Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Mobility and persistence of methane in groundwater in a controlled-release field experiment

Nature Geoscience volume 10, pages 289–294 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Expansion of shale gas extraction has fuelled global concern about the potential impact of fugitive methane on groundwater and climate. Although methane leakage from wells is well documented, the consequences on groundwater remain sparsely studied and are thought by some to be minor. Here we present the results of a 72-day methane gas injection experiment into a shallow, flat-lying sand aquifer. In our experiment, although a significant fraction of methane vented to the atmosphere, an equal portion remained in the groundwater. We find that methane migration in the aquifer was governed by subtle grain-scale bedding that impeded buoyant free-phase gas flow and led to episodic releases of free-phase gas. The result was lateral migration of gas beyond that expected by groundwater advection alone. Methane persisted in the groundwater zone despite active growth of methanotrophic bacteria, although much of the methane that vented into the vadose zone was oxidized. Our findings demonstrate that even small-volume releases of methane gas can cause extensive and persistent free phase and solute plumes emanating from leaks that are detectable only by contaminant hydrogeology monitoring at high resolution.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Hydrologic setting and experimental set-up of the methane injection experiment.
Figure 2: Aqueous methane [CH4](aq) concentrations and total dissolved gas pressure (PTDG) of the groundwater during methane injection and recovery periods.
Figure 3: Measured methane efflux to atmosphere during injection.
Figure 4: GPR response associated with gas-phase methane accumulation extending downgradient from the injection points.
Figure 5: Microbial response to injected methane gas in groundwater samples.
Figure 6: Conceptual model of a continuous methane leak in an unconfined freshwater aquifer.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Malakoff, D. The gas surge. Science 344, 1464–1467 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Vidic, R. D., Brantley, S. L., Vandenbossche, J. M., Yoxtheimer, D. & Abad, J. D. Impact of shale gas development on regional water quality. Science 340 (2013).

  3. Jackson, R. E. et al. Groundwater protection and unconventional gas extraction: the critical need for field-based hydrogeological research. Ground Water 51, 488–510 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dusseault, M. B., Gray, M. N. & Nawrocki, P. A. Why Oilwells Leak: Cement Behavior and Long-Term Consequences (Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dusseault, M., Jackson, R. & MacDonald, D. Towards a Road Map for Mitigating the Rates and Occurrences of Long-Term Wellbore Leakage Special Report (Univ. Waterloo, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Osborn, S. G., Vengosh, A., Warner, N. R. & Jackson, R. B. Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 8172–8176 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Darrah, T. H., Vengosh, A., Jackson, R. B., Warner, N. R. & Poreda, R. J. Noble gases identify the mechanisms of fugitive gas contamination in drinking-water wells overlying the Marcellus and Barnett Shales. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 14076–14081 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Heilweil, V. M. et al. Stream measurements locate thermogenic methane fluxes in groundwater discharge in an area of shale-gas development. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 4057–4065 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Heilweil, V. M. et al. A stream-based methane monitoring approach for evaluating groundwater impacts associated with unconventional gas development. Ground Water 51, 511–524 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Humez, P. B. et al. Occurrence and origin of methane in groundwater in Alberta (Canada): gas geochemical and isotopic approaches. Sci. Total Environ. 541, 1253–1268 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Roy, N., Molson, J., Lemieux, J.-M., Van Stempvoort, A. & Nowamooz, A. Three-dimensional numerical simulations of methane gas migration from decommissioned hydrocarbon production wells into shallow aquifers. Wat. Resour. Res. 52, 5598–5618 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shale Gas Extraction in the UK: A Review of Hydraulic Fracturing DES2597 (The Royal Society, The Royal Academy of Engineering, 2012).

  13. Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction in Canada. The Expert Panel on Harnessing Science and Technology to Understand the Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction (Council of Canadian Academies, 2014).

