Shale-Gas Experience as an Analog for Potential Wellbore Integrity Issues in CO2 Sequestration

J. William Carey∗ Hans J. Ziock and Wendy Simpson ,
Earth and Environmental Sciences Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM, USA

submitted to 10th Annual Carbon Capture & Sequestration Conference, May 2-5, 2011, Pittsburgh, PA LA-UR-11-10378

Corresponding author: bcarey@lanl.gov

Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration
Abstract

April 12, 2011

Shale-gas development in Pennsylvania since 2003 has resulted in about 19 documented cases of methane migration from the deep subsurface (7,000 ) to drinking water aquifers, soils, domestic water wells, and buildings, including one explosion. In all documented cases, the methane leakage was due to inadequate wellbore integrity, possibly aggravated by hydrofracking. The leakage of methane is instructive on the potential for CO2 leakage from sequestration operations. Although there are important differences between the two systems, both involve migrating, buoyant gas with wells being a primary leakage pathway. The shale-gas experience demonstrates that gas migration from faulty wells can be rapid and can have significant impacts on water quality and human health and safety. Approximately 1.4% of the 2,200 wells drilled into Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Formation for shale gas have been implicated in methane leakage. These have resulted in damage to over 30 domestic water supplies and have required significant remediation via well repair and homeowner compensation. The majority of the wellbore integrity problems are a result of over-pressurization of the wells, meaning that high-pressure gas has migrated into an improperly protected wellbore annulus. The pressurized gas leaks from the wellbore into the shallow subsurface, contaminating drinking water or entering structures. The effects are localized to a few thousands of feet to perhaps two-three miles. The degree of mixing between the drinking water and methane is sufficient that significant chemical impacts are created in terms of elevated Fe and Mn and the formation of black precipitates (metal sulfides) as well as effervescing in tap water. Thus it appears likely that leaking CO2 could also result in deteriorated water quality by a similar mixing process. The problems in Pennsylvania highlight the critical importance of obtaining background data on water quality as well as on problems associated with previous (legacy) oil and gas operations. The great majority of the leakage issues in Pennsylvania are due to improperly abandoned wells, however in the media there is no clear distinction between past and present problems. In any case, significant analytical work is required to attribute differing sources of methane (or CO2 in the case of sequestration). In Pennsylvania, a relatively lax regulatory environment appears to have contributed to the problem with inadequate oversight of well design and testing to ensure well integrity. New rules were adopted at the end of 2010, and it will be interesting to observe whether methane leakage problems are significantly reduced.

submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference, Pittsburgh, 2011

-1-

Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration

April 12, 2011

Contents
1 Introduction 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Shale-Gas Production and the Marcellus Formation in Pennsylvania . . . . Rationale for shale-gas as a CO2 sequestration analog . . . . . . . . . . . . Impact of methane on drinking water chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences between CO2 sequestration and the shale-gas environment . . . 1.4.1 1.4.2 1.4.3 Typical CO2 sequestration values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical gas shale reservoir and production values . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 7 10 12 12 14

Comparison of Sequestration Needs and Gas Shale Well and Reservoirs 15

2 Shale-Gas Methane Leakage and Groundwater Contamination Incidents 17 2.1 2.2 2.3 Case History: Bainbridge, Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case History: Dimock, Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bradford, Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Legacy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 34 38 39 39 42 42

3 Discussion and Implications for CO2 Sequestration 3.1 Comparison to Barnett and other shale gas experience . . . . . . . . . . .

4 Acknowledgments

submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference, Pittsburgh, 2011

