents. The third criterion is the buoyancy ratio. This criterion addresses tanks that are not waste group C double-shell tanks and have an energy ratio {ge} 3.0. For these double-shell tanks, the buoyancy ratio considers whether the saturated solids can retain sufficient gas to exceed neutral buoyancy relative to the supernatant layer and therefore have buoyant displacement gas release events. If the buoyancy ratio is {ge} 1.0, that double-shell tank is assigned to waste group A. These tanks are considered to have a potential spontaneous buoyant displacement flammable gas release hazard in addition to a potential induced flammable gas release hazard.

FOWLER KD

2007-12-27T23:59:59.000Z

155

Work plan and health and safety plan for Building 3019B underground storage tank at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

As part of the Underground Storage Tank Program at the Department of Energy`s Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, this Health and Safety Plan has been developed for removal of the 110-gal leaded fuel underground storage tank (UST) located in the Building 3019B area at ORNL This Health and Safety Plan was developed by the Measurement Applications and Development Group of the Health and Safety Research Division at ORNL The major components of the plan follow: (1) A project description that gives the scope and objectives of the 110-gal tank removal project and assigns responsibilities, in addition to providing emergency information for situations occurring during field operations; (2) a health and safety plan in Sect. 15 for the Building 3019B UST activities, which describes general site hazards and particular hazards associated with specific tasks, personnel protection requirements and mandatory safety procedures; and (3) discussion of the proper form completion and reporting requirements during removal of the UST. This document addresses Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements in 29 CFR 1910.120 with respect to all aspects of health and safety involved in a UST removal. In addition, the plan follows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) QAMS 005/80 (1980) format with the inclusion of the health and safety section (Sect. 15).

Burman, S.N.; Brown, K.S.; Landguth, D.C.

1992-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

156

Work plan and health and safety plan for Building 3019B underground storage tank at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

As part of the Underground Storage Tank Program at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, this Health and Safety Plan has been developed for removal of the 110-gal leaded fuel underground storage tank (UST) located in the Building 3019B area at ORNL This Health and Safety Plan was developed by the Measurement Applications and Development Group of the Health and Safety Research Division at ORNL The major components of the plan follow: (1) A project description that gives the scope and objectives of the 110-gal tank removal project and assigns responsibilities, in addition to providing emergency information for situations occurring during field operations; (2) a health and safety plan in Sect. 15 for the Building 3019B UST activities, which describes general site hazards and particular hazards associated with specific tasks, personnel protection requirements and mandatory safety procedures; and (3) discussion of the proper form completion and reporting requirements during removal of the UST. This document addresses Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements in 29 CFR 1910.120 with respect to all aspects of health and safety involved in a UST removal. In addition, the plan follows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) QAMS 005/80 (1980) format with the inclusion of the health and safety section (Sect. 15).

Burman, S.N.; Brown, K.S.; Landguth, D.C.

1992-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

157

Modeling of coupled thermodynamic and geomechanical performance of underground compressed air energy storage (CAES) in lined rock caverns  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Excavated Hard Rock Caverns. Pacific Northwest Laboratory,Lux, K.H. Design of salt caverns for the storage of naturalgas storage in unlined rock caverns. Int J Rock Mech Min Sc

Rutqvist, J.

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

158

Modeling of coupled thermodynamic and geomechanical performance of underground compressed air energy storage (CAES) in lined rock caverns  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

reservoir storage project in Sesta, Italy [1]; as well as two pilot tests in rock caverns associated with abandoned

Rutqvist, J.

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

159

A geochemical assessment of petroleum from underground oil storage caverns in relation to petroleum from natural reservoirs offshore Norway.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??The aim of this study is to compare oils from known biodegraded fields offshore Norway to waxes and oils from an artificial cavern storage facility,… (more)

Østensen, Marie

2005-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

160

Wells, Borings, and Underground Uses (Minnesota)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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

Optimal Operation of a Wind Farm equipped with a Storage Unit  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

into another form of energy (kinetic energy or compressed air for example) and vice versa. This method has been is that the using cost of the storage device is not always a linear function of the energy stored or deliveredOptimal Operation of a Wind Farm equipped with a Storage Unit Paul Charton June 14, 2013 Keywords

Paris-Sud XI, Université de

162

Cooling of superconducting devices by liquid storage and refrigeration unit  

DOE Patents [OSTI]

A system is disclosed for cooling superconducting devices. The system includes a cryogen cooling system configured to be coupled to the superconducting device and to supply cryogen to the device. The system also includes a cryogen storage system configured to supply cryogen to the device. The system further includes flow control valving configured to selectively isolate the cryogen cooling system from the device, thereby directing a flow of cryogen to the device from the cryogen storage system.

Laskaris, Evangelos Trifon; Urbahn, John Arthur; Steinbach, Albert Eugene

2013-08-20T23:59:59.000Z

163

The united kingdom's changing requirements for spent fuel storage  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The UK is adopting an open fuel cycle, and is necessarily moving to a regime of long term storage of spent fuel, followed by geological disposal once a geological disposal facility (GDF) is available. The earliest GDF receipt date for legacy spent fuel is assumed to be 2075. The UK is set to embark on a programme of new nuclear build to maintain a nuclear energy contribution of 16 GW. Additionally, the UK are considering a significant expansion of nuclear energy in order to meet carbon reduction targets and it is plausible to foresee a scenario where up to 75 GW from nuclear power production could be deployed in the UK by the mid 21. century. Such an expansion, could lead to spent fuel storage and its disposal being a dominant issue for the UK Government, the utilities and the public. If the UK were to transition a closed fuel cycle, then spent fuel storage should become less onerous depending on the timescales. The UK has demonstrated a preference for wet storage of spent fuel on an interim basis. The UK has adopted an approach of centralised storage, but a 16 GW new build programme and any significant expansion of this may push the UK towards distributed spent fuel storage at a number of reactors station sites across the UK.

Hodgson, Z.; Hambley, D.I.; Gregg, R.; Ross, D.N. [National Nuclear Laboratory, Chadwick House, Birchwood Park, Warrington, Cheshire WA3 6AE (United Kingdom)

2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

164

Identification and Characterization of Hydrogeologic Units at the Nevada Test Site Using Geophysical Logs: Examples from the Underground Test Area Project  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The diverse and complex geology of the Nevada Test Site region makes for a challenging environment for identifying and characterizing hydrogeologic units penetrated by wells drilled for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Underground Test Area (UGTA) Environmental Restoration Sub-Project. Fortunately, UGTA geoscientists have access to large and robust sets of subsurface geologic data, as well as a large historical knowledge base of subsurface geological analyses acquired mainly during the underground nuclear weapons testing program. Of particular importance to the accurate identification and characterization of hydrogeologic units in UGTA boreholes are the data and interpretation principles associated with geophysical well logs. Although most UGTA participants and stakeholders are probably familiar with drill hole data such as drill core and cuttings, they may be less familiar with the use of geophysical logs; this document is meant to serve as a primer on the use of geophysical logs in the UGTA project. Standard geophysical logging tools used in the UGTA project to identify and characterize hydrogeologic units are described, and basic interpretation principles and techniques are explained. Numerous examples of geophysical log data from a variety of hydrogeologic units encountered in UGTA wells are presented to highlight the use and value of geophysical logs in the accurate hydrogeologic characterization of UGTA wells.

Lance Prothro, Sigmund Drellack, Margaret Townsend

2009-03-25T23:59:59.000Z

165

Plutonium Finishing Plan (PFP) Treatment and Storage Unit Interim Status Closure Plan  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This document describes the planned activities and performance standards for closing the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) Treatment and Storage Unit. The PFP Treatment and Storage Unit is located within the 234-52 Building in the 200 West Area of the Hanford Facility. Although this document is prepared based upon Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 265, Subpart G requirements, closure of the unit will comply with Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-303-610 regulations pursuant to Section 5.3 of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) Action Plan (Ecology et al. 1996). Because the PFP Treatment and Storage Unit manages transuranic mixed (TRUM) waste, there are many controls placed on management of the waste. Based on the many controls placed on management of TRUM waste, releases of TRUM waste are not anticipated to occur in the PFP Treatment and Storage Unit. Because the intention is to clean close the PFP Treatment and Storage Unit, postclosure activities are not applicable to this closure plan. To clean close the unit, it will be demonstrated that dangerous waste has not been left onsite at levels above the closure performance standard for removal and decontamination. If it is determined that clean closure is not possible or is environmentally impractical, the closure plan will be modified to address required postclosure activities. The PFP Treatment and Storage Unit will be operated to immobilize and/or repackage plutonium-bearing waste in a glovebox process. The waste to be processed is in a solid physical state (chunks and coarse powder) and will be sealed into and out of the glovebox in closed containers. The containers of immobilized waste will be stored in the glovebox and in additional permitted storage locations at PFP. The waste will be managed to minimize the potential for spills outside the glovebox, and to preclude spills from reaching soil. Containment surfaces will be maintained to ensure integrity. In the unlikely event that a waste spill does occur outside the glovebox, operating methods and administrative controls will require that waste spills be cleaned up promptly and completely, and a notation will be made in the operating record. Because dangerous waste does not include source, special nuclear, and by-product material components of mixed waste, radionuclides are not within the scope of this documentation. The information on radionuclides is provided only for general knowledge.

PRIGNANO, A.L.

2000-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

166

INSTALLATION CERTIFICATE CF-6R-MECH-08 Ice Storage Air Conditioning (ISAC) Units (Page 1 of 2)  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

cooling with the compressor). Yes No #12;INSTALLATION CERTIFICATE CF-6R-MECH-08 Ice Storage AirINSTALLATION CERTIFICATE CF-6R-MECH-08 Ice Storage Air Conditioning (ISAC) Units (Page 1 of 2) Site Address: Enforcement Agency: Permit Number: 2008 Residential Compliance Forms August 2009 Ice Storage Air

167

METHODOLOGY & CALCULATIONS FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF WASTE FOR THE LARGE UNDERGROUND WASTE STORAGE TANKS AT THE HANFORD SITE  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Waste stored within tank farm double-shell tanks (DST) and single-shell tanks (SST) generates flammable gas (principally hydrogen) to varying degrees depending on the type, amount, geometry, and condition of the waste. The waste generates hydrogen through the radiolysis of water and organic compounds, thermolytic decomposition of organic compounds, and corrosion of a tank's carbon steel walls. Radiolysis and thermolytic decomposition also generates ammonia. Nonflammable gases, which act as dilutents (such as nitrous oxide), are also produced. Additional flammable gases (e.g., methane) are generated by chemical reactions between various degradation products of organic chemicals present in the tanks. Volatile and semi-volatile organic chemicals in tanks also produce organic vapors. The generated gases in tank waste are either released continuously to the tank headspace or are retained in the waste matrix. Retained gas may be released in a spontaneous or induced gas release event (GRE) that can significantly increase the flammable gas concentration in the tank headspace as described in RPP-7771, Flammable Gas Safety Isme Resolution. Appendices A through I provide supporting information. The document categorizes each of the large waste storage tanks into one of several categories based on each tank's waste and characteristics. These waste group assignments reflect a tank's propensity to retain a significant volume of flammable gases and the potential of the waste to release retained gas by a buoyant displacement event. Revision 6 is the annual update of the flammable gas Waste Groups for DSTs and SSTs.

TU, T.A.

2007-01-04T23:59:59.000Z

168

METHODOLOGY & CALCULATIONS FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF WASTE GROUPS FOR THE LARGE UNDERGROUND WASTE STORAGE TANKS AT THE HANFORD SITE  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Waste stored within tank farm double-shell tanks (DST) and single-shell tanks (SST) generates flammable gas (principally hydrogen) to varying degrees depending on the type, amount, geometry, and condition of the waste. The waste generates hydrogen through the radiolysis of water and organic compounds, thermolytic decomposition of organic compounds, and corrosion of a tank's carbon steel walls. Radiolysis and thermolytic decomposition also generates ammonia. Nonflammable gases, which act as dilutents (such as nitrous oxide), are also produced. Additional flammable gases (e.g., methane) are generated by chemical reactions between various degradation products of organic chemicals present in the tanks. Volatile and semi-volatile organic chemicals in tanks also produce organic vapors. The generated gases in tank waste are either released continuously to the tank headspace or are retained in the waste matrix. Retained gas may be released in a spontaneous or induced gas release event (GRE) that can significantly increase the flammable gas concentration in the tank headspace as described in RPP-7771. The document categorizes each of the large waste storage tanks into one of several categories based on each tank's waste characteristics. These waste group assignments reflect a tank's propensity to retain a significant volume of flammable gases and the potential of the waste to release retained gas by a buoyant displacement event. Revision 5 is the annual update of the methodology and calculations of the flammable gas Waste Groups for DSTs and SSTs.

BARKER, S.A.

2006-07-27T23:59:59.000Z

169

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

170

Evaluation of the TORE(R)Lance for Radioactive Waste Mobilization and Retrieval from Underground Storage Tanks  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The TORE? Lance is a hand-held hydro transportation device with the ability to convey solids at pre-determined slurry concentrations over great distances. The TORE? Lance head generates a precessing vortex core to mobilize solids. Solids retrieval is accomplished using an eductor. The device contains no parts and requires pressurized fluid to operate the eductor and produce mobilization. Three configurations of TORE? Lance operation were evaluated for mobilization and eduction during these tests: compressed air, water, and an air and water mixture. These tests have shown that the TORE? Lance is a tool that can be used at Hanford for mobilization and retrieval of wastes. The system is versatile and can be configured for many types of applications. These studies showed that the diverse applications require unique solutions so care is recommended for TORE? Lance equipment selection for each application. The two components of the TORE? Lance are the precessing vortex for mobilizing and the eductor for retrieval. The precessing vortex is sensitive to fluid flow rate and pressure. In the hand-held unit these parameters are controlled both internally, by changing shim spacing, and externally by controlling the flow split between the eductor and the head. For in-tank applications out-of-tank control of both these parameters are recommended.

Bamberger, Judith A.; Bates, Cameron J.; Bates, James M.; White, M.

2002-09-25T23:59:59.000Z

171

Corrective action investigation plan for Corrective Action Unit Number 423: Building 03-60 Underground Discharge Point, Tonopah Test Range, Nevada  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This Corrective Action Investigation Plan (CAIP) contains the environmental sample collection objectives and the criteria for conducting site investigation activities at Corrective Action Unit (CAU) Number 423, the Building 03-60 Underground Discharge Point (UDP), which is located in Area 3 at the Tonopah Test Range (TTR). The TTR, part of the Nellis Air Force Range, is approximately 225 kilometers (140 miles) northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. CAU Number 423 is comprised of only one Corrective Action Site (CAS) which includes the Building 03-60 UDP and an associated discharge line extending from Building 03-60 to a point approximately 73 meters (240 feet) northwest. The UDP was used between approximately 1965 and 1990 to dispose of waste fluids from the Building 03-60 automotive maintenance shop. It is likely that soils surrounding the UDP have been impacted by oil, grease, cleaning supplies and solvents as well as waste motor oil and other automotive fluids released from the UDP.

NONE

1997-10-27T23:59:59.000Z

172

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...

173

The Evolution of Dry Spent Fuel Storage in the United States  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This paper reviews the evolution of Dry Spent Fuel storage technology and application in the United States. Dating back to the legislation signed by Jimmy Carter on April 7, 1977, to outlaw spent fuel reprocessing, the nations spent fuel pools are gradually becoming filled to capacity. This has necessitated the development of new technologies to store spent fuel in dry casks, predominantly at nuclear power plant sites, awaiting the availability of the federal repository at Yucca Mountain. Site-specific conditions and changes in types of fuel being discharged from reactors have driven a constant evolution of technologies to support this critical need. This paper provides an overview of those changes, which have influenced the evolution of dry storage technology. Focus is provided more towards current technology and cask loading practices, as opposed to those technologies, which are no longer in heavy use. Detailed pictorial material is presented showing the loading sequences of various systems in current use. This paper provides a critical primer on Dry Spent Fuel Storage technology. It provides anyone who is new to dry storage, or who is contemplating initiating dry storage at a nuclear plant site, with useful background and history upon which to build programmatic decisions. (authors)

McGough, M.S. [Duratek Inc., 695 Bamesley Lane, Alpharetta, GA 30022 (United States); Bland, D.W. [TriVis, Inc., 1001 Yeager Parkway, Pelham, AL 35124 (United States)

2006-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

174

ENERGY STORAGE IN AQUIFERS - - A SURVEY OF RECENT THEORETICAL STUDIES  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

temperature underground thermal energy storage. In Proc. Th~al modeling of thermal energy storage in aquifers. In ~~-Mathematical modeling; thermal energy storage; aquifers;

Tsang, Chin Fu

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

175

Multinational underground nuclear parks  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Myers, C.W. [Nuclear Engineering and Nonproliferation Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, MS F650, Los Alamos, NM 87544 (United States); Giraud, K.M. [Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, 1550 Oxen Lane NE, P.O. Box 411, Burlington, KS 66839-0411 (United States)

2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

176

Underground Natural Gas Storage by Storage Type  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"Click worksheet9,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,,781Title: Telephone:short version) Themonthly4 Oil demandU.S.Sep-14

177

Underground Natural Gas Storage by Storage Type  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand28 198 18BiomassThree-Dimensional SeismicUranium2009

178

Potential underground risks associated with CAES.  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

2010-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

179

Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration Plan for Corrective Action Unit 121: Storage Tanks and Miscellaneous Sites, Nevada Test Site, Nevada  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan identifies the activities required for the closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 121, Storage Tanks and Miscellaneous Sites. CAU 121 is currently listed in Appendix III of the ''Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order'' (FFACO, 1996) and consists of three Corrective Action Sites (CASs) located in Area 12 of the Nevada Test Site (NTS): CAS 12-01-01, Aboveground Storage Tank; CAS 12-01-02, Aboveground Storage Tank; and CAS 12-22-26, Drums; 2 AST's. CASs 12-01-01 and 12-01-02 are located to the west of the Area 12 Camp, and CAS 12-22-26 is located near the U-12g Tunnel, also known as G-tunnel, in Area 12 (Figure 1). The aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) present at CASs 12-01-01 and 12-01-02 will be removed and disposed of at an appropriate facility. Soil below the ASTs will be sampled to identify whether it has been impacted with chemicals or radioactivity above action levels. If impacted soil above action levels is present, the soil will be excavated and disposed of at an appropriate facility. The CAS 12-22-26 site is composed of two overlapping areas, one where drums had formerly been stored, and the other where an AST was used to dispense diesel for locomotives used at G-tunnel. This area is located above an underground radioactive materials area (URMA), and within an area that may have elevated background radioactivity because of containment breaches during nuclear tests and associated tunnel reentry operations. CAS 12-22-26 does not include the URMA or the elevated background radioactivity. An AST that had previously been used to store liquid magnesium chloride (MgCl) was properly disposed of several years ago, and releases from this tank are not an environmental concern. The diesel AST will be removed and disposed of at an appropriate facility. Soil at the former drum area and the diesel AST area will be sampled to identify whether it has been impacted by releases, from the drums or the AST, with chemicals or radioactivity above action levels. CAS 12-22-26 has different potential closure pathways that are dependent upon the concentrations and chemicals detected. If only petroleum hydrocarbons are detected above action levels, then the area will be use-restricted. It will not be excavated because of the more significant hazard of excavating within a URMA. Similarly, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) will only be excavated for concentrations of 50 parts per million (ppm) or greater, if there are no other factors that require excavation. For PCBs at concentrations above 1 ppm, the area will be use-restricted as required by Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 761 for PCBs (CFR, 2006), in the ''Toxic Substances Control Act'' (TSCA). Other chemicals at concentrations above the final action levels (FALs) will be excavated. If radioactivity is above action levels, then the soil will be excavated only to a depth of 1 foot (ft) below ground surface (bgs) and replaced with clean fill. This action is intended to remove the ''hot spot'' on the surface caused by leakage from a drum, and not to remediate the URMA.

NSTec Environmental Restoration

2007-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

180

Corrective Action Investigation Plan for Corrective Action Unit 135: Area 25 Underground Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This CAIP presents a plan to investigate the nature and extent of the contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) at CAU 135. The purpose of the corrective action investigation described in this CAIP is to: (1) Identify the presence and nature of COPCs; (2) Determine the location of radiological contamination within the vault and determine the extent of COPCs in the sump area and on the floor; and (3) Provide sufficient information and data to develop and evaluate appropriate corrective actions for CAS 25-02-01. This CAIP was developed using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) (EPA, 1994) process to clearly define the goals for collecting environmental data, to determine data uses, and to design a data collection program that will satisfy these uses. A DQO scoping meeting was held prior to preparation of this plan; a brief summary of the DQOs is presented in Section 3.4. A more detailed summary of the DQO process and results is included in Appendix A.

DOE/NV

1999-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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

Panel 2, Geologic Storage of Hydrogen  

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

Geologic Storage - Types Types of Underground Storage Aquifers Aquifers are similar in geology to depleted reservoirs, but have not been proven to trap gas and must be developed....

182

Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 166: Storage Yards and Contaminated Materials, Nevada Test Site, Nevada  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 166 is identified in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) as 'Storage Yards and Contaminated Materials' and consists of the following seven Corrective Action Sites (CASs), located in Areas 2, 3, 5, and 18 of the Nevada Test Site: CAS 02-42-01, Condo Release Storage Yd - North; CAS 02-42-02, Condo Release Storage Yd - South; CAS 02-99-10, D-38 Storage Area; CAS 03-42-01, Conditional Release Storage Yard; CAS 05-19-02, Contaminated Soil and Drum; CAS 18-01-01, Aboveground Storage Tank; and CAS 18-99-03, Wax Piles/Oil Stain. Closure activities were conducted from March to July 2009 according to the FF ACO (1996, as amended February 2008) and the Corrective Action Plan for CAU 166 (U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office, 2007b). The corrective action alternatives included No Further Action and Clean Closure. Closure activities are summarized. CAU 166, Storage Yards and Contaminated Materials, consists of seven CASs in Areas 2, 3, 5, and 18 of the NTS. The closure alternatives included No Further Action and Clean Closure. This CR provides a summary of completed closure activities, documentation of waste disposal, and confirmation that remediation goals were met. The following site closure activities were performed at CAU 166 as documented in this CR: (1) At CAS 02-99-10, D-38 Storage Area, approximately 40 gal of lead shot were removed and are currently pending treatment and disposal as MW, and approximately 50 small pieces of DU were removed and disposed as LLW. (2) At CAS 03-42-01, Conditional Release Storage Yard, approximately 7.5 yd{sup 3} of soil impacted with lead and Am-241 were removed and disposed as LLW. As a BMP, approximately 22 ft{sup 3} of asbestos tile were removed from a portable building and disposed as ALLW, approximately 55 gal of oil were drained from accumulators and are currently pending disposal as HW, the portable building was removed and disposed as LLW, and accumulators, gas cylinders, and associated debris were removed and are currently pending treatment and disposal as MW. (3) At CAS 05-19-02, Contaminated Soil and Drum, as a BMP, an empty drum was removed and disposed as sanitary waste. (4) At CAS 18-01-01, Aboveground Storage Tank, approximately 165 gal of lead-impacted liquid were removed and are currently pending disposal as HW, and approximately 10 gal of lead shot and 6 yd{sup 3} of wax embedded with lead shot were removed and are currently pending treatment and disposal as MW. As a BMP, approximately 0.5 yd{sup 3} of wax were removed and disposed as hydrocarbon waste, approximately 55 gal of liquid were removed and disposed as sanitary waste, and two metal containers were grouted in place. (5) At CAS 18-99-03, Wax Piles/Oil Stain, no further action was required; however, as a BMP, approximately l.5 yd{sup 3} of wax were removed and disposed as hydrocarbon waste, and one metal container was grouted in place.

NSTec Environmental Restoration

2009-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

183

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

184

Gas Storage Technology Consortium  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Gas storage is a critical element in the natural gas industry. Producers, transmission & distribution companies, marketers, and end users all benefit directly from the load balancing function of storage. The unbundling process has fundamentally changed the way storage is used and valued. As an unbundled service, the value of storage is being recovered at rates that reflect its value. Moreover, the marketplace has differentiated between various types of storage services, and has increasingly rewarded flexibility, safety, and reliability. The size of the natural gas market has increased and is projected to continue to increase towards 30 trillion cubic feet (TCF) over the next 10 to 15 years. Much of this increase is projected to come from electric generation, particularly peaking units. Gas storage, particularly the flexible services that are most suited to electric loads, is critical in meeting the needs of these new markets. In order to address the gas storage needs of the natural gas industry, an industry-driven consortium was created--the Gas Storage Technology Consortium (GSTC). The objective of the GSTC is to provide a means to accomplish industry-driven research and development designed to enhance operational flexibility and deliverability of the Nation's gas storage system, and provide a cost effective, safe, and reliable supply of natural gas to meet domestic demand. This report addresses the activities for the quarterly period of April 1 to June 30, 2006. Key activities during this time period include: (1) Develop and process subcontract agreements for the eight projects selected for cofunding at the February 2006 GSTC Meeting; (2) Compiling and distributing the three 2004 project final reports to the GSTC Full members; (3) Develop template, compile listserv, and draft first GSTC Insider online newsletter; (4) Continue membership recruitment; (5) Identify projects and finalize agenda for the fall GSTC/AGA Underground Storage Committee Technology Transfer Workshop in San Francisco, CA; and (6) Identify projects and prepare draft agenda for the fall GSTC Technology Transfer Workshop in Pittsburgh, PA.

