Talk:Natural gas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Energy (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Citizendium Porting    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article was within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Natural gas is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Natural gas at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.

Town gas is not natural gas[edit]

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)

Infographic misses important gas streams[edit]

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). . Is someone able to add these, or contact the uploader, called Crossswords, to do so? (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

what about burning springs?[edit]

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)

Inaccuracies in the "Fracking" section: first paragraph[edit]

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. (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


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[edit]

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)." 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)