May 17, 2011 | vol. 108 | no. 20 | Stephen G. Osborn*, Avner Vengoshb, Nathaniel R. Warnerb, and Robert B. Jacksona,b,c,1
This article discusses the contamination of drinking water with methane due to gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Researchers from Duke University analyzed drinking water samples from Pennsylvania and New York, focusing on areas with active and nonactive gas extraction. They found that methane concentrations in drinking water wells near active gas wells were significantly higher than in nonactive areas. In active areas, methane concentrations averaged 19.2 mg CH4 L−1, with a maximum of 64 mg CH4 L−1, which is a potential explosion hazard. In contrast, nonactive areas had much lower concentrations, averaging 1.1 mg L−1. The isotopic signatures of methane in active areas were more consistent with deeper thermogenic methane sources, such as the Marcellus and Utica shales, while nonactive areas showed more biogenic or mixed sources. The study also found no evidence of contamination from deep saline brines or fracturing fluids. The researchers concluded that greater stewardship, data collection, and possibly regulation are needed to ensure the sustainable future of shale-gas extraction and to improve public confidence in its use. The study highlights the environmental risks associated with shale-gas exploration and the importance of monitoring and regulating gas-well drilling to protect groundwater resources.This article discusses the contamination of drinking water with methane due to gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Researchers from Duke University analyzed drinking water samples from Pennsylvania and New York, focusing on areas with active and nonactive gas extraction. They found that methane concentrations in drinking water wells near active gas wells were significantly higher than in nonactive areas. In active areas, methane concentrations averaged 19.2 mg CH4 L−1, with a maximum of 64 mg CH4 L−1, which is a potential explosion hazard. In contrast, nonactive areas had much lower concentrations, averaging 1.1 mg L−1. The isotopic signatures of methane in active areas were more consistent with deeper thermogenic methane sources, such as the Marcellus and Utica shales, while nonactive areas showed more biogenic or mixed sources. The study also found no evidence of contamination from deep saline brines or fracturing fluids. The researchers concluded that greater stewardship, data collection, and possibly regulation are needed to ensure the sustainable future of shale-gas extraction and to improve public confidence in its use. The study highlights the environmental risks associated with shale-gas exploration and the importance of monitoring and regulating gas-well drilling to protect groundwater resources.