↓ Skip to main content

Methane and carbon at equilibrium in source rocks

Overview of attention for article published in Geochemical Transactions, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Methane and carbon at equilibrium in source rocks
Published in
Geochemical Transactions, December 2013
DOI 10.1186/1467-4866-14-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frank D Mango

Abstract

Methane in source rocks may not exist exclusively as free gas. It could exist in equilibrium with carbon and higher hydrocarbons: CH4 + C < = > Hydrocarbon. Three lines of evidence support this possibility. 1) Shales ingest gas in amounts and selectivities consistent with gas-carbon equilibrium. There is a 50% increase in solid hydrocarbon mass when Fayetteville Shale is exposed to methane (450 psi) under moderate conditions (100°C): Rock-Eval S2 (mg g-1) 8.5 = > 12.5. All light hydrocarbons are ingested, but with high selectivity, consistent with competitive addition to receptor sites in a growing polymer. Mowry Shale ingests butane vigorously from argon, for example, but not from methane under the same conditions. 2) Production data for a well producing from Fayetteville Shale declines along the theoretical curve for withdrawing gas from higher hydrocarbons in equilibrium with carbon. 3) A new general gas-solid equilibrium model accounts for natural gas at thermodynamic equilibrium, and C6-C7 hydrocarbons constrained to invariant compositions. The results make a strong case for methane in equilibrium with carbon and higher hydrocarbons. If correct, the higher hydrocarbons in source rocks are gas reservoirs, raising the possibility of substantially more gas in shales than analytically apparent, and far more gas in shale deposits than currently recognized.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 7%
Unknown 13 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 36%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Professor 2 14%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 7%
Student > Master 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 2 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Earth and Planetary Sciences 6 43%
Chemistry 2 14%
Environmental Science 1 7%
Physics and Astronomy 1 7%
Arts and Humanities 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 December 2013.
All research outputs
#15,028,328
of 24,641,620 outputs
Outputs from Geochemical Transactions
#47
of 83 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,283
of 318,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Geochemical Transactions
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,641,620 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 83 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,790 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them