Talk:Natural gas/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Electricity = Energy Source?

I don't know if the following sentence used in the introduction really makes sense:

"Natural gas is often informally referred to as simply gas, especially when compared to other energy sources such as electricity."

I don't think you could call electricity an energy source like oil or coal. Whopper Jr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.127.8.20 (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can. The source of energy for heating a house can be gas, electricity, oil or coal etc. Admittedly the electricity is often the product of one of the chemical energy sources, it can just as easily come from a hydroelectric dam.

Energy providers include electricity suppliers as well as all the rest User:LaFoiblesse 2008-08-01 13h00 (GMT)

Use in bunsen burners?

Natural gas is frequently used in bunsen burners. Can someone write a bit for the Uses section regarding this?

Also, can anyone find information regarding the heat of a natural gas flame, or even the combustion point of natural gas? It would probably be a good addition to this article. Goyston 14:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Methane

The reactions described near the top are the combustion of methane; they should be labeled as such and moved to a more appropriate page. Jorge Stolfi 05:59, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The article also concentrates too much on Methane which is but one of the family of gases. In practice along with Methane are Ethane, Butane, Propane and other products.

No, Natural Gas, the topic of this page, is almost exclusively methane. The other gases are by-products of oil refining.

Not quite. Natural gas is often found with significant amounts of ethane, propane and butane -- if there are enough of these other species present, they are liquified and sold as seperate product (LPG). There are refinery processes that also produce LPG from oil - it is a product, not a by-product (see Cracking).81.243.67.189 02:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I was expecting to find its share in world's energy supply...anyone?--Chealer 11:13, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Energy

Since the main use of natural gas is as a fuel, the energy section desparately needs expansion. How much fuel does an average house consume in a day/month/year? How much power does a single stove burner produce (watts)? What about a gas furnace? What about its use in transportation? Is it always used in liquified form there? Is it always gasified before being burned? What is required for vehicle conversions? What are the advantages/disadvantages vs. gasoline/diesel fuel? How about a pie chart showing U.S. usage: percentage household, vehicle, glasswork, commercial, industrial (chemical industry), etc?

Where do we get 1031 as the number of BTU in a cubic foot. I belive this cahnges from week to week depending on the constituents of the supply

The remarks about greenhouse gas production are not consistent. All hydrocarbons (natural gas, LPG, gasoline...) produce water and CO2 when they burn. CO2 produced by burning natural gas is not any shorter lived than that produced by burning oil or coal.This paragraph also has very specific non-obvious details that need citations -- like amount of methane produced annually by termites.81.243.67.189 02:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the statistics about methane production by termites and such until a reference is provided. I removed the contradiction tag because I believe that it was added in error. The article means that less CO2 is produced for a given amount of energy (carbon molecules/Joule for example), not that carbon dioxide is different depending on the fuel. -- Kjkolb 06:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph was not worded well and that made it appear contradictory to me. I have taken a stab at clarifying the paragraph and putting the info into the appropriate sections.81.243.67.189 15:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Pressure

Combustion of one cubic metre of commercial quality natural gas yields 38 MJ (10.6 kWh). Equivalently, one cubic foot of natural gas produces just over 1000 British Thermal Units (BTUs).

Volumes such as "cubic metre" and "cubic foot" should include pressure units as well. Quick googling turns up that a "perfect"-burn of methane should release 890.8kJ/mol of energy. The pressure could be derived from this calculation.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.84.48.249 (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Pressures for such volumes are standard atmospheric pressure (and temperature). See Standard cubic foot

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.177.189.135 (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Future use as a fuel

Many politicians and prominent figures in North America have spoken publicly about the looming natural gas crisis. (emphasis added)

Huh??? Is this NPOV? Brianjd

I never understood the problem people have with the idea of non-renewable resources running out. Isn't it indeed a "looming crisis" if we are fundamentally dependent upon a fuel which is finite? 24.215.253.143 03:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This site needs more picture. I am doing a project for school and need more pictures for natural gas.

Too US oriented!!

absolutely...

sadly, a rising problem with wikipedia entries

That's because the article is just ripped from naturalgas.org, an industry biased site.

If we're talking about the NA gas crisis, you should remember that the US takes up a fairly good portion of the continent, which makes this more reasonable than if it was a US-based view on the war in Iraq or something else like that.

So, I added the Russian LPG specifications:/KH Flottorp/

LPG - Propane : Butane = 50%-50% (Separated)
SPECIFICATION (Butane)
Property Units Test Method Value
Ethane mol % G.C 0.08 max.
Propane mol % G.C 2 max.
Total – C4 mol % G.C 97.5 min.
Total – C3 mol % G.C 0.82 max.
Sp.Gr.@ (60oF/ 60oF) --- ASTM D-2598 To Be Reported
Copper Corrosion --- ASTM D-1838 No. 1a max.
Total Sulfide wt.ppm (Based On ASTM D-3246) 30 max.
Hydrogen Sulfide vol.ppm ASTM D-2420 / DRAGER Nil
Vapor Press@(100 oF) Psig ASTM D-2598 70 max.
Water Content vol.ppm Shaw Dew Point 10 max.
Residue on Evaporation vol % ASTM D-2158 0.05 max

SPECIFICATION (Propane)
Property Units Test Method Value
Ethane mol % G.C 0.4 max.
Propane mol % G.C 98 min.
Butane mol % G.C 1.4 max.
Pentanes & Heavier mol % G.C 0.01 max.
Copper Corrosion --- ASTM D-1838 No. 1a max.
Hydrogen Sulfide vol.ppm ASTM D-2420 / DRAGER 5 max.
Sp.Gr.@ (60oF/ 60oF) --- ASTM D-2598 To Be Reported
Sulfur (Volatile) wt.ppm (Based On ASTM D-3246) 30 max.
Vapor Pressure@(100 oF) psig ASTM D-2598 200 max.
Water Content --- ASTM D-2713 pass


/end --15:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)~~/

Then LNG Composition (from a contract to deliver):

LNG – LIQUIDFIED NATURAL GAS SPECIFICATION
A. GROSS HEATING VALUE (VOLUME BASED):-
MINIMUM: 1050Btu/SCF.
MAXIMUM: 1170Btu/SCF
B. HYROCARBON COMPOSITION AND NITROGEN CONTENT WITHIN THE FOLLOWING RANGE:
METHANE: 85.00 MOL % MINIMUM
BUTANES AND HEAVIER: 2.0 MOL % MAXIMUM
PENTANES AND HEAVIER 0.10 MOL % MAXIMUM
NITROGEN: 1.00 MOL % MAXIMUM
C. IMPURITIES WITH THE FOLLOWING RANGE:
HYDROGEN SULPHIDE: 4.8MG/Nm3 maximum
TOTAL SULPHUR: 28.0MG/Nm3 maximum
Solids and other impurities: None as such quantities as shall interfere with the receipt and transportation of LNG, or the use of LNG as natural gas.
Purity varies 90-99% and also up 100%.
D. Temperature : Minus 160 –162O C. 2 Ф (minus 260 degree F)
E. Transportation Pressure: Atmospheric
F. Colourless, Odourless, Non corrosive, Non-toxic.
--KH Flottorp 16:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Consistency

This page says natural gas will peak around 2030; the Hubbert peak page says natural gas will peak between 2010 and 2020 -- with a reference: "Bentley, 2002" ("Global oil & gas depletion: an overview. Energy Policy 30, 189–205"). However, upon skimming that paper, I didn't see anything that decisively said "natural gas, 2010-2020", though you can get approximately that by looking at one of the graphs.

