Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on July 2, 2014
In terms of their chemical composition (primarily methane), these resources are identical to conventional natural gas. We call them “unconventional” because of their atypical geological locations. Unconventional gas is found in highly compact rock or coalbeds and requires a specific set of production techniques.
Tight gas, shale gas and coal bed methane are called “unconventional” gas due to their atypical reservoirs.
Total is proficient in the techniques required to produce this gas, which is trapped in low-permeability rock or coal seams.
6 Comments on "Why is it Called Unconventional Gas?"
Plantagenet on Wed, 2nd Jul 2014 11:18 am
According to President Obama, the USA has a 100 year supply of NG thanks to unconventional gas produced by fracking. NG will become increasingly important as peak oil starts to curtail oil production
Northwest Resident on Wed, 2nd Jul 2014 11:28 am
Plant — That’s the same basic argument that Nony, PapaSmurf and to some extent MSN Fanboy would all attempt to make.
The only problem with that, of course, is that to get NG out of the ground, package and transport it for processing and ultimate distribution to the end users, real oil is required. Just exactly what we aren’t going to have enough of.
The other problem, as has been pointed out to you and to your like-minded fellow posters (some would speculate sock-puppets) is that to build the infrastructure required to support any level of NG-powered economy, massive quantities of oil and investment are need right now, but it isn’t getting done because the really smart people understand that NG will NEVER be able to replace oil in any significant or even barely sufficient way.
When you next see PapaSmurf, Nony and MSN Fanboy, please pass that point of view along and you all have a discussion and see if you can make sense out of it.
chilyb on Wed, 2nd Jul 2014 1:03 pm
Is Obama a geologist? That 100 year supply is probably based on our current rates of consumption – not if we switch our entire infrastructure over to NG. It’s probably closer to 10 years in that scenario.
Dave Thompson on Wed, 2nd Jul 2014 2:23 pm
All is well move along, now we all know things are fine and we need not worry our selves a bit. Big box Americorp is open for BAU. 🙂 said the sarcastic man.
rockman on Wed, 2nd Jul 2014 6:47 pm
Chilyb – You’ll even find some geologists make the same meaningless statement. As you point unless you offer a consumption rate model as well as a price model then there’s no basis for generation a geologic model of reserve development
rollin on Thu, 3rd Jul 2014 1:15 pm
Since the dire warnings of the climate scientists have done little to curb fossil fuels, everything that can be done to use natural gas will be done. At least until it becomes quite apparent that production is diminishing despite money and technology.
Next will be the push to use methane hydrates. The energy potential there is enormous. The cost may be enormous also and the potential to destabilize large fields of methane hydrate is real. If that occurs then climate scientists no longer need be concerned about anthropogenic global warming.
If we get past those two and global warming has not severely changed things, and the nuclear power set have cleaned up the “waste” storage facilities; we just might have a chance to adjust our energy use and footprint on the planet. That is a lot of “ifs”.