Joel L. Morrison; Sharon L. Elder

2006-07-06T23:59:59.000Z

185

E-Print Network 3.0 - abandons gas storage Sample Search Results  

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

Storage L... - Million tonnes of oil equivalent 12;Hughes: Alton Underground Natural Gas Storage Facility 2 storage... : Is there a sufficient supply of ... Source: Hughes,...

186

SUPERCONDUCTING MAGNETIC ENERGY STORAGE  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Superconducting 30-MJ Energy Storage Coil", Proc. 19 80 ASC,Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage Plant", IEEE Trans.SlIperconducting Magnetic Energy Storage Unit", in Advances

Hassenzahl, W.

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

187

Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 121: Storage Tanks and Miscellaneous Sites, Nevada Test Site, Nevada  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 121 is identified in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) (1996, as amended February 2008) as Storage Tanks and Miscellaneous Sites. CAU 121 consists of the following three Corrective Action Sites (CASs) located in Area 12 of the Nevada Test Site, which is approximately 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada: (1) CAS 12-01-01, Aboveground Storage Tank; (2) CAS 12-01-02, Aboveground Storage Tank; and (3) CAS 12-22-26, Drums; 2 AST's. CAU 121 closure activities were conducted according to the FFACO and the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration Plan for CAU 121 (U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office, 2007). Field work took place from February through September 2008. Samples were collected to determine the path forward to close each site. Closure activities were completed as defined in the plan based on sample analytical results and site conditions. No contaminants of concern (COCs) were present at CAS 12-01-01; therefore, no further action was chosen as the corrective action alternative. As a best management practice (BMP), the empty aboveground storage tank (AST) was removed and disposed as sanitary waste. At CAS 12-01-02, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were present above the preliminary action level (PAL) in the soil beneath the AST that could possibly have originated from the AST contents. Therefore, PCBs were considered COCs, and the site was clean closed by excavating and disposing of soil containing PCBs. Approximately 5 cubic yards (yd{sup 3}) of soil were excavated and disposed as petroleum hydrocarbon PCB remediation waste, and approximately 13 yd3 of soil were excavated and disposed as PCB remediation waste. Cleanup samples were collected to confirm that the remaining soil did not contain PCBs above the PAL. Other compounds detected in the soil above PALs (i.e., total petroleum hydrocarbons [TPH] and semi-volatile organic compounds [SVOCs]) were determined to not likely have originated from the tank. Additional sample results showed that the compounds were likely present as a result of degraded asphalt around the adjacent, active water tank and not from the abandoned AST; therefore, they were not considered COCs. As a BMP, the empty AST was removed and disposed as sanitary waste. No COCs were present at CAS 12-22-26; therefore, no further action was chosen as the corrective action alternative. Although TPH was present at concentrations that exceeded the PAL, the volatile organic compound and SVOC hazardous constituents of TPH did not exceed the final action levels (FALs); therefore, TPH was not considered a COC. As a BMP, the empty AST was removed and disposed as sanitary waste. Closure activities generated sanitary waste, petroleum hydrocarbon PCB remediation waste, PCB remediation waste, and hazardous waste. Waste was appropriately managed and disposed. Waste that is currently staged on site is being appropriately managed and will be disposed under approved waste profiles in permitted landfills. Waste minimization activities included waste characterization sampling and segregation of waste streams.

NSTec Environmental Restoration

2008-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

188

Corrective Action Plan for Corrective Action Unit 166: Storage Yards and Contaminated Materials, Nevada Test Site, Nevada  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 166, Storage Yards and Contaminated Materials, is listed in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) of 1996 (FFACO, 1996). CAU 166 consists of seven Corrective Action Sites (CASs) located in Areas 2, 3, 5, and 18 of the Nevada Test Site (NTS), which is located approximately 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada (Figure 1). CAU 166 consists of the following CASs: (1) CAS 02-42-01, Cond. Release Storage Yd - North; (2) CAS 02-42-02, Cond. Release Storage Yd - South; (3) CAS 02-99-10, D-38 Storage Area; (4) CAS 03-42-01, Conditional Release Storage Yard; (5) CAS 05-19-02, Contaminated Soil and Drum; (6) CAS 18-01-01, Aboveground Storage Tank; and (7) CAS 18-99-03, Wax Piles/Oil Stain. Details of the site history and site characterization results for CAU 166 are provided in the approved Corrective Action Investigation Plan (CAIP) (U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office [NNSA/NSO], 2006) and in the approved Corrective Action Decision Document (CADD) (NNSA/NSO, 2007).

NSTec Environmental Restoration

2007-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

189

Underground Layout Configuration  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

190

Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 124, Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada with Errata Sheet, Revision 0  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This Closure Report (CR) presents information supporting closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 124, Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site (NTS), Nevada. This report complies with the requirements of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) that was agreed to by the State of Nevada; U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Management; U.S. Department of Defense; and DOE, Legacy Management (FFACO, 1996; as amended January 2007). This CR provides documentation and justification for the closure of CAU 124 without further corrective action. This justification is based on process knowledge and the results of the investigative activities conducted in accordance with the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan for Corrective Action Unit 124: Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada (NNSA/NSO, 2007). The SAFER Plan provides information relating to site history as well as the scope and planning of the investigation. Therefore, this information will not be repeated in this CR.

Alfred Wickline

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

191

Compressed Air Energy Storage Act (Kansas)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

This act lays out regulations for the local authorities related to site selection, design, operation and monitoring for underground storage of compressed air.

192

Record of Technical Change for Corrective Action Plan for Corrective Action Unit 140: Waste Dumps, burn Pits, and Storage Area, Nevada Test Site, Nevada  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Record of Technical Change for Corrective Action Plan for Corrective Action Unit 140: Waste Dumps, Burn Pits, and Storage Area, Nevada Test Site, Nevada (DOE/NV--963-Rev 2, dated November 2004).

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

2005-01-05T23:59:59.000Z

193

Overview of geologic storage of natural gas with an emphasis on assessing the feasibility of storing hydrogen.  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

In many regions across the nation geologic formations are currently being used to store natural gas underground. Storage options are dictated by the regional geology and the operational need. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has an interest in understanding theses various geologic storage options, the advantages and disadvantages, in the hopes of developing an underground facility for the storage of hydrogen as a low cost storage option, as part of the hydrogen delivery infrastructure. Currently, depleted gas/oil reservoirs, aquifers, and salt caverns are the three main types of underground natural gas storage in use today. The other storage options available currently and in the near future, such as abandoned coal mines, lined hard rock caverns, and refrigerated mined caverns, will become more popular as the demand for natural gas storage grows, especially in regions were depleted reservoirs, aquifers, and salt deposits are not available. The storage of hydrogen within the same type of facilities, currently used for natural gas, may add new operational challenges to the existing cavern storage industry, such as the loss of hydrogen through chemical reactions and the occurrence of hydrogen embrittlement. Currently there are only three locations worldwide, two of which are in the United States, which store hydrogen. All three sites store hydrogen within salt caverns.

Lord, Anna Snider

2009-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

194

Underground Injection Control (Louisiana)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [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...

195

Worker safety in a mature carbon capture and storage industry in the United States based upon analog industry experience  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

attributable to carbon capture and storage in 2050.safety in a mature carbon capture and storage industry insafety in a mature carbon capture and storage (CCS) industry

Jordan, P.D.

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

196

ENERGY STORAGE IN AQUIFERS - - A SURVEY OF RECENT THEORETICAL STUDIES  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

underground thermal energy storage. In Proc. Th~rmal1980), 'I'hermal energy storage? in a confined aquifer·--al modeling of thermal energy storage in aquifers. In ~~-

Tsang, Chin Fu

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

197

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Part B permit application for container storage units at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This document contains Part B of the Permit Application for Container Storage Units at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant. Sections cover the following areas: Facility description; Waste characteristics; Process information; Ground water monitoring; Procedures to prevent hazards; Contingency plan; Personnel training; Closure plan, post closure plan, and financial requirements; Recordkeeping; Other federal laws; Organic air emissions; Solid waste management units; and Certification.

Not Available

1994-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

198

Gas Storage Technology Consortium  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Gas storage is a critical element in the natural gas industry. Producers, transmission and distribution companies, marketers, and end users all benefit directly from the load balancing function of storage. The unbundling process has fundamentally changed the way storage is used and valued. As an unbundled service, the value of storage is being recovered at rates that reflect its value. Moreover, the marketplace has differentiated between various types of storage services, and has increasingly rewarded flexibility, safety, and reliability. The size of the natural gas market has increased and is projected to continue to increase towards 30 trillion cubic feet (TCF) over the next 10 to 15 years. Much of this increase is projected to come from electric generation, particularly peaking units. Gas storage, particularly the flexible services that are most suited to electric loads, is critical in meeting the needs of these new markets. In order to address the gas storage needs of the natural gas industry, an industry-driven consortium was created-the Gas Storage Technology Consortium (GSTC). The objective of the GSTC is to provide a means to accomplish industry-driven research and development designed to enhance operational flexibility and deliverability of the Nation's gas storage system, and provide a cost effective, safe, and reliable supply of natural gas to meet domestic demand. This report addresses the activities for the quarterly period of July 1, 2006 to September 30, 2006. Key activities during this time period include: {lg_bullet} Subaward contracts for all 2006 GSTC projects completed; {lg_bullet} Implement a formal project mentoring process by a mentor team; {lg_bullet} Upcoming Technology Transfer meetings: {sm_bullet} Finalize agenda for the American Gas Association Fall Underground Storage Committee/GSTC Technology Transfer Meeting in San Francisco, CA. on October 4, 2006; {sm_bullet} Identify projects and finalize agenda for the Fall GSTC Technology Transfer Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA on November 8, 2006; {lg_bullet} Draft and compile an electronic newsletter, the GSTC Insider; and {lg_bullet} New members update.

Joel L. Morrison; Sharon L. Elder

2006-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

199

Corrective Action Investigation Plan for Corrective Action Unit 145: Wells and Storage Holes, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Rev. No.: 0  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This Corrective Action Investigation Plan (CAIP) contains project-specific information for conducting site investigation activities at Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 145: Wells and Storage Holes. Information presented in this CAIP includes facility descriptions, environmental sample collection objectives, and criteria for the selection and evaluation of environmental samples. Corrective Action Unit 145 is located in Area 3 of the Nevada Test Site, which is 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. Corrective Action Unit 145 is comprised of the six Corrective Action Sites (CASs) listed below: (1) 03-20-01, Core Storage Holes; (2) 03-20-02, Decon Pad and Sump; (3) 03-20-04, Injection Wells; (4) 03-20-08, Injection Well; (5) 03-25-01, Oil Spills; and (6) 03-99-13, Drain and Injection Well. These sites are being investigated because existing information on the nature and extent of potential contamination is insufficient to evaluate and recommend corrective action alternatives. Additional information will be obtained by conducting a corrective action investigation (CAI) prior to evaluating corrective action alternatives and selecting the appropriate corrective action for each CAS. The results of the field investigation will support a defensible evaluation of viable corrective action alternatives that will be presented in the Corrective Action Decision Document. One conceptual site model with three release scenario components was developed for the six CASs to address all releases associated with the site. The sites will be investigated based on data quality objectives (DQOs) developed on June 24, 2004, by representatives of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection; U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office; Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture; and Bechtel Nevada. The DQOs process was used to identify and define the type, amount, and quality of data needed to develop and evaluate appropriate corrective actions for CAU 145.

David A. Strand

2004-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

200

Energy Storage Activities in the United States Electricity Grid. May 2011  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) "ofEarly Career Scientists'Montana.Program -Department oftoThese WebThese caseEnergyA123Sector(PE)Storage

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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

TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL UNITS PROJECT MANAGERS LIST  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunDatastreamsmmcrcalgovInstrumentsrucLas ConchasPassiveSubmittedStatus TomAbout »LabSustainabilitySyntheticaquiferTREATMENT, STORAGE

202

Underground nuclear energy complexes - technical and economic advantages  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Myers, Carl W [Los Alamos National Laboratory; Kunze, Jay F [IDAHO STATE UNIV; Giraud, Kellen M [BABECOCK AND WILCOX; Mahar, James M [IDAHO STATE UNIV

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

203

Base Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Summary)  

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

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...

204

Oregon Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

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

1,144 429 -1,786 1,271 463 1,938 1973-2013 Injections 15,088 10,570 8,658 11,976 8,732 12,176 1973-2013 Withdrawals 16,232 10,999 6,871 13,247 9,195 14,114 1989...

205

Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

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

927 -1,758 2,292 -1,721 2,383 -811 1967-2013 Injections 16,517 15,088 14,384 15,592 10,582 14,165 1967-2013 Withdrawals 17,445 13,330 16,676 13,871 12,965 13,354...

206

Colorado Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

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

140 -3,442 1,760 -3,128 -2,570 -3,404 1967-2013 Injections 39,034 45,861 43,250 51,469 59,096 66,935 1967-2013 Withdrawals 36,894 42,419 45,010 48,341 56,525 63,531...

207

West Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion2008 2009 2010from Sameper

208

Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion2008Sep-14Thousand CubicPropane-Air98,448

209

Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion2008Sep-14Thousand

210

Underground Natural Gas in Storage - All Operators  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr MayAtmosphericNuclear SecurityTensile Strain Switched Ferromagnetism in Layeredof2014National Nuclear SecuritySalaryandAdministration

211

Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) inDecadeDecade (MillionThousand Cubic Feet)7 5 1

212

Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) inDecadeDecadeFeet)Decade Year-0313,210 337,260

213

Oregon Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996)Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2Feet)Thousand Cubic29,201

214

Pennsylvania Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996)DecadeYear Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun JulThousand Cubic

215

Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity - Methodology  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecemberSteamYearTexas--StateWinterYear Jan

216

Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecemberSteamYearTexas--StateWinterYearFeet)perWesternPipeline2

217

Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecemberSteamYearTexas--StateWinterYearFeet)perWesternPipeline2Gas in

218

Alabama Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet) BaseSep-14 Oct-14per Thousand 2007

219

Alabama Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet) BaseSep-14 Oct-14per Thousand 20076,900

220

Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet)Year Jan Feb Mar119,0392008 2009 201038,017

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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

Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet)Year Jan Feb Mar119,0392008 2009 201038,017

222

Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand Cubic4,630.2per Thousand Cubic340 340 340 340 340 340

223

Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand Cubic4,630.2per Thousand Cubic340 340 340 340 340

224

Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand Cubic4,630.2perSep-14Base22,667 28,167 4605,250

225

Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand Cubic4,630.2perSep-14Base22,667 28,167

226

The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand Cubic4,630.2perSep-14Base22,667The Basics of

227

Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 0 14 15 0 0 0Year Jan Feb MarYearper0 0 0

228

Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 0 14 15 0 0 0Year Jan Feb MarYearper0 0 0114,937

229

Iowa Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 0 14 15 0 0 0YearDecadeThousand Cubic7 3 2 1 0

230

Iowa Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 0 14 15 0 0 0YearDecadeThousand Cubic7 3 2 1

231

Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 0 14 15 0Month Previous YearThousand1 3 2 4

232

Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 0 14 15 0Month Previous YearThousand1 3 2

233

Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 0 14 15IndustrialVehicleThousand Cubic20

234

Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 0 14 15IndustrialVehicleThousand Cubic2020,359

235

Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 0 14343 342 3289886,084 889,5705,020440 0537,662

236

Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 0 14343 342 3289886,084 889,5705,020440

237

Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 0 14343Decade81 170 115 89 116 10761,187 63,105

238

Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 0 14343Decade81 170 115 89 116 10761,187

239

Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 04 19 15 15 15 3YearDecade Year-0per9 6

240

Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 04 19 15 15 15 3YearDecade Year-0per9 61,062,339

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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

Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 04 19 15 15Thousand CubicYear46 47 12 20 96,591

242

Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 04 19 15 15Thousand CubicYear46 47 12 20

243

Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 04 19 15Year JanThousand Cubic0 0 0 5,774 0

244

Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 04 19 15Year JanThousand Cubic0 0 0 5,774

245

Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 04 19 15YearThousandDecade(Million Cubic3

246

Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 04 19 15YearThousandDecade(Million Cubic332,876

247

Montana Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 04 19343 369 384FuelYear125 137 186 192

248

Montana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 04 19343 369 384FuelYear125 137 186 19274,201

249

The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecemberSteamYearTexas--State Offshore Shale Proved Reserves (BillionAnalysis >

250

Weekly Working Gas in Underground Storage  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S. NaturalA. Michael SchaalNovember1. Foreign sales ofLiquidsWater0,

251

Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data CenterFranconia,(Million Barrels) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing ReservoirsYear-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3Processing: TheTotal

252

Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data CenterFranconia,(Million Barrels) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing ReservoirsYear-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3Processing:

253

Underground Storage Tank Management (District of Columbia)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

The  installation, upgrade and operation of any petroleum UST (>110 gallons) or hazardous substance UST System, including heating oil tanks over 1,100 gallons capacity in the District requires a...

254

Colorado Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 633 622 56623 4623 42 180 208 283 6076,258

255

Colorado Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 633 622 56623 4623 42 180 208 283 6076,25895,068

256

Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 0 14 15 0 0 0 0 1996-2005 Lease9.5 9.2 8.7

257

Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 0 14 15 0 0 0 0 1996-2005 Lease9.5 9.2

258

Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30 2013 Macroeconomicper8,170 8,310 8,304 8,368 8,307 8,528 1992-2015)

259

Arkansas Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS98,,,1999,0,0,1e+15,1469,6,01179,"WAT","HY"Tables andA 6 J (Million CubicDecadeBaseper1 0 1112,352

260

California Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998 10,643 10,998 10,998 10,64397 272 522 542 627 606 1996-201323 46

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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

Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand28 198Separation 321Working40 235 257 258 3683

262

Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand28 198Separation 321Working40 235 257 258

263

Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand28Decreases (BillionSeparation 2,3780 08,530 9,169

264

Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand28Decreases (BillionSeparation 2,3780 08,530

265

Washington Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand28Decreases349,980Additions89 5.87Same1.7 1.8,800

266

Washington Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand28Decreases349,980Additions89 5.87Same1.7

267

Underground CO2 Storage | GE Global Research  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunDatastreamsmmcrcalgovInstrumentsrucLasDelivered energy consumption by sectorlong version)

268

Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecember 2005 (Thousand9,0,InformationU.S. Crude Oil31 E Annual Download55,035 Salt

269

Oregon Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas,095,3628,527 9,029 8,794 2011-2013Decade Year-0(Million29,415

270

Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas,095,3628,527 9,029 8,794CubicExports of CrudeDegrees API

271

Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas,095,3628,527 9,029 8,794CubicExports of CrudeDegrees

272

Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas,095,3628,527 9,029 8,794CubicExports of CrudeDegreesMethodology

273

Pennsylvania Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas,095,3628,527 9,029Cubic(Dollars per Thousand Cubic 0 0

274

Arkansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 633 622 566 8021 1 2 22008 2009 2010 2011 20122,000

275

California Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 633 622 56623 46 47 62 53 52 1996-2013498,705 513,005

276

Natural Gas In Underground Storage (Summary)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet) Year Jan Feb Marthrough Monthly Download Series History Download

277

Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet) Year Jan Feb Marthrough Monthly2. Average Annual31,941341,2138

278

Nebraska Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet) Year Jan Feb MarthroughYear Jan Feb Mar AprThousand9 0.8

279

Nebraska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet) Year Jan Feb MarthroughYear Jan Feb Mar AprThousand9 0.84,850

280

New Mexico Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet) Year Jan FebFeet) Decade

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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

New York Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet) Year Jan FebFeet)SalesYear Jan Feb Mar0 0 0 0 0 08.1228,613

282

Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) in Kansas (Million15,134,6442,869,960 Annual55,035 Salt

283

Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet) Year JanProduction 4 125 2006Year Jan Feb MarThousand0572,477

284

Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet) Year JanProduction 4 125Feet)Same

285

Domestic olivine vs magnesite as a thermal-energy-storage material: performance comparisons for electrically heated room-size units in accordance with ASHRAE Standard 94. 2  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Electrically heated thermal-energy-storage (TES) heaters employing high-heat-capacity ceramic refractories for sensible heat storage have been in use in Europe for several years. With these heaters, low cost off-peak electrical energy is stored by heating a storage core composed of ceramic material to approximately 800/sup 0/C. During the peak period, no electrical energy is used as the building heating needs are supplied by extracting the stored heat from the core by forced air circulation. Recently significant interest in the use of off-peak TES units in the US has occured, leading to the search for a domestic supply of high heat capacity ceramic refractory material. North Carolina's extensive but under-utilized supply of refractory grade olivine has been proposed as a source of storage material for these units. In this paper, the suitability of North Carolina olivine for heat-storage applications is assessed by comparing its thermal performance with that of European materials. Using the method of ASHRAE Standard 94.2, the thermal performance of two small room-sized commercially available TES units was determined experimentally with two different storage materials, North Carolina olivine and German magnesite. Comparisons between the two materials are made and conclusions are drawn.

Laster, W.R.; Schoenhals, R.J.; Gay, B.M.; Palmour, H. III

1982-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

286

SIMULATION FRAMEWORK FOR REGIONAL GEOLOGIC CO{sub 2} STORAGE ALONG ARCHES PROVINCE OF MIDWESTERN UNITED STATES  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This report presents final technical results for the project Simulation Framework for Regional Geologic CO{sub 2} Storage Infrastructure along Arches Province of the Midwest United States. The Arches Simulation project was a three year effort designed to develop a simulation framework for regional geologic carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) storage infrastructure along the Arches Province through development of a geologic model and advanced reservoir simulations of large-scale CO{sub 2} storage. The project included five major technical tasks: (1) compilation of geologic, hydraulic and injection data on Mount Simon, (2) development of model framework and parameters, (3) preliminary variable density flow simulations, (4) multi-phase model runs of regional storage scenarios, and (5) implications for regional storage feasibility. The Arches Province is an informal region in northeastern Indiana, northern Kentucky, western Ohio, and southern Michigan where sedimentary rock formations form broad arch and platform structures. In the province, the Mount Simon sandstone is an appealing deep saline formation for CO{sub 2} storage because of the intersection of reservoir thickness and permeability. Many CO{sub 2} sources are located in proximity to the Arches Province, and the area is adjacent to coal fired power plants along the Ohio River Valley corridor. Geophysical well logs, rock samples, drilling logs, and geotechnical tests were evaluated for a 500,000 km{sup 2} study area centered on the Arches Province. Hydraulic parameters and historical operational information was also compiled from Mount Simon wastewater injection wells in the region. This information was integrated into a geocellular model that depicts the parameters and conditions in a numerical array. The geologic and hydraulic data were integrated into a three-dimensional grid of porosity and permeability, which are key parameters regarding fluid flow and pressure buildup due to CO{sub 2} injection. Permeability data were corrected in locations where reservoir tests have been performed in Mount Simon injection wells. The geocellular model was used to develop a series of numerical simulations designed to support CO{sub 2} storage applications in the Arches Province. Variable density fluid flow simulations were initially run to evaluate model sensitivity to input parameters. Two dimensional, multiple-phase simulations were completed to evaluate issues related to arranging injection fields in the study area. A basin-scale, multiple-phase model was developed to evaluate large scale injection effects across the region. Finally, local scale simulations were also completed with more detailed depiction of the Eau Claire formation to investigate to the potential for upward migration of CO{sub 2}. Overall, the technical work on the project concluded that injection large-scale injection may be achieved with proper field design, operation, siting, and monitoring. Records from Mount Simon injection wells were compiled, documenting more than 20 billion gallons of injection into the Mount Simon formation in the Arches Province over the past 40 years, equivalent to approximately 60 million metric tons CO2. The multi-state team effort was useful in delineating the geographic variability in the Mount Simon reservoir properties. Simulations better defined potential well fields, well field arrangement, CO{sub 2} pipeline distribution system, and operational parameters for large-scale injection in the Arches Province. Multiphase scoping level simulations suggest that injection fields with arrays of 9 to 50+ wells may be used to accommodate large injection volumes. Individual wells may need to be separated by 3 to 10 km. Injection fields may require spacing of 25 to 40 km to limit pressure and saturation front interference. Basin-scale multiple-phase simulations in STOMP reflect variability in the Mount Simon. While simulations suggest a total injection rate of 100 million metric tons per year (approximately to a 40% reduction of CO{sub 2} emissions from large point sources across the Arches Pr

