National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for underground injection wells

  1. EPA - Underground Injection Control Classes of Wells webpage...

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

    Underground Injection Control Classes of Wells webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: EPA - Underground Injection Control Classes of...

  2. WSDE Underground Injection Control Well Registration Form | Open...

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

    Injection Control Well Registration Form Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- Permit ApplicationPermit Application: WSDE Underground...

  3. Oregon Underground Injection Control Program Authorized Injection...

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

    search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Oregon Underground Injection Control Program Authorized Injection Systems Webpage Author Oregon Department of...

  4. WPCF Underground Injection Control Disposal Permit Evaluation...

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

    WPCF Underground Injection Control Disposal Permit Evaluation and Fact Sheet Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Report: WPCF Underground Injection...

  5. Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  7. Hawaii Underground Injection Control Permitting Webpage | Open...

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

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

  8. Oregon Underground Injection Control Registration Geothermal...

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

    search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Form: Oregon Underground Injection Control Registration Geothermal Heating Systems (DEQ Form UICGEO-1004(f)) Abstract Required...

  9. Oregon Underground Injection Control Registration Application...

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

    search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Form: Oregon Underground Injection Control Registration Application Fees (DEQ Form UIC 1003-GIC) Abstract Required fees and form...

  10. Washington Environmental Permit Handbook - Underground Injection...

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

    Underground Injection Control Registration webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Washington Environmental Permit Handbook -...

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

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

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

  12. Vermont Underground Injection Control Rule | Open Energy Information

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

    Underground Injection Control Rule Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: Vermont Underground Injection Control...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  16. WAC - 173-218 Underground Injection Control Program | Open Energy...

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

    8 Underground Injection Control Program Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: WAC - 173-218 Underground Injection...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 ...

  18. Delaware Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Delaware Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 ...

  19. Connecticut Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Connecticut Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 ...

  20. Utah Underground Injection Control Program Webpage | Open Energy...

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

    Injection Control Program Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Utah Underground Injection Control Program Webpage Abstract Provides...

  1. Hawaii Underground Injection Control Program Webpage | Open Energy...

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

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

  2. Oregon Underground Injection Control Program Webpage | Open Energy...

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

    Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Oregon Underground Injection Control Program Webpage Abstract Provides overview of regulations...

  3. Oregon Fees for Underground Injection Control Program Fact Sheet...

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

    Fees for Underground Injection Control Program Fact Sheet Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library PermittingRegulatory Guidance - Supplemental Material:...

  4. Hawaii Underground Injection Control Permit Packet | Open Energy...

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

    PermittingRegulatory Guidance - Supplemental Material: Hawaii Underground Injection Control Permit PacketPermittingRegulatory GuidanceSupplemental Material Author State of...

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

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

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

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

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

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

  7. Idaho Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Idaho Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 ...

  8. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 ...

  9. Georgia Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators...

    Annual Energy Outlook

    Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Georgia Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 ...

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

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

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

  11. Title 40 CFR 144 Underground Injection Control Program | Open...

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

    44 Underground Injection Control Program Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- Federal RegulationFederal Regulation: Title 40 CFR 144...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  13. Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 97 243 137 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of

  14. South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 48 80 70 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas

  15. Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 10/31/2016 Next Release Date: 11/30/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground

  16. H.A.R. 11-23 - Underground Injection Control | Open Energy Information

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

    3 - Underground Injection Control Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: H.A.R. 11-23 - Underground Injection...

  17. AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 20,366 29,330 55,297 93,538 129,284 83,943 104,001 98,054 88,961 65,486 49,635 27,285 1995 24,645 25,960 57,833 78,043 101,019 100,926 77,411 54,611 94,759 84,671 40,182 33,836 1996 34,389 48,922 38,040 76,100 98,243 88,202 88,653 109,284 125,616 91,618 37,375

  18. East Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Feet) Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) East Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 16,843 6,411 17,023 86,311 133,867 127,512 86,944 99,113 102,640 71,127 33,857 19,392 2014 9,107 10,259 22,569 71,857 144,145 132,960 120,491 118,493 122,207 94,669 33,103 25,810 2015 8,399 5,034 16,192 88,291 149,749 130,181 108,902 114,713 101,145 71,500 40,008 27,824 2016 8,190 15,514

  19. UAC R371-7 - Underground Injection Control Program | Open Energy...

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

    71-7 - Underground Injection Control Program Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: UAC R371-7 - Underground...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

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

  3. GAS INJECTION/WELL STIMULATION PROJECT

    SciTech Connect

    John K. Godwin

    2005-12-01

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

  4. Boise geothermal injection well: Final environmental assessment

    SciTech Connect

    1997-12-31

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 43,713 72,210 68,273 129,736 166,816 139,578 127,533 106,014 152,936 188,366...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

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

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

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    ... A byproduct of the oxy-combustion process is an ... 1056 643 O'Rear, Judge 1 Oil & Gas Water No Yes 18 121370009900 ... the migration with extraction wells in the vicinity ...

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

    ScienceCinema

    Oldenburg, Curtis M [LBNL Earth Sciences Division

    2016-07-12

    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.

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

    SciTech Connect

    Oldenburg, Curtis M

    2009-07-21

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

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

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

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

  12. ,"Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Injections All Operators (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (MMcf)",1,"Annual",1975 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  13. ,"Connecticut Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Injections All Operators (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Connecticut Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (MMcf)",1,"Annual",1996 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  14. ,"Delaware Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Injections All Operators (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Delaware Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (MMcf)",1,"Annual",1975 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  15. ,"Georgia Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Injections All Operators (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Georgia Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (MMcf)",1,"Annual",1975 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  16. ,"Idaho Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Injections All Operators (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Idaho Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (MMcf)",1,"Annual",1975 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  17. ,"Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Injections All Operators (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (MMcf)",1,"Annual",1975 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  18. ,"Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Injections All Operators (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (MMcf)",1,"Annual",1973 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  19. ,"New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Injections All Operators (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (MMcf)",1,"Annual",1996 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  20. ,"North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Injections All Operators (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (MMcf)",1,"Annual",1996 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  1. ,"South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Injections All Operators (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (MMcf)",1,"Annual",1975 ,"Release Date:","10/31/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","11/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  2. Flow monitoring and control system for injection wells

    DOEpatents

    Corey, John C.

    1993-01-01

    A system for monitoring and controlling the injection rate of fluid by an injection well of an in-situ remediation system for treating a contaminated groundwater plume. The well is fitted with a gated insert, substantially coaxial with the injection well. A plurality of openings, some or all of which are equipped with fluid flow sensors and gates, are spaced along the insert. The gates and sensors are connected to a surface controller. The insert may extend throughout part of, or substantially the entire length of the injection well. Alternatively, the insert may comprise one or more movable modules which can be positioned wherever desired along the well. The gates are opened part-way at the start of treatment. The sensors monitor and display the flow rate of fluid passing through each opening on a controller. As treatment continues, the gates are opened to increase flow in regions of lesser flow, and closed to decrease flow in regions of greater flow, thereby approximately equalizing the amount of fluid reaching each part of the plume.

  3. Flow monitoring and control system for injection wells

    DOEpatents

    Corey, J.C.

    1993-02-16

    A system for monitoring and controlling the injection rate of fluid by an injection well of an in-situ remediation system for treating a contaminated groundwater plume. The well is fitted with a gated insert, substantially coaxial with the injection well. A plurality of openings, some or all of which are equipped with fluid flow sensors and gates, are spaced along the insert. The gates and sensors are connected to a surface controller. The insert may extend throughout part of, or substantially the entire length of the injection well. Alternatively, the insert may comprise one or more movable modules which can be positioned wherever desired along the well. The gates are opened part-way at the start of treatment. The sensors monitor and display the flow rate of fluid passing through each opening on a controller. As treatment continues, the gates are opened to increase flow in regions of lesser flow, and closed to decrease flow in regions of greater flow, thereby approximately equalizing the amount of fluid reaching each part of the plume.

  4. Flow monitoring and control system for injection wells

    DOEpatents

    Corey, J.C.

    1991-01-01

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

  5. Injection of FGD Grout to Abate Acid Mine Drainage in Underground Coal Mines

    SciTech Connect

    Mafi, S.; Damian, M.T.; Senita, R.E.; Jewitt, W.C.; Bair, S.; Chin, Y.C.; Whitlatch, E.; Traina, S.; Wolfe, W.

    1997-07-01

    Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) from abandoned underground coal mines in Ohio is a concern for both residents and regulatory agencies. Effluent from these mines is typically characterized by low pH and high iron and sulfate concentrations and may contaminate local drinking-water supplies and streams. The objective of this project is to demonstrate the technical feasibility of injecting cementitious alkaline materials, such as Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) material to mitigate current adverse environmental impacts associated with AMD in a small, abandoned deep mine in Coshocton County Ohio. The Flue Gas Desulfurization material will be provided from American Electric Power`s (AEP) Conesville Plant. It will be injected as a grout mix that will use Fixated Flue Gas Desulfurization material and water. The subject site for this study is located on the border of Coshocton and Muskingum Counties, Ohio, approximately 1.5 miles south-southwest of the town of Wills Creek. The study will be performed at an underground mine designated as Mm-127 in the Ohio Department of Natural Resources register, also known as the Roberts-Dawson Mine. The mine operated in the mid-1950s, during which approximately 2 million cubic feet of coal was removed. Effluent discharging from the abandoned mine entrances has low pH in the range of 2.8-3.0 that drains directly into Wills Creek Lake. The mine covers approximately 14.6 acres. It is estimated that 26,000 tons of FGD material will be provided from AEP`s Conesville Power Plant located approximately 3 miles northwest of the subject site.

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    1999-07-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    1995-12-31

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Not Available

    1992-07-01

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

  9. Fully Coupled Well Models for Fluid Injection and Production

    SciTech Connect

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

    2013-08-05

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

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

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    large question preventing optimal natural gas production from "hydrofracked" shales is how far proppants, injected to keep shale fractures open, move into the gas-bearing shales. ...

  11. State and national energy environmental risk analysis systems for underground injection control. Final report, April 7, 1992--May 31, 1995

    SciTech Connect

    1995-05-01

    The purpose of this effort is to develop and demonstrate the concept of a national Energy and Environmental Risk Analysis System that could support DOE policy analysis and decision-making. That effort also includes the development and demonstration of a methodology for assessing the risks of groundwater contamination from underground injection operations. EERAS is designed to enhance DOE`s analytical capabilities by working with DOE`s existing resource analysis models for oil and gas. The full development of EERAS was not planned as part of this effort. The design and structure for the system were developed, along with interfaces that facilitate data input to DOE`s other analytical tools. The development of the database for EERAS was demonstrated with the input of data related to underground injection control, which also supported the risk assessment being performed. The utility of EERAS has been demonstrated by this effort and its continued development is recommended. Since the absolute risk of groundwater contamination due to underground injection is quite low, the risk assessment methodology focuses on the relative risk of groundwater contamination. The purpose of this methodology is to provide DOE with an enhanced understanding of the relative risks posed nationwide as input to DOE decision-making and resource allocation. Given data problems encountered, a broad assessment of all oil reservoirs in DOE`s resource database was not possible. The methodology was demonstrated using a sample of 39 reservoirs in 15 states. While data difficulties introduce substantial uncertainties, the results found are consistent with expectations and with prior analyses. Therefore the methodology for performing assessments appears to be sound. Recommendations on steps that can be taken to resolve uncertainties or obtain improved data are included in the report.

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

    SciTech Connect

    P. Oberlander; D. McGraw; C. Russell

    2007-10-31

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

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

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

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

  14. 2003 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Shallow Injection Well Verification and Status Report

    SciTech Connect

    Lewis, M.G.

    2003-08-21

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

  15. 2003 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Shallow Injection Well Verification and Status Report

    SciTech Connect

    Mike Lewis

    2003-08-01

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

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

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

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

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

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) (indexed site)

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

  18. Geomechanical effects on CO{sub 2} leakage through fault zones during large-scale underground injection

    SciTech Connect

    Rinaldi, A.P.; Rutqvist, J.; Cappa, F.

