PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 9, 2011Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences1,291 citationsOpen Access

Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing

View Full Paper
SOStephen G. OsbornAVAvner VengoshNWNathaniel R. Warner

Key Points

  • The study aims to investigate the relationship between gas-well drilling and methane contamination in drinking water.
  • Analyzed drinking-water wells in areas with and without active gas wells.
  • Measured average and maximum methane concentrations and isotopic signatures.
  • Compared samples from active and nonactive sites to determine contamination sources.
  • In active gas-extraction areas, average methane concentration was 19.2 mg CH(4) L(-1) (n = 26) compared to 1.1 mg L(-1) (n = 34) in nonactive sites (P < 0.05).
  • Significantly less negative average δ(13)C-CH(4) values at active sites (-37 ± 7‰) indicate thermogenic sources.
  • No evidence found for contamination from deep saline brines or fracturing fluids.

Abstract

Directional drilling and hydraulic-fracturing technologies are dramatically increasing natural-gas extraction. In aquifers overlying the Marcellus and Utica shale formations of northeastern Pennsylvania and upstate New York, we document systematic evidence for methane contamination of drinking water associated with shale-gas extraction. In active gas-extraction areas (one or more gas wells within 1 km), average and maximum methane concentrations in drinking-water wells increased with proximity to the nearest gas well and were 19.2 and 64 mg CH(4) L(-1) (n = 26), a potential explosion hazard; in contrast, dissolved methane samples in neighboring nonextraction sites (no gas wells within 1 km) within similar geologic formations and hydrogeologic regimes averaged only 1.1 mg L(-1) (P < 0.05; n = 34). Average δ(13)C-CH(4) values of dissolved methane in shallow groundwater were significantly less negative for active than for nonactive sites (-37 ± 7‰ and -54 ± 11‰, respectively; P < 0.0001). These δ(13)C-CH(4) data, coupled with the ratios of methane-to-higher-chain hydrocarbons, and δ(2)H-CH(4) values, are consistent with deeper thermogenic methane sources such as the Marcellus and Utica shales at the active sites and matched gas geochemistry from gas wells nearby. In contrast, lower-concentration samples from shallow groundwater at nonactive sites had isotopic signatures reflecting a more biogenic or mixed biogenic/thermogenic methane source. We found no evidence for contamination of drinking-water samples with deep saline brines or fracturing fluids. We conclude that greater stewardship, data, and-possibly-regulation are needed to ensure the sustainable future of shale-gas extraction and to improve public confidence in its use.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Osborn et al. (2011) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69d6f279f174babf6cab3bfehttps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1100682108
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO 2 emissions2007 · 1,790 citations
  2. 2Carbon and hydrogen isotopic evidence for the origin of combustible gases in water-supply wells in north-central Pennsylvania2010 · 89 citations
  3. 3Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective2011 · 443 citations
  4. 4Natural Gas From Shale Bursts Onto the Scene2010 · 500 citations
  5. 5The hydrogen and carbon isotopic composition of methane from natural gases of various origins1980 · 1,277 citations