Penn State Finds Next to No New Methane Contamination

Tom Shepstone
Natural Gas NOW


Penn State has identified a method of determining whether methane contamination of water wells is new or not and found almost none of it is in gas regions.

When shale gas drilling began in earnest in Pennsylvania over a decade ago, some gas companies unfamiliar with existing shallow methane issues common to our state, left themselves vulnerable by not doing enough baseline water testing. Absent this documentation they later found themselves open to charges they had created methane problems that, in fact, may have already existed. Now, a Penn State study has learned a way to separate the wheat from the chaff by identifying what is new and old methane contamination.

Penn State

The Penn State study is entitled “Exploring How to Use Groundwater Chemistry to Identify Migration of Methane near Shale Gas Wells in the Appalachian Basin” and was funded by the National Science Foundation and USGS, two independent institutions. Here is how Penn State summarizes it (emphasis added):

A new testing protocol that uses existing, affordable water chemistry tests can help scientists and regulators detect sites showing evidence of new methane gas leaks caused by oil and gas drilling, according to Penn State researchers.

The researchers took a testing protocol they had described in a paper last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and applied it to a much larger dataset of domestic water wells in three regions of Pennsylvania impacted by the fossil fuel industry. They looked for certain chemical constituents in the test results to determine if methane may have impacted the sites when the samples were collected. They published their findings in the journal Environmental Science & Technology and for the first time made public the datasets.

The scientists wanted to see what percentage of the water wells showed certain chemical changes that could indicate new methane contamination, like that which can occur during drilling and extraction of fossil fuels, and not pre-existing methane that is commonly found in Pennsylvania water.

“We expected to see few sites, less than 1%, showing evidence of new methane,” said Tao Wen, a postdoctoral scholar in the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute at Penn State. “We found 17 out of 20,751 samples, or about 0.08%, that showed possible signs of methane contamination when those samples were collected.”

Unconventional shale gas wells dominate northeast Pennsylvania, whereas conventional oil and gas wells, including the first commercial oil well in the United States, dominate the northwest. The southwest has both conventional and unconventional oil and gas wells and a significant coal mining history.

The researchers divided the water samples into five types. The two types that the scientists defined as samples most likely impacted by new methane contained high methane and sulfate levels and either low or high iron levels.

“It’s not uncommon to see methane in groundwater in the Marcellus shale and other shale plays,” Wen said. “Also, if methane had been in the groundwater for a long time, bacteria would have reduced the iron and sulfate. The reduced forms would have precipitated as iron sulfide, or pyrite.”

The researchers classified low-methane samples, where methane measured less than 10 parts per million, as low priority samples. The other two types not impacted by new methane contained high amounts of methane and either high salts, indicating naturally occurring methane not caused by energy extraction, or freshwater and low sulfate levels, meaning that the methane had been there for a time.

Of the 17 samples that came back positive for new methane, 13 came from the northeast. None came from sites within 2,500 feet of known problematic gas wells. State law holds oil and gas companies responsible for methane leaks that affect wells within that 2,500-foot area. The researchers’ findings suggest that methane may migrate farther than previously thought if the new methane was derived from these known problematic gas wells. Only intensive field investigations could show whether this happened.

The testing protocol can act as an effective screening tool for methane contamination and narrow the window for a more in-depth analysis, such as using carbon-stable or noble gas isotopes, according to Wen.

“We focus on the Marcellus shale, but this testing protocol has the potential to be applied to other shale plays in the United States and other countries,” he said. “It can benefit the global community.”

Recent master’s degree graduate Josh Woda and current doctoral student Virginia Macron, Department of Geosciences; Xianzeng Niu, Earth and Environmental Systems Institute; Zhenhui Li, College of Information Sciences and Technology; and Susan Brantley, distinguished professor of geosciences and director of the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, contributed to the study.

You read that correctly; less than one-tenth of one percent of wells showed new methane contamination and those were all located more than 2,500 feet from gas wells! That is nothing less than incredible. There’s something else, too. Older methane contamination that pre-exists such new contamination results in iron sulfide in your well and produces water of the sort some folks have hauled around in plastic jugs and claimed to be caused by fracking.

This is not to say gas drilling can’t interfere with natural methane migration, but it’s rare, especially now with multiple strings of casings. Moreover, we know data gathered by the University of Cincinnati also “found no evidence of natural gas contamination from recent oil and gas drilling.” It’s all getting to be old news in fact, isn’t it?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

5 thoughts on “Penn State Finds Next to No New Methane Contamination

  1. There is No transparency at all by the gas co or Dep!
    There doesn’t seem to be any oversight either. If things were done properly in the beginning this wouldn’t have happened.
    Had the Dep had some knowledgeable people around in the beginning in 2008 instead of the puppet who claimed “I’m just learning “ this wouldn’t have happened like this.
    Did anyone look into the 1 1/2 yr Gw vistas methane migration investigation done by Pa Dep & the gas Co? File a RTK request and check it out.

  2. Is there any more or less transparency in government subsidized so called “green energy” projects like wind and solar?
    Solar is a prime example of an intermittent energy source that produces long lasting hazardous waste that has yet to be systematically dealt with.
    In NY, NYSERDA is quite mum about the residual affects and how much overall environmental damage is done when you also consider vastness and the eventual end of life of the cells, land taken out of production, negative impacts to local habitat, erosion due to lack of vegetation which leads to compromising water quality.

    The same can be said about wind turbines since they also negatively impact endangered bats and birds.

    Add in the need to build additional electrical transmission rights of way (clear cutting) emitting suspected cancer causing electromagnetic radiation, and you have the ingredients for a demonstration for “concerned environmental activists”, provided that the issues were not politicized.

  3. If people did things on your property or to your well or did a 11/2 yr investigation while shutting off your well you would want all the information. You wouldn’t want to be refused it.

    • Right. We need full disclosure of what happens next to our homes especially with industrial activity.

      We need better alternatives for energy and not sites next to our homes…
      that mpact our lives in various negative ways.

      We have 500 ;plus gas sites in our county and not 500 wind turbines or 500 solar instalations…

      This gas industry is too invasive and lifestyle altering to be acceptable.

      If it’s acceptable to you, Spuds, then have them surround you with their industrial activity and installations.

      They were not invited into our county. They invaded and still invading and parading around like their a godsend or a savior.

      Visit Debbie Maye and ask her about the impacts to her area and home and see how less than wonderful it is.
      your eyes have been blinded by the possible monetary offers.

  4. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #397 -

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *