Researchers Develop Affordable, Less-intensive Methane Detection Procedure

Published on by in Academic

Researchers Develop Affordable, Less-intensive Methane Detection Procedure

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.

By Francisco Tutella, Penn State News

methane.jpg
Tao Wen (right), a postdoctoral scholar in the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute at Penn State, examines a dead vegetation zone on a farm in the Gregs Run watershed, Lycoming County. Image source: Josh Woda, Pen State

The researchers took a testing protocol they had described in a paper last year in the P roceedings 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.

The National Science Foundation and U.S. Geological Survey funded this research.

Reference :

Source: Penn State News

Media

Taxonomy

1 Comment

  1. It is good fire safety and efficiency to reduce leakages! Cost effective technology is always a win. 
    Scientific and Non Technical Risk Assessment perspective.  Methane a Non Problem. Other than flammability. I could never find a Bio-essay study on Methane and ecotoxicity! 
    Baseline Testing!! Possibly the real beneficial use of this technology! What if the gas was leaking already and that is why it is a viable gas drilling location?
    It is always good to do baseline testing of any bubbling from the soil - prior to any operations including vibroseis! The reason: the highly paid environmentalists are oftentimes in the employ of International companies that do not want competition to their imports, and will readily send in a circus to disrupt the exploration (as experienced in a New Brunswick play). 
    Any methane leaks could be blamed on an operator - and they could lose millions, even though Methane is inconsequential!
    A flame works as a failsafe test in the case of minor bubbling away from wellheads of course I am talking before any alterations to the land. I have done this at a location and observed flammable bubbling.  
    Secondly beware the Chinese state is complicit in the Carbon scam; and would readily disrupt and Western projects - to gain the advantage by using Carbon Credits and Grants to reverse engineer CCS infrastructure - such as was the case in South Dakota. All this with Imminent Domain and I personally am certain that the CO2 injection wells would simply be Fracked and then plugged into the gas grid and there would be a major new player that sneaked in with CO2 taxes fraudulently extorted from White Western Civilization at the expense of our de-industrialization. 

    More on the Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Global Warming fraud: 
    https://www.thegwpf.org/publications/the-state-of-the-climate-2022/
    https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WCD-version-081423.pdf
    https://clintel.nl/al-17-jaar-geen-afname-meer-in-zeeijs-rond-de-noordpool/
    https://sciencetalks.nl/greenhouse-gas-co2-should-not-be-feared/#comment-272
    https://klimarealistene.com/vager-politikerne-a-lytte-til-ssb/
    https://sciencetalks.nl/590-2/
    https://www.climategate.nl/
    https://co2coalition.org/media/how-co2-saves-the-earth-greenhouse-gas-have-vital-warming-cooling-effects/
    https://co2coalition.org/media/methane-the-irrelevant-green-house-gas/
    https://www.icsc-canada.com/
    https://c-c-netzwerk.ch/images/ccn-blog_articles/717/Confessions-Nakamura.pdf
    https://klimarealisme.dk/2023/10/17/klimakampens-selvpinere-og-missionaerer/
    https://www.icsc-canada.com/
    https://rairfoundation.com/all-the-facts-you-need-to-debunk-climate-change-scammers-video/
    https://www.icsf.ie/useful-links
    https://www.climategate.nl/
    https://co2coalition.org/media/how-co2-saves-the-earth-greenhouse-gas-have-vital-warming-cooling-effects/
    https://co2coalition.org/media/methane-the-irrelevant-green-house-gas/

    Book: The Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on:“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura. Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”From 1990 to 2014, Nakamura worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology. He has published 20+ climate papers on fluid dynamics. There is no questioning the man’s credibility or knowledge base. Today’s ‘global warming science’ is akin to an upside down pyramid which is built on the work of a few climate modelers. These AGW pioneers claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recently rising temperatures and have then simply projected that warming forward. Every climate researcher thereafter has taken the results of these original models as a given, and we’re even at the stage now where merely testing their validity is regarded as heresy.
    https://c-c-netzwerk.ch/images/ccn-blog_articles/717/Confessions-Nakamura.pdf

    Thank you for sharing your insights! I would be glad to work on air emissions and water treatment from Oil Shale and Shale Oil and Gas; as these are still abundant resources!