    2013-09-01

    The importance of geomechanicsincluding the potential for faults to reactivate during large scale geologic carbon sequestration operationshas recently become more widely recognized. However, notwithstanding the potential for triggering notable (felt) seismic events, the potential for buoyancy-driven CO{sub 2} to reach potable groundwater and the ground surface is actually more important from public safety and storage-efficiency perspectives. In this context, this work extends the previous studies on the geomechanical modeling of fault responses during underground carbon dioxide injection, focusing on the short-term integrity of the sealing caprock, and hence on the potential for leakage of either brine or CO{sub 2} to reach the shallow groundwater aquifers during active injection. We consider stress/strain-dependent permeability and study the leakage through the fault zone as its permeability changes during a reactivation, also causing seismicity. We analyze several scenarios related to the volume of CO{sub 2} injected (and hence as a function of the overpressure), involving both minor and major faults, and analyze the profile risks of leakage for different stress/strain-permeability coupling functions. We conclude that whereas it is very difficult to predict how much fault permeability could change upon reactivation, this process can have a significant impact on the leakage rate. Moreover, our analysis shows that induced seismicity associated with fault reactivation may not necessarily open up a new flow path for leakage. Results show a poor correlation between magnitude and amount of fluid leakage, meaning that a single event is generally not enough to substantially change the permeability along the entire fault length. Consequently, even if some changes in permeability occur, this does not mean that the CO{sub 2} will migrate up along the entire fault, breaking through the caprock to enter the overlying aquifer.

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    2010-11-01

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

  20. Rapid Qualitative Risk Assessment for Contaminant Leakage From Coal Seams During Underground Coal Gasification and CO2 Injection

    SciTech Connect

    Friedmann, S J

    2004-07-02

    One of the major risks associated with underground coal gasification is contamination of local aquifers with a variety of toxic compounds. It is likely that the rate, volume, extent, and concentrations of contaminant plumes will depend on the local permeability field near the point of gasification. This field depends heavily on the geological history of stratigraphic deposition and the specifics of stratigraphic succession. Some coals are thick and isolated, whereas others are thinner and more regionally expressed. Some coals are overlain by impermeable units, such as marine or lacustrine shales, whereas others are overlain by permeable zones associated with deltaic or fluvial successions. Rapid stratigraphic characterization of the succession provides first order information as to the general risk of contaminant escape, which provides a means of ranking coal contaminant risks by their depositional context. This risk categorization could also be used for ranking the relative risk of CO{sub 2} escape from injected coal seams. Further work is needed to verify accuracy and provide some quantification of risks.

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

    SciTech Connect

    1989-09-01

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

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

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

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

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    2014-01-06

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

  4. Pore Models Track Reactions in Underground Carbon Capture

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    1995-02-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Not Available

    1994-08-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    2014-02-24

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

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

    DOEpatents

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

    2014-12-09

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

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

    DOE Data Explorer

    Mines, Greg

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Mines, Greg

    2014-03-26

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

  11. Underground laboratories in Asia

    SciTech Connect

    Lin, Shin Ted; Yue, Qian

    2015-08-17

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

  12. Builders go underground

    SciTech Connect

    McGrath, D.J.

    1982-01-01

    The appeal of earth-sheltered housing increased last year when 1000 new underground houses brought the national total to about 5000. Innovative construction and management techniques help, such as the Terra-Dome's moldset and equipment, which the company sells to builders under a license arrangement. Attention is given to aesthetic appeal as well as to energy savings. The Everstrong company builds all-wood underground houses to cut down on humidity and increase resistance to natural disasters. Tight mortgage money has been a serious problem for underground as well as conventional builders. (DCK)

  13. Dynamic Underground Stripping Project

    SciTech Connect

    Aines, R.; Newmark, R.; McConachie, W.; Udell, K.; Rice, D.; Ramirez, A.; Siegel, W.; Buettner, M.; Daily, W.; Krauter, P.; Folsom, E.; Boegel, A.J.; Bishop, D.; Udell, K.

    1992-01-01

    LLNL is collaborating with the UC Berkeley College of Engineering to develop and demonstrate a system of thermal remediation and underground imaging techniques for use in rapid cleanup of localized underground spills. Called ``Dynamic Stripping`` to reflect the rapid and controllable nature of the process, it will combine steam injection, direct electrical heating, and tomographic geophysical imaging in a cleanup of the LLNL gasoline spill. In the first 8 months of the project, a Clean Site engineering test was conducted to prove the field application of the techniques before moving the contaminated site in FY 92.

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

    DOEpatents

    Vail, W.B. III.

    1993-02-16

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

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

    DOEpatents

    Vail, III, William B.

    1993-01-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Cannon, T.J.

    1998-10-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    1987-12-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Not Available

    1994-07-18

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

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    2014-09-15

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

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    2009-08-06

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Jorda, R.M.

    1980-03-01

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

  2. Underground physics with DUNE

    SciTech Connect

    Kudryavtsev, Vitaly A.

    2016-01-01

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

  3. Underground physics with DUNE

    DOE PAGES [OSTI]

    Kudryavtsev, Vitaly A.

    2016-01-01

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

  4. Underground CO2 Storage, Natural Gas Recovery Targeted by Virginia...

    Energy.gov [DOE] (indexed site)

    of injecting captured carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic-rich rocks, deep underground, to permanently store the greenhouse gas while simultaneously recovering natural gas. ...

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

    DOEpatents

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

    1999-01-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Alfred Wickline

    2008-03-01

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

  7. Pore Models Track Reactions in Underground Carbon Capture

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    Pore Models Track Reactions in Underground Carbon Capture Pore Models Track Reactions in Underground Carbon Capture September 25, 2014 trebotich2 Computed pH on calcite grains at 1 micron resolution. The iridescent grains mimic crushed material geoscientists extract from saline aquifers deep underground to study with microscopes. Researchers want to model what happens to the crystals' geochemistry when the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is injected underground for sequestration. Image courtesy of

  8. Dynamic Underground Stripping Demonstration Project

    SciTech Connect

    Aines, R.; Newmark, R.; McConachie, W.; Rice, D.; Ramirez, A.; Siegel, W.; Buettner, M.; Daily, W.; Krauter, P.; Folsom, E.; Boegel, A.J.; Bishop, D. ); udel, K. . Dept. of Mechanical Engineering)

    1992-03-01

    LLNL is collaborating with the UC Berkeley College of Engineering to develop and demonstrate a system of thermal remediation and underground imaging techniques for use in rapid cleanup of localized underground spills. Called Dynamic Stripping'' to reflect the rapid and controllable nature of the process, it will combine steam injection, direct electrical heating, and tomographic geophysical imaging in a cleanup of the LLNL gasoline spill. In the first 8 months of the project, a Clean Site engineering test was conducted to prove the field application of the techniques before moving to the contaminated site in FY 92.

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

    SciTech Connect

    Denham, M.

    2014-09-30

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Chugh, Y.P.

    1997-12-31

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

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    2002-09-01

    The purpose of this project was to economically design an optimum carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) flood for a mature waterflood nearing its economic abandonment. The original project utilized advanced reservoir characterization and CO{sub 2} horizontal injection wells as the primary methods to redevelop the South Cowden Unit (SCU). The development plans; project implementation and reservoir management techniques were to be transferred to the public domain to assist in preventing premature abandonment of similar fields. The Unit was a mature waterflood with water cut exceeding 95%. Oil must be mobilized through the use of a miscible or near-miscible fluid to recover significant additional reserves. Also, because the unit was relatively small, it did not have the benefit of economies of scale inherent in normal larger scale projects. Thus, new and innovative methods were required to reduce investment and operating costs. Two primary methods used to accomplish improved economics were use of reservoir characterization to restrict the flood to the higher quality rock in the unit and use of horizontal injection wells to cut investment and operating costs. The project consisted of two budget phases. Budget Phase I started in June 1994 and ended late June 1996. In this phase Reservoir Analysis, Characterization Tasks and Advanced Technology Definition Tasks were completed. Completion enabled the project to be designed, evaluated, and an Authority for Expenditure (AFE) for project implementation submitted to working interest owners for approval. Budget Phase II consisted of the implementation and execution of the project in the field. Phase II was completed in July 2001. Performance monitoring, during Phase II, by mid 1998 identified the majority of producing wells which under performed their anticipated withdrawal rates. Newly drilled and re-activated wells had lower offtake rates than originally forecasted. As a result of poor offtake, higher reservoir pressure was a concern

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    1993-12-31

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

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    2002-11-18

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

  14. Underground house book

    SciTech Connect

    Campbell, S.

    1980-01-01

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

  15. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    335,966 303,286 315,183 321,757 265,901 332,183 293,596 364,262 372,402 357,234 1980's 212,048 360,752 405,477 284,948 362,878 350,022 249,028 335,166 377,046 572,180 1990's ...

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    2014-07-07

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

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    2002-06-01

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

  18. Underground Coal Gasification Program

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center

    1994-12-01

    CAVSIM is a three-dimensional, axisymmetric model for resource recovery and cavity growth during underground coal gasification (UCG). CAVSIM is capable of following the evolution of the cavity from near startup to exhaustion, and couples explicitly wall and roof surface growth to material and energy balances in the underlying rubble zones. Growth mechanisms are allowed to change smoothly as the system evolves from a small, relatively empty cavity low in the coal seam to a large,more » almost completely rubble-filled cavity extending high into the overburden rock. The model is applicable to nonswelling coals of arbitrary seam thickness and can handle a variety of gas injection flow schedules or compositions. Water influx from the coal aquifer is calculated by a gravity drainage-permeation submodel which is integrated into the general solution. The cavity is considered to consist of up to three distinct rubble zones and a void space at the top. Resistance to gas flow injected from a stationary source at the cavity floor is assumed to be concentrated in the ash pile, which builds up around the source, and also the overburden rubble which accumulates on top of this ash once overburden rock is exposed at the cavity top. Char rubble zones at the cavity side and edges are assumed to be highly permeable. Flow of injected gas through the ash to char rubble piles and the void space is coupled by material and energy balances to cavity growth at the rubble/coal, void/coal and void/rock interfaces. One preprocessor and two postprocessor programs are included - SPALL calculates one-dimensional mean spalling rates of coal or rock surfaces exposed to high temperatures and generates CAVSIM input: TAB reads CAVSIM binary output files and generates ASCII tables of selected data for display; and PLOT produces dot matrix printer or HP printer plots from TAB output.« less

  19. Vitrified underground structures

    DOEpatents

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

    1992-01-01

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

  20. Base Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Summary)

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  1. Going underground. [Review

    SciTech Connect

    Not Available

    1980-10-01

    Underground space is increasingly used for energy-saving and secure storage that is often less expensive and more aesthetically pleasing than conventional facilities. Petroleum, pumped hydro, water, and sewage are among the large-scale needs that can be met by underground storage. Individual buildings can store chilled water underground for summer cooling. Windowless aboveground buildings are suitable and even more efficient if they are underground. The discovery of ancient underground cities indicates that the concept can be reapplied to relieve urban centers and save energy as is already done to a large extent in China and elsewhere. A national commitment to solar energy will benefit from increased use of underground space. Kansas City is among several cities which are developing the subsurface with success, businesses and schools having found the underground environment to have many benefits. More construction experience is needed, however, to help US lenders overcome their reluctance to finance earth-sheltered projects. (DCK)

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

    SciTech Connect

    David A. Strand

    2005-01-01

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

  3. High Temperature Superconducting Underground Cable

    SciTech Connect

    Farrell, Roger, A.

    2010-02-28

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

  4. Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure

    Annual Energy Outlook

    Gas in Underground Storage Figure Working Gas in Underground Storage Compared with 5-Year Range Graph...

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    2015-07-21

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    1997-12-31

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

  7. Overview of the Dynamic Underground Stripping demonstration project

    SciTech Connect

    Aines, R.; Newmark, R.; McConachie, W.; Rice, D.; Ramirez, A.; Siegel, W.; Buettner, M.; Daily, W.; Krauter, P.; Folsom, E.; Boegel, A.J.; Bishop, D.; Udell, K.

    1992-08-01

    Dynamic Underground Stripping is a limited-scope demonstration of a system of thermal remediation and underground imaging techniques for use in rapid cleanup of localized underground spills. Called ``Dynamic Stripping`` to reflect the rapid and controllable nature of the process, it combines steam injection, direct electrical heating, and tomographic geophysical imaging in a cleanup of the LLNL gasoline spill. The system is targeted toward the removal of free-phase organics of all kinds. The LLNL gasoline spill is a convenient test site because much of the gasoline has been trapped below the water table, mimicking the behavior of dense organic liquids.

  8. Dynamic underground stripping to remediate a deep hydrocarbon spill

    SciTech Connect

    Yow, J.L. Jr.; Aines, R.D.; Newmark, R.L.