I suggest we come up with a single estimate for peak natural gas, to be used in both Wikipedia articles, that can be backed up with a reference. Anybody know where 2030 came from? (It was added by the "15:08, 1 September 2005 194.204.127.7 (→Power generation)" edit.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.2.90 (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The "Peaking" is a requirement for the US market economic analysts to keep things so simple that even they can understand it. It is a complete nonsense, as using new recovery technology allows re-opening old reservoirs and explore compartments that still can hold as much as 10 times what has been recovered. Here you have numerous reference - E,g, Statoil, Sector 51 in Lago Maracaibo is producing 15 times what PDVSA produced. Applying the same technology in Iran and surrounding countries will provide more gas than the theorists that writes books can guess./KH Flottorp/ 14:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Difference between Natural Gas and Compressed Natural Gas?

Please clarify what is difference between Natural Gas and Compressed Natural Gas?, what are its compoisition?,All Natural Gases can be used as CNG in vehicle?, or there are some process to make it compressed natural gas?

How the calorific value of Natural Gas changes with composition? How it changes with change in methane concentration and so on?

This is being currently litigated at FERC, some LNG is "hot" with BTU content at 1100-1300 per Mcf.Racepacket 16:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think details of these questions are provided in the relevant articles. If not, please do put in a request for them on their talk pages.--ChrisJMoor 02:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
All Oil and Gas fields have their own composition. The gas is taken to a gas plant - usually a refinery, blended with refinery gases and what we know as LNG and LPG is produced. The Methane, Ethane and Propane content is just the first 3 "natural gases" contained. The less methane and more propane, the more energy per MT (see remark in article). /KH Flottorp/—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Khflottorp (talk • contribs) 14:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Landfill gas

I think that landfill gas should redirect to biogas instead of this article. I would classify landfill gas a sub-type of biogas, but even if they are considered separate, they have more in common with each other than natural gas. If no one objects, I will change it and incorporate the content from this article into biogas. -- Kjkolb 13:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Formaldehyde from incomplete combustion?

With a couple of different gas stoves I have smelled formaldehyde when the oven just starts up, does anyone have a similiar experience?

71.114.163.55 —Preceding comment was added at 19:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Link "Explosive Limit"

I notice that Heron has recently corrected the case on Lower Explosive Limit. It turns out that there is an article, Explosive limit which describes "Lower Explosive Limit" (and indeed is redirected from that article. It also describes the "Upper Explosive Limit". I think there should be a link here. Whilst not wanting to over-link, it seems inappropriate to link one and not the other, so I will link both.--Duckbill 22:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Poorly written addition to Natural gas vehicles section

On 12:26, 25 January 2006, Gerfriedc made an addition to the Natural gas vehicles section.

It had two spelling mistakes, was not marked up in a way which would display sensibly, and did not fit in with the tone of the section.

I have removed the addition. Obviously feel free to re-make the change if the three issues above can be addressed.

--Duckbill 01:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

depth for LNG terminals

LNG terminals require a very spacious—at least 38.5m deep—harbor, as well as being sheltered from wind and waves. An anon user (220.135.254.125) changed meters to feet here. I do not know if this was just a dislike of meters, vandalism or based on accurate information. I have reverted to original version until some evidence is provided. However this whole article should now be improved by adding references.--NHSavage 07:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/faq.html says "LNG carriers are up to 1000 feet long, and require a minimum water depth of 40 feet when fully loaded.". So perhaps 38.5 ft is a better match than 38.5 m. Duckbill 11:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I've edited it to 40 feet, mentioned the source, put in an appropriate-precision metric conversion, and made it conform to WP:MOSNUM. The source might still want to be linked in "External links" though. Duckbill 12:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

U.S. annual usage bit broken.

The bit about U.S. annual usage says:

A million decatherms is roughly a billion cubic feet of natural gas. The U.S. uses roughly 60,000 billion cubic feet, or 60 tera decatherms (TDth), each year.

The first sentence talks about a rough unit of measurement which is either:

  • "A million decatherms", or
  • "a billion cubic feet"

I'll call that unit a "lump".

Then it says that the U.S. uses "roughly 60,000 billion cubic feet", which would be 60,000 lumps.

Then it says "or 60 tera decatherms", which would be:

60 × 1012 decatherms =
60 × 106 × 106 decatherms =
60 × 106 × million decatherms =
60 × 106 × lumps =
60,000,000 lumps

So the two sentences are at odds with each other by a factor of 1,000.

We could really do with a source, and that source should be checked for consistency.

In the meantime, we can't say which figure is accurate, so they should both go.

Duckbill 12:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The Carboniferous

Says Also, natural gas, when burned, produces much less carbon dioxide 

than more carboniferous fuel sources, such as coal.

By "carboniferous" I suppose what is meant is "containing carbon". However follow the link and you land in The Carboniferous. That is the Carboniferous which "is a major division of the geologic timescale that extends from the end of the Devonian ... to the beginning of the Permian ..." I'm sure that something's amiss. Should the link be redirected to Carbon or is there a more appropriate article for "carboniferous" to link to? For the time being I'm redirectng it to Carbon. Jimp 16:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am fairly sure what was meant was Carbonaceous so I have changed it to this.--NHSavage 22:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Fact Template and Reason

I haven't edited herein in months, and don't have the time now. I made this comment along with changed text: '/* Sources */ Add FACT template and cite [Town gas], paragraph was to narrowly focused and ignores reality. Fact questioned is whether [Coal gas] is manufatured or classed as natural'

  • Some one needs to decide whether coal gas is properly categorized as natural gas, as the fact template challanges. IIRC, it certainly should not be, as is manufactured... with a lot of messy by-products as those discussed directly in the previous post. I have no objsection to including such coal gas as an alternative energy source, only to the classification as a natural gas.

Best wishesFrankB 17:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I think it is clear that although natural gas replaced town gas in many places they are different. I have made an edit to this effect.--NHSavage 22:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Needs history section

This article needs a section with the history of its discovery, etc. (Such as, which brought me here, the discovery of helium in natural gas in 1903/1905). —Centrx→Talk 19:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

How is it measured for sale?

Oil is measured in barrells and we are always hearing the price of the barrell has risen to $70 etc. How is gas measured on the commodity market?Schnizzle 10:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to vary on the location. Most natural gas is used in the region that it is produced in. For example, very little natural gas comes to the U.S. from Europe, Asia or the Middle East. This is because it is primarily transported by pipelines. To be economically transported by ship, it must be liquefied, which requires extensive and expensive infrastructure. It only accounts for a percent or two of the natural gas used in the U.S., last time I checked. Therefore, each region can use their own measurements. The U.S. uses measurements like million BTUs and million cubic feet of gas (the content of natural gas varies, so you have to know the heat content of the gas to convert between the measurements). Therms, which are 100,000 BTUs, are also used in the U.S. Decatherms are 1,000,000 BTUs and they are used as a base for measurements like a thousand decatherms and a million decatherms. Countries that use the metric system probably use million cubic meters and Gigajoules to measure natural gas. The latter seems to be especially popular in Canada. It might be because of the extensive usage of therms, another measure of energy, in the U.S. That way, you just convert decatherms to Gigajoules. In Europe and Asia, the searches I did came up with cubic meters being used. Perhaps they just use cubic meters and note the heat content, like 1.1 times the heat content of a reference number for natural gas, rather than using a unit of energy. My gas company gives the number of cubic feet used and then multiplies by the relative energy content of the gas that month to give the number of therms, which is what they charge by. -- Kjkolb 12:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry again: US sided. The measurement in the US for things is in of what fits into a shoe, or a suited implement whereupon someone can be flogged, some odd measurement of heating capability or cents to a can of a gallon (Petrol). In the rest of the world the oil is traded in metric tons (MT) with the single exception of spot market crude. As for gas, the global unit is as Kjkolb says, Metric tons - MT and number of BTU is found in the specification of the gas - as energy content. Since not all gas is used for energy, the price is the same per MT. Some oil is also sold with energy content specified in the specification. I have amended the specification of Russian 50:50 LPG - and someone better in chemistry is asked to make the conversion. See: http://www.ft.com/marketdata/commodities ---KH Flottorp 15:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

US gas "crisis

This expansive and specific American section fails to explain why the GLOBAL fossil fuel supply problems are massively more pressing or important in US than elsewhere.

