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

By S. Osborn, A. Vengosh, N. Warner, R. B. Jackson. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2011

1,336 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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 CH4 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 δ13C-CH4 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 δ13C-CH4 data, coupled with the ratios of methane-to-higher-chain hydrocarbons, and δ2H-CH4 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.

Subfields: Environmental Chemistry, Global and Planetary Change, Mechanics of Materials

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/14aa9bf54669623afcf8bdc97c4d1032b82cd125

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Environmental Chemistry

Susan L. Brantley

In Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

Fracking and environmental (in)justice in a Texas city (2015, background): “However, despite growing evidence of carcinogenic emissions, water contamination, and negative health effects (e.g. Eastern Research Group, 2011; Oswald and Bamberger, 2012; Osborn et al., 2011; Kassotis et al., 2013; Hill, 2013; McKenzie et al., 2014; Schonkoff et al., 2014), uncertainties remain d”
The Economics of Shale Gas Development (2015, background): “3.2.1.4 Groundwater pollution The academic literature has focused on the potential for groundwater contamination from either leaking well casings, or seepage from surface storage pits (Osborn et al. 2011, Warner et al. 2013b).”
From the Cover: Gas production in the Barnett Shale obeys a simple scaling theory (2013, neutral): “αi = k φSgμgcg Initial reservoir p;T ; [2]”
Public opinion on energy development: the interplay of issue framing, top-of-mind associations, and political ideology (2015, background): “To these individuals, it represents the process of fracturing rock to release oil and gas, and there is limited evidence that chemicals or fossil fuel can migrate through overlaying layers of rock to reach surface or groundwater (Osborn et al., 2011).”
Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shale gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking) (2014, neutral): “In a study of 68 private drinking water wells in northeastern Pennsylvania and New York, methane contamination rose sharply with proximity to natural gas drilling and fracking sites [76], though these results have been challenged by Molofsky et al.”
Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of Marcellus shale gas (2011, background): “Natural processes or development actions such as hydraulic fracturing might lead to emissions of the shale gas external to a well, particularly in the case of poorly installed well casings (Osborn et al 2011).”
Impact of Shale Gas Development on Regional Water Quality (2013, background): “A study of 60 groundwater wells in that area, including across the border in upstate NewYork (20), showed that both the average and maximum methane concentrations were higher when sampled from wells within 1 km of active Marcellus gas wells as compared with those far-”
The Environmental Costs and Benefits of Fracking (2014, background): “(84) analyzed groundwater wells for 68 homes overlying the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania.”
Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction (2013, background): “The observed gas composition in groundwater samples also had a substantially higher proportion of propane relative to ethane than water from the Salt Springs State Park, which is known to have historic methane-rich discharges (11, 37) (Fig.”
Fossil fuel depletion and socio-economic scenarios: An integrated approach (2014, background): “In scenarios that prioritize the environment over the economy, we consider that unconventional fuels are not extracted at larger levels than the “Best Guess” case (e.g. (Olmstead et al., 2013; Osborn et al., 2011)).”