    1995-09-01

    Dynamic Underground Stripping is a combination of in situ steam injection, electrical resistance heating, and fluid extraction for rapid removal and recovery of subsurface contaminants such as solvents or fuels. Underground imaging and other measurement techniques monitor the system in situ for process control. Field tests at a deep gasoline spill at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory recovered over 26,500 liters (7000 gallons) of gasoline during several months of field operations. Preliminary analysis of system cost and performance indicate that Dynamic Underground Stripping compares favorably with conventional pump-and-treat methods and vacuum extraction schemes for removing non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) such as gasoline from deep subsurface plumes.

  9. Overview of the Dynamic Underground Stripping demonstration project

    SciTech Connect

    Aines, R.; Newmark, R.; McConachie, W.; Rice, D.; Ramirez, A.; Siegel, W.; Buettner, M.; Daily, W.; Krauter, P.; Folsom, E.; Boegel, A.J.; Bishop, D. ); Udell, K. . Dept. of Mechanical Engineering)

    1992-08-01

    Dynamic Underground Stripping is a limited-scope demonstration of a system of thermal remediation and underground imaging techniques for use in rapid cleanup of localized underground spills. Called Dynamic Stripping'' to reflect the rapid and controllable nature of the process, it combines steam injection, direct electrical heating, and tomographic geophysical imaging in a cleanup of the LLNL gasoline spill. The system is targeted toward the removal of free-phase organics of all kinds. The LLNL gasoline spill is a convenient test site because much of the gasoline has been trapped below the water table, mimicking the behavior of dense organic liquids.

  10. Science @WIPP: Underground Laboratory

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

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

  11. Underground infrastructure damage for a Chicago scenario

    SciTech Connect

    Dey, Thomas N; Bos, Rabdall J

    2011-01-25

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    David Strand

    2006-05-01

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

  13. Midwest Underground Technology | Open Energy Information

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

    Underground Technology Jump to: navigation, search Name Midwest Underground Technology Facility Midwest Underground Technology Sector Wind energy Facility Type Small Scale Wind...

  14. Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure

    Annual Energy Outlook

    Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure Working Gas in Underground Storage Compared with 5-Year Range Graph....

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    1988-07-05

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Lynn Kidman

    2008-10-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Lynn Kidman

    2008-10-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Upton, J.E.

    1981-11-01

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

  19. The WIPP Underground Ventilation System

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

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

  20. Underground barrier construction apparatus with soil-retaining shield

    DOEpatents

    Gardner, B.M.; Smith, A.M.; Hanson, R.W.; Hodges, R.T.

    1998-08-04

    An apparatus is described for building a horizontal underground barrier by cutting through soil and depositing a slurry, preferably one which cures into a hardened material. The apparatus includes a digging means for cutting and removing soil to create a void under the surface of the ground, a shield means for maintaining the void, and injection means for inserting barrier-forming material into the void. In one embodiment, the digging means is a continuous cutting chain. Mounted on the continuous cutting chain are cutter teeth for cutting through soil and discharge paddles for removing the loosened soil. This invention includes a barrier placement machine, a method for building an underground horizontal containment barrier using the barrier placement machine, and the underground containment system. Preferably the underground containment barrier goes underneath and around the site to be contained in a bathtub-type containment. 17 figs.

  1. Underground barrier construction apparatus with soil-retaining shield

    DOEpatents

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

    1998-01-01

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

  2. Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure Working Gas in Underground Storage Compared with 5-Year Range Graph.

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

    SciTech Connect

    Hillenbrand, C.J.

    1995-09-01

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

  4. Economical wind protection - underground

    SciTech Connect

    Kiesling, E.W.

    1980-01-01

    Earth-sheltered buildings inherently posess near-absolute occupant protection from severe winds. They should sustain no structural damage and only minimal facial damage. Assuming that the lower-hazard risk attendant to this type of construction results in reduced insurance-premium rates, the owner accrues economic benefits from the time of construction. Improvements to aboveground buildings, in contrast, may not yield early economic benefits in spite of a favorable benefit-to-cost ratio. This, in addition to sensitivity to initial costs, traditionalism in residential construction, and lack of professional input to design, impede the widespread use of underground improvements and the subsequent economic losses from severe winds. Going underground could reverse the trend. 7 references.

  5. LUNA: Nuclear astrophysics underground

    SciTech Connect

    Best, A.

    2015-02-24

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

  6. Underground waste barrier structure

    DOEpatents

    Saha, Anuj J.; Grant, David C.

    1988-01-01

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

  7. Underground and Ventilation System

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    November 6, 2014 Agenda * Opening Comments - Mayor Dale Janway * Introductions / Guidelines - Tim Runyon (Moderator) * Update on CBFO and WIPP activities - Joe Franco * Recovery Status - Tammy Reynolds * Update on NMED environmental monitoring - Dr. Martin Simon * Audience Questions * In house * Internet * Closing Comments - Joe Franco 2 UPDATE ON CBFO AND WIPP ACTIVITIES Joe Franco, CBFO Manager 3 Recent WIPP Activities * Overall progress at WIPP * 100 th entry into the underground * Personnel

  8. Dynamic underground stripping demonstration project

    SciTech Connect

    Newmark, R.L.

    1992-04-01

    LLNL is collaborating with the UC Berkeley College of Engineering to develop and demonstrate a system of thermal remediation techniques for rapid cleanup of localized underground spills. Called dynamic stripping to reflect the rapid and controllable nature of the process, it will combine steam injection, direct electrical heating, and tomographic geophysical imaging in a cleanup of the LLNL gasoline spill. In the first eight months of the project, a Clean Site engineering test was conducted to prove the field application of the techniques. Tests then began on the contaminated site in FY 1992. This report describes the work at the Clean Site, including design and performance criteria, test results, interpretations, and conclusions. We fielded 'a wide range of new designs and techniques, some successful and some not. In this document, we focus on results and performance, lessons learned, and design and operational changes recommended for work at the contaminated site. Each section focuses on a different aspect of the work and can be considered a self-contained contribution.

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

    SciTech Connect

    D. S. Tobiason

    2002-02-01

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

  10. Ensuring Safe and Reliable Underground Natural Gas Storage

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    October 2016 Ensuring Safe and Reliable Underground Natural Gas Storage Final Report of the Interagency Task Force on Natural Gas Storage Safety About the Cover: Relief well at the ...

  11. REPORT: Ensuring Safe and Reliable Underground Natural Gas Storage

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    Report focuses on integrity of wells at underground gas storage facilities, public health and environmental effects from a natural gas leak, and energy reliability concerns in the case of future natural gas leaks.

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

    DOEpatents

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

    1995-01-01

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

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

    DOEpatents

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

    1995-09-12

    A dynamic underground stripping process removes localized underground volatile organic compounds from heterogeneous soils and rock in a relatively short time. This method uses steam injection and electrical resistance heating to heat the contaminated underground area to increase the vapor pressure of the contaminants, thus speeding the process of contaminant removal and making the removal more complete. The injected steam passes through the more permeable sediments, distilling the organic contaminants, which are pumped to the surface. Large electrical currents are also applied to the contaminated area, which heat the impermeable subsurface layers that the steam has not penetrated. The condensed and vaporized contaminants are withdrawn by liquid pumping and vacuum extraction. The steam injection and electrical heating steps are repeated as necessary. Geophysical imaging methods can be used to map the boundary between the hot, dry, contamination-free underground zone and the cool, damp surrounding areas to help monitor the dynamic stripping process. 4 figs.

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

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

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

  17. Dynamic Underground Stripping Demonstration Project. Interim progress report, 1991

    SciTech Connect

    Aines, R.; Newmark, R.; McConachie, W.; Rice, D.; Ramirez, A.; Siegel, W.; Buettner, M.; Daily, W.; Krauter, P.; Folsom, E.; Boegel, A.J.; Bishop, D.; udel, K.

    1992-03-01

    LLNL is collaborating with the UC Berkeley College of Engineering to develop and demonstrate a system of thermal remediation and underground imaging techniques for use in rapid cleanup of localized underground spills. Called ``Dynamic Stripping`` to reflect the rapid and controllable nature of the process, it will combine steam injection, direct electrical heating, and tomographic geophysical imaging in a cleanup of the LLNL gasoline spill. In the first 8 months of the project, a Clean Site engineering test was conducted to prove the field application of the techniques before moving to the contaminated site in FY 92.

  18. Underground CO2 Storage, Natural Gas Recovery Targeted by Virginia

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) (indexed site)

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

  19. WIPP Begins Underground Decontamination Activities

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

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

  20. Underground coal gasification. Presentations

    SciTech Connect

    2007-07-01

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

  1. The Sanford underground research facility at Homestake

    SciTech Connect

    Heise, J.

    2014-06-24

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

  2. Multinational underground nuclear parks

    SciTech Connect

    Myers, C.W.; Giraud, K.M.

    2013-07-01

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

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

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

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

  4. Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) (indexed site)

    July 29, 2014 Ryan Haerer EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks 1 Storing High Octane ... The Underground Storage Tank Universe EPA: Protect Human Health and the Environment ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  9. Development of an Ultrasonic Phased Array System for Wellbore Integrity Evaluation and Near-Wellbore Fracture Network Mapping of Injection and Production Wells in Geothermal Energy Systems

    SciTech Connect

    Almansouri, Hani; Foster, Benjamin; Kisner, Roger A; Polsky, Yarom; Bouman, Charlie

    2016-01-01

    This paper documents our progress developing an ultrasound phased array system in combination with a model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) algorithm to inspect the health of and characterize the composition of the near-wellbore region for geothermal reservoirs. The main goal for this system is to provide a near-wellbore in-situ characterization capability that will significantly improve wellbore integrity evaluation and near well-bore fracture network mapping. A more detailed image of the fracture network near the wellbore in particular will enable the selection of optimal locations for stimulation along the wellbore, provide critical data that can be used to improve stimulation design, and provide a means for measuring evolution of the fracture network to support long term management of reservoir operations. Development of such a measurement capability supports current hydrothermal operations as well as the successful demonstration of Engineered Geothermal Systems (EGS). The paper will include the design of the phased array system, the performance specifications, and characterization methodology. In addition, we will describe the MBIR forward model derived for the phased array system and the propagation of compressional waves through a pseudo-homogenous medium.

  10. Evaluations of Radionuclides of Uranium, Thorium, and Radium Associated with Produced Fluids, Precipitates, and Sludges from Oil, Gas, and Oilfield Brine Injection Wells in Mississippi

    SciTech Connect

    Ericksen, R.L.

    1999-10-28

    There is an unsurpassed lack of scientific data with respect to the concentrations and isotopic compositions of uranium, thorium, and radium in the produced formation fluids (brine), precipitates, and sludges generated with the operation of oil and gas wells in Mississippi. These radioactive elements when contained in the formation fluids have been given the term NORM, which is an acronym for naturally occurring radioactive materials. When they are technologically enhanced during oil and gas production activities resulting in the formation of scale (precipitates) and sludges they are termed TENORM (technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials). As used in this document, NORM and TENORM will be considered equivalent terms and the occurrence of NORM in the oilfield will be considered the result of production operations. As a result of the lack of data no scientifically sound theses may be developed concerning the presence of these radionuclides in the fluid brine, precipitate (scale), or sludge phases. Over the period of just one year, 1997 for example, Mississippi produced over 39,372,963,584 liters (10,402,368,186 gallons or 247,675,433 barrels) of formation water associated with hydrocarbon production from 41 counties across the state.