  14. Nowamooz, A., Lemieux, J. M., Molson, J. & Therrien, R. Numerical investigation of methane and formation fluid leakage along the casing of a decommissioned shale gas well. Wat. Resour. Res. 51, 4592–4622 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ingraffea, A. R., Wells, M. T., Santoro, R. L. & Shonkoff, S.B. C. Assessment and risk analysis of casing and cement impairment in oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania, 2000–2012. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 10955–10960 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Caulton, D. R. et al. Toward a better understanding and quantification of methane emissions from shale gas development. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 6237–6242 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jackson, R. B. et al. Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 11250–11255 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Molofsky, L. J., Connor, J. A., Wylie, A. S., Wagner, T. & Farhat, S. K. Evaluation of methane sources in groundwater in northeastern Pennsylvania. Ground Water 51, 333–349 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jackson, R. E. & Heagle, D. J. Sampling domestic/farm wells for baseline groundwater quality and fugitive gas. Hydrogeol. J. 24, 269–272 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Siegel, D. I., Azzolina, N. A., Smith, B. J., Perry, A. E. & Bothun, R. L. Methane concentrations in water wells unrelated to proximity to existing oil and gas wells in northeastern Pennsylvania. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 4106–4112 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Parker, B. L., Cherry, J. A. & Chapman, S. W. Discrete fracture network approach for studying contamination in fractured rock. AQUA Mundi 3, 101–116 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cherry, J. A., Gillham, G. W., Anderson, E. G. & Johnson, P. E. Migration of contaminants in groundwater at a landfill: A case study: 2. Groundwater monitoring devices. J. Hydrol. 63, 31–49 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sudicky, E. A. & Illman, W. A. Lessons learned from a suite of CFB Borden experiments. Ground Water 49, 630–648 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tomlinson, D. W., Thomson, N. R., Johnson, R. L. & Redman, J. D. Air distribution in the Borden aquifer during in situ air sparging. J. Contam. Hydrol. 67, 113–132 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cahill, A. G., Marker, P. & Jakobsen, R. Hydrogeochemical and mineralogical effects of sustained CO2 contamination in a shallow sandy aquifer: a field-scale controlled release experiment. Wat. Resour. Res. 50, 1735–1755 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Manning, A. H., Kip Solomon, D. & Sheldon, A. L. Applications of a total dissolved gas pressure probe in ground water studies. Ground Water 41, 440–448 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Eltschlager, K. K., Hawkins, J. W., Ehler, C. & Baldassare, F. Technical Measures for the Investigation and Mitigation of Fugitive Methane Hazards in Areas of Coal Mining (Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Thomson, N. R. & Johnson, R. L. Air distribution during in situ air sparging: an overview of mathematical modeling. J. Hazar. Mater. 72, 265–282 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. McCray, J. E. Mathematical modeling of air sparging for subsurface remediation: state of the art. J. Hazards Mater. 72, 237–263 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Johnson, P. C., Das, A. & Bruce, C. Effect of flow rate changes and pulsing on the treatment of source zones by in situ air sparging. Environ. Sci. Technol. 33, 1726–1731 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Cahill, A. G., Jakobsen, R., Mathiesen, T. B. & Jensen, C. K. Risks attributable to water quality changes in shallow potable aquifers from geologic carbon sequestration leakage into sediments of variable carbonate content. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control. 19, 117–125 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Beck, D. A. C. et al. A metagenomic insight into freshwater methane-utilizing communities and evidence for cooperation between the Methylococcaceae and the Methylophilaceae. PeerJ 1, e23 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Oshkin, I. Y. et al. Methane-fed microbial microcosms show differential community dynamics and pinpoint taxa involved in communal response. ISME J. 9, 1119–1129 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. MacFarlane, D. S., Cherry, J. A., Gillham, R. W. & Sudicky, E. A. Migration of contaminants in groundwater at a landfill: a case study: 1. Groundwater flow and plume delineation. J. Hydrol. 63, 1–29 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sheriff, R. E. & Geldart, L. P. Exploration Seismology (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. Cassidy, N. J. Ground Penetrating Radar: Theory and Applications (ed. Jol, H. M.) 41–72 (Elsevier, 2009).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  37. Thomson, N. R. & Johnson, R. L. Air distribution during in situ air sparging: an overview of mathematical modeling. J. Hazards Mat. 72, 265–282 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Porter, K. G. & Feig, Y. S. The use of DAPI for identifying and counting aquatic microflora. Limnol. Oceanogr. 25, 943–948 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sihota, N. J., Mayer, K. U., Toso, M. A. & Atwater, J. F. Methane emissions and contaminant degradation rates at sites affected by accidental releases of denatured fuel-grade ethanol. J. Contam. Hydrol. 151, 1–15 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Takahashi, S., Tomita, J., Nishioka, K., Hisada, T. & Nishijima, M. Development of a prokaryotic universal primer for simultaneous analysis of bacteria and archaea using next-generation sequencing. PLos ONE 9, e105592 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Schloss, P. D. et al. Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75, 7537–7541 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Edgar, R. C. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26, 2460–2461 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Edgar, R. C. UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat. Methods 10, 996–998 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Strategic Project Grant no. 463045-14. Additional support was provided by the AITF/Eyes High Postdoctoral Fellowship programme (S.E.R.), the Campus Alberta Innovation Chair Program (M.S.), the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (M.S.), the Alberta Small Equipment Grant Program (M.S.), NSERC Discovery Grant (M.S.) and a Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship (C.M.S.). Special thanks for field assistance are given to A. Haggman, B. Ladd, D. Klazinga, T. Cheung, A. Verdin, R. Ingleton and P. Johnson.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. G360 Institute for Groundwater Research, University of Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada

    Aaron G. Cahill, Colby M. Steelman, John A. Cherry & Beth L. Parker

  2. Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science, University of British Columbia, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada

    Aaron G. Cahill, Olenka Forde & K. Ulrich Mayer

  3. Department of Geoscience, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada

    Olukayode Kuloyo, S. Emil Ruff, Bernhard Mayer, Marc Strous & M. Cathryn Ryan

Authors
  1. Aaron G. Cahill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Colby M. Steelman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Olenka Forde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Olukayode Kuloyo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Emil Ruff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bernhard Mayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. K. Ulrich Mayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Marc Strous
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. M. Cathryn Ryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. John A. Cherry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Beth L. Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.G.C., B.L.P. and J.A.C. conceived, designed, installed and oversaw the experiment. A.G.C., C.M.S., O.F., O.K. and S.E.R. collected and processed all field data. All authors interpreted the multi-disciplinary data sets. A.G.C., B.L.P., J.A.C. and C.M.S. generated the first draft of the manuscript before all authors contributed to refinement and finalization.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beth L. Parker.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 1191 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cahill, A., Steelman, C., Forde, O. et al. Mobility and persistence of methane in groundwater in a controlled-release field experiment. Nature Geosci 10, 289–294 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2919

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2919

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene