Pathways and Environmental Impacts of Methane Migration: Case Studies in the Marcellus Shale, USA

Gas migration incidents, particularly stream contamination cases, have been rarely investigated and gone through the peer review process, with the exception of three sites in northeast Pennsylvania (Dimock and two Sugar Runs in Lycoming and Bradford counties, respectively) where air emission surveys...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Patrick A. Hammond, Tao Wen, Josh Woda, David Oakley
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2024-01-01
Series:Geofluids
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2024/9290873
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850229014101229568
author Patrick A. Hammond
Tao Wen
Josh Woda
David Oakley
author_facet Patrick A. Hammond
Tao Wen
Josh Woda
David Oakley
author_sort Patrick A. Hammond
collection DOAJ
description Gas migration incidents, particularly stream contamination cases, have been rarely investigated and gone through the peer review process, with the exception of three sites in northeast Pennsylvania (Dimock and two Sugar Runs in Lycoming and Bradford counties, respectively) where air emission surveys, dissolved methane measurements, and structural (hydro)geologic interpretations have been used to demonstrate potential environmental impacts due to shale gas operations. In addition to reviewing previously published work from these three sites, we report and analyze unpublished new data trying to determine if a direct relationship between methane migration, stream contamination, and air emissions exists at those sites. Our analysis indicates that subsurface methane migration, stream methane contamination, and air emissions might not be all present or detectable at a faulty/leaky shale gas well. Which of these signs of contamination, if any, exist is largely controlled by the local (hydro)geologic conditions. In each case, the most likely migration pathway was from gas charged zones up well annular spaces to confined permeable formations, then laterally to a direct discharge or by vertically controlled joints to streams, water wells, and the atmosphere. The confining units act as barriers to the buoyant movement of stray gases, allowing subsurface travel of gas for 1–4 km from a leaky gas well. The knowledge we learn from these three sites can guide the future investigations of methane contamination cases in other regions.
format Article
id doaj-art-263ca0cf513f483ca1da2d266a5faba2
institution OA Journals
issn 1468-8123
language English
publishDate 2024-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Geofluids
spelling doaj-art-263ca0cf513f483ca1da2d266a5faba22025-08-20T02:04:21ZengWileyGeofluids1468-81232024-01-01202410.1155/2024/9290873Pathways and Environmental Impacts of Methane Migration: Case Studies in the Marcellus Shale, USAPatrick A. Hammond0Tao Wen1Josh Woda2David Oakley3Maryland Department of the EnvironmentDepartment of Earth and Environmental SciencesDepartment of GeosciencesDepartment of Energy ResourcesGas migration incidents, particularly stream contamination cases, have been rarely investigated and gone through the peer review process, with the exception of three sites in northeast Pennsylvania (Dimock and two Sugar Runs in Lycoming and Bradford counties, respectively) where air emission surveys, dissolved methane measurements, and structural (hydro)geologic interpretations have been used to demonstrate potential environmental impacts due to shale gas operations. In addition to reviewing previously published work from these three sites, we report and analyze unpublished new data trying to determine if a direct relationship between methane migration, stream contamination, and air emissions exists at those sites. Our analysis indicates that subsurface methane migration, stream methane contamination, and air emissions might not be all present or detectable at a faulty/leaky shale gas well. Which of these signs of contamination, if any, exist is largely controlled by the local (hydro)geologic conditions. In each case, the most likely migration pathway was from gas charged zones up well annular spaces to confined permeable formations, then laterally to a direct discharge or by vertically controlled joints to streams, water wells, and the atmosphere. The confining units act as barriers to the buoyant movement of stray gases, allowing subsurface travel of gas for 1–4 km from a leaky gas well. The knowledge we learn from these three sites can guide the future investigations of methane contamination cases in other regions.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2024/9290873
spellingShingle Patrick A. Hammond
Tao Wen
Josh Woda
David Oakley
Pathways and Environmental Impacts of Methane Migration: Case Studies in the Marcellus Shale, USA
Geofluids
title Pathways and Environmental Impacts of Methane Migration: Case Studies in the Marcellus Shale, USA
title_full Pathways and Environmental Impacts of Methane Migration: Case Studies in the Marcellus Shale, USA
title_fullStr Pathways and Environmental Impacts of Methane Migration: Case Studies in the Marcellus Shale, USA
title_full_unstemmed Pathways and Environmental Impacts of Methane Migration: Case Studies in the Marcellus Shale, USA
title_short Pathways and Environmental Impacts of Methane Migration: Case Studies in the Marcellus Shale, USA
title_sort pathways and environmental impacts of methane migration case studies in the marcellus shale usa
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2024/9290873
work_keys_str_mv AT patrickahammond pathwaysandenvironmentalimpactsofmethanemigrationcasestudiesinthemarcellusshaleusa
AT taowen pathwaysandenvironmentalimpactsofmethanemigrationcasestudiesinthemarcellusshaleusa
AT joshwoda pathwaysandenvironmentalimpactsofmethanemigrationcasestudiesinthemarcellusshaleusa
AT davidoakley pathwaysandenvironmentalimpactsofmethanemigrationcasestudiesinthemarcellusshaleusa