  11. Lower 48 States Working Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Nancy Moller Weare

    2006-07-25

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

  13. EVALUATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES OF URANIUM, THORIUM, AND RADIUM ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCED FLUIDS, PRECIPITATES, AND SLUDGES FROM OIL, GAS, AND OILFIELD BRINE INJECTION WELLS IN MISSISSIPPI

    SciTech Connect

    Charles Swann; John Matthews; Rick Ericksen; Joel Kuszmaul

    2004-03-01

    Naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) are known to be produced as a byproduct of hydrocarbon production in Mississippi. The presence of NORM has resulted in financial losses to the industry and continues to be a liability as the NORM-enriched scales and scale encrusted equipment is typically stored rather than disposed of. Although the NORM problem is well known, there is little publically available data characterizing the hazard. This investigation has produced base line data to fill this informational gap. A total of 329 NORM-related samples were collected with 275 of these samples consisting of brine samples. The samples were derived from 37 oil and gas reservoirs from all major producing areas of the state. The analyses of these data indicate that two isotopes of radium ({sup 226}Ra and {sup 228}Ra) are the ultimate source of the radiation. The radium contained in these co-produced brines is low and so the radiation hazard posed by the brines is also low. Existing regulations dictate the manner in which these salt-enriched brines may be disposed of and proper implementation of the rules will also protect the environment from the brine radiation hazard. Geostatistical analyses of the brine components suggest relationships between the concentrations of {sup 226}Ra and {sup 228}Ra, between the Cl concentration and {sup 226}Ra content, and relationships exist between total dissolved solids, BaSO{sub 4} saturation and concentration of the Cl ion. Principal component analysis points to geological controls on brine chemistry, but the nature of the geologic controls could not be determined. The NORM-enriched barite (BaSO{sub 4}) scales are significantly more radioactive than the brines. Leaching studies suggest that the barite scales, which were thought to be nearly insoluble in the natural environment, can be acted on by soil microorganisms and the enclosed radium can become bioavailable. This result suggests that the landspreading means of scale disposal

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    1994-10-01

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

  15. Issues Related to Seismic Activity Induced by the Injection of CO2 in Deep Saline Aquifers

    SciTech Connect

    Sminchak, Joel; Gupta, Neeraj; Byrer, Charles; Bergman, Perry

    2001-05-31

    Case studies, theory, regulation, and special considerations regarding the disposal of carbon dioxide (CO2) into deep saline aquifers were investigated to assess the potential for induced seismic activity. Formations capable of accepting large volumes of CO2 make deep well injection of CO2 an attractive option. While seismic implications must be considered for injection facilities, induced seismic activity may be prevented through proper siting, installation, operation, and monitoring. Instances of induced seismic activity have been documented at hazardous waste disposal wells, oil fields, and other sites. Induced seismic activity usually occurs along previously faulted rocks and may be investigated by analyzing the stress conditions at depth. Seismic events are unlikely to occur due to injection in porous rocks unless very high injection pressures cause hydraulic fracturing. Injection wells in the United States are regulated through the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. UIC guidance requires an injection facility to perform extensive characterization, testing, and monitoring. Special considerations related to the properties of CO2 may have seismic ramifications to a deep well injection facility. Supercritical CO2 liquid is less dense than water and may cause density-driven stress conditions at depth or interact with formation water and rocks, causing a reduction in permeability and pressure buildup leading to seismic activity. Structural compatibility, historical seismic activity, cases of seismic activity triggered by deep well injection, and formation capacity were considered in evaluating the regional seismic suitability in the United States. Regions in the central, midwestern, and southeastern United States appear best suited for deep well injection. In Ohio, substantial deep well injection at a waste disposal facility has not caused seismic events in a seismically active area. Current

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    2003-07-16

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

  17. Dynamic Underground Stripping: In situ steam sweeping and electrical heating to remediate a deep hydrocarbon spill

    SciTech Connect

    Yow, J.L. Jr.; Aines, R.D.; Newmark, R.L.; Udell, K.S.; Ziagos, J.P.

    1994-07-01

    Dynamic Underground Stripping is a combination of in situ steam injection, electrical resistance heating, and fluid extraction for rapid removal and recovery of subsurface contaminants such as solvents or fuels. Underground imaging and other measurement techniques monitor the system in situ for process control. Field tests at a deep gasoline spill at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory recovered over 7000 gallons of gasoline during several months of field operations. Preliminary analysis of system cost and performance indicate that Dynamic Underground Stripping compares favorably with conventional pump-and-treat and vacuum extraction schemes for removing non-aqueous phase liquids such as gasoline from deep subsurface plumes.

  18. Underground pumped hydroelectric storage

    SciTech Connect

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

    1984-07-01

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 7,437 14,235 22,615 66,408 136,813 155,687 156,839 166,332 149,212 119,162 35,641 16,420 2015 7,171 4,815 20,994 74,813 ...

  20. Colorado Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 538 235 252 265 1,274 4,266 6,279 5,212 5,012 1,957 1,734 650 1991 992 654 483 61 2,494 3,876 4,219 4,449 5,296 3,296 ...

  1. Michigan Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    76,718 72,178 53,824 26,587 11,504 2,212 1991 1,032 3,107 15,520 34,937 50,769 ... 55,631 32,359 9,649 4,881 2009 2,827 3,212 12,072 48,476 76,810 78,890 79,555 63,194 ...

  2. AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    36,048 85,712 223,991 260,731 242,718 212,493 214,385 160,007 37,788 12,190 1996 ... 1999 18,032 8,946 26,228 111,081 229,212 205,889 185,349 217,043 223,192 146,647 ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 34,836 31,597 33,943 1970's 36,805 36,850 87,251 46,592 54,705 54,333 61,110 85,913 91,373 82,325 1980's 109,242 124,439 141,811 135,309 145,916 125,560 121,631 121,245 146,758 161,181 1990's 175,039 170,908 340,602 221,412 310,273 274,724 305,914 312,254 344,461 291,802 2000's 311,995 482,270 363,682 415,541 395,115 345,945 356,273 362,593 401,600 435,089 2010's 460,453 437,440 378,438 394,375 474,392 494,37

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 17,004 8,785 10,204 19,677 17,706 20,683 10,352 12,126 22,756 13,644 6,455 1991 15,296 7,922 10,668 19,418 15,195 17,722 9,489 19,572 16,485 9,703 16,161 13,277 1992 28,613 14,959 26,061 25,971 36,754 40,361 32,383 37,832 33,591 24,896 15,309 23,871 1993 10,338 4,336 10,991 24,985 30,856 19,793 22,155 23,862 26,751 20,149 16,519 10,678 1994 9,151 9,187 22,843 31,648 45,809 29,041 34,716 32,744 34,998 26,664 23,258 10,215 1995 12,078

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 219,010 235,415 244,892 1970's 335,966 303,286 315,183 321,757 265,901 332,183 293,596 364,262 372,402 357,234 1980's 212,048 360,752 405,477 284,948 362,878 350,022 249,028 335,166 377,046 572,180 1990's 388,569 707,371 383,762 381,711 339,512 332,608 376,290 312,787 328,118 319,041 2000's 370,957 398,034 318,381 413,078 368,897 385,186 337,341 372,938 377,401 380,986 2010's 335,068 371,341 291,507

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 13,295 9,924 21,742 28,238 51,655 57,413 51,832 54,045 43,121 22,964 20,337 14,002 1991 73,993 63,063 44,655 46,683 64,031 52,754 59,771 61,123 70,362 55,270 57,416 58,249 1992 7,189 3,229 6,490 28,679 50,918 60,273 46,504 57,126 51,685 38,133 24,553 8,982 1993 5,815 1,906 9,046 31,461 62,602 58,643 54,419 47,350 54,543 27,811 19,970 8,144 1994 772 4,575 12,272 40,407 57,110 58,758 53,083 45,208 27,767 23,356 8,648 7,555 1995

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 383 74 383 1970's 398 5,067 12,589 4,160 1,005 2,378 472 39 1980's 2,871 2,801 19,894 2,500...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 47,474 33,037 58,753 1970's 110,680 132,263 84,201 151,287 81,960 149,966 132,724 144,053 ...

  11. Arkansas Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 0 0 0 46 104 473 527 481 279 28 0 0 1991 0 0 0 72 132 339 487 14 0 0 0 0 1992 0 0 0 0 0 510 852 665 434 0 0 0 1993 0 0 0 0 ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 47,474 33,037 58,753 1970's 110,680 132,263 84,201 151,287 81,960 149,966 132,724 144,053 155,450 140,433 1980's 134,386 212,267 177,194 148,679 193,096 184,351 174,222 188,110 194,251 178,222 1990's 200,183 178,002 193,051 229,568 224,525 209,575 249,153 302,324 321,681 261,763 2000's 242,566 351,853 282,824 314,609 296,365 273,161 291,259 272,581 287,449 315,872 2010's 343,090 342,092 270,858 328,452

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 17,712 15,346 15,364 11,228 15,333 18,647 19,527 17,703 19,665 19,333 15,705 14,621 1991 2,280 4,842 12,957 13,291 22,317 22,447 17,260 17,261 23,603 27,512 9,950 4,281 1992 7,699 4,109 13,109 16,478 29,243 21,440 20,695 21,713 23,276 24,685 7,374 3,230 1993 4,314 1,638 8,805 14,315 34,776 33,317 27,192 28,570 32,062 21,236 21,232 2,111 1994 3,737 9,288 9,922 26,592 34,270 23,811 30,757 28,317 24,211 15,673 13,387 4,560 1995

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 12,465 10,520 5,281 1970's 10,421 11,746 7,920 11,328 11,016 6,830 19,012 16,820 19,121 19,715 1980's 16,907 18,753 19,476 16,298 16,154 17,362 16,330 16,539 14,653 18,548 1990's 19,431 22,508 19,502 15,314 15,316 15,610 17,448 15,510 14,627 18,802 2000's 15,341 19,786 15,445 19,166 16,347 18,026 14,947 20,309 16,517 15,088 2010's 14,384 15,592 10,582 14,165 20,362 17,373

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 222,800 255,365 257,737 1970's 344,524 296,475 275,460 299,766 287,776 322,960 342,010 372,262 390,610 424,176 1980's 290,497 354,911 371,216 227,107 379,036 325,729 366,672 268,325 341,649 414,819 1990's 415,309 354,996 390,465 476,312 470,220 377,121 503,138 424,651 391,041 343,675 2000's 402,150 543,881 312,348 519,235 475,423 404,258 386,208 410,421 467,589 462,022 2010's 393,814 457,240 307,948

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 4,701 6,904 7,493 1970's 12,489 8,149 83,548 29,089 25,439 27,345 50,545 65,693 63,032 60,597 1980's 59,653 42,916 43,834 44,467 54,186 54,105 38,678 43,550 41,780 50,478 1990's 53,161 48,054 55,105 55,903 64,972 74,821 88,684 63,216 69,268 48,217 2000's 63,917 68,987 72,418 79,014 90,316 114,658 108,823 148,487 160,388 127,212 2010's 145,854 124,165 129,889 145,082 199,696 202,642

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 1,544 12 1,155 1,115 0 0 0 287 512 228 21 442 1991 669 0 0 2,142 701 120 299 306 216 222 225 70 1992 0 0 0 1,579 439 155 273 224 214 197 0 0 1993 0 0 0 1,558 1,054 462 108 323 211 221 556 218 1994 528 57 98 0 1,549 1,361 322 318 276 219 240 29 1995 0 191 610 59 669 0 0 376 484 144 180 65 1996 358 1,295 1,377 410 1,326 268 247 213 212 218 161 484 1997 1,025 621 88 466 1,207 121 440 387 248 223 254 0 1998 303 167 471 36 595 0 0

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 19,919 17,398 20,409 1970's 20,891 18,668 8,801 16,969 19,791 13,090 12,507 15,908 16,351 23,254 1980's 29,751 30,147 25,180 33,262 39,814 36,786 22,084 22,894 13,782 10,479 1990's 14,648 12,392 11,708 10,894 14,690 18,054 19,871 18,219 23,876 20,232 2000's 15,571 33,998 39,809 35,082 31,339 29,118 42,492 26,512 18,394 57,631 2010's 35,577 17,582 26,813 21,426 15,290 19,82

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 137 138 399 945 1,030 1,589 2,636 2,459 2,918 1,868 224 305 1991 49 400 337 661 1,912 1,830 2,316 2,077 1,390 1,069 208 144 1992 94 209 651 983 2,344 1,142 1,727 1,673 1,209 1,045 508 123 1993 282 135 618 768 1,156 889 1,969 1,580 1,608 1,404 175 310 1994 267 118 585 1,090 1,929 2,511 1,794 1,632 2,256 1,750 409 348 1995 225 467 966 1,330 1,775 2,542 3,316 3,925 2,132 871 325 180 1996 171 319 392 1,087 1,169 3,866 3,549 3,819

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 0 29 194 1,042 1,483 1,696 30 778 1,165 695 281 4 1991 5 0 112 1,421 2,977 2,197 163 265 1,023 340 412 0 1992 0 108 275 703 1,637 2,634 2,118 1,220 1,200 360 0 0 1993 0 0 162 1,050 2,814 4,060 2,435 1,851 1,518 586 0 10 1994 0 0 582 1,280 2,156 1,045 2,245 933 2,230 1,100 938 15 1995 27 148 490 478 727 920 346 207 408 120 0 0 1996 - 101 14 530 1,650 1,984 1,325 1,416 875 213 289 25 1997 302 267 721 615 796 885 271 1,005 1,123

