TY - JOUR
T1 - Detecting anomalous methane in groundwater within hydrocarbon production areas across the United States
AU - Wen, Tao
AU - Liu, Mengqi
AU - Woda, Josh
AU - Zheng, Guanjie
AU - Brantley, Susan L.
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding was derived from the National Science Foundation IIS-16-39150 and US Geological Survey (104b award G16AP00079) through the Pennsylvania Water Resource Research Center to S.L.B. and Zhenhui Li. T.W. was supported by the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences Dean's Fund for Postdoc-Facilitated Innovation at Penn State and by NSF IIS-16-39150. We thank Alison Herman and Marcus Guarnieri (Penn State University) for data management. Bruce Lindsey (US Geological Survey), Seth Pelepko and Stew Beattie (PA DEP), and Jean-Philippe Nicot (Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin) are acknowledged for access and help with data, Maurie Kelly and James Spayd (Penn State University) for help with data publication and storage.
Funding Information:
Funding was derived from the National Science Foundation IIS-16-39150 and US Geological Survey (104b award G16AP00079) through the Pennsylvania Water Resource Research Center to S.L.B. and Zhenhui Li. T.W. was supported by the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences Dean's Fund for Postdoc-Facilitated Innovation at Penn State and by NSF IIS-16-39150. We thank Alison Herman and Marcus Guarnieri (Penn State University) for data management. Bruce Lindsey (US Geological Survey), Seth Pelepko and Stew Beattie (PA DEP), and Jean-Philippe Nicot (Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin) are acknowledged for access and help with data, Maurie Kelly and James Spayd (Penn State University) for help with data publication and storage.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2021/7/15
Y1 - 2021/7/15
N2 - Numerous geochemical approaches have been proposed to ascertain if methane concentrations in groundwater, [CH4], are anomalous, i.e., migrated from hydrocarbon production wells, rather than derived from natural sources. We propose a machine-learning model to consider alkalinity, Ca, Mg, Na, Ba, Fe, Mn, Cl, sulfate, TDS, specific conductance, pH, temperature, and turbidity holistically together. The model, an ensemble of sub-models targeting one parameter pair per sub-model, was trained with groundwater chemistry from Pennsylvania (n=19,086) and a set of 16 analyses from putatively contaminated groundwater. For cases where [CH4] ≥ 10 mg/L, salinity- and redox-related parameters sometimes show that CH4 may have moved into the aquifer recently and separately from natural brine migration, i.e., anomalous CH4. We applied the model to validation and hold-out data for Pennsylvania (n=4,786) and groundwater data from three other gas-producing states: New York (n=203), Texas (n=688), and Colorado (n=10,258). The applications show that 1.4%, 1.3%, 0%, and 0.9% of tested samples in these four states, respectively, have high [CH4] and are ≥50% likely to have been impacted by gas migrated from exploited reservoirs. If our approach is indeed successful in flagging anomalous CH4, we conclude that: i) the frequency of anomalous CH4 (# flagged water samples / total samples tested) in the Appalachian Basin is similar in areas where gas wells target unconventional as compared to conventional reservoirs, and ii) the frequency of anomalous CH4 in Pennsylvania is higher than in Texas + Colorado. We cannot, however, exclude the possibility that differences among regions might be affected by differences in data volumes. Machine learning models will become increasingly useful in informing decision-making for shale gas development.
AB - Numerous geochemical approaches have been proposed to ascertain if methane concentrations in groundwater, [CH4], are anomalous, i.e., migrated from hydrocarbon production wells, rather than derived from natural sources. We propose a machine-learning model to consider alkalinity, Ca, Mg, Na, Ba, Fe, Mn, Cl, sulfate, TDS, specific conductance, pH, temperature, and turbidity holistically together. The model, an ensemble of sub-models targeting one parameter pair per sub-model, was trained with groundwater chemistry from Pennsylvania (n=19,086) and a set of 16 analyses from putatively contaminated groundwater. For cases where [CH4] ≥ 10 mg/L, salinity- and redox-related parameters sometimes show that CH4 may have moved into the aquifer recently and separately from natural brine migration, i.e., anomalous CH4. We applied the model to validation and hold-out data for Pennsylvania (n=4,786) and groundwater data from three other gas-producing states: New York (n=203), Texas (n=688), and Colorado (n=10,258). The applications show that 1.4%, 1.3%, 0%, and 0.9% of tested samples in these four states, respectively, have high [CH4] and are ≥50% likely to have been impacted by gas migrated from exploited reservoirs. If our approach is indeed successful in flagging anomalous CH4, we conclude that: i) the frequency of anomalous CH4 (# flagged water samples / total samples tested) in the Appalachian Basin is similar in areas where gas wells target unconventional as compared to conventional reservoirs, and ii) the frequency of anomalous CH4 in Pennsylvania is higher than in Texas + Colorado. We cannot, however, exclude the possibility that differences among regions might be affected by differences in data volumes. Machine learning models will become increasingly useful in informing decision-making for shale gas development.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85107153795&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85107153795&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.watres.2021.117236
DO - 10.1016/j.watres.2021.117236
M3 - Article
C2 - 34062403
AN - SCOPUS:85107153795
SN - 0043-1354
VL - 200
JO - Water Research
JF - Water Research
M1 - 117236
ER -