![]() | Andris Piebalgs: Nuclear and the EU's Energy Policy | The Oil Drum | Hirsch on CNBC: Peak oil problem "as massive as one can possibly imagine" | ![]() |
107 comments on US Natural Gas: The Role of Unconventional Gas
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
107 comments on US Natural Gas: The Role of Unconventional Gas
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion?
- The US stimulus and "green jobs"
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“To be thrown upon one's own resources, is to be cast into the very lap of fortune; for our faculties then undergo a development and display an energy of which they were previously unsusceptible.”
—Benjamin Franklin
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
It's true that CBM is very pure (better than 98%, IIRC). As you state, this means it has a lower calorific value than regular natural gas, not to be confused with Lower Calorific Value (grin). This doesn't mean it's not marketable. My domestic gas bill is quoted in megajoules, not cubic feet, meaning the gas supplier corrects automatically for the calorific value and the customer pays for energy received. So that particular problem has been solved.
Another thing to take into account is the Wobbe Number, which is a function of upper calorific value and density http://www.sizes.com/units/wobbe_number.htm - as described it is not a dimensionless number. According to the website, methane falls right in the middle of the Wobbe Number range for commercial natural gases in the United States. IIRC the gas from the Morecambe Bay field (offshore UK) had an out of spec Wobbe Number and had to be blended with nitrogen before it could be put into the National Grid.
If you change to a gas of dramatically different specification then you may have to change the burner tips to avoid flame blow-out. This happened in the UK in the late 1960s with the switchover from coal gas to natural gas ("High Speed Gas"), and was a huge logistical effort, though the world doesn't appear to have come to an end as a result. If the gas goes to a single large user (like CO2-rich Miller Field gas in the UK) then it's simpler.
I understand that one cannot just import any LNG and expect to use it, because of differences in gas around the world. Our appliances in the US are tuned for one specification. Different ones are used some other places.
Typing natural gas pipeline specification into Google led me to this interesting paper - see Page 4 http://www.beg.utexas.edu/energyecon/lng/documents/CEE_Interstate_Natura...
It mentions gas turbines as one end use that is sensitive to changes in fuel specification, for example with LNG. This is because GT burners run a lot hotter and therefore nearer to the thermal creep limit than most end uses of natural gas.
Natural gas, being a natural product, has a variety of compositions.
Mostly it is methane (CH4) but can have various amounts of propane, butane, and ethane (2CH3 + XCh2) plus non-combustibles like N2, CO2, and He that cost various amounts to remove.
Trying to meet market specifications can doom a gas field economically. Nitrogen is especially expensive to remove with little co-product value, unlike helium.