1981
DOI: 10.2172/6159294
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) geological site characterization report, Big Hill Salt Dome

Abstract: The color overlays of Figures 5-1, 5-2, and 6-5 were shifted slightly when printed the first time. Therefore, we have had these figures reprinted and have enclosed them for your use. Please remove the old Figures 5-1, 5-2, and 6-5 and replace them with the new ones. We are sorry for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

1998
1998
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…General descriptions of the impurity content of the dome [Hart et al, 1981, Section 61, taken from sources other than the Phase 111 wells, have suggested about 3% insolubles, based on minimal data. There have apparently been no specific evaluations of anhydrite.…”
Section: Big Hillmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…General descriptions of the impurity content of the dome [Hart et al, 1981, Section 61, taken from sources other than the Phase 111 wells, have suggested about 3% insolubles, based on minimal data. There have apparently been no specific evaluations of anhydrite.…”
Section: Big Hillmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The models are based on the original site characterization report (table 1: Hart et al, 1981), but selected information from the site characterization update report (table 1 (Magorian and Neal,1988) have been incorporated as described below. The model generated by creating and merging two separate geologic surfaces is shown in figure 4, and the model constructed simply by closing the top of the dome to the centroid of the highest structural contour is presented in figure 5.…”
Section: Big Hill Sitementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this case because of the coarse structure-contour interval used in the site characterization report of Hart et al (1981), the dome-top elevation is represented at 1,250 ft below sea level, in contrast to the known cavern intersections of the top-of-salt surface in roughly the same horizontal locations of some to -1,600 ft. The implication is that the -ft dome-top elevation is purely an artifact of the simplified, non-geology-based modeling technique, and that it is preferable to use the approach based on actual geologic data when it is available (see next paragraph).…”
Section: Big Hill Sitementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Other space is available to the north (outside the DOE property boundary), and probably has better potential for expansion. Although modeling by Stein and Rautman (2004) shows the northern edge of the dome to be much less constrained (fewer data points to indicate where the salt is) than the southern portion, both the original site characterizations report (Hart et al, 1981) and its most recent update, which includes a high resolution seismic survey (Neal and Magorian, 1993), suggest that the site is geologically superior for SPR cavern development. …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%