A biased and unnecessary section. I propose a serious edit to leave a cut down section on the global challlenges fossil fuel depletion raises. --Brideshead 19:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Helium

Where does the helium in natural gas come from? Is it the decay of uranuim and stuff? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Puddytang (talk • contribs) 04:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Helium is not a "natural gas". Maybe the name should be "hydrocarbon gases", the name goes back to chemistry, where these are the "natural" gases that is the clue to bio-chemistry. If ability to hold energy identifies "natural gases" then the best is hydrogen. The discussion in the main article is of mixed quality. --KH Flottorp 15:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Generally speaking, the heavier elements don't decay past iron. Helium originates from the fusion of hydrogen, it's happening now in the Sun (hence the name helium from the Greek sun god, Helios). But, yeah, this is a different thing to natural gas. JЇѦρ 07:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The helium in natural gas in fact does come mostly from radioactive decay of uranium and thorium, and in small part from "primordial" helium seeping up from below. Plazak (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Helium may not be considered "natural gas" per se, but natural gas in fact is the source of helium used by industry (see Helium#Occurrence and production). Plazak (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Aviation

There seems to be a direct contradiction between what is said here and what is said on the page linked at the bottom http://www.tupolev.ru/English/Show.asp?SectionID=82&Page=1.

Compare:

" (wiki) Russian aircraft manufacturer Tupolev is ... and seeks to develop LNG and hydrogen variants of the Tu-204 and Tu-334 passenger aircraft, and also the Tu-330 cargo aircraft. It claims that at current market prices, an LNG-powered aircraft would cost 5000 roubles less to operate per ton..."

and

"(the link) However extremely high price of liquid hydrogen makes its commercial use impossible for a long time."

--193.190.253.129 21:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Sorry. I didn't mean to revert. I think we were editing simultaneously, and that was causing some problems. I'll leave this article with you now. It's a good contribution to this important story. Cheers. 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - I've certainly had the same problem. Please, though, carry on - I'm just verifying facts, but it certainly appears as if you've got a good background/interest in this subject. --Ckatzchatspy 22:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Using Industry Web Sites as Science Sources

Ref. 10 is an indusry Web site. Can we find a source that doesn't benefit from promoting natural gas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs) 11:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

New pipeline processing image

Please justify removing my improved image before simply claiming that it is "vandal". I worked hard on improving its accuracy. Motoroladigital (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Composition

The chemical composition of natural gas as indicated in the table in the main article is quite different from that indicated in the table in the source to Reference #1 NaturalGas.org Eroica (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite right ; even the source info is not entirely correct, otherwise natural gas would not content any natural gas condensates ; a better source would be useful ; in the meantime, the source table is accepotable, provided you add in the text the presence of condensates in nat gas. --Environnement2100 (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The table and article should point out that natural gas can vary widely in composition: low caloric value to high caloric value, dry gas to condensate-rich gas, and that CO2, He, and H2S contents can sometimes be considerable. Otherwise, we will have confusion over which composition is "correct." Plazak (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Chemistry/Physical Properties

This page definitely needs some technical specifics, such as the methane, propane, etc. pages have. For instance what is the composition by percentage (ranges)? Is this before processing or what is piped to consumers (perhaps removal of propane, etc.)? Why is it used vs. methane or propane? What is the cost vs. methane, ethane, etc? What temperatures does it produce when burned in air? What about when burned in oxygen?

NG is specified by its bulk heating value, not chemical composition. This is done by the Wobbe index and as such, nearly any light HC species (C3 and under) can be diluted to match methane as long as it does not condense at the pipeline pressure. For example, LPG can be dilluted 60/40 with air to make synthetic natural gas, used for peak demand times. Because of this fungability, prices for LPG track NG. Ethane is typically more valuable as a feedstock for petrochemical industry.

The reason propane and butane are removed from commercial pipelines is pressures typical of these lines (30 Bar) would cause these heavier components to condense. NG pipelines cannot tolerate liquids (two phases in any pipeline cause "slugging") so these condensing species are removed. I think that we should stick with renewable energy.


It would be helpful if the natural gas page contained more information on the byproducts of natural gas combustion: CO2? Lethal or hazardous components? 76.105.140.218 19:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no discussion of the chemical formulae for different kinds of natural gas?

Is natural gas always a fossil fuel? If some natural gas is not fossil fuel, what natural processes are involved in that production?

What about the existence of natural gas or the prospect of it on other planets, planetoids or moons? I saw a television show (The Universe? maybe) recently that claimed one of the moons of the outer planets in our solar system had oceans of natural gas. How did it get there as there was obviously no biological basis (fossil fuels) as is the case on Earth. That was the question that sent me here looking for some basic answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.118.110 (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Gas reserves in the North Field

You may be mistaken about gas reserves in the North Field. My info comes from a geologist who's been working on the field in Qatar for a decade or so. 22:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

We have to go with what we can source, however. I'm just working with what references I have found (Wikipedia articles cannot be used to reference other Wikipedia articles, unless there is a solid citation available - the ones you linked to list the larger amount but have nothing to prove it, whereas the smaller amount is sourced from third-party sites.) --Ckatzchatspy 22:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there any chance your contact can point the way to published sources confirming the larger number? It would be great to have that information if such a source is available. (And a good find on your part!) --Ckatzchatspy 22:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The figures given for Russia and Qatar fields are written in a slightly different way, so they are not very comparable- plus I don't understand the difference between gas fields and proven reserves. IceDragon64 (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Odour

Is the odour addition thing US-specific? Whilst I wouldn't call the gas I get in the UK odourless, it certainly isn't foul-smelling and the smell is a distinctly 'gas' smell... something that I don't associate with anything else.

LaFoiblesse 2008-07-27 14h56 (GMT)

The natural gas I have at my house here in the U.S. smells about the same as the gas cooker we used to have in Norway when I was a kid (on camping trips). It isn't outright "foul" smelling except in large doses or up-close. My guess is that different jurisdictions or gas companies choose their own methods and for the sake of safety typically choose something unsettling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.206.136 (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I know NW Natural Adds A "Rotten Egg" smell they even had a commercial about it and how they could add any smell they want but add "Rotten Eggs" for safety Speer320 (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Storage and transport

Storage Most natural gas is NOT stored in caverns i.e. holes in the rock. See: The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/storagebasics/storagebasics.html

Natural gas may be stored in a number of different ways. It is most commonly held in inventory underground under pressure in three types of facilities. These are: (1) depleted reservoirs in oil and/or gas fields, (2) aquifers, and (3) salt cavern formations. Each storage type has its own physical characteristics (porosity, permeability, retention capability) and economics Most existing gas storage in the United States is in depleted natural gas or oil fields that are close to consumption centers. Depleted oil and gas reservoirs are the most commonly used underground storage sites because of their wide availability. In some areas, most notably the Midwestern United States, natural aquifers have been converted to gas storage reservoirs. An aquifer is suitable for gas storage if the water bearing sedimentary rock formation is overlaid with an impermeable cap rock Salt caverns provide very high withdrawal and injection rates relative to their working gas capacity. The large majority of salt cavern storage facilities have been developed in salt dome formations located in the Gulf Coast states. Salt caverns have also been leached from bedded salt formations in Northeastern, Midwestern, and Southwestern states.

The predominate physical factor is the porosity of a formation. In one underground storage field the porosity of the sedimentary rock was 18%--looked like a soft rock. But, in a cubic foot section of such a formation, as an example, 10 to 15 scf of gas may be stored at typical operating pressures. The permeability, closure of the structure, and impermeability of the capping formation are also important. Old abandoned wells, improperly plugged create problems. In one case that I experienced, old oilfield drilling equipment was dropped down the well bore, sealing it again the low depleted formation pressure. Some 13 months and several million dollars were spent in fishing for, and removing the junk, to allow a proper high pressure plug.

There are many more stories about over-pressuring a formation resulting in leaks, domestic water contamination, fires from water wells and in houses (1952-53, Herscher, IL). Failure to anticipate the the minimal CO2 in natural gas, in the presence of water, forms an acid, which over time corrodes the inner wall of a pipe, creating leaks and/or explosions.

Transport==Ocean pipelines do exist: See: "Natural Gas Pipeline Connections Between Algeria And Europe1 Transmed:The 670-mile, 2.32-Bcf/d Trans-Mediterranean (Transmed) line runs from Tunisia and Sicily, to mainland Italy. Completed in 1983 and doubled in 1994, there are plans to construct an additional compressor station along the Transmed that could increase capacity to 3.48-Bcf/d. MEG: An international consortium, led by Spain's Enagas, Morocco's SNPP, and Sonatrach, operates the 1,000-mile, 820-Mmcf/d Maghreb-Europe Gas, MEG, completed in 1996, connects Hassi R'mel with Cordoba, Spain via Morocco. In August 2001, Sonatrach awarded ABB a $93 million contract to build a natural gas compressor station on the MEG line in order to increase the line's capacity to 1.78 Bcf/d. Medgaz: In July 2001, a consortium led by Spain's Cepsa and Algeria's Sonatrach agreed to build a natural gas pipeline linking Algeria and Europe: Medgaz. The 120-mile Medgaz will link Algeria to Spain, with an eventual extension to France. In September 2002, the consortium completed a study of the line's feasibility, and initial construction on the project should begin around June 2007. The $1.2 billion Medgaz, which should be completed by 2009, will have an initial capacity of 390 Mmcf/d, increasing to a maximum of 1.55 Bcf/d. There are also plans to run a parallel power cable. In November 2002, Cepsa said that it had signed a letter of intent to purchase 35 Bcf/y of natural gas via Medgaz, and in 2004, Iberdrola also agreed to purchase 35 Bcf/y from the line. Galsi Pipeline In 2002, Sonatrach signed a deal with Italy's Enel and Germany's Wintershall to form Galsi, a consortium to build a natural gas pipeline from Algeria to Italy. The pipeline will run from Gassi R'Mel to El Kal, Algeria, then an underwater section to Cagliari, Sardinia. This is to be followed by an onshore section to Olbia, Sardinia, then a final, offshore pipeline to C.D. Pescaia, Italy. The Galsi pipeline, which is currently under construction, will have initial capacity of 770-990 Mmcf/d, and, as with Medgaz, there are plans for a parallel power cable. The Galsi project could be completed by late 2009. 1/ A synopsis of information from EIA, Energy Information Administration, found @http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Algeria/NaturalGas.html"

OTHER COMMENTS Existing gas pipeline systems, including transmission compressor station platforms, in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea, as examples, demonstrate the feasibility of ocean pipelines. The frictional loss of pressure and thus throughput, dictate the need for periodic compressor stations along any long-distance pipeline. The feasibility of such platforms in the mid-Atlantic limits the current economic justification of such ocean pipelines, balancing cost with transmission capacity. International relations projections over the life of the project are also factors. For the future, subterranean electric compressor modules? Intercontinental super-conducting power cables tapped for the compressor modules? Electric power for the compressors from subterranean ocean current powered turbine-generators? Given the technological progress if the last 100 years, who can say it can’t be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldgaspipeliner (talk • contribs) 15:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Marsh Gas

this should have its own page, where things like wil-0 the wisp and historic references would be, along with anything else to do with the gas from that source. IceDragon64 (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Same to Town Gas erroneously listed as a source of natural gas. Clearly not.--BBird (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Letdown station

Do we have an article on letdown stations where the high pressure gas goes to low pressure gas ? Mion (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What no mention of extracting natural gas from shales?

The US has huge natural gas deposits associated with shales. There development involves hydrofracing the shales and introducing chemicals to get the gas out. These chemicals have led to contamination of aquifers, so there is environmental concerns.

The "Halliburton exemption" natural gas companies do not have to make public the chemicals they are using, because, it is argued, they would lose a competitive advantage to other firms. Congress is considering changing this rule. 96.233.108.14 (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate effects

In the article, it is noted that 1 ton of natural gas is equivalent to 20 tons of CO2, in terms of climatic greenhouse effects, yet when making the comparison of absolute quantities of natural gas vs CO2 emissions, the CO2 amount is given in Mt/y, whereas natural gas is given in trillions of cubic feet. There needs to be a paranthetic comment that gives the emission of natural gas in Mt/y for any comparison to be valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.198.122 (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


At 0.714 kg/m^3 that works out to 60.7 Mt/y, but my back-of-the-envelope calculations and my source of information is probably not reliable enough for wiki (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_kilograms_in_one_cubic_meter_of_natural_gas). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.198.122 (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a straight unit conversion is fine, as long as the units from the source are mentioned. I'm not sure .714 is the best number to use though, that's for methane and the average density of natural gas is a bit higher. TastyCakes (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

the map is dumb

either production per area or production per capita would make a lot more sense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.138 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

natural gas

where is natural gas located on the earth

The article gives plenty of answers. 72.94.164.21 (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The map is wrong

The map is mis-representing the information and is contradictory to source or even the text of the article itself. Forexample it shows Iran in red while it should be brown. I suggest the map to be fixed or removed completely so that contradictions can be resolved.--119.153.93.216 (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Spanish link (Naturgas) is wrong

Naturgas is a private company in Spain, not the generic product "gas natural" - please correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.194.202.5 (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

fixed, bad links removed. Mion (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The price chart is wrong

The caption on the price chart says the price is denominated in $/ cubic meter. Those prices are $/mmbtu, or ~ $/million cubic feet.