Sminchak, Joel

2012-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

287

SIMULATION FRAMEWORK FOR REGIONAL GEOLOGIC CO{sub 2} STORAGE ALONG ARCHES PROVINCE OF MIDWESTERN UNITED STATES  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This report presents final technical results for the project Simulation Framework for Regional Geologic CO{sub 2} Storage Infrastructure along Arches Province of the Midwest United States. The Arches Simulation project was a three year effort designed to develop a simulation framework for regional geologic carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) storage infrastructure along the Arches Province through development of a geologic model and advanced reservoir simulations of large-scale CO{sub 2} storage. The project included five major technical tasks: (1) compilation of geologic, hydraulic and injection data on Mount Simon, (2) development of model framework and parameters, (3) preliminary variable density flow simulations, (4) multi-phase model runs of regional storage scenarios, and (5) implications for regional storage feasibility. The Arches Province is an informal region in northeastern Indiana, northern Kentucky, western Ohio, and southern Michigan where sedimentary rock formations form broad arch and platform structures. In the province, the Mount Simon sandstone is an appealing deep saline formation for CO{sub 2} storage because of the intersection of reservoir thickness and permeability. Many CO{sub 2} sources are located in proximity to the Arches Province, and the area is adjacent to coal fired power plants along the Ohio River Valley corridor. Geophysical well logs, rock samples, drilling logs, and geotechnical tests were evaluated for a 500,000 km{sup 2} study area centered on the Arches Province. Hydraulic parameters and historical operational information was also compiled from Mount Simon wastewater injection wells in the region. This information was integrated into a geocellular model that depicts the parameters and conditions in a numerical array. The geologic and hydraulic data were integrated into a three-dimensional grid of porosity and permeability, which are key parameters regarding fluid flow and pressure buildup due to CO{sub 2} injection. Permeability data were corrected in locations where reservoir tests have been performed in Mount Simon injection wells. The geocellular model was used to develop a series of numerical simulations designed to support CO2 storage applications in the Arches Province. Variable density fluid flow simulations were initially run to evaluate model sensitivity to input parameters. Two dimensional, multiple-phase simulations were completed to evaluate issues related to arranging injection fields in the study area. A basin-scale, multiple-phase model was developed to evaluate large scale injection effects across the region. Finally, local scale simulations were also completed with more detailed depiction of the Eau Claire formation to investigate to the potential for upward migration of CO2. Overall, the technical work on the project concluded that injection large-scale injection may be achieved with proper field design, operation, siting, and monitoring. Records from Mount Simon injection wells were compiled, documenting more than 20 billion gallons of injection into the Mount Simon formation in the Arches Province over the past 40 years, equivalent to approximately 60 million metric tons CO2. The multi-state team effort was useful in delineating the geographic variability in the Mount Simon reservoir properties. Simulations better defined potential well fields, well field arrangement, CO2 pipeline distribution system, and operational parameters for large-scale injection in the Arches Province. Multiphase scoping level simulations suggest that injection fields with arrays of 9 to 50+ wells may be used to accommodate large injection volumes. Individual wells may need to be separated by 3 to 10 km. Injection fields may require spacing of 25 to 40 km to limit pressure and saturation front interference. Basin-scale multiple-phase simulations in STOMP reflect variability in the Mount Simon. While simulations suggest a total injection rate of 100 million metric tons per year (approximately to a 40% reduction of CO2 emissions from large point sources across the Arches Province) may be feasible,

Sminchak, Joel

2012-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

288

EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Aquifer Storage Reservoir...  

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

Aquifer Storage Reservoir Configuration About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 20072008 with selected updates Aquifer Underground...

289

Underground Injection Control (West Virginia)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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...

290

Natural gas storage - end user interaction. Task 2. Topical report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

New opportunities have been created for underground gas storage as a result of recent regulatory developments in the energy industry. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order 636 directly changed the economics of gas storage nationwide. This paper discusses the storage of natural gas, storage facilities, and factors affecting the current, and future situation for natural gas storage.

NONE

1996-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

291

Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration Plan for Corrective Action Unit 134: Aboveground Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan identifies the activities required for the closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 134, Aboveground Storage Tanks. CAU 134 is currently listed in Appendix III of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) (FFACO, 1996; as amended February 2008) and consists of four Corrective Action Sites (CASs) located in Areas 3, 15, and 29 of the Nevada Test Site (NTS) (Figure 1): (1) CAS 03-01-03, Aboveground Storage Tank; (2) CAS 03-01-04, Tank; (3) CAS 15-01-05, Aboveground Storage Tank; and (4) CAS 29-01-01, Hydrocarbon Stain. CAS 03-01-03 consists of a mud tank that is located at the intersection of the 3-07 and the 3-12 Roads in Area 3 of the NTS. The tank and its contents are uncontaminated and will be dispositioned in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. This CAS will be closed by taking no further action. CAS 03-01-04 consists of a potable water tank that is located at the Core Complex in Area 3 of the NTS. The tank will be closed by taking no further action. CAS 15-01-05 consists of an aboveground storage tank (AST) and associated impacted soil, if any. This CAS is located on a steep slope near the Climax Mine in Area 15 of the NTS. The AST is empty and will be dispositioned in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Soil below the AST will be sampled to identify whether it has been impacted by chemicals at concentrations exceeding the action levels. It appears that the tank is not at its original location. Soil will also be sampled at the original tank location, if it can be found. If soil at either location has been impacted at concentrations that exceed the action levels, then the extent of contamination will be identified and a use restriction (UR) will be implemented. The site may be clean closed if contamination is less than one cubic yard in extent and can be readily excavated. If action levels are not exceeded, then no further action is required. CAS 29-01-01 consists of soil that has been impacted by a release or operations from an active diesel AST that fuels the generator at the Shoshone Receiver Site in Area 29 of the NTS. Soil below the AST will be sampled to identify whether it has been impacted at concentrations exceeding the action levels. If it is, then the extent of contamination will be identified and a UR will be implemented. The site may be clean closed if contamination is less than one cubic yard in extent, can be readily excavated, and it is determined that clean closure is feasible based upon site conditions. If action levels are not exceeded, then no further action is required. Based on review of the preliminary assessment information for CAU 134 and recent site inspections, there is sufficient process knowledge to close CAU 134 using the SAFER process.

NSTec Environmental Restoration

2008-05-31T23:59:59.000Z

292

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

293

Flood Assessment at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site and the Proposed Hazardous Waste Storage Unit, DOE/Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

A flood assessment at the Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS) and the proposed Hazardous Waste Storage Unit (HWSU) in Area 5 of the Nevada Test Site (NTS) was performed to determine the 100-year flood hazard at these facilities. The study was conducted to determine whether the RWMS and HWSU are located within a 100-year flood hazard as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and to provide discharges for the design of flood protection.

Schmeltzer, J. S., Millier, J. J., Gustafson, D. L.

1993-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

294

UNIT NUMBER  

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

4 UNIT NAME C-611 Underaround Diesel Tank REGULATORY STATUS: AOC LOCATION: Immediately southeast of C-611 APPROXIMATE DIMENSIONS: 1000 gallon FUNCTION: Diesel storage OPERATIONAL...

295

Rainwater Harvesting: Soil Storage and Infiltration System  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

A soil storage and infiltration system collects rainfall runoff from the roofs of buildings and directs it underground where it infiltrates the soil. Such a system conserves water and protects it from surface pollution. This publication describes...

Mechell, Justin; Lesikar, Bruce J.

2008-08-11T23:59:59.000Z

296

UNIT NAME: C-751 Fuel Facility REGULATORY STATUS: AOC  

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

SITEPROCESS DESCRIPTION: The fuel facility consist of two underground storage tanks, piping system, fuel pumps, and a small service building. The USTs store gasoline and diesel....

297

Understanding the use of natural gas storage for generators of electricity  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Underground natural gas storage is aggressively used by a handful of utility electric generators in the United States. While storage facilities are often utilized by the natural gas pipeline industry and the local distribution companies (LDCs), regional electric generators have taken advantgage of abundant storage and pipeline capacity to develop very cost efficient gas fired electric generating capacity, especially for peaking demand. Most types of natural gas storage facilities are located underground, with a few based above-ground. These facilities have served two basic types of natural gas storage service requirements: seasonal baseload and needle peakshaving. Baseload services are typically developed in depleted oil and gas reservoirs and aquifers while mined caverns and LNG facilities (also Propane-air facilities) typically provide needle peakshaving services. Reengineering of the natural gas infrastructure will alter the historical use patterns, and will provide the electric industry with new gas supply management tools. Electric generators, as consumers of natural gas, were among the first open access shippers and, as a result of FERC Order 636, are now attempting to reposition themselves in the {open_quotes}new{close_quotes} gas industry. Stated in terms of historical consumption, the five largest gas burning utilities consume 40% of all the gas burned for electric generation, and the top twenty accounted for approximately 70%. Slightly more than 100 utilities, including municipals, have any gas fired generating capacity, a rather limited number. These five are all active consumers of storage services.

Beckman, K.L. [International Gas Consulting, Inc., Houston, TX (United States)

1995-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

298

Underground Injection Control Regulations (Kansas)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [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,...

299

Underground Injection Control Rule (Vermont)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [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...

300

Application of simultaneous active and reactive power modulation of superconducting magnetic energy storage unit to damp turbine-generator subsynchronous oscillations  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

An active and reactive power (P-Q) simultaneous control scheme which is based on a superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES) unit is designed to damp out the subsynchronous resonant (SSR) oscillations of a turbine-generator unit. In order to suppress unstable torsional mode oscillations, a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller is employed to modulate the active and reactive power input/output of the SMES unit according to speed deviation of the generator shaft. The gains of the proposed PID controller are determined by pole assignment approach based on modal control theory. Eigenvalue analysis of the studied system shows that the PID controller is quite effective over a wide range of operating conditions. Dynamic simulations using the nonlinear system model are also performed to demonstrate the damping effect of the proposed control scheme under disturbance conditions.

Wu, Chijui; Lee, Yuangshung (National Taiwan Inst. of Tech., Taipie (Taiwan, Province of China))

1993-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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

Impact of reservoir properties on mixing of inert cushion and natural gas in storage reservoirs.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??Underground natural gas storage is a process which effectively balances a variable demand market with a nearly constant supply of energy provided by the pipeline… (more)

Srinivasan, Balaji S.

2006-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

302

Preliminary Notice of Violation, Pacific Underground Construction...  

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

Pacific Underground Construction, Inc. - WEA-2009-02 Preliminary Notice of Violation, Pacific Underground Construction, Inc. - WEA-2009-02 April 7, 2009 Issued to Pacific...

303

Underground Test Area Project Waste Management Plan (Rev. No. 2, April 2002)  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Operations Office (NNSA/NV) initiated the UGTA Project to characterize the risk posed to human health and the environment as a result of underground nuclear testing activities at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The UGTA Project investigation sites have been grouped into Corrective Action Units (CAUs) in accordance with the most recent version of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order. The primary UGTA objective is to gather data to characterize the groundwater aquifers beneath the NTS and adjacent lands. The investigations proposed under the UGTA program may involve the drilling and sampling of new wells; recompletion, monitoring, and sampling of existing wells; well development and hydrologic/ aquifer testing; geophysical surveys; and subsidence crater recharge evaluation. Those wastes generated as a result of these activities will be managed in accordance with existing federal and state regulations, DOE Orders, and NNSA/NV waste minimization and pollution prevention objectives. This Waste Management Plan provides a general framework for all Underground Test Area (UGTA) Project participants to follow for the characterization, storage/accumulation, treatment, and disposal of wastes generated by UGTA Project activities. The objective of this waste management plan is to provide guidelines to minimize waste generation and to properly manage wastes that are produced. Attachment 1 to this plan is the Fluid Management Plan and details specific strategies for management of fluids produced under UGTA operations.

IT Corporation, Las Vegas

2002-04-24T23:59:59.000Z

304

Variable Density Flow Modeling for Simulation Framework for Regional Geologic CO{sub 2} Storage Along Arches Province of Midwestern United States  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Arches Province in the Midwestern U.S. has been identified as a major area for carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) storage applications because of the intersection of Mt. Simon sandstone reservoir thickness and permeability. To better understand large-scale CO{sub 2} storage infrastructure requirements in the Arches Province, variable density scoping level modeling was completed. Three main tasks were completed for the variable density modeling: Single-phase, variable density groundwater flow modeling; Scoping level multi-phase simulations; and Preliminary basin-scale multi-phase simulations. The variable density modeling task was successful in evaluating appropriate input data for the Arches Province numerical simulations. Data from the geocellular model developed earlier in the project were translated into preliminary numerical models. These models were calibrated to observed conditions in the Mt. Simon, suggesting a suitable geologic depiction of the system. The initial models were used to assess boundary conditions, calibrate to reservoir conditions, examine grid dimensions, evaluate upscaling items, and develop regional storage field scenarios. The task also provided practical information on items related to CO{sub 2} storage applications in the Arches Province such as pressure buildup estimates, well spacing limitations, and injection field arrangements. The Arches Simulation project is a three-year effort and part of the United States Department of Energy (U.S. DOE)/National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) program on innovative and advanced technologies and protocols for monitoring/verification/accounting (MVA), simulation, and risk assessment of CO{sub 2} sequestration in geologic formations. The overall objective of the project is to develop a simulation framework for regional geologic CO{sub 2} storage infrastructure along the Arches Province of the Midwestern U.S.