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 142,717 169,955 168,142 1970's 182,405 188,916 163,884 179,078 152,580 183,032 146,228 188,721 199,851 193,251 1980's 169,268 177,387 193,275 129,541 156,006 138,801 163,093 143,588 162,801 132,898 1990's 154,452 134,060 160,009 175,630 191,660 161,350 198,642 200,327 191,831 182,142 2000's 179,728 206,841 174,175 193,194 186,313 176,524 150,608 180,397 185,095 175,526 2010's 178,746 182,167 146,552 166,098

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 2,095 2,783 8,487 12,731 23,624 20,221 19,895 19,615 18,355 13,780 9,089 3,777 1991 474 569 2,278 13,918 24,470 20,782 18,348 18,211 16,615 12,371 5,205 819 1992 46 383 775 11,319 27,233 30,305 29,147 24,617 16,672 14,358 4,364 790 1993 152 278 1,376 10,017 30,894 32,804 30,187 28,001 26,720 12,055 3,036 109 1994 1,075 1,772 2,164 19,428 30,107 32,303 33,898 27,173 22,437 13,196 7,269 837 1995 617 1,176 1,782 7,066 28,599 32,073 31,206

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 4,366 3,193 6,903 5,872 11,548 13,440 11,689 10,380 8,709 8,453 8,353 2,367 1991 26 3,253 7,982 15,800 16,462 10,864 4,815 6,272 10,749 9,706 3,437 4,853 1992 1,358 3,452 5,980 8,163 10,270 11,596 17,116 11,326 13,627 11,199 2,570 812 1993 1,709 2,183 3,139 17,592 30,401 25,865 16,422 17,249 15,631 12,044 1,415 7,600 1994 692 1,521 7,130 20,751 26,772 15,711 17,419 13,891 9,370 6,950 2,330 1,038 1995 1,144 1,218 4,867 9,018

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 189 5 46 1980's 4,148 4,944 1990's 5,894 5,853 6,114 6,202 5,956 4,447 4,416 6,259 5,673 7,605 2000's 8,892 10,487 16,746 10,194 9,101 13,138 12,449 13,195 15,088 10,570 2010's 8,658 11,976 8,732 12,176 15,858 9,061

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 0 0 0 1,181 1,508 1,244 764 636 372 188 0 0 1991 0 0 0 0 713 1,554 1,458 1,092 674 339 23 0 1992 0 0 0 0 1,572 1,540 1,194 1,010 453 195 0 149 1993 0 0 0 0 1,636 1,291 1,175 1,036 575 487 0 0 1994 0 0 0 0 1,216 1,506 1,202 1,081 688 264 0 0 1995 0 182 0 867 1,179 1,034 695 0 490 0 0 0 1996 - - - - 841 1,365 1,318 509 121 262 - - 1997 0 24 0 0 1,300 1,681 1,301 1,178 411 97 267 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 1,968 1,188 1,143 1,141 28 0 205 1999 0 0 0 0

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 2,636 3,056 7,714 11,094 19,622 17,419 16,104 16,323 13,930 7,415 6,785 4,120 1991 843 2,207 5,193 12,543 15,471 16,359 ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 2,189 271 2,720 9,668 32,390 37,507 29,406 35,531 34,922 20,388 6,532 1,553 1991 4,412 442 309 9,233 31,471 30,144 30,332 ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  12. Utah Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    1,210 2,719 3,032 3,970 3,612 3,759 4,834 3,898 3,111 506 182 1993 0 6 93 168 6,607 6,471 5,034 5,017 4,968 5,083 501 541 1994 45 195 3,861 2,050 6,133 4,069 5,508 6,269 8,509 ...

  13. Pacific Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 4,011 3,540 14,172 43,546 58,466 51,172 32,264 32,879 23,448 31,224 15,841 14,871 2015 5,947...

  14. Washington Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 1,270 974 1,827 1970's 6,688 7,442 9,608 8,598 7,993 12,009 13,858 15,540 7,358 14,332 1980's...

  15. Kansas Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 7,635 3,835 6,654 5,480 4,038 7,424 13,042 13,023 16,981 12,047 11,053 6,933 1991 5,647 10,096 7,403 7,023 8,901 9,815 ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 536 577 1970's 1,153 992 568 1,070 410 434 1990's 694 1,375 3,349 2,022 2,220 2,646 2000's 2,022 3,913 3,785 10,190 12,734 15,572 20,604 20,009 31,208 21,020 2010's 23,026 22,766 21,195 17,966 34,286 33,004

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 1,120 2,185 1,860 933 1,065 1,131 977 1,518 1,981 1,627 367 291 2014 701 337 1,062 1,084 903 2,078 831 997 774 678 976 1,255 2015 1,039 982 589 621 618 611 865 857 682 824 756 717 2016 496 748 752 1,540 2,065 1,970 2,123 2,139

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 609 640 580 1970's 547 883 906 2,320 999 1,340 1,069 1,446 1,180 1,193 1980's 2,381 11,107 12,089 19,948 17,291 20,386 9,542 14,359 19,426 16,885 1990's 27,196 32,248 31,222 34,488 42,508 32,201 32,368 42,803 23,744 37,380 2000's 40,179 47,942 42,159 44,227 46,829 38,478 39,761 41,284 42,304 38,618 2010's 35,519 44,170 28,146 26,724 41,548 36,027

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 929 289 499 863 0 2,707 2,937 2,937 1,101 622 906 507 1991 833 586 299 3,139 1,705 2,716 2,138 291 308 0 1,447 753 1992 436 149 945 1,205 1,824 1,543 1,336 1,618 1,578 979 785 895 1993 750 383 2,192 1,363 4,359 1,112 2,036 1,280 2,258 340 326 3,176 1994 1,579 318 1,268 3,455 2,882 2,005 1,945 965 1,330 503 1,263 1,192 1995 541 827 1,671 1,661 2,601 2,020 1,565 829 2,494 464 1,696 1,447 1996 808 2,027 1,081 1,609 2,176 3,349

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 25,027 26,679 26,483 1970's 35,065 33,816 40,220 46,617 36,070 43,845 18,252 32,090 25,903 27,177 1980's 24,509 24,301 25,489 20,160 22,069 21,885 22,118 15,844 24,423 24,816 1990's 23,054 23,654 25,770 25,928 24,656 24,335 27,263 23,403 22,034 21,533 2000's 19,486 24,647 20,425 23,563 23,451 21,405 23,598 22,686 22,874 24,399 2010's 21,943 23,864 19,878 22,435 22,067 20,542

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 26,084 28,993 31,726 1970's 38,968 46,139 51,437 54,392 50,903 70,609 69,954 69,097 72,674 68,961 1980's 49,142 67,518 64,789 42,090 63,617 62,202 43,698 42,388 55,774 55,277 1990's 66,195 47,425 49,367 48,117 59,831 58,561 69,498 57,073 65,267 55,134 2000's 55,348 75,165 49,577 70,497 66,037 61,190 65,956 70,682 77,503 71,972 2010's 85,167 77,526 64,483 60,782 80,129 80,247

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 47,438 46,871 53,945 1970's 57,142 66,666 59,061 88,000 70,076 87,459 88,577 104,347 109,076 ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 41,661 44,524 50,772 1970's 52,966 49,267 46,810 42,910 45,642 52,045 48,582 51,344 52,242 ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 158 272 2,143 1970's 2,175 2,286 278 320 112 1,079 1980's 22 1990's 0 2,369 2,378 2000's 2,455...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 10,206 8,919 9,044 1970's 10,957 11,741 10,188 10,847 9,413 8,658 6,634 8,074 8,836 8,836 1980's...

  20. Maryland Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 239 2,623 1,788 2,614 1,243 2,126 2,822 2,513 2,065 403 535 1991 63 182 612 1,414 1,596 1,606 1,492 2,061 9,642 963 1,273...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 9,245 1,582 10,686 31,603 52,870 66,300 76,718 72,178 53,824 26,587 11,504 2,212 1991 1,032 3,107 15,520 34,937 50,769 57,972 60,903 49,098 32,321 37,468 6,791 5,078 1992 1,016 711 1,745 17,659 47,567 67,131 73,573 69,301 68,599 37,430 3,947 1,784 1993 940 824 5,731 30,848 76,196 84,210 84,659 82,086 67,557 38,106 4,009 1,148 1994 1,753 2,710 5,746 48,993 74,457 74,862 76,199 76,055 66,415 34,456 5,582 2,992 1995 666 1,317 4,527

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 0 0 69 477 330 112 133 48 61 27 0 0 1991 0 0 42 228 257 312 291 61 93 0 0 0 1992 0 0 0 0 391 307 299 250 126 0 0 0 1993 0 0 0 178 331 358 426 134 248 87 0 0 1994 0 0 0 46 342 374 371 273 150 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 27 331 262 306 301 241 9 0 0 1996 - - - 142 366 294 287 280 202 83 - - 1997 0 0 0 173 273 312 321 207 130 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 169 289 284 275 187 87 0 1999 0 0 0 0 0 172 308 320 272 175 136 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 132 343 343 266

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 1,544 12 1,155 1,115 0 0 0 287 512 228 21 442 1991 669 0 0 2,142 701 120 299 306 216 222 225 70 1992 0 0 0 1,579 439 155 273 224 214 197 0 0 1993 0 0 0 1,558 1,054 462 108 323 211 221 556 218 1994 528 57 98 0 1,549 1,361 322 318 276 219 240 29 1995 0 191 610 59 669 0 0 376 484 144 180 65 1996 358 1,295 1,377 410 1,326 268 247 213 212 218 161 484 1997 1,025 621 88 466 1,207 121 440 387 248 223 254 0 1998 303 167 471 36 595 0 0

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 137 138 399 945 1,030 1,589 2,636 2,459 2,918 1,868 224 305 1991 49 400 337 661 1,912 1,830 2,316 2,077 1,390 1,069 208 144 1992 94 209 651 983 2,344 1,142 1,727 1,673 1,209 1,045 508 123 1993 282 135 618 768 1,156 889 1,969 1,580 1,608 1,404 175 310 1994 267 118 585 1,090 1,929 2,511 1,794 1,632 2,256 1,750 409 348 1995 225 467 966 1,330 1,775 2,542 3,316 3,925 2,132 871 325 180 1996 171 319 392 1,087 1,169 3,866 3,549 3,819

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 0 29 194 1,042 1,483 1,696 30 778 1,165 695 281 4 1991 5 0 112 1,421 2,977 2,197 163 265 1,023 340 412 0 1992 0 108 275 703 1,637 2,634 2,118 1,220 1,200 360 0 0 1993 0 0 162 1,050 2,814 4,060 2,435 1,851 1,518 586 0 10 1994 0 0 582 1,280 2,156 1,045 2,245 933 2,230 1,100 938 15 1995 27 148 490 478 727 920 346 207 408 120 0 0 1996 - 101 14 530 1,650 1,984 1,325 1,416 875 213 289 25 1997 302 267 721 615 796 885 271 1,005 1,123

  7. New Mexico Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 502 1,137 1,088 2,198 1,190 1,665 3,674 3,203 2,048 3,187 1,857 602 1991 341 245 267 3,130 3,097 3,033 1,930 790 3,099 1,538 1,556 2,536 1992 1,345 741 1,159 197 1,538 1,940 1,147 2,411 2,287 2,932 1,133 2,132 1993 864 0 1,404 1 2,822 2,560 1,786 692 1,343 2,719 533 1,645 1994 412 604 1,464 275 2,297 1,630 1,349 986 4,132 2,343 1,241 1,817 1995 404 867 2,089 944 1,779 1,734 1,688 999 1,550 1,392 691 577 1996 690 567 167 587

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 1,869 1,563 3,711 4,231 6,916 10,157 8,932 7,141 5,172 2,549 1,879 1991 539 1,202 1,845 5,002 7,611 7,983 9,509 8,881 8,960 6,263 3,702 1,915 1992 965 83 455 4,003 9,753 9,677 11,054 9,933 6,960 5,600 2,866 916 1993 367 155 1,728 6,690 11,220 11,597 11,643 9,116 8,556 4,134 2,100 1,227 1994 170 658 1,345 10,036 10,214 12,914 11,583 10,095 5,457 2,869 707 579 1995 1,439 287 1,939 4,147 9,279 11,454 8,979 8,492 9,378 3,586 1,390

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 2,095 2,783 8,487 12,731 23,624 20,221 19,895 19,615 18,355 13,780 9,089 3,777 1991 474 569 2,278 13,918 24,470 20,782 18,348 18,211 16,615 12,371 5,205 819 1992 46 383 775 11,319 27,233 30,305 29,147 24,617 16,672 14,358 4,364 790 1993 152 278 1,376 10,017 30,894 32,804 30,187 28,001 26,720 12,055 3,036 109 1994 1,075 1,772 2,164 19,428 30,107 32,303 33,898 27,173 22,437 13,196 7,269 837 1995 617 1,176 1,782 7,066 28,599 32,073 31,206