You are right. Henry Hub prices are in terms of million BTU (approximately equal to thousand cubic feet of pipeline-quality gas). I fixed the caption. Plazak (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Map doesnt not properly represent what a natural gas power plant really looks like —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.57.106.239 (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

please consider a link

I was wonder if you would consider a link to the vacuum truck page in the area of gas production. in your diagram where you have waste water show that it goes to a disposal well via vacuum truck. thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubertfont (talk • contribs) 04:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A discussion of relative density (under the Safety section) may be useful

One thing a fireman told us in our CERT training class is that natural gas is lighter than air, whereas the mercaptan typically used as an odorant is heavier than air. This could result in an odorless natural gas accumulation in the upper part of a building, while the odorant is falling and pooling in the lower levels of the building. A false positive below, with a “false negative” (i.e. lack of odor) above. Rainy Day (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Explosion discussion may be wrong

According to NW Natural: “Natural gas doesn’t explode. It will ignite, but only when there is a source of ignition. This can occur only under two simultaneous circumstances: the gas must be present in a concentration of 5 to 15 percent relative to the air, and the gas must come in contact with an ignition source that is 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit or more.” [1]

Maybe some so called natural gas explosions are actually dust explosions, ignited by natural gas, which was itself ignited by a heat source? Rainy Day (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion : "An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases. An explosion creates a shock wave. ..." Based on this definition, natural gas explodes. Unless there is also a combustible dust (sugar, coal, flour, grain dust, etc.) natural gas explosions are not dust explosions. Rgbutler (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"Produced" implies "Creationism"? Not to this evolutionist

I'm an agnostic evolutionist, but I disagree with LachlanA that "produced" suggests "creation" (if in the theological sense is meant). I suppose it could be argued that natural gas is created (i.e., formed or made) from organic material, but "produced" is the common term in the industry for the process of extraction from the earth. I didn't simply revert LachlanA's edit because there is some merit to adding variety by substituting "extracted" and like words for the many occurrences of "produced" in the article, but I don't think the word "produced" should be stricken entirely from this section.--Casey (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Casey. "Produced" is the term most commonly used in the industry itself, and does not imply creationism. Plazak (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I concur. Extraction is appropriate for parts that deal specifically with drawing gas out of the earth's crust, while production refers generally to all steps involved in creating products that are suitable for use. Extraction is a part of production. CallidoraBlack (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Environmental effects - other pollutants

Section ends with

"Particulates are also a major contribution to global warming. Natural gas has 7ppm vs coal's 2,744ppm."

Unclear what these ppm numbers refer to. Linked source does not have these numbers. 213.103.214.215 (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Broken link

As of 08-Mar-2011, the http://www.naturalgas.org/environment/naturalgas.asp#greenhouse/ link in ref 20 is broken (please remove this comment when resolved). Robbiemorrison (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Safety: t-butyl mercaptan

The link for t-butyl mercaptan (2-METHYL-2-PROPANETHIOL) goes to the page for a different chemical, butyl mercaptan (1-BUTANETHIOL). There is no page for t-butyl mercaptan. I suggest deleting the link until a page is created for t-butyl mercaptan.Rgbutler (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Domestic Gas Safety

I am not a practitioner; but I looked in vain for some information about safety under the domestic gas section ... Afterbrunel (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Safety is under "Safety"... 24.161.16.121 (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

methane is oxidized in the atmosphere

Doesn't this mean: methane[CH4] + 2(O2) => C02 + 2(H2O)? So that while methane may "go away" after 12 years, what it "goes away" to is carbon dioxide...? The 100 year effect of methane is then 12years of (20xCO2) + 88 years of (1xC02) or 240+88 or 320years of CO2 in 100 years, or about 3x the effect of CO2? ( Martin | talk • contribs 18:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

  • I made a somewhat clumsy small change: methane is oxidized in the atmosphere into CO2 ( Martin | talk • contribs 18:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

Maybe it is a pointless comment, in that it means that methane has 3x the effect of CO2 rather than 2x the effect of CO2. The quantities of methane must be relatively small, so that the effect of methane may be negligible in either case. ( Martin | talk • contribs 18:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

ترکیب گاز طبیعی هر منطقه با منطقه دیگر تفاوت دارد. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.144.105.241 (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate Environmental Claims

The section on CO2 emissions is in dire need of citations, especially the bulk of the second paragraph. The majority of the information entered in thuisn section is highly suspect, especially when considering the following raw scientific and mathematical data: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-emission-fuels-d_1085.html

Someone with engineering expertise needs to evaluate the claims here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.228.163 (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Its use before industrial revolution?

This link http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/history.asp contains some interesting facts about natural gas usage before the 18th century, by the Chinese. We could also use many other sources if there are. Also there can be section history for explaining that, perhaps even the beginning of its usage in America and Europe outlined more clearly. Worth mentioning the Bunsen burner? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Methane oxidation

Thanks for your feedback on my page EzPz. I have no objection to expansion of the point, it just seemed to me that the original was making an uninformative statement of the bleeding obvious. Ideally there should be a succinct statement of what chemical entity methane is oxidized by, and how this is formed and where it occurs. In the article Methane#Atmospheric methane the following is stated "atmosphere is naturally checked ...... by methane's reaction with hydroxyl radicals formed from singlet oxygen atoms and with water vapor". No statement of where, how formed. Atmospheric methane#Removal processes states ".. it reacts with the hydroxyl radical (·OH) in the troposphere or stratosphere to create the CH·3 radical and water vapor" and then after describing further stepwise breakdown of the molecule provides the overall reaction formula: CH4 + 2O2→ CO2 + 2H2O. I therefore suggest a highly-abbreviated form of this merged into the original sentence is all that is needed here, such as:
"Natural gas is mainly composed of methane. After release to the atmosphere it is removed over about 10 years by gradual oxidation to carbon dioxide and water by hydroxyl radicals (·OH) formed in the troposphere or stratosphere, giving the overall chemical reaction CH4 + 2O2→ CO2 + 2H2O." Plantsurfer (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned Plantsurfer , the suggestion is fine. I looked it up in my environmental chemistry text book and its spot on, too. There is much more to the process obviously, but that would be outside the scope of this article to input detailed chemistry. Also, if they don't have a reference in removed for the process we can use my text. It's 'Environmental Chemistry, 9th edition, published by CRC press, 2010, ISBN:978-1-4200-5920-5 by Stanley Manahan'. EzPz (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

History

An IP contributor added some interesting background for natural gas, but it isnt very well written and is in fact copied straight from http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/history.asp . I think it would be a nice addition to this article, but it needs some major work to make it suitable for wiki. I refrained from deleting it because of this, but I suspect someone else may delete anyway due to COPYVIO :/. It would be really awesome if someone could fix it (I would do it myself but its not really my strong suit). I suspect some bits also need more references (oracle of delphi being due to natural gas, for example) but I'm sure references for something that significant would be easy to find (assuming that the company isnt lying). Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the copyvio. You are welcome to use the link above and other sources to write a history section. However, copying directly from a website is not allowed. Vsmith (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
As I clearly said in the post above, I am aware of that. I was hoping that someone could fix instead of delete, but I guess that didnt happen. Benboy00 (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Direct Health Effects

Came here to find out about direct health effects caused by normal exposure. Not much help from what I find. I live in Colorado US where marijuana has been legalized and there is some debate over one technique using propane and natural gas to extract THC for multiple products. Perhaps there are some political games being played in this matter, but would enjoy having independent review. Have noted for instance that some proponents seem to think that "Fracked" Natural gas is fine for energy use in homes, but when used to extract THC can cause health issues from petrochemical actions in the lungs.Fracking is being done heavily here, and yes water tastes terrible now, but am primarily interested in actual gas. There is the danger of course from explosions when using gas under novice operations but that is not what I am asking. Does Natural Gas cause adverse health effects from inhalation even when Carbon Monoxide is not at dangerous levels? Thank You. 208.123.153.190 (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

CNG/LPG cost

The article states that CNG is more expensive than LPG. Is it correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.74.113 (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Confusion of condensate and natural gas liquid

"Condensate" as the term is used in the oil industry is what condenses at the surface in an ambient temperature separator. It is basically C5+ (pentane and a bit higher). Can be mixed into gasoline, even in the summer. It's essentially very high API oil, both chemically and economically. Think of it as the "associated oil" from a gas well. The way you would have associated gas with an oil well.

NGLs are the non-methane gases within a natural gas separated stream. They do NOT condense at a surface separator. You need a refrigeration plant to condense them.

The article says, "One method to deal with this problem is to re-inject dried gas free of condensate to maintain the underground pressure and to allow re-evaporation and extraction of condensates. More frequently, the liquid condenses at the surface, and one of the tasks of the gas plant is to collect this condensate. The resulting liquid is called natural gas liquid (NGL) and has commercial value."

You are confusing NGL and condensate and they are not the same thing. Condensate is mostly C5+, recovered at the wellhead. NGL is mostly C2-C4 (ethane, propane, n-butane, isobutene). Recovered at a refrigeration plant, away from the wellhead. Look up the boiling point of ethane! It is not condensing at the wellhead surface. Just no.

Please, no arguments about how any gas can become a liquid with cooling or the converse...or about how refrigeration plants have condensers. You are not helping your public who may have a very reasonable suspicion that NGL=condensate, by confusing the terms in article. In contrast, the block diagram under natural gas processing chapter explains this right.

96.238.184.174 (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Infographic misses important gas streams

In the top infographic, some major gas streams are missing: Norway and the Netherlands are the world's 3rd resp. 6th largest exporters of natural gas (2013). https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2251rank.html?countryname=Russia&countrycode=rs&regionCode=cas&rank=1#rs . Is someone able to add these, or contact the uploader, called Crossswords, to do so? 145.97.223.96 (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

what about burning springs?

The term burning springs is the name of a few towns, but it is also defined at Burning springs as natural gas escaping at a spring for water, often burning as it escapes. Nothing I have ever seen, so is there more to say on this topic, in this article? Just wondering. Canandaigua (city), New York was early noted for such a burning spring. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Town gas is not natural gas

The section on 'town gas' should be removed. By definition, it is not 'natural' gas, as it it not extracted, but is manufactured. Jack B108 (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Both town gas and biogas do not belong here, except as a brief mention as other sources of utility gas. Plazak (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in the "Fracking" section: first paragraph

The section on hydraulic fracturing is filled with garbled with half-truths, overgeneralizations, and false statements. The section's first paragraph starts out:

“Releasing natural gas from subsurface porous rock formations is accomplished by a process called hydraulic fracturing or "hydrofracking".”

The sentence strongly implies that the only way to release gas from rock is by hydraulic fracturing. The statement ignores all the wells that release gas trapped for millions of years, but without hydraulic fracturing. To be accurate, the phrase “is accomplished” should be changed to “is often accomplished.”

The end sentence of the paragraph reads:

“The development of technology for directional and horizontal drilling, and facilities to import and export liquefied natural gas worldwide, among other things, provided for a drastic acceleration between 2000-2012 in hydraulic fracturing to produce unconventional gas.[81]”

To write that LNG facilities are responsible for the recent increase in hydraulic fracturing of tight reservoirs is silly on the face of it, because, in fact, none of the tight gas in the US or Canada, the two places where the boom took place, is being transported as LNG. Whoever inserted this statement completely misunderstood the cited reference (Robert W Kolb: “The Natural Gas Revolution and the World's Largest Economies), which states that LNG is a very important recent development, but does not give it credit for the unconventional gas boom.

So the section’s first paragraph both starts and ends with inaccurate statements. Comments? Plazak (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

1. Inserting "is often" or "may be" instead of "is" would indicate it doesn't always occur with hydraulic fracturing.

2. The development of LNG facilities did not provide for the rapid growth in unconventional gas production between 2000-2012. The development of technology for directional and horizontal drilling, however, seems relevant to the article and appropriate in context of what provided for such rapid growth. Qjmalecki (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)qjmalecki

1) Exactly my point. Conventional, or to be more accurate, non-hydraulically fractured wells, also release gas that has been trapped in the rock for millions of years. Every gas well releases gas trapped in the rock; that's their whole purpose. If you want the first sentence to discuss fracking only, then the wording will have to be narrower and more descriptive than the general "Releasing natural gas from subsurface porous rock formations"
2) I agree that advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing are relevant and should be mentioned. But it is obvious to anyone familiar with the subject that LNG, important as it is, was not one of the causes of the North American gas boom. This sort of obvious and careless mistake discredits Wikipedia. Time to move on to paragraph 2. Cheers. Plazak (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The phrase, "cropping of delivered power," in the Transportation section, should be rewritten. It is a very strange way of making the point--try "reduction of delivered power" or something like that.70.182.156.197 (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Emissions

In the article, it is mentioned that natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, and then a certain CO² emission value is given. However, from what I understand, isn't this an average figure ? I tend to think that say natural gas still locked into the ground but due to be released (ie because of permafrost warming up due to climate change, ...) is actually emissionless -even carbon negative!- if it is used and burned in vehicles. This because the natural gas otherwise released would actually be much worse (higher greenhouse heating value) than the same gas that has been burned. Other natural gas (obtained from sources that won't be released naturally any time soon) do cause emissions off course.

Also, there's a section on biogas present in the article. Biogas isn't a natural gas from what I understand, and so it should be only brieflt mentioned (because it is somewhat similar, but it isn't a fossil fuel, but rather it's man-made, and very recent (not something that's been locked in the ground for ages).

KVDP (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

slight tweak to the wording needed

The following statements are based upon the "00:11, 7 October 2016‎" version of the article:

The first sentence in the section Natural_gas#United_States says:

"In US units, one standard cubic foot 1 cubic foot (28 L) of natural gas produces around 1,028 British thermal units (1,085 kJ)."

IMHO a slight tweak to the wording is needed there.

The use of wikilinking and templates seems very professional; but IMHO the first use of a template, either should be surrounded by (parentheses), viz.:

"In US units, one standard cubic foot (1 cubic foot (28 L)) of natural gas produces around 1,028 British thermal units (1,085 kJ)."

or perhaps [since the parenthetical phrase does contain "(28 L)"] maybe square brackets:

"In US units, one standard cubic foot [1 cubic foot (28 L)] of natural gas produces around 1,028 British thermal units (1,085 kJ)."

...to make it clear to the reader that "1 cubic foot (28 L)" is an appositive for the phrase "one standard cubic foot" ... or else something else should be done. IMHO another acceptable way of fixing this sentence, would be to remove the words "one standard cubic foot" [something like this:]

"In US units, 1 cubic foot (28 L) of natural gas produces around 1,028 British thermal units (1,085 kJ)."

...OR, to remove the first use of a "conversion" template (after all, the sentence does begin with the words "In US units" -- !) ... [something like this:]

"In US units, one standard cubic foot of natural gas produces around 1,028 British thermal units (1,085 kJ)."

to remove the unnecessary (and confusing!) redundant duplication.

I also think it might be better to remove the word "standard" (right before "cubic foot of natural gas").

Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Natural gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Natural gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Natural gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is not about an invention

@Andy Dingley: This article is about the naturally occurring gas and is not primarily about a "unique or novel device, method, composition or process" Articles about related technologies, extraction methods, etc. can be categorized as "inventions", however it would be just as incorrect to categorize this article on natural gas as a "Chinese invention" as categorizing the article on potatoes as a "Peruvian invention". 135.23.232.202 (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, these invention categories include "inventions and discoveries" equally. Please join the discussion at the Technology project as to just what ought to be in them. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Technology#National invention categories
Secondly, there is substantial novel invention required in the exploitation of natural gas. The Chinese did this, and did this far in advance of the West. If you look at the early history of Chinese gas use, it's well recorded and surprisingly advanced. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: Unfortunately, I think you may have some confusion here over the meaning of "natural" in the phrase "natural gas": In this context "natural" is used to mean "naturally occurring" and as an antonym of "man-made" (cf. propane). It doesn't really matter what the opinion of anyone working on the "Technology" or any other wikipedia project is, the fact is that if something is "naturally occurring" it was not "invented" (i.e. by man. Technically I guess all of nature might be considered a divine invention by some, but I digress.)
While it is true that "invention" and "discovery" can be used in similar context, these two words have distinct meanings and are not synonyms. In general, a "discovery" occurs when something previously unknown becomes known. By convention "discovery" is attributed to the historical "first discovery" by individual person or group. "Discoveries" are not necessarily "technologies" (e.g. the discovery of Antarctica), whereas "inventions" can always be considered "technologies". All truly novel "inventions" are also technically "discoveries" but not vice versa.
With regard to technologies, by convention, something is considered "invented" if and only if it did not occur in nature before it was initially created by humans. Ambiguity between the terms "discovery" and "invention" can ensue when the technology described includes both man-made and naturally occurring. E.g. Solar power can be considered as both discovered and invented depending on context; Photosynthesis was "discovered" and photovoltaics were "invented". Although it may seem complected what I'm trying to explain, the photovoltaic effect was "discovered" and the photovoltaic cell was "invented". Although these two articles have overlap, one is clearly about an invention of a man-made device and the other about a natural process that was discovered.
To confuse matters, in general, "invention" is uniquely attributed to humans, and may sometimes include an element of the uniquely human "intention". I do feel obliged to point out that, although I previously stated that it is silly to consider potatoes as a Peruvian invention (and potatoes are not a Peruvian invention at least on the basis that potatoes predate the modern country of Peru), the modern cultivars of potatoes that are consumed could be legitimately described as human inventions if they resulted solely as a result of human genetic modification through selective breading (like how canola was "invented" from rapeseed).
It is very important to recognize that this article is not primarily about a a technology, rather it is about a natural occurring substance (cf. Glycol_dehydration).
Anyone that says the articles on DNA, uranium or natural gas should be categorized as a human national "invention" is misinformed, or even perhaps acting in bad faith.
One does not need to be a rocket surgeon to realize that any substance (like natural gas) that existed on earth before homo sapien sapiens could not have possibly been "invented" by humans, but the fact is that the only requirement to be a wikipedia editor is access to the internet.
@Andy Dingley: I contribute to Wikipedia because I love the cause, and I only ever contribute to improve accuracy and to try to make Wikipedia the best possible. I'm assuming, in good faith, that you are similarly motivated and not looking to advance any sort of personal agenda. I sincerely hope that you read my comments and that they help you be the best Wikipedia editor you can be! However, when I removed the inappropriate category of Chinese inventions for the naturally occurring substance of natural gas with an explanation and you re-add the category, this is not constructive to Wikipedia. If you are willing to create an article on the Use of natural gas as a fuel for humans or similar, then that would be constructive and useful! You could categorize that article as an invention because, in general, the novel use, as fuel, of any substance would qualify as an "invention"/"technological discovery".
@Andy Dingley: The truth is that this article on natural gas is not about a Chinese invention. To the best of my knowledge, peoples living in what is now modern day China were likely the first to extract and use natural gas as a fuel source. I expect you agree with me on this. This is explicitly explained in the history section of this article.
I know that the objective truth is that "natural gas" is a "naturally occurring hydrocarbon gas mixture consisting primarily of methane, but commonly including varying amounts of other higher alkanes, and sometimes a small percentage of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide, or helium." So, @Andy Dingley:, I'm going to remove the "Chinese Inventions" category because a naturally occurring substance is by definition not invented by humans. I've been verbose on this talk page and I appreciate that you are trying to engage in constructive interaction by answering on the talk page, but reverting my edit without consensus is not constructive.
It's a fact that Wikipedia is, by design, a crowd sourced encyclopedia. The corollary, is that Wikipedia unintentionally crowd-sources truth (or from another perspective, ignorance). @Andy Dingley: if you want, you can you solicit other Wikipedia editors to weight-in with a 3rd(et al) perspective and offer their opinion(s) here on the talk page; this would be constructive. Like I said, I try to edit wikipedia because I want it to be accurate, but if you want go to the trouble of intentionally finding at least one or more editors that want to side with you and purport that the naturally occurring gas was really an invention by the modern country of China, I'll just bugger off and let your community write their own consensus of what 'truth' is. 135.23.232.202 (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect, you're not listening to what Andy Dingley said. The category covers both discoveries and inventions. DarkKnight2149 01:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_gets_reverted.2C_doesn.27t_like_it.2C_starts_being_deliberately_disruptive. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Natural gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Using SI units in the table about pollutants

As neutral and international encyclopaedia it makes sense to use the SI units for tables such as those in the section on environmental effects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas#Environmental_effects

Are we in agreement about that? EnergyIntel (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Energy content, statistics, and pricing graphs outdated

The graphs in the section Energy content, statistics, and pricing graphs are outdated by all most 10 years.

EnergyIntel (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The of

I'm pretty sure there is a word missing in "The first step in the valorization of natural gas components is usually the [?] of the alkane into olefin" but it probably needs someone who groks chemistry to work out what it is. ϢereSpielChequers 18:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 14 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 17:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


Natural gas → Fossil Gas – Removing 'Natural' or replacing it with something more neutral/scientific the in the title EnergyIntel (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Similar to any other (fossil) resource on wikipedia Coal, Oil, Uranium, Neodymium, ... it doesn't make sense to call (methane) 'gas' natural in an encyclopedia. It' as natural as anything else but here it just seems to increase the likelyhood of an appeal to nature. Do we agree to change it to 'fossil gas'? Merging with Methane Gas might also make sense since it's the primary constituent. I can do an easy find and replace in this article if in agreement. I see no good reason for keeping the 'natural' (unless you have a fossil fuel conflict of interest of course). We could still have a reference from 'natural gas' to 'fossil gas' or 'methane gas' whatever we decide on. Does that make sense? EnergyIntel (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC) (Reworked to use the requested move template and some typo's) EnergyIntel (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm simply a naive and (overly) enthusiastic beginner editor. I understand the oppositional feedback. Thanks! EnergyIntel (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Biogas

I've removed the following section because biogas is an alternative to natural gas, not a type of natural gas or a source of natural gas. I've copied the section below in case it can be used elsewhere. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Biogas

Main article: Biogas

Methanogenic Archaea are responsible for almost all biological sources of methane, though methylphosphonate-degrading Bacteria produce an as-yet not fully quantified fraction of biogenic methane, particularly in the oceans.[2] Some live in symbiotic relationships with other life forms, including termites, ruminants, and cultivated crops. Other sources of methane, the principal component of natural gas, include landfill gas, biogas, and methane hydrate. When methane-rich gases are produced by the anaerobic decay of organic matter (biomass), these are referred to as biogas (or natural biogas). Sources of biogas include swamps, marshes, and landfills, as well as agricultural waste materials such as sewage sludge and manure by way of anaerobic digesters,[3] in addition to enteric fermentation, particularly in cattle. Landfill gas is created by decomposition of waste in landfill sites. Excluding water vapor, about half of landfill gas is methane and most of the rest is carbon dioxide, with small amounts of nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen, and variable trace amounts of hydrogen sulfide and siloxanes. If the gas is not removed, the pressure may get so high that it works its way to the surface, causing damage to the landfill structure, unpleasant odor, vegetation die-off, and an explosion hazard. The gas can be vented to the atmosphere, flared or burned to produce electricity or heat. Biogas can also be produced by separating organic materials from waste that otherwise goes to landfills. This method is more efficient than just capturing the landfill gas it produces. Anaerobic lagoons produce biogas from manure, while biogas reactors can be used for manure or plant parts. Like landfill gas, biogas is mostly methane and carbon dioxide, with small amounts of nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen. However, with the exception of pesticides, there are usually lower levels of contaminants.