Joel Sminchak

2011-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

305

Proposed rulemaking on the storage and disposal of nuclear waste. Cross-statement of the United States Department of Energy  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The US DOE cross-statement in the matter of proposed rulemaking in the storage and disposal of nuclear wastes is presented. It is concluded from evidence contained in the document that: (1) spent fuel can be disposed of in a manner that is safe and environmentally acceptable; (2) present plans for establishing geological repositories are an effective and reasonable means of disposal; (3) spent nuclear fuel from licensed facilities can be stored in a safe and environmentally acceptable manner on-site or off-site until disposal facilities are ready; (4) sufficient additional storage capacity for spent fuel will be established; and (5) the disposal and interim storage systems for spent nuclear fuel will be integrated into an acceptable operating system. It was recommended that the commission should promulgate a rule providing that the safety and environmental implications of spent nuclear fuel remaining on site after the anticipated expiration of the facility licenses involved need not be considered in individual facility licensing proceedings. A prompt finding of confidence in the nuclear waste disposal and storage area by the commission is also recommeded. (DMC)

None

1980-09-05T23:59:59.000Z

306

Underground radio technology saves miners and emergency response personnel  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunDatastreamsmmcrcalgovInstrumentsrucLasDelivered energy consumption by sectorlong version)Underground Natural Gas Storage by

307

CO2 Storage and Enhanced Oil Recovery: Bald Unit Test Site, Mumford Hills Oil Field, Posey County, Indiana  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC) carried out a small-scale carbon dioxide (CO2) injection test in a sandstone within the Clore Formation (Mississippian System, Chesterian Series) in order to gauge the large-scale CO2 storage that might be realized from enhanced oil recovery (EOR) of mature Illinois Basin oil fields via miscible liquid CO2 flooding. As part of the MGSC�������¢����������������s Validation Phase (Phase II) studies, the small injection pilot test was conducted at the Bald Unit site within the Mumford Hills Field in Posey County, southwestern Indiana, which was chosen for the project on the basis of site infrastructure and reservoir conditions. Geologic data on the target formation were extensive. Core analyses, porosity and permeability data, and geophysical logs from 40 wells were used to construct cross sections and structure contour and isopach maps in order to characterize and define the reservoir architecture of the target formation. A geocellular model of the reservoir was constructed to improve understanding of CO2 behavior in the subsurface. At the time of site selection, the Field was under secondary recovery through edge-water injection, but the wells selected for the pilot in the Bald Unit had been temporarily shut-in for several years. The most recently shut-in production well, which was surrounded by four nearby shut-in production wells in a five-spot pattern, was converted to CO2 injection for this pilot. Two additional wells outside the immediate five-spot pattern, one of which was an active producer, were instrumented to measure surface temperature and pressure. The CO2 injection period lasted from September 3, 2009, through December 14, 2010, with one three-month interruption caused by cessation of CO2 deliveries due to winter weather. Water was injected into the CO2 injection well during this period. A total of 6,300 tonnes (6,950 tons) of CO2 were injected into the reservoir at rates that generally ranged from 18 to 32 tonnes (20 to 35 tons) per day. The CO2 injection bottomhole pressure generally remained at 8.3 to 9.0 MPag (1,200 to 1,300 psig). The CO2 injection was followed by continued monitoring for nine months during post-CO2 water injection. A monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) program was designed to determine the fate of injected CO2. Extensive periodic sampling and analysis of brine, groundwater, and produced gases began before CO2 injection and continued through the monitored waterflood periods. Samples were gathered from production wells and three newly installed groundwater monitoring wells. Samples underwent geochemical and isotopic analyses to reveal any CO2-related changes. Groundwater and kinetic modeling and mineralogical analysis were also employed to better understand the long-term dynamics of CO2 in the reservoir. No CO2 leakage into groundwater was detected, and analysis of brine and gas chemistry made it possible to track the path of plume migration and infer geochemical reactions and trapping of CO2. Cased-hole logging did not detect any CO2 in the near-wellbore region. An increase in CO2 concentration was first detected in February 2010 from the gas present in the carboy during brine sampling; however, there was no appreciable gas volume associated with the detection of CO2. The first indication of elevated gas rates from the commingled gas of the pilot�������¢����������������s production wells occurred in July 2010 and reached a maximum of 0.36 tonnes/day (0.41 tons/day) in September 2010. An estimated 27 tonnes (30 tons) of CO2 were produced at the surface from the gas separator at the tank battery from September 3, 2009, through September 11, 2011, representing 0.5% of the injected CO2. Consequently, 99.5%

Frailey, Scott M.; Krapac, Ivan G.; Damico, James R.; Okwen, Roland T.; McKaskle, Ray W.

2012-03-30T23:59:59.000Z

308

Commercial potential of natural gas storage in lined rock caverns (LRC)  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The geologic conditions in many regions of the United States will not permit the development of economical high-deliverability gas storage in salt caverns. These regions include the entire Eastern Seaboard; several northern states, notably Minnesota and Wisconsin; many of the Rocky Mountain States; and most of the Pacific Northwest. In late 1997, the United States Department of Energy (USDOE) Federal Energy Technology Center engaged Sofregaz US to investigate the commercialization potential of natural gas storage in Lined Rock Caverns (LRC). Sofregaz US teamed with Gaz de France and Sydkraft, who had formed a consortium, called LRC, to perform the study for the USDOE. Underground storage of natural gas is generally achieved in depleted oil and gas fields, aquifers, and solution-mined salt caverns. These storage technologies require specific geologic conditions. Unlined rock caverns have been used for decades to store hydrocarbons - mostly liquids such as crude oil, butane, and propane. The maximum operating pressure in unlined rock caverns is limited, since the host rock is never entirely impervious. The LRC technology allows a significant increase in the maximum operating pressure over the unlined storage cavern concept, since the gas in storage is completely contained with an impervious liner. The LRC technology has been under development in Sweden by Sydkraft since 1987. The development process has included extensive technical studies, laboratory testing, field tests, and most recently includes a storage facility being constructed in southern Sweden (Skallen). The LRC development effort has shown that the concept is technically and economically viable. The Skallen storage facility will have a rock cover of 115 meters (375 feet), a storage volume of 40,000 cubic meters (250,000 petroleum barrels), and a maximum operating pressure of 20 MPa (2,900 psi). There is a potential for commercialization of the LRC technology in the United States. Two regions were studied in some detail - the Northeast and the Southeast. The investment cost for an LRC facility in the Northeast is approximately $182 million and $343 million for a 2.6-billion cubic foot (bcf) working gas facility and a 5.2-bcf working gas storage facility, respectively. The relatively high investment cost is a strong function of the cost of labor in the Northeast. The labor union-related rules and requirements in the Northeast result in much higher underground construction costs than might result in Sweden, for example. The LRC technology gas storage service is compared to other alternative technologies. The LRC technology gas storage service was found to be competitive with other alternative technologies for a variety of market scenarios.

NONE

1999-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

309

Corrective Action Investigation Plan for Corrective Action Unit 166: Storage Yards and Contaminated Materials, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Rev. No.: 0  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Corrective Action Unit 166 is located in Areas 2, 3, 5, and 18 of the Nevada Test Site, which is 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 166 is comprised of the seven Corrective Action Sites (CASs) listed below: (1) 02-42-01, Cond. Release Storage Yd - North; (2) 02-42-02, Cond. Release Storage Yd - South; (3) 02-99-10, D-38 Storage Area; (4) 03-42-01, Conditional Release Storage Yard; (5) 05-19-02, Contaminated Soil and Drum; (6) 18-01-01, Aboveground Storage Tank; and (7) 18-99-03, Wax Piles/Oil Stain. These sites are being investigated because existing information on the nature and extent of potential contamination is insufficient to evaluate and recommend corrective action alternatives. Additional information will be obtained by conducting a corrective action investigation (CAI) before evaluating corrective action alternatives and selecting the appropriate corrective action for each CAS. The results of the field investigation will support a defensible evaluation of viable corrective action alternatives that will be presented in the Corrective Action Decision Document. The sites will be investigated based on the data quality objectives (DQOs) developed on February 28, 2006, by representatives of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection; U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office; Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture; and Bechtel Nevada. The DQO process was used to identify and define the type, amount, and quality of data needed to develop and evaluate appropriate corrective actions for CAU 166. Appendix A provides a detailed discussion of the DQO methodology and the DQOs specific to each CAS. The scope of the CAI for CAU 166 includes the following activities: (1) Move surface debris and/or materials, as needed, to facilitate sampling. (2) Conduct radiological surveys. (3) Perform field screening. (4) Collect and submit environmental samples for laboratory analysis to determine if contaminants of concern are present. (5) If contaminants of concern are present, collect additional step-out samples to define the extent of the contamination. (6) Collect samples of investigation-derived waste, as needed, for waste management and minimization purposes. This Corrective Action Investigation Plan has been developed in accordance with the ''Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order'' that was agreed to by the State of Nevada, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Department of Defense. Under the ''Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order'', this Corrective Action Investigation Plan will be submitted to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, and field work will commence following approval.

David Strand

2006-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

310

Water intrusion in underground structures  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

This thesis presents a study of the permissible groundwater infiltration rates in underground structures, the consequences of this leakage and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Design guides and codes do not restrict, ...

Nazarchuk, Alex

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

311

On CO2 Behavior in the Subsurface, Following Leakage from a Geologic Storage Reservoir  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

1 - 16, 1987. Skinner, L. CO2 Blowouts: An Emerging Problem,Assessment for Underground CO2 Storage, paper 234, presentedReservoir Performance Risk in CO2 Storage Projects, paper

Pruess, Karsten

2006-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

312

Overview of Development and Deployment of Codes, Standards and Regulations Affecting Energy Storage System Safety in the United States  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This report acquaints stakeholders and interested parties involved in the development and/or deployment of energy storage systems (ESS) with the subject of safety-related codes, standards and regulations (CSRs). It is hoped that users of this document gain a more in depth and uniform understanding of safety-related CSR development and deployment that can foster improved communications among all ESS stakeholders and the collaboration needed to realize more timely acceptance and approval of safe ESS technology through appropriate CSR.

Conover, David R.

2014-08-22T23:59:59.000Z

313

Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 127: Areas 25 and 26 Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

CAU 127, Areas 25 and 26 Storage Tanks, consists of twelve CASs located in Areas 25 and 26 of the NTS. The closure alternatives included no further action, clean closure, and closure in place with administrative controls. The purpose of this Closure Report is to provide a summary of the completed closure activities, documentation of waste disposal, and analytical data to confirm that the remediation goals were met.

NSTec Environmental Restoration

2008-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

314

Underground Coal Thermal Treatment  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

315

DOE Manual Studies 11 Major CO2 Geologic Storage Formations  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

A comprehensive study of 11 geologic formations suitable for permanent underground carbon dioxide (CO2) storage is contained in a new manual issued by the U.S. Department of Energy.

316

NGLW RCRA Storage Study  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory contains radioactive liquid waste in underground storage tanks at the INTEC Tank Farm Facility (TFF). INTEC is currently treating the waste by evaporation to reduce the liquid volume for continued storage, and by calcination to reduce and convert the liquid to a dry waste form for long-term storage in calcine bins. Both treatment methods and activities in support of those treatment operations result in Newly Generated Liquid Waste (NGLW) being sent to TFF. The storage tanks in the TFF are underground, contained in concrete vaults with instrumentation, piping, transfer jets, and managed sumps in case of any liquid accumulation in the vault. The configuration of these tanks is such that Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations apply. The TFF tanks were assessed several years ago with respect to the RCRA regulations and they were found to be deficient. This study considers the configuration of the current tanks and the RCRA deficiencies identified for each. The study identifies four potential methods and proposes a means of correcting the deficiencies. The cost estimates included in the study account for construction cost; construction methods to minimize work exposure to chemical hazards, radioactive contamination, and ionizing radiation hazards; project logistics; and project schedule. The study also estimates the tank volumes benefit associated with each corrective action to support TFF liquid waste management planning.

R. J. Waters; R. Ochoa; K. D. Fritz; D. W. Craig

2000-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

317

UNIT NUMBER  

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

3 C-750B Diesel UST UNIT NAME REGULATORY STATUS: AOC LOCATION: Southeast corner of C-750 APPROXIMATE DIMENSIONS: 10,000 gallon FUNCTION: Diesel storage OPERATIONAL STATUS: Removed...

318

Corrective Action Investigation Plan for Corrective Action Unit 140: Waste Dumps, Burn Pits, and Storage Area, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, July 2002, Rev. No. 0  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This Corrective Action Investigation Plan contains the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Operations Office's approach to collect the data necessary to evaluate corrective action alternatives appropriate for the closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 140 under the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order. Corrective Action Unit 140 consists of nine Corrective Action Sites (CASs): 05-08-01, Detonation Pits; 05-08-02, Debris Pits; 05-17-01, Hazardous Waste Accumulation Site (Buried); 05-19-01, Waste Disposal Site; 05-23-01, Gravel Gertie; 05-35-01, Burn Pit; 05-99-04, Burn Pit; 22-99-04, Radioactive Waste Dump; 23-17-01, Hazardous Waste Storage Area. All nine of these CASs are located within Areas 5, 22, and 23 of the Nevada Test Site (NTS) in Nevada, approximately 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. This CAU is being investigated because disposed waste may be present without appropriate controls (i.e., use restrictions, adequate cover) and hazardous and/or radioactive constituents may be present or migrating at concentrations and locations that could potentially pose a threat to human health and the environment. The NTS has been used for various research and development projects including nuclear weapons testing. The CASs in CAU 140 were used for testing, material storage, waste storage, and waste disposal. A two-phase approach has been selected to collect information and generate data to satisfy needed resolution criteria and resolve the decision statements. Phase I will determine if contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) are present in concentrations exceeding preliminary action levels. This data will be evaluated at all CASs. Phase II will determine the extent of the contaminant(s) of concern (COCs). This data will only be evaluated for CASs with a COC identified during Phase I. Based on process knowledge, the COPCs for CAU 140 include volatile organics, semivolatile organics, petroleum hydrocarbons, explosive residues, herbicides, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, metals, and radionuclides. The results of this field investigation will support a defensible evaluation of corrective action alternatives in the corrective action decision document.

