Talk:Natural gas/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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 (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)


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). 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)


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. 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. 15:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


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 (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 (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? 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!!


sadly, a rising problem with wikipedia entries

That's because the article is just ripped from, 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)
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

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):

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)


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 (→Power generation)" edit.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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 (talkcontribs) 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? —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 ( 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) 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 the article

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)gas is a bitch.

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). —CentrxTalk 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: ---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)


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 (talkcontribs) 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)


There seems to be a direct contradiction between what is said here and what is said on the page linked at the bottom


" (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..."


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

-- 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 (talkcontribs) 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)


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 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? 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 (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)


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 (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

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 @"

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 (talkcontribs) 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. (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 (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 ( —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

natural gas

where is natural gas located on the earth

The article gives plenty of answers. (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.-- (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 (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 (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 (talkcontribs) 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 : "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. (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Broken link

As of 08-Mar-2011, the 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"... (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 | talkcontribs 18:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

  • I made a somewhat clumsy small change: methane is oxidized in the atmosphere into CO2 ( Martin | talkcontribs 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 | talkcontribs 18:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

ترکیب گاز طبیعی هر منطقه با منطقه دیگر تفاوت دارد. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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:

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

Its use before industrial revolution?

This link 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)


An IP contributor added some interesting background for natural gas, but it isnt very well written and is in fact copied straight from . 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. (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 (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. (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). . 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?

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. (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

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)