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 4,366 3,193 6,903 5,872 11,548 13,440 11,689 10,380 8,709 8,453 8,353 2,367 1991 26 3,253 7,982 15,800 16,462 10,864 4,815 6,272 10,749 9,706 3,437 4,853 1992 1,358 3,452 5,980 8,163 10,270 11,596 17,116 11,326 13,627 11,199 2,570 812 1993 1,709 2,183 3,139 17,592 30,401 25,865 16,422 17,249 15,631 12,044 1,415 7,600 1994 692 1,521 7,130 20,751 26,772 15,711 17,419 13,891 9,370 6,950 2,330 1,038 1995 1,144 1,218 4,867 9,018

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 0 0 0 1,181 1,508 1,244 764 636 372 188 0 0 1991 0 0 0 0 713 1,554 1,458 1,092 674 339 23 0 1992 0 0 0 0 1,572 1,540 1,194 1,010 453 195 0 149 1993 0 0 0 0 1,636 1,291 1,175 1,036 575 487 0 0 1994 0 0 0 0 1,216 1,506 1,202 1,081 688 264 0 0 1995 0 182 0 867 1,179 1,034 695 0 490 0 0 0 1996 - - - - 841 1,365 1,318 509 121 262 - - 1997 0 24 0 0 1,300 1,681 1,301 1,178 411 97 267 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 1,968 1,188 1,143 1,141 28 0 205 1999 0 0 0 0

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 13,295 9,924 21,742 28,238 51,655 57,413 51,832 54,045 43,121 22,964 20,337 14,002 1991 73,993 63,063 44,655 46,683 64,031 52,754 59,771 61,123 70,362 55,270 57,416 58,249 1992 7,189 3,229 6,490 28,679 50,918 60,273 46,504 57,126 51,685 38,133 24,553 8,982 1993 5,815 1,906 9,046 31,461 62,602 58,643 54,419 47,350 54,543 27,811 19,970 8,144 1994 772 4,575 12,272 40,407 57,110 58,758 53,083 45,208 27,767 23,356 8,648 7,555 1995

  13. Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Pipeline and Distribution Use Price 1967-2005 Citygate Price 10.05 8.22 4.11 4.01 4.03 3.14 1984-2015 Residential Price 16.48 15.33 14.29 14.55 15.14 14.24 1967-2015 Percentage of Total Residential Deliveries included in Prices 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1989-2015 Commercial Price 14.46 13.33 12.31 12.37 12.89 11.99 1967-2015 Percentage of Total Commercial Deliveries included in Prices 61.2 56.9 55.4 54.5 52.2 53.9 1990-2015 Industrial Price

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 17,004 8,785 10,204 19,677 17,706 20,683 10,352 12,126 22,756 13,644 6,455 1991 15,296 7,922 10,668 19,418 15,195 17,722 9,489 19,572 16,485 9,703 16,161 13,277 1992 28,613 14,959 26,061 25,971 36,754 40,361 32,383 37,832 33,591 24,896 15,309 23,871 1993 10,338 4,336 10,991 24,985 30,856 19,793 22,155 23,862 26,751 20,149 16,519 10,678 1994 9,151 9,187 22,843 31,648 45,809 29,041 34,716 32,744 34,998 26,664 23,258 10,215 1995 12,078

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 217 15 3 133 1,503 1,503 7,253 6,393 5,871 3,255 768 282 1991 85 0 2,099 2,224 2,645 5,554 6,015 3,813 3,940 2,080 1,316 2,475 1992 389 1,210 2,719 3,032 3,970 3,612 3,759 4,834 3,898 3,111 506 182 1993 0 6 93 168 6,607 6,471 5,034 5,017 4,968 5,083 501 541 1994 45 195 3,861 2,050 6,133 4,069 5,508 6,269 8,509 4,218 1,026 624 1995 71 1,029 918 1,645 4,350 6,226 7,254 3,681 2,323 1,721 2,729 256 1996 7 276 904 1,589 5,596 6,757 6,824 4,746

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 303 22 31 220 304 296 185 322 301 225 78 84 1999 326 59 50 220 278 267 249 236 414 109 45 125 2000 127 269 47 282 291 224 222 222 350 299 62 60 2001 83 244 244 434 532 402 274 322 362 275 242 25 2002 95 92 0 186 683 339 344 283 434 327 44 183 2003 51 220 70 276 458 504 482 823 671 147 102 203 2004 325 454 190 347 1,013 415 611 1,104 894 1,138 303 279 2005 599 566 319 458 699 560 923 747 783 834 2,614

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 929 289 499 863 0 2,707 2,937 2,937 1,101 622 906 507 1991 833 586 299 3,139 1,705 2,716 2,138 291 308 0 1,447 753 1992 436 149 945 1,205 1,824 1,543 1,336 1,618 1,578 979 785 895 1993 750 383 2,192 1,363 4,359 1,112 2,036 1,280 2,258 340 326 3,176 1994 1,579 318 1,268 3,455 2,882 2,005 1,945 965 1,330 503 1,263 1,192 1995 541 827 1,671 1,661 2,601 2,020 1,565 829 2,494 464 1,696 1,447 1996 808 2,027 1,081 1,609 2,176 3,349

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 2,636 3,056 7,714 11,094 19,622 17,419 16,104 16,323 13,930 7,415 6,785 4,120 1991 843 2,207 5,193 12,543 15,471 16,359 15,601 10,248 9,551 8,573 5,375 2,288 1992 1,013 1,191 1,116 9,299 25,331 21,514 19,498 21,430 15,698 16,466 5,155 936 1993 467 42 1,620 11,145 39,477 28,118 20,621 18,991 20,910 11,087 7,110 863 1994 331 2,543 4,529 21,836 25,960 28,392 28,083 23,234 21,272 9,826 3,695 1,516 1995 1,637 1,663 6,487 10,136

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    3,291,395 3,421,813 2,825,427 3,155,661 3,838,826 3,639,015 1935-2015 Alaska 1973-1975 Alaska 15,054 11,675 9,161 2013-2015 Lower 48 States 3,421,813 2,825,427 3,047,153 3,827,150 3,629,854 2011-2015 Alabama 23,026 22,766 21,195 17,966 34,286 33,004 1968-2015 Arkansas 4,672 4,628 2,848 3,112 3,398 3,318 1967-2015 California 226,810 263,067 218,663 182,046 280,516 206,774 1967-2015 Colorado 43,250 51,469 59,096 66,935 72,510 69,983 1967-2015 Connecticut 1973-1996 Delaware 1967-1975 Georgia

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 49,603 57,082 43,037 1970's 46,301 53,186 53,137 57,011 56,505 59,065 55,005 71,002 68,772 70,967 1980's 61,413 48,918 61,121 49,523 44,355 64,993 52,084 45,128 55,076 58,386 1990's 44,471 57,278 65,818 64,184 70,926 70,785 61,060 61,132 70,001 73,398 2000's 69,893 80,546 66,202 67,017 70,097 66,827 68,750 70,329 70,022 79,012 2010's 76,407 77,783 66,774 71,793 80,866 71,767

  4. Kansas Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 41,661 44,524 50,772 1970's 52,966 49,267 46,810 42,910 45,642 52,045 48,582 51,344 52,242...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 1,120 2,185 1,860 933 1,065 1,131 977 1,518 1,981 1,627 367 291 2014 701 337 1,062 1,084 903 2,078 831 997 774 678 976 1,255 2015 1,039 982 589 621 618 611 865 857 682 824 756 717 2016 496 748 752 1,540 2,065 1,970 2,123 2,139

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 538 235 252 265 1,274 4,266 6,279 5,212 5,012 1,957 1,734 650 1991 992 654 483 61 2,494 3,876 4,219 4,449 5,296 3,296 2,611 2,153 1992 0 301 61 53 158 2,168 4,187 6,308 5,942 2,708 395 779 1993 1,476 514 1,328 277 3,434 5,426 4,400 5,097 4,898 19,867 1,773 2,642 1994 349 561 1,525 594 6,187 1,887 5,096 5,311 5,305 1,318 1,652 1,401 1995 1,508 1,548 1,831 1,379 3,769 6,416 6,446 4,716 4,341 2,877 3,680 1,206 1996 1,050 3,496

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 17,712 15,346 15,364 11,228 15,333 18,647 19,527 17,703 19,665 19,333 15,705 14,621 1991 2,280 4,842 12,957 13,291 22,317 22,447 17,260 17,261 23,603 27,512 9,950 4,281 1992 7,699 4,109 13,109 16,478 29,243 21,440 20,695 21,713 23,276 24,685 7,374 3,230 1993 4,314 1,638 8,805 14,315 34,776 33,317 27,192 28,570 32,062 21,236 21,232 2,111 1994 3,737 9,288 9,922 26,592 34,270 23,811 30,757 28,317 24,211 15,673 13,387 4,560 1995

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 239 2,623 1,788 2,614 1,243 2,126 2,822 2,513 2,065 403 535 1991 63 182 612 1,414 1,596 1,606 1,492 2,061 9,642 963 1,273 1,604 1992 1,487 148 759 573 3,542 2,886 2,153 2,566 2,310 1,780 732 565 1993 281 0 1,364 604 2,216 1,472 1,128 1,717 2,542 2,679 823 486 1994 2 890 1,570 1,256 2,111 1,537 2,113 1,468 1,654 1,781 196 736 1995 657 199 1,442 1,267 2,010 2,042 1,080 1,854 2,210 1,468 830 550 1996 732 1,205 1,514 1,155 2,219

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    West Virginia 11,101 5,919 3,512 734 2,318 4,082 1990-2016 Wyoming 1,431 716 227 1,988 3,024 2,558 1990-2016 AGA Producing Region 1994-2014 AGA Eastern Consuming Region 1994-2014 ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 502 1,137 1,088 2,198 1,190 1,665 3,674 3,203 2,048 3,187 1,857 602 1991 341 245 267 3,130 3,097 3,033 1,930 790 3,099 ...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 0 0 69 477 330 112 133 48 61 27 0 0 1991 0 0 42 228 257 312 291 61 93 0 0 0 1992 0 0 0 0 391 307 299 250 126 0 0 0 1993 0 ...

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

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

  19. Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas Injections into Underground...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    154,663 2014 67,600 104,037 132,997 321,828 527,860 504,311 462,167 445,872 467,828 451,675 199,417 141,558 2015 68,894 61,035 181,326 404,414 541,018 429,353 377,626 393,223 ...

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

    SciTech Connect

    1996-12-31

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

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    1997-12-01

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

  2. Hole transport assisted by the piezoelectric field in In{sub 0.4}Ga{sub 0.6}N/GaN quantum wells under electrical injection

    SciTech Connect

    Zhang, Shuailong; Gu, Erdan E-mail: huxd@pku.edu.cn; Xie, Enyuan; Herrnsdof, Johannes; Gong, Zheng; Watson, Ian M.; Dawson, Martin D.; Yan, Tongxing; Yang, Wei; Hu, Xiaodong E-mail: huxd@pku.edu.cn

    2015-09-28

    The authors observe the significant penetration of electrically injected holes through InGaN/GaN quantum wells (QWs) with an indium mole fraction of 40%. This effect and its current density dependence were analysed by studies on micro-pixel light-emitting diodes, which allowed current densities to be varied over a wide range up to 5 kA/cm{sup 2}. The systematic changes in electroluminescence spectra are discussed in the light of the piezoelectric field in the high-indium-content QWs and its screening by the carriers. Simulations were also carried out to clarify the unusual hole transport mechanism and the underlying physics in these high-indium QWs.

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working ... Underground Working Natural Gas in Storage - All Operators Virginia Underground Natural ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  5. New Mexico Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  7. New Mexico Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) ...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

  8. New York Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

  9. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million...

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Natural Gas Underground ... Net Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators Minnesota ...

  10. Design and implementation of a CO{sub 2} flood utilizing advanced reservoir characterization and horizontal injection wells in a shallow shelf carbonate approaching waterflood depletion. Annual Report, July 1, 1995--June 30, 1996

    SciTech Connect

    Chimahusky, J.S.; Hallenbeck, L.D.; Harpole, K.J.; Dollens, K.B.