NNSA /NV

2002-07-18T23:59:59.000Z

319

2009 underground/longwall mining buyer's guide  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

NONE

2009-06-15T23:59:59.000Z

320

Hydro-mechanical modelling of geological CO2 storage and the study of possible caprock fracture mechanisms  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Hydro-mechanical modelling of geological CO2 storage and the study of possible caprock fracture element modelling of a hypothetical underground carbon dioxide (CO2) storage operation. The hydro

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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

Streamlined approach for environmental restoration work plan for Corrective Action Unit 126: Closure of aboveground storage tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada. Revision 1  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This plan addresses the closure of several aboveground storage tanks in Area 25 of the Nevada Test Site. The unit is currently identified as Corrective Action Unit 126 in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order and is listed as having six Corrective Action Sites. This plan addresses the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration closure for five of the six sites. Four of the CASs are located at the Engine Test Stand complex and one is located in the Central Support Area. The sites consist of aboveground tanks, two of which were used to store diesel fuel and one stored Nalcool (an antifreeze mixture). The remaining tanks were used as part of a water demineralization process and stored either sulfuric acid or sodium hydroxide, and one was used as a charcoal adsorption furnace. Closure will be completed by removal of the associated piping, tank supports and tanks using a front end loader, backhoe, and/or crane. When possible, the tanks will be salvaged as scrap metal. The piping that is not removed will be sealed using a cement grout.

NONE

1998-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

322

High Temperature Superconducting Underground Cable  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

323

TSUAHXETSUAHXE UndergroUnd tank  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

USer waterheatexchange waterheatexchange general exhaUSt lab exhaUSt warmairexhaUSt radiant panel heat radiant panel heat by night air, then stored underground. cold water travels through floors and ceiling panels to absorb heat rain and snowmelt in toilets saves water and reduces stormwater runoff photovoltaic panels turn solar

Schladow, S. Geoffrey

324

Leveraging Regional Exploration to Develop Geologic Framework for CO2 Storage in Deep Formations in Midwestern United States  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Obtaining subsurface data for developing a regional framework for geologic storage of CO{sub 2} can require drilling and characterization in a large number of deep wells, especially in areas with limited pre-existing data. One approach for achieving this objective, without the prohibitive costs of drilling costly standalone test wells, is to collaborate with the oil and gas drilling efforts in a piggyback approach that can provide substantial cost savings and help fill data gaps in areas that may not otherwise get characterized. This leveraging with oil/gas drilling also mitigates some of the risk involved in standalone wells. This collaborative approach has been used for characterizing in a number of locations in the midwestern USA between 2005 and 2009 with funding from U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE award: DE-FC26-05NT42434) and in-kind contributions from a number of oil and gas operators. The results are presented in this final technical report. In addition to data collected under current award, selected data from related projects such as the Midwestern Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP), the Ohio River Valley CO{sub 2} storage project at and near the Mountaineer Plant, and the drilling of the Ohio Stratigraphic well in Eastern Ohio are discussed and used in the report. Data from this effort are also being incorporated into the MRCSP geologic mapping. The project activities were organized into tracking and evaluation of characterization opportunities; participation in the incremental drilling, basic and advanced logging in selected wells; and data analysis and reporting. Although a large number of opportunities were identified and evaluated, only a small subset was carried into the field stage. Typical selection factors included reaching an acceptable agreement with the operator, drilling and logging risks, and extent of pre-existing data near the candidate wells. The region of study is primarily along the Ohio River Valley corridor in the Appalachian Basin, which underlies large concentrations of CO{sub 2} emission sources. In addition, some wells in the Michigan basin are included. Assessment of the geologic and petrophysical properties of zones of interest has been conducted. Although a large number of formations have been evaluated across the geologic column, the primary focus has been on evaluating the Cambrian sandstones (Mt. Simon, Rose Run, Kerbel) and carbonates layers (Knox Dolomite) as well as on the Silurian-Devonian carbonates (Bass Island, Salina) and sandstones (Clinton, Oriskany, Berea). Factors controlling the development of porosity and permeability, such as the depositional setting have been explored. In northern Michigan the Bass Islands Dolomite appears to have favorable reservoir development. In west central Michigan the St. Peter sandstone exhibits excellent porosity in the Hart and Feuring well and looks promising. In Southeastern Kentucky in the Appalachian Basin, the Batten and Baird well provided valuable data on sequestration potential in organic shales through adsorption. In central and eastern Ohio and western West Virginia, the majority of the wells provided an insight to the complex geologic framework of the relatively little known Precambrian through Silurian potential injection targets. Although valuable data was acquired and a number of critical data gaps were filled through this effort, there are still many challenges ahead and questions that need answered. The lateral extent to which favorable potential injection conditions exist in most reservoirs is still generally uncertain. The prolongation of the characterization of regional geologic framework through partnership would continue to build confidence and greatly benefit the overall CO{sub 2} sequestration effort.

Neeraj Gupta

2009-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

325

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Oldenburg, Curtis M. (LBNL Earth Sciences Division) [LBNL Earth Sciences Division

2009-07-21T23:59:59.000Z

326

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

ScienceCinema (OSTI)

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

Oldenburg, Curtis M [LBNL Earth Sciences Division

2011-04-28T23:59:59.000Z

327

Geologic Carbon Sequestration: Mitigating Climate Change by Injecting CO2 Underground  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

July 21, 2009 Berkeley Lab summer lecture: Climate change provides strong motivation to reduce CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide capture and storage involves the capture, compression, and transport of CO2 to geologically favorable areas, where its injected into porous rock more than one kilometer underground for permanent storage. Oldenburg, who heads Berkeley Labs Geologic Carbon Sequestration Program, will focus on the challenges, opportunities, and research needs of this innovative technology.

Oldenburg

2009-07-30T23:59:59.000Z

328

EM Completes Salt Waste Disposal Units $8 Million under Budget...  

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

work is essential to the mission of cleaning and closing the site's underground waste tanks. Construction of these circular units - vaults built in the past are rectangular -...

329

Record of Technical Change 1 for Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 204: Storage Bunkers, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Revision 0  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Downgrade the FFACO UR at CAU 204, CAS 05-18-02, Chemical Explosives Storage to an Administrative UR.

Krauss, Mark J; Birney, Cathleen

2006-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

330

Corrective Action Decision Document for Corrective Action Unit 127: Areas 25 and 26 Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada: Revision 0  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This Corrective Action Decision Document identifies and rationalizes the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office's selection of recommended corrective action alternatives (CAAs) appropriate to facilitate the closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 127: Areas 25 and 26 Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, under the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order. Corrective Action Unit 127 consists of twelve corrective action sites (CASs). Corrective action investigation (CAI) activities were performed from February 24, 2003, through May 2, 2003, with additional sampling conducted on June 6, 2003, June 9, 2003, and June 24, 2003. Analytes detected during these investigation activities were evaluated against preliminary action levels to identify contaminants of concern (COCs) for each CAS, resulting in the determination that only two of the CASs did not have COCs exceeding regulatory levels. Based on the evaluation of analytical data from the CAI, review of future and current operations in Areas 25 and 26 of the Nevada Test Site, and the detailed and comparative analysis of the potential CAAs, the following alternatives were developed for consideration: (1) No Further Action is the preferred corrective action for the two CASs (25-02-13, 26-02-01) identified with no COCs; (2) Clean Closure is the preferred corrective action for eight of the CASs (25-01-05, 25-23-11, 25-12-01, 25-01-06, 26-01-01, 26-01-02, 26-99-01, 26-23-01); and (3) Closure in Place is the preferred corrective action for the remaining two CASs (25-01-07, 25-02-02). These three alternatives were judged to meet all requirements for the technical components evaluated. Additionally, these alternatives meet all applicable state and federal regulations for closure of the sites at CAU 127 and will reduce potential future exposure pathways to the contaminated media.

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

2003-09-26T23:59:59.000Z

331

Advanced underground Vehicle Power and Control: The locomotive Research Platform  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Develop a fuelcell mine locomotive with metal-hydride hydrogen storage. Test the locomotive for fundamental limitations preventing successful commercialization of hydride fuelcells in underground mining. During Phase 1 of the DOE-EERE sponsored project, FPI and its partner SNL, completed work on the development of a 14.4 kW fuelcell power plant and metal-hydride energy storage. An existing battery-electric locomotive with similar power requirements, minus the battery module, was used as the base vehicle. In March 2001, Atlas Copco Wagner of Portland, OR, installed the fuelcell power plant into the base vehicle and initiated integration of the system into the vehicle. The entire vehicle returned to Sandia in May 2001 for further development and integration. Initial system power-up took place in December 2001. A revision to the original contract, Phase 2, at the request of DOE Golden Field Office, established Vehicle Projects LLC as the new prime contractor,. Phase 2 allowed industry partners to conduct surface tests, incorporate enhancements to the original design by SNL, perform an extensive risk and safety analysis, and test the fuelcell locomotive underground under representative production mine conditions. During the surface tests one of the fuelcell stacks exhibited reduced power output resulting in having to replace both fuelcell stacks. The new stacks were manufactured with new and improved technology resulting in an increase of the gross power output from 14.4 kW to 17 kW. Further work by CANMET and Hatch Associates, an engineering consulting firm specializing in safety analysis for the mining industry, both under subcontract to Vehicle Projects LLC, established minimum requirements for underground testing. CANMET upgraded the Programmable Logic Control (PLC) software used to monitor and control the fuelcell power plant, taking into account locomotive operator's needs. Battery Electric, a South Africa manufacturer, designed and manufactured (at no cost to the project) a new motor controller capable of operating the higher rpm motor and different power characteristics of the fuelcells. In early August 2002, CANMET, with the technical assistance of Nuvera Fuel Cells and Battery Electric, installed the new PLC software, installed the new motor controller, and installed the new fuelcell stacks. After minor adjustments, the fuelcell locomotive pulled its first fully loaded ore cars on a surface track. The fuelcell-powered locomotive easily matched the battery powered equivalent in its ability to pull tonnage and equaled the battery-powered locomotive in acceleration. The final task of Phase 2, testing the locomotive underground in a production environment, occurred in early October 2002 in a gold mine. All regulatory requirements to allow the locomotive underground were completed and signed off by Hatch Associates prior to going underground. During the production tests, the locomotive performed flawlessly with no failures or downtime. The actual tests occurred during a 2-week period and involved moving both gold ore and waste rock over a 1,000 meter track. Refueling, or recharging, of the metal-hydride storage took place on the surface. After each shift, the metal-hydride storage module was removed from the locomotive, transported to surface, and filled with hydrogen from high-pressure tanks. The beginning of each shift started with taking the fully recharged metal-hydride storage module down into the mine and re-installing it onto the locomotive. Each 8 hour shift consumed approximately one half to two thirds of the onboard hydrogen. This indicates that the fuelcell-powered locomotive can work longer than a similar battery-powered locomotive, which operates about 6 hours, before needing a recharge.

Vehicle Projects LLC

2003-01-28T23:59:59.000Z

332

New Mexico Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

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

11,649 -2,967 -2,028 -12,074 9,944 7,015 1967-2014 Injections 21,094 18,643 19,738 22,732 14,077 14,010 1967-2014 Withdrawals 9,445 15,676 17,710 10,658 24,021 21,025...

333

Net Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage (Summary...  

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

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...

334

Natural Gas Withdrawals from Underground Storage (Annual Supply...  

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

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...

335

Natural Gas Withdrawals from Underground Storage (Annual Supply...  

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

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...