Landfill gas cannot be distributed through utility natural gas pipelines unless it is cleaned up to less than 3% CO
2, and a few parts per million H
2S, because CO
2 and H
2S corrode the pipelines.[4] The presence of CO
2 will lower the energy level of the gas below requirements for the pipeline.[5][6] Siloxanes in the gas will form deposits in gas burners and need to be removed prior to entry into any gas distribution or transmission system. Consequently, it may be more economical to burn the gas on site or within a short distance of the landfill using a dedicated pipeline. Water vapor is often removed, even if the gas is burned on site. If low temperatures condense water out of the gas, siloxanes can be lowered as well because they tend to condense out with the water vapor. Other non-methane components may also be removed to meet emission standards, to prevent fouling of the equipment or for environmental considerations. Co-firing landfill gas with natural gas improves combustion, which lowers emissions.

Biogas, and especially landfill gas, are already used in some areas, but their use could be greatly expanded. Systems have been established for use in parts of Hertfordshire, UK[7] and Lyon in France.[8] Using materials that would otherwise generate no income, or even cost money to get rid of, improves the profitability and energy balance of biogas production. Gas generated in sewage treatment plants is commonly used to generate electricity. For example, the Hyperion sewage plant in Los Angeles burns 8 million cubic feet (230,000 cubic meters) of gas per day to generate power[9] New York City utilizes gas to run equipment in the sewage plants, to generate electricity, and in boilers.[10] Using sewage gas to make electricity is not limited to large cities. The city of Bakersfield, California, uses cogeneration at its sewer plants.[11] California has 242 sewage wastewater treatment plants, 74 of which have installed anaerobic digesters. The total biopower generation from the 74 plants is about 66 MW.[12]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nwnatural.com/content_safety.asp?id=298
  2. ^ DM Karl, L Beversdorf, KM Björkman, MJ Church, A Martinez, EF DeLong (2008). "Aerobic production of methane in the sea". Nature Geoscience. 1 (7): 473–478. Bibcode:2008NatGe...1..473K. doi:10.1038/ngeo234.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ David Schmidt. "Anaerobic Digestion Overview" (PDF). University of Minnesota. Retrieved 2017-11-19.
  4. ^ "Interstate Natural Gas—Quality Specifications & Interchangeability" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 August 2011. Retrieved 6 February 2011.
  5. ^ "Reading: Natural Gas | Geology". courses.lumenlearning.com. Retrieved 2019-08-26.
  6. ^ Speight, James G. (2018-08-14). Handbook of Natural Gas Analysis. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781119240280.
  7. ^ "Biogen Opens 45,000 TPA Food Waste to Biogas Plant in Hertfordshire, UK". 6 February 2015.
  8. ^ "Biogas co-generation in a greenhouse complex".
  9. ^ "Hyperion Treatment Plant". LA Sewers. Archived from the original on 2011-10-12. Retrieved 2011-02-06.
  10. ^ "New York City's Wastewater Treatment System" (PDF). New York City Department of Environmental Protection. Retrieved 2011-02-06.
  11. ^ "Bakersfield Wastewater Treatment Plant 3". Parsons. 2009-12-05. Archived from the original on 2011-01-21. Retrieved 2011-02-06.
  12. ^ Orta, Jason; Zhiqin Zhang; et al. (2010). "2009 Progress to Plan – Bioenergy Action Plan for California" (PDF). California Energy Commission.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

"Major contributor to climate change"

I'm wondering about this assertion. For starters there are no sources that back up the assertion. The second part that makes me wonder is that in many developed nations, and developing I'd assume, natural gas has been pivotal in decreasing, not increasing greenhouse gases, as the switch from coal to natural gas has significantly dropped emissions of CO2, as well as pm10, pm2.5, etc. Leading me to believe that the story is more complicated than portrayed in this short sentence, and if anything Natural Gas has been instrumental in fighting climate change. Perhaps for the sake of brevity we should simply cut this sentence, as describing its actual impact on the environment is a bit long for the intro section. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources in the introduction to be specific, I'm sure there are sources that say that it contributes to climate change just as there are sources that say it helps fight climate change. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Some reputable sources on how it helps fight climate change:

JACOBY, Henry D., et al. Technology and technical change in the MIT EPPA model. Energy Economics, 2006, vol. 28, no 5-6, p. 610-631. SCHRAG, Daniel P. Is shale gas good for climate change?. Daedalus, 2012, vol. 141, no 2, p. 72-80. DEUTCH, John. The good news about gas-The natural gas revolution and its consequences. Foreign Aff., 2011, vol. 90, p. 82. Hultman, N., Rebois, D., Scholten, M. & Ramig, C. The greenhouse impact of unconventional gas for electricity generation. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 044008 (2011) Moniz, E. J. et al. The Future of Natural Gas: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study (MIT, 2011); http://mitei.mit.edu/system/files/NaturalGas_Report.pdf Brown, S., Krupnick, A. & Walls, M. Natural Gas: a Bridge to a Low-Carbon Future (Resource for the Future, 2009); http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-IB-09-11.pdf Levi, M. Climate consequences of natural gas as a bridge fuel. Clim. Change 118, 609–623 (2013) Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The consensus used to be that gas was a good transition fuel, but it with climate change mitigation not really kicking off, time is now more limited and most 2020 sources will probably say it is an important contributor. Furthermore, the extent of methane leaks has become more apparent, making the CO2e potential higher than thought previously. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I am adding another cite to back it up and increasing importance to "top" for climate change projectChidgk1 (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


You can wonder all you want Alcibiades979 but if you look at the section about Environmental Effects (here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas#Environmental_effects) you can see that although it's a little less polluting than Coal today it's a major contributor to anthropogenic climate change. With, according to the IPCC from 2014, a CO2 emission rate of 490 g eq/Kwh and last year a total of 39,292 TWh (= 39292000000000 kWh) (source here https://ourworldindata.org/energy) gas alone contributes: 19253080000 metric tons (1000 kg) of CO2 worldwide. How would this NOT be a major contributor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnergyIntel (talk • contribs) 09:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The world has millions of spent but uncapped oilwells that issue significant petroleum gasses but uneconomically not worth capturing. The flaring off of petroleum gases from oil wells generates wasted CO2. Astronauts noted that at night, the flaring in North Dakota (low population density) is brighter than megacities like Los Angeles. As LA is fed by circa 3000 Megawatts for lights etc. the flaring is significant. TaylorLeem (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

H2S added as odorant?

The "Added odor" section lists two odorants and seems to imply that they are all that are used. This link:

https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/epidemiology/epidemiology-fact-sheets/hydrogen-sulfide/

...says "Hydrogen sulfide is added to natural gas so that residents will notice gas leaks, since natural gas on its own has no odor."

Is that link accurate? I find no other reference to using H2S in this way, just many pages that note that H2S is a natural component of raw natural gas.

Given the extreme toxicity of hydrogen sulfide, it seems highly unlikely. My impression is that mecaptans are used to odorize natural gas. The linked source is of doubtful reliability on this. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natural_gas/Archive_1&oldid=1185097576"