    1997-05-01

    The work reported herein covers select tasks remaining in Budget Phase I and many of the tasks of Budget Phase II. The principal Tasks in Budget Phase I included in this report are Reservoir Analysis and Characterization; Advanced Technical Studies; and Technology Transfer, Reporting and Project Management Activities for Budget Phase I. The principle Task in Budget Phase II included in this report is Field Demonstration. Completion of these tasks has enabled an optimum carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) flood project to be designed, economically evaluated, and implemented in the field. Field implementation of the project commenced during late 1995, with actual CO{sub 2} injection scheduled for start-up in mid-July, 1996. The current project has focused on reducing initial investment cost by utilizing horizontal injection wells and concentrating the project in the best productivity area of the field. An innovative CO{sub 2} purchase agreement (no take-or-pay provisions, CO{sub 2} purchase price tied to West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil price) and gas recycle agreements (expensing costs as opposed to a large upfront capital investment for compression) were negotiated to further improve the project economics. The Grayburg-San Andres section had previously been divided into multiple zones based on the core study and gamma ray markers that correlate wells within the Unit. Each zone was mapped as continuous across the field. Previous core studies concluded that the reservoir quality in the South Cowden Unit (SCU) is controlled primarily by the distribution of a bioturbated and diagenetically-altered rock type with a distinctive {open_quotes}chaotic{close_quotes} texture. The {open_quotes}chaotic{close_quotes} modifier is derived from the visual effect of pervasive, small-scale intermixing of tan oil-stained reservoir rock with tight gray non-reservoir rock.

  11. Logistics background study: underground mining

    SciTech Connect

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

    1982-02-01

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

  12. ,"California Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: California Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5070CA2" "Date","California Natural Gas Underground Storage Net ...

  13. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    ...010TX2","N5020TX2","N5070TX2","N5050TX2","N5060TX2" "Date","Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)","Texas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Texas ...

  15. 2009 underground/longwall mining buyer's guide

    SciTech Connect

    2009-06-15

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

  16. Injectivity Test | Open Energy Information

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

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

  17. Underground gasification of coal

    DOEpatents

    Pasini, III, Joseph; Overbey, Jr., William K.; Komar, Charles A.

    1976-01-20

    There is disclosed a method for the gasification of coal in situ which comprises drilling at least one well or borehole from the earth's surface so that the well or borehole enters the coalbed or seam horizontally and intersects the coalbed in a direction normal to its major natural fracture system, initiating burning of the coal with the introduction of a combustion-supporting gas such as air to convert the coal in situ to a heating gas of relatively high calorific value and recovering the gas. In a further embodiment the recovered gas may be used to drive one or more generators for the production of electricity.

  18. South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    * * 17 9 1967-2015 Propane-Air 0 0 17 9 1980-201

    Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 1973 1974 1975 View History Net Withdrawals -6 -27 46 1973-1975 Injections 48 80 70 1973-1975 Withdrawals 42 53 116 1973-197

    in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent)

    Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    2014-12-31

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

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

    DOE PAGES [OSTI]

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

    2014-12-31

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

  1. Design and implementation of a CO{sub 2} flood utilizing advanced reservoir characterization and horizontal injection wells in a shallow shelf carbonate approaching waterflood depletion. Annual report, June 3, 1994--October 31, 1995

    SciTech Connect

    Hallenbeck, L.D.; Harpole, K.J.; Gerard, M.G.

    1996-05-01

    The work reported here covers Budget Phase I of the project. The principal tasks in Budget Phase I are the Reservoir Analysis and Characterization Task and the Advanced Technology Definition Task. Completion of these tasks have enabled an optimum carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) flood project to be designed and evaluated from an economic and risk analysis standpoint. Field implementation of the project has been recommended to the working interest owner of the South Cowden Unit (SCU) and approval has been obtained. The current project has focused on reducing initial investment cost by utilizing horizontal injection wells and concentrating the project in the best productivity area of the field. An innovative CO{sub 2} purchase agreement (no take or pay requirements, CO{sub 2} purchase price tied to West Texas Intermediate crude oil price) and gas recycle agreements (expensing cost as opposed to large capital investments for compression) were negotiated to further improve project economics. A detailed reservoir characterization study was completed by an integrated team of geoscientists and engineers. The study consisted of detailed core description, integration of log response to core descriptions, mapping of the major flow units, evaluation of porosity and permeability relationships, geostatistical analysis of permeability trends, and direct integration of reservoir performance with the geological interpretation. The study methodology fostered iterative bidirectional feedback between the reservoir characterization team and the reservoir engineering/simulation team to allow simultaneous refinement and convergence of the geological interpretation with the reservoir model. The fundamental conclusion from the study is that South Cowden exhibits favorable enhanced oil recovery characteristics, particularly reservoir quality and continuity.

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

    DOEpatents

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

    2002-01-01

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

  3. Ensuring Safe and Reliable Underground Natural Gas Storage

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) (indexed site)

    October 2016 Ensuring Safe and Reliable Underground Natural Gas Storage Final Report of the Interagency Task Force on Natural Gas Storage Safety About the Cover: Relief well at the SoCalGas Aliso Canyon Gas Storage Facility well Standard Sesnon 25 (SS-25) (February 2016) i Message from the Secretary of Energy Earlier this year, Congress and the Administration worked together to establish a Federal Task Force to analyze California's Aliso Canyon natural gas leak and make recommendations on how to

  4. ,"Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030al2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030mn2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  6. ,"Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030mo2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030ut2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030va2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030in2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  10. ,"Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030md2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  11. ,"Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030ia2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  12. ,"Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030la2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  13. ,"Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030co2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  14. ,"Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030wa2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030ks2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  16. ,"Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030il2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  17. ,"Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030ky2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  18. ,"Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030mi2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  19. ,"Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030ms2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030wy2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  1. ,"Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030ar2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  2. Underground Natural Gas Storage by Storage Type

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    Underground Natural Gas Storage by Storage Type (Million Cubic Feet) Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Underground Natural Gas ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  1. ,"Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  2. Cryogenic slurry for extinguishing underground fires

    DOEpatents

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

    1994-01-01

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

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

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    The company's underground operations include mining, hoisting, maintenance, engineering ... Westinghouse by the New Mexico State Inspector of Mines and the New Mexico Mining ...

  4. Earthquake damage to underground facilities (Technical Report...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    The potential seismic risk for an underground nuclear waste repository will be one of the ... Damage from documented nuclear events was also included in the study where applicable. ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    DOE PAGES [OSTI]

    Lesko, K. T.

    2015-03-24

    The former Homestake gold mine in Lead, South Dakota is being transformed into a dedicated laboratory to pursue underground research in rare-process physics, as well as offering research opportunities in other disciplines. A key component of the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) is the Davis Campus, which is in operation at the 4850-foot level (4300 m.w.e) and currently hosts three projects: the LUX dark matter experiment, the Majorana Demonstrator neutrinoless double-beta decay experiment and the Berkeley and CUBED low-background counters. Plans for possible future experiments at SURF are well underway and include long baseline neutrino oscillation experiments, future dark mattermore » experiments as well as nuclear astrophysics accelerators. Facility upgrades to accommodate some of these future projects have already started. SURF is a dedicated facility with significant expansion capability. These plans include a Generation-2 Dark Matter experiment and the US flagship neutrino experiment, LBNE.« less

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

    SciTech Connect

    Lesko, K. T.

    2015-03-24

    The former Homestake gold mine in Lead, South Dakota is being transformed into a dedicated laboratory to pursue underground research in rare-process physics, as well as offering research opportunities in other disciplines. A key component of the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) is the Davis Campus, which is in operation at the 4850-foot level (4300 m.w.e) and currently hosts three projects: the LUX dark matter experiment, the Majorana Demonstrator neutrinoless double-beta decay experiment and the Berkeley and CUBED low-background counters. Plans for possible future experiments at SURF are well underway and include long baseline neutrino oscillation experiments, future dark matter experiments as well as nuclear astrophysics accelerators. Facility upgrades to accommodate some of these future projects have already started. SURF is a dedicated facility with significant expansion capability. These plans include a Generation-2 Dark Matter experiment and the US flagship neutrino experiment, LBNE.

  8. Underground storage tank management plan

    SciTech Connect

    1994-09-01

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

  9. Surface effects of underground nuclear explosions

    SciTech Connect

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

    1997-06-01

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

  10. ,"Underground Natural Gas Storage by Storage Type"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  11. ,"Underground Natural Gas Storage by Storage Type"

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  12. Underground Flow Measurement and Particle Release Test | Department...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Underground Flow Measurement and Particle Release Test Underground Flow Measurement and Particle Release Test This document was used to determine facts and conditions during the ...

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

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

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

  14. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

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

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

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

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

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

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    U.S. DOENNSA - Nevada Field Office Photo Library - Underground Testing Between 1951 and 1992, 828 underground nuclear tests were conducted in specially drilled shafts, horizontal ...

  18. Nevada Underground Tank Program Webpage | Open Energy Information

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

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

  19. Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million...

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct...

  20. Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million...

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct...

  1. Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million...

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct...

  2. Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million...

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct...

  3. East Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    East Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) East Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar...

  4. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million...

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct...

  5. Emissions and Durability of Underground Mining Diesel Particulate...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) (indexed site)

    Durability of Underground Mining Diesel Particulate Filter Applications Emissions and Durability of Underground Mining Diesel Particulate Filter Applications Presentation given at ...

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

    Annual Energy Outlook

    Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) New Jersey Natural Gas Underground ... Net Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators New Jersey ...

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

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    Model tracks gases for underground nuclear explosion detection New model more accurately tracks gases for underground nuclear explosion detection Scientists have developed a new, ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) North Carolina Natural Gas Underground ... Net Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators North Carolina ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  10. Montana Underground Storage Tanks Webpage | Open Energy Information

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

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

  11. Alaska Underground Storage Tanks Website | Open Energy Information

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

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

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

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

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

  13. Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility / Deep Underground Neutrino Project...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) (indexed site)

    Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility Deep Underground Neutrino Project (LBNF-DUNE) Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility Deep Underground Neutrino Project (LBNF-DUNE) Long-Baseline ...

  14. Thermal well-test method

    DOEpatents

    Tsang, Chin-Fu; Doughty, Christine A.

    1985-01-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    1994-12-31

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

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    2012-03-31

    Hydraulic fracturing technology (fracking), coupled with horizontal drilling, has facilitated exploitation of huge natural gas (gas) reserves in the Devonian-age Marcellus Shale Formation (Marcellus) of the Appalachian Basin. The most-efficient technique for stimulating Marcellus gas production involves hydraulic fracturing (injection of a water-based fluid and sand mixture) along a horizontal well bore to create a series of hydraulic fractures in the Marcellus. The hydraulic fractures free the shale-trapped gas, allowing it to flow to the well bore where it is conveyed to pipelines for transport and distribution. The hydraulic fracturing process has two significant effects on the local environment. First, water withdrawals from local sources compete with the water requirements of ecosystems, domestic and recreational users, and/or agricultural and industrial uses. Second, when the injection phase is over, 10 to 30% of the injected water returns to the surface. This water consists of flowback, which occurs between the completion of fracturing and gas production, and produced water, which occurs during gas production. Collectively referred to as returned frac water (RFW), it is highly saline with varying amounts of organic contamination. It can be disposed of, either by injection into an approved underground injection well, or treated to remove contaminants so that the water meets the requirements of either surface release or recycle use. Depending on the characteristics of the RFW and the availability of satisfactory disposal alternatives, disposal can impose serious costs to the operator. In any case, large quantities of water must be transported to and from well locations, contributing to wear and tear on local roadways that were not designed to handle the heavy loads and increased traffic. The search for a way to mitigate the situation and improve the overall efficiency of shale gas production suggested a treatment method that would allow RFW to be used as make

  17. Well Placement

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

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

  18. Management of dry flue gas desulfurization by-products in underground mines. Quarterly report, January--March 1995

    SciTech Connect

    Chugh, Y.; Dutta, D.; Esling, S.

    1995-04-01

    On September 30, 1993, the U.S. Department of Energy, Morgantown Energy Technology Center and Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC) entered into a cooperative research agreement entitled {open_quotes}Management of Dry Flue Gas Desulfurization By-Products in Underground Mines{close_quotes} (DE-FC21-93MC 30252). Under the agreement Southern Illinois University at Carbondale will develop and demonstrate several technologies for the placement of coal combustion residues in abandoned coal mines, and will assess the environmental impact of such underground residues placement. Previous quarterly Technical Progress Reports have set forth the specific objectives of the program, as well as the management plan and the test plan for the overall program, and a discussion of these will not be repeated here. Rather, this report, will set forth the technical progress made during the period January 1 through March 31, 1995. The demonstration of the SEEC, Inc. technology for the transporting of coal combustion residues was completed with the unloading and final disposition of the three Collapsible Intermodal Containers (CIC). The loading and transport by rail of the three CIC`s was quire successful; however some difficulties were encountered in the unloading of the containers. A full topical report on the entire SEEC demonstration is being prepared. As a result of the demonstration some modifications of the SEEC concept may be undertaken. Also during the quarter the location of the injection wells at the Peabody No. 10 mine demonstration site were selected. Peabody Coal Company has developed the specifications for the wells and sought bids for the actual drilling. It is expected that the wells will be drilled early in May.