336

Seasonal underground thermal energy storage using smart thermosiphon arrays.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??With oil prices high, and energy prices generally increasing, the pursuit of more economical and less polluting methods of climate control has led to the… (more)

Jankovich, Philip Martin

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

337

EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Underground Natural Gas Storage  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr MayAtmospheric Optical Depth7-1D: Vegetation Proposed NewcatalystNeutron scattering characterizesAnalysisPipelines Map

338

EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Underground Natural Gas Storage  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr MayAtmospheric Optical Depth7-1D: Vegetation Proposed NewcatalystNeutron scattering characterizesAnalysisPipelines MapFacilities

339

EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Underground Natural Gas Storage  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr MayAtmospheric Optical Depth7-1D: Vegetation Proposed NewcatalystNeutron scattering characterizesAnalysisPipelines

340

West Virginia Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion CubicCubic39,287Sales1 1 1Cubic Feet)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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

West Virginia Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion CubicCubic39,287Sales1 1 1Cubic

342

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

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Decade

343

West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion2008 2009 2010 2011 2012DecadeCubic

344

West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion2008 2009 2010 2011

345

West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion2008 2009 2010 2011Feet) Year Jan Feb

346

West Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion2008 2009 2010 2011Feet)YearYearCubic

347

West Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion2008 2009 2010from Sameper Thousand14

348

West Virginia Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion2008 2009 2010from SameperCubic Feet)

349

Western Consuming Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion2008 2009 2010from SameperCubic

350

Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion2008 2009 2010from2009 201060

351

Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion2008 2009 2010from2009 201060(Million Cubic

352

Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion2008 2009 2010from2009 201060(Million

353

Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion2008 2009 2010from2009Vehicle2.9

354

Wyoming Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion2008Sep-14 Oct-14Year Jan Feb

355

Wyoming Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion2008Sep-14 Oct-14Year Jan FebFeet) Year

356

Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion2008Sep-14 Oct-14YearYear Jan FebYear Jan

357

Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion2008Sep-14 Oct-14YearYear Jan FebYear

358

Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion2008Sep-14 Oct-14YearYear Jan FebYearDecade

359

Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion2008Sep-14 Oct-14YearYear Jan

360

Wyoming Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion2008Sep-14 Oct-14YearYearYear Jan

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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

Wyoming Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30NaturalThousandExtensions (Billion2008Sep-14ThousandFeet) Working Natural

362

U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunDatastreamsmmcrcalgovInstrumentsrucLasDelivered energy consumption by sector Transportation EnergyGlossary7,148.4NA

363

Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity - Energy Information  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr MayAtmosphericNuclear SecurityTensile Strain Switched Ferromagnetism in Layeredof2014National Nuclear SecuritySalaryandAdministration

364

New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) in KansasYear JanDecade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2(Million

365

New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) in KansasYear JanDecade Year-0 Year-1

366

New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) in KansasYear JanDecade Year-0 Year-1Withdrawals

367

New Mexico Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) in KansasYearDecade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2

368

New Mexico Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) in KansasYearDecade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2Feet) Year

369

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

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) in KansasYearDecadeYear Jan Feb Mar Apr May

370

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

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) in KansasYearDecadeYear Jan Feb Mar Apr MayYear Jan Feb

371

New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) in KansasYearDecadeYear Jan Feb Mar Apr MayYear Jan

372

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

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) in KansasYearDecadeYear Jan Feb Mar Apr MayYear

373

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

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) in KansasYearDecadeYear Jan Feb Mar Apr MayYearYear Jan

374

New Mexico Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) in KansasYearDecadeYear Jan Feb136 149 180 185

375

New York Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) in KansasYearDecadeYearDecade Year-0 Year-1Feet)

376

New York Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) in KansasYearDecadeYearDecade Year-0

377

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

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) in KansasYearDecadeYearDecadeandTotal ConsumptionDecade

378

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

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) in KansasYearDecadeYearDecadeandTotal

379

New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) in KansasYearDecadeYearDecadeandTotalFeet) Decade

380

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

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) in KansasYearDecadeYearDecadeandTotalFeet)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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

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

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) in KansasYearDecadeYearDecadeandTotalFeet)Year Jan

382

New York Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) inDecade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2Thousand Cubic

383

Nonsalt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) inDecade Year-0 Year-18 2.415 - - -Cubic8 2009

384

North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) inDecade Year-0 Year-18 2.4156.09 5.50 4.60

385

North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) inDecade Year-0 Year-18 2.4156.09 5.50 4.60Operators

386

North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) inDecade Year-0 Year-18 2.4156.09 5.50

387

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

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) inDecadeDecade Year-0YearSalesDecade Year-0DecadeDecade

388

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

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) inDecadeDecade Year-0YearSalesDecade

389

Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) inDecadeDecade (Million CubicDecade Year-0

390

Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) inDecadeDecade (Million CubicDecade Year-0Year Jan Feb

391

Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) inDecadeDecade (Million CubicDecade Year-0Year Jan

392

Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) inDecadeDecade (Million CubicDecade Year-0Year

393

Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) inDecadeDecade (Million CubicDecade Year-0YearYear Jan

394

Oklahoma Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) inDecadeDecadeFeet) Year Jan Feb MarDecade

395

Oklahoma Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) inDecadeDecadeFeet) Year Jan Feb MarDecadeFeet)

396

Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) inDecadeDecadeFeet) YearTotal Consumption

397

Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) inDecadeDecadeFeet) YearTotal ConsumptionYear Jan

398

Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) inDecadeDecadeFeet) YearTotal ConsumptionYear

399

Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) inDecadeDecadeFeet) YearTotal ConsumptionYearDecade

400

Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) inDecadeDecadeFeet) YearTotal

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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

Oklahoma Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996) inDecadeDecadeFeet) YearTotalDecadeVented

402

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

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996)Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5Decade

403

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

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996)Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4

404

Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996)Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 (MillionDecade Year-0 Year-1

405

Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996)Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 (MillionDecade Year-0

406

Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996)Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 (MillionDecade Year-0Decade

407

Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996)Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 (MillionDecade

408

Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996)Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 (MillionDecadeYear Jan Feb

409

Oregon Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996)Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2Feet) Working Gas)

410

Pennsylvania Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996)Decade Year-0Sales (BillionDecade Year-0 Year-1Feet)

411

Pennsylvania Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996)Decade Year-0Sales (BillionDecade Year-0

412

Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996)Decade Year-0SalesElements)5.88 4.563,594TotalDecade

413

Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996)Decade Year-0SalesElements)5.88

414

Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996)Decade Year-0SalesElements)5.88Feet) Decade

415

Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996)Decade Year-0SalesElements)5.88Feet)

416

Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996)Decade Year-0SalesElements)5.88Feet)Feet)

417

Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996)DecadeYear Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul AugYear Jan

418

Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996)DecadeYear Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul AugYear JanCubic

419

Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996)DecadeYear Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul AugYear

420

Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas  

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

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 10,998 9,933 10,998 10,643 10,998through 1996)DecadeYear Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul AugYearfrom Same

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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

U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecemberSteamYearTexas--StateWinterYear Jan Feb2009 2010 2011Decade

422

U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecemberSteamYearTexas--StateWinterYear Jan Feb2009 2010 2011DecadeLower 48 States

423

Underground Base Natural Gas in Storage - All Operators  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecemberSteamYearTexas--StateWinterYear Jan Feb2009Two-DimensionalGrossFeet)

424

Underground Working Natural Gas in Storage - All Operators  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecemberSteamYearTexas--StateWinterYear Jan Monthly Download Series History Download

425

Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecemberSteamYearTexas--StateWinterYear Jan MonthlyProduction%ReservesUtahYear

426

Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecemberSteamYearTexas--StateWinterYear Jan MonthlyProduction%ReservesUtahYearYear

427

Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecemberSteamYearTexas--StateWinterYear Jan

428

Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecemberSteamYearTexas--StateWinterYear

429

Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecemberSteamYearTexas--StateWinterYearFeet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

430

Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecemberSteamYearTexas--StateWinterYearFeet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

431

Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecemberSteamYearTexas--StateWinterYearFeet) Year Jan Feb% ofYear3.99 4.22

432

Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecemberSteamYearTexas--StateWinterYearFeet) Year Jan Feb% ofYear3.99

433

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

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecemberSteamYearTexas--StateWinterYearFeet)per Thousand Cubic Feet)inNA

434

West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecemberSteamYearTexas--StateWinterYearFeet)per Thousand Cubic

435

Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecemberSteamYearTexas--StateWinterYearFeet)per Thousand(BillionShaleCubic

436

Western Consuming Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecemberSteamYearTexas--StateWinterYearFeet)per

437

Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines AboutDecemberSteamYearTexas--StateWinterYearFeet)perWesternPipeline andThousand362

438

Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming

439

Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) WyomingFeet) Year

440

Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) WyomingFeet)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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

AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage Capacity  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion Cubic

442

AGA Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet) Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) AGA

443

AGA Producing Region Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet) Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet)

444

AGA Producing Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet) Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet)(Million Cubic

445

AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet) Base Gas) (Million Cubic

446

AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet) Base Gas) (Million Cubic(Million Cubic

447

AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet) Base Gas) (Million Cubic(MillionGas)

448

AGA Western Consuming Region Underground Natural Gas Storage - All  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet) Base Gas) (MillionOperators 1,095,725

449

AGA WesternConsuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet) Base Gas) (MillionOperators

450

Alabama Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet) Base Gas)1,727

451

Alabama Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet) Base Gas)1,727Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr

452

Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet) BaseSep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14TotalYear Jan

453

Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet) BaseSep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14TotalYear

454

Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet) BaseSep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14

455

Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet) BaseSep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14Year Jan Feb Mar Apr

456

Alabama Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet) BaseSep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14Year Jan

457

Alabama Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet) BaseSep-14 Oct-14per Thousand

458

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

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet)

459

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

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet)Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

460

Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet)Year Jan Feb Mar Apr

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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

Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet)Year Jan Feb Mar AprCubic Feet)

462

Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet)Year Jan Feb Mar AprCubic Feet)Decade

463

Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet)Year Jan Feb Mar AprCubic

464

Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet)Year Jan Feb Mar AprCubicDecade Year-0 Year-1

465

Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet)Year Jan Feb Mar AprCubicDecade Year-0

466

Alaska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet)Year Jan Feb Mar AprCubicDecadeBase

467

Alaska Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet)Year Jan Feb Mar119,0392008 2009

468

Arkansas Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet)Year Jan(MillionSalesDecade Year-0

469

Arkansas Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet)Year Jan(MillionSalesDecade Year-0Feet)

470

Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet)YearIndustrial Consumers2009 2010TotalYear

471

Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet)YearIndustrial Consumers2009

472

Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet)YearIndustrial Consumers2009Decade Year-0

473

Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved Reserves (Billion CubicCubic Feet)YearIndustrial Consumers2009Decade Year-0Year

474

South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet) YearPriceThousandThousand479,7416.18 5.69 5.07 5.23

475

South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet) YearPriceThousandThousand479,7416.18 5.69 5.07 5.23Operators

476

South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet) YearPriceThousandThousand479,7416.18 5.69 5.07

477

Tennessee Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand Cubic4,630.2 10,037.24. U.S.YearYear Jan FebFeet)

478

Tennessee Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand Cubic4,630.2 10,037.24. U.S.YearYear Jan

479

Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand Cubic4,630.2 10,037.24.Total Consumption (MillionYear

480

Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand Cubic4,630.2 10,037.24.Total Consumption

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "units underground storage" 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

Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand Cubic4,630.2 10,037.24.Total ConsumptionDecade Year-0

482

Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand Cubic4,630.2 10,037.24.Total ConsumptionDecade

483

Tennessee Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand Cubic4,630.2 10,037.24.TotalVehicleFeet) Base

484

Tennessee Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand Cubic4,630.2 10,037.24.TotalVehicleFeet)

485

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

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand Cubic4,630.2perSep-14 Oct-14DecadeDecade Year-0

486

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

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand Cubic4,630.2perSep-14 Oct-14DecadeDecade Year-0Year

487

Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand Cubic4,630.2perSep-14 (MillionSep-14Year Jan Feb Mar

488

Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand Cubic4,630.2perSep-14 (MillionSep-14Year Jan Feb

489

Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand Cubic4,630.2perSep-14 (MillionSep-14Year Jan

490

Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand Cubic4,630.2perSep-14 (MillionSep-14Year JanYear Jan

491

Texas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand Cubic4,630.2perSep-14Base22,667 28,167Working Natural

492

Total Number of Existing Underground Natural Gas Storage Fields  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelinesProved ReservesFeet)per Thousand Cubic4,630.2perSep-14Base22,667The BasicsTop 100

493

Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 0 14 15 0 0 0Year Jan Feb Mar Apr MayFeet)

494

Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 0 14 15 0 0 0Year Jan Feb Mar Apr

495

Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 0 14 15 0 0 0Year Jan Feb Mar AprYear Jan Feb

496

Indiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 0 14 15 0 0 0Year Jan Feb MarYear Jan

497

Indiana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 0 14 15 0 0 0Year Jan Feb MarYearper0 0

498

Injections of Natural Gas into Underground Storage - All Operators  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 0 14 15 0 0 0Year Jan Feb MarYearper09 2010

499

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

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 0 14 15 0 0 0Year JanDecade Year-0

500

Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE:1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel),Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul(Summary) " ,"ClickPipelines About U.S.30Natural Gas Glossary529 6330 0 14 15 0 0 0YearDecade Year-0 Year-1Year Jan