  19. Well Placement

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

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

  20. OSTIblog Articles in the Sanford Underground Research Facilities Topic |

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    OSTI, US Dept of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information Underground Research Facilities

  1. The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

  2. Delaware Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  3. Connecticut Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  4. Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

  5. Georgia Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  6. WIPP Installs Underground Personnel Notification and Tracking...

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    Plant (WIPP) that allows for two-way communication for both talk and text, audible and ... In addition to providing two- way communication between the underground and the surface, ...

  7. False Radiological Alarm in WIPP Underground

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

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

  8. System for remote control of underground device

    DOEpatents

    Brumleve, T.D.; Hicks, M.G.; Jones, M.O.

    1975-10-21

    A system is described for remote control of an underground device, particularly a nuclear explosive. The system includes means at the surface of the ground for transmitting a seismic signal sequence through the earth having controlled and predetermined signal characteristics for initiating a selected action in the device. Additional apparatus, located with or adjacent to the underground device, produces electrical signals in response to the seismic signals received and compares these electrical signals with the predetermined signal characteristics.

  9. Injectivity Testing for Vapour Dominated Feed Zones

    SciTech Connect

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

    1995-01-01

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

  10. Delayed signatures of underground nuclear explosions

    DOE PAGES [OSTI]

    Carrigan, Charles R.; Sun, Yunwei; Hunter, Steven L.; Ruddle, David G.; Wagoner, Jeffrey L.; Myers, Katherine B. L.; Emer, Dudley F.; Drellack, Sigmund L.; Chipman, Veraun D.

    2016-03-16

    Radionuclide signals from underground nuclear explosions (UNEs) are strongly influenced by the surrounding hydrogeologic regime. One effect of containment is delay of detonation-produced radioxenon reaching the surface as well as lengthening of its period of detectability compared to uncontained explosions. Using a field-scale tracer experiment, we evaluate important transport properties of a former UNE site. Here, we observe the character of signals at the surface due to the migration of gases from the post-detonation chimney under realistic transport conditions. Background radon signals are found to be highly responsive to cavity pressurization suggesting that large local radon anomalies may be anmore » indicator of a clandestine UNE. Computer simulations, using transport properties obtained from the experiment, track radioxenon isotopes in the chimney and their migration to the surface. They show that the chimney surrounded by a fractured containment regime behaves as a leaky chemical reactor regarding its effect on isotopic evolution introducing a dependence on nuclear yield not previously considered. This evolutionary model for radioxenon isotopes is validated by atmospheric observations of radioxenon from a 2013 UNE in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). In conclusion, our model produces results similar to isotopic observations with nuclear yields being comparable to seismic estimates.« less

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

    SciTech Connect

    Newmark, R.L.

    1992-05-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

    Newmark, R.L.

    1992-05-01

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

  13. Underground pipe inspection device and method

    DOEpatents

    Germata, Daniel Thomas (Wadsworth, IL)

    2009-02-24

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

  14. Method for making generally cylindrical underground openings

    DOEpatents

    Routh, J.W.

    1983-05-26

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

  15. A Fluka study of underground cosmogenic neutron production

    SciTech Connect

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

    2014-08-01

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

  16. Thermal well-test method

    DOEpatents

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

    1984-02-24

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

  17. Porous media heat transfer for injection molding

    DOEpatents

    Beer, Neil Reginald

    2016-05-31

    The cooling of injection molded plastic is targeted. Coolant flows into a porous medium disposed within an injection molding component via a porous medium inlet. The porous medium is thermally coupled to a mold cavity configured to receive injected liquid plastic. The porous medium beneficially allows for an increased rate of heat transfer from the injected liquid plastic to the coolant and provides additional structural support over a hollow cooling well. When the temperature of the injected liquid plastic falls below a solidifying temperature threshold, the molded component is ejected and collected.

  18. Cost and code study of underground buildings

    SciTech Connect

    Sterling, R.L.

    1981-01-01

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

  19. Potential underground risks associated with CAES.

    SciTech Connect

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

    2010-10-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    2009-03-01

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

  1. NM Underground Storage Tank Registration | Open Energy Information

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

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

  2. Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 456,385 ...

  3. Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

  4. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

  5. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 245,145 ...

  6. Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

  7. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 228,019 ...

  8. Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

  9. Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

  10. Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet...

    Annual Energy Outlook

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 439,384 ...

  11. Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

  12. Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

  13. Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 6,996 ...

  14. California Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

  15. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

  16. Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

    Annual Energy Outlook

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 84,808 ...

  17. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

  18. Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

    Annual Energy Outlook

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1995 1,379 ...

  19. Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

  20. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

  1. Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

  2. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

  3. Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

  4. Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

    Annual Energy Outlook

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

  5. Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

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

  6. Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 96,943 ...

  7. Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet...

    Annual Energy Outlook

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 59,806 ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5070VA2" "Date","Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Net ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    "Back to Contents","Data 1: West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5070WV2" "Date","West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage ...

  10. Visit to the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory

    ScienceCinema

    None

    2010-01-08

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

  11. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  12. Visit to the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory

    SciTech Connect

    2009-03-31

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

  13. Visit to the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory

    SciTech Connect

    2009-01-01

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

  14. New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million...

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct...

  15. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million...

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

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

  16. East Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    East Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) East Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug...

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

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

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

  18. Lower 48 States Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value...

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

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

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

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

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

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

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

    OpenEI (Open Energy Information) [EERE & EIA]

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

  2. ,"Midwest Region Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    ...282016 11:29:21 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Midwest Region Natural Gas ...

  3. ,"AGA Eastern Consuming Region Underground Natural Gas Storage...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    ...282016 11:29:24 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","AGA Eastern Consuming Region ...

  4. ,"West Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    ...282016 11:29:59 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","West Virginia Natural Gas in ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    ...282016 11:29:48 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... York Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","New York Natural Gas in ...

  6. ,"Mountain Region Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    ...282016 11:29:22 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Mountain Region Natural Gas ...

  7. ,"Pacific Region Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  8. ,"AGA Western Consuming Region Underground Natural Gas Storage...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    ...282016 11:29:25 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","AGA Western Consuming Region ...

  9. ,"East Region Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    ...282016 11:29:19 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","East Region Natural Gas in ...

  10. ,"AGA Producing Region Underground Natural Gas Storage - All...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    ...282016 11:29:23 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","AGA Producing Region Natural ...

  11. ,"South Central Region Underground Natural Gas Storage - All...

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

    ...282016 11:29:20 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","South Central Region Natural ...

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

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

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

    DOEpatents

    Powell, James R.; Reich, Morris

    1996-12-17

    A system 10 and method of detecting an underground pipe 12 injects magnetic marking droplets 16 into the underground pipe 12 which coat the inside of the pipe 12 and may be detected from aboveground by a magnetometer 28. The droplets 16 include a non-adhesive cover 32 which allows free flow thereof through the pipe 12, with the cover 32 being ablatable for the timed-release of a central core 30 containing magnetic particles 30a which adhere to the inside of the pipe 12 and are detectable from aboveground. The rate of ablation of the droplet covers 32 is selectively variable to control a free flowing incubation zone 12a for the droplets 16 and a subsequent deposition zone 12b in which the magnetic particles 30a are released for coating the pipe 12.

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

    DOEpatents

    Powell, J.R.; Reich, M.

    1996-12-17

    A system and method are disclosed of detecting an underground pipe by injecting magnetic marking droplets into the underground pipe which coat the inside of the pipe and may be detected from aboveground by a magnetometer. The droplets include a non-adhesive cover which allows free flow through the pipe, with the cover being ablatable for the timed-release of a central core containing magnetic particles which adhere to the inside of the pipe and are detectable from aboveground. The rate of ablation of the droplet covers is selectively variable to control a free flowing incubation zone for the droplets and a subsequent deposition zone in which the magnetic particles are released for coating the pipe. 6 figs.

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

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

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

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

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) (indexed site)

    Energy Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility Breakout Session 1C-Fostering Technology Adoption I: Building the Market for Renewables with High Octane Fuels Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility Ryan Haerer, Program Analyst, Alternative Fuels, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Environmental Protection Agency haerer_biomass_2014.pdf (598.19 KB) More Documents & Publications Regulatory and Commercial

  17. Underground Energy Storage Program. 1983 annual summary

    SciTech Connect

    Kannberg, L.D.

    1984-06-01

    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)

  18. Underground natural gas storage reservoir management

    SciTech Connect

    Ortiz, I.; Anthony, R.

    1995-06-01

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

  19. Monitoring well

    DOEpatents

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

    1999-06-29

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

  20. Monitoring well

    DOEpatents

    Hubbell, Joel M.; Sisson, James B.

    1999-01-01

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

  1. Silicone injection restores failing submarine cables

    SciTech Connect

    Tilstra, M.

    1995-12-01

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

  2. Monitoring well

    DOEpatents

    Hubbell, Joel M.; Sisson, James B.

    2002-01-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    1994-01-21

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

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    2007-07-01

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

  5. Well pump

    DOEpatents

    Ames, Kenneth R.; Doesburg, James M.

    1987-01-01

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

  6. Injection Laser System

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) - all webpages (Extended Search)

    Injection Laser System For each of NIF's 192 beams: The pulse shape as a function of time ... NIF's injection laser system (ILS) plays a key role in meeting these three requirements. ...

  7. Rich catalytic injection

    DOEpatents

    Veninger, Albert (Coventry, CT)

    2008-12-30

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

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

    SciTech Connect

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

    1981-03-01

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

  9. Productivity and Injectivity of Horizontal Wells (Technical Report...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Even with a perfect knowledge about reservoir geology, current models cannot do routine simulations at a fine enough scale. Furthermore, we normally don't know what scale is fine ...

  10. Productivity and Injectivity of Horizontal Wells (Technical Report...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    The greatest source of uncertainty is reservoir description and how it is used in simulators. Integration of data through geostatistical techniques leads to multiple descriptions ...

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

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Research Org: DOE Geothermal Data Repository; Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States) Sponsoring Org: USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable ...

  12. Productivity and Injectivity of Horizontal Wells (Technical Report...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Research Org: Federal Energy Technology Center, Morgantown, WV, and Pittsburgh, PA Sponsoring Org: USDOE Country of Publication: United States Language: English Word Cloud More ...

  13. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Pacific Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 544,417 522,182 529,030 543,901 581,848 610,748 619,005 624,692 636,405 645,077 626,113 529,510 2014 456,688 373,776 363,397 402,887 459,189 507,932 533,461 561,487 576,755 604,676 598,236 581,556 2015 535,012 532,186 534,713 552,592 584,491 595,030 603,251 606,862 617,976 638,832 628,206 579,071 2016 535,527 521,897

  14. Reliability assessment of underground shaft closure

    SciTech Connect

    Fossum, A.F.

    1994-12-31

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

  15. Rotary steerable motor system for underground drilling

    DOEpatents

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

    2008-06-24

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

  16. Rotary steerable motor system for underground drilling

    DOEpatents

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

    2010-07-27

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

  17. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Definitions Definitions Since 2006, EIA has reported two measures of aggregate capacity, one based on demonstrated peak working gas storage, the other on working gas design capacity. Demonstrated Peak Working Gas Capacity: This measure sums the highest storage inventory level of working gas observed in each facility over the 5-year range from May 2005 to April 2010, as reported by the operator on the Form EIA-191M, "Monthly Underground Gas Storage Report." This data-driven estimate

  18. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update

    Methodology Methodology Demonstrated Peak Working Gas Capacity Estimates: Estimates are based on aggregation of the noncoincident peak levels of working gas inventories at individual storage fields as reported monthly over a 60-month period ending in April 2010 on Form EIA-191M, "Monthly Natural Gas Underground Storage Report." The months of measurement for the peak storage volumes by facilities may differ; i.e., the months do not necessarily coincide. As such, the noncoincident peak

  19. Connecticut Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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

  20. Georgia Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Energy Information Administration (EIA) (indexed site)

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