-2-

Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration

April 12, 2011

1

Introduction

Additional information found since this was written: Osborn et al. (2011): Definitive demonstration of association of methane in drinking water and nearby shale-gas operations. No evidence of hydrofracking fluids in well water found. Implication is faulty wells or complex path to surface initiated by connecting old wells and fractures. In recent years, there has been tremendous growth in production and reserves of natural gas from shale. These resources are regarded as “unconventional” because traditional means of producing the gas do not apply. Already in 2008, shale gas accounted for about 7% of natural gas production in the United States (1.5 of an approximate 22 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) total; http://www.eia.gov). Estimates of the shale-gas resource continue to grow with greatly expanded drilling and production activity. In recent years, there has been significant controversy over environmental problems associated with shale gas development (e.g., the film “Gasland”) based upon the practice of hydrofracking (pressurizing and fracturing the shale to produce methane), the proprietary chemical constituents in hydrofracking fluids, and the escape of methane to the shallow subsurface. While there is a great deal of confusion as to the sources, frequencies, and causes of these environmental problems, by far the greatest issues are surface-based spills of hydrofracking fluid, diesel fuel, and production water (e.g., Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, PADEP, 2010b). However, there are well-publicized incidents of methane gas leakage into drinking water aquifers and homes leading to explosions, flammable tap water and degraded water quality. Methane leakage provides an interesting analog to potential leakage of CO2 in geologic sequestration. Both cases involve escape of gas from the subsurface with potentially deleterious impacts to drinking water resources and to human health. In both cases, wellbore leakage is one of the primary avenues for gas escape. In this paper, we draw on this analogy to provide insight into potential risks associated with CO2 sequestration particularly via problems with wellbore integrity, while also looking for evidence of leakage through other routes such as faults. We begin with background on shale gas production and changes to water chemistry induced by methane, and we discuss the limitations of the analogy between methane and CO2 leakage. We then focus on the experience of shale gas development in the Marcellus Formation in Pennsylvania and Ohio. In this section, we develop a sense of the frequency of leakage problems, the likely cause of the leaks, the impacts on groundwater quality, and the impacts on homeowners. We then discuss the factors that led to the leakage problems, and finish with a discussion of the lessons learned applicable to the CO2 sequestration community.

submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference, Pittsburgh, 2011

-3-

most of the public concerns about shale-gas development have been associated with production from the Marcellus Formation. 2010 Figure 1: Major shale-gas basins in the United States published by the Energy Information Administration (from http://www. Antrim. 2009). and Haynesville. the Marcellus Formation is estimated to be the single largest shale gas reserve in the US at 262 Tcf (NETL. Lower 48 States Montana Thrust Belt Cody Williston Basin Gammon Greater Green River Basin Uinta Basin Mancos HilliardBaxterMancos Michigan Basin Forest City Basin Antrim Appalachian Basin Devonian (Ohio) Utica Hermosa Paradox Basin Lewis Piceance Basin Pierre Raton Basin Illinois Basin New Albany Marcellus ExcelloMulky Cherokee Platform San Juan Basin Anadarko ArdBasin m Palo Duro Bend ore Ba sin Basin Permian Basin Woodford Fayetteville Arkoma Basin BarnettWoodford Marfa Basin Ft. Furthermore.gov) submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. which already yields 6% of the US annual production (NETL.1 Shale-Gas Production and the Marcellus Formation in Pennsylvania Shale-gas is part of the “unconventional” natural gas resource base in the United States. multi-stage hydraulic fracturing” techniques (“hydrofracking”). While not yet as developed as other shale-gas resources. Since the 1980’s. Baaken. 2009). Updated: March 10. Fayetteville.eia. Pittsburgh.doe. Worth Basin Barnett PearsallEagle Ford Sub-Basin HaynesvilleBossier Maverick Eagle Ford TexasLouisianaMississippi Salt Basin FloydNeal Black Warrior Basin Chattanooga Valley and Ridge Province Conasauga Miles 0 100 200 300 400 Rio Grande Embayment Stacked Plays Shale Gas Plays Shallowest / Youngest Deepest / Oldest Basins ± Source: Energy Information Administration based on data from various published studies. and together with tight gas and coal bed methane already comprise 46% of annual US methane production (NETL. Shale Gas Plays. modern shale-gas development began in the Barnett Formation in Texas. In the 1980’s. The new technology that has made shale-gas economically viable includes horizontal drilling and “sequenced. 2011 -4- . particularly as found in Pennsylvania. 2011 1. Arkoma Woodford. 2009).Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12. These resources are unconventional because while the source rocks have methane the formations are quite impermeable and not producible by conventional methods. listed in order of decreasing production (NETL. In this report we focus on the Marcellus Formation. a number of very significant shale-gas resources have come into production (Figure 1) including the Barnett. 2009).

Figure 2: Geologic map of Pennsylvania showing the Marcellus Formation.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12. 2008).. The Marcellus. 2008). Although the Marcellus has been a known unconventional gas reservoir for 75 years and interest was great during the 1970’s. Given this depth. The Marcellus also contains natural fractures that enhance its capacity to yield natural gas (Figures 2 and 3). the natural gas within the Marcellus Formation is isolated far from near-surface geology. The Marcellus Formation lies near the base of a thick deltaic depositional system that developed in Devonian to Mississippian times (420 to 320 million years ago) along the eastern margin of the North American continent prior to the Appalachian orogeny (mountain building event. Harper. the large number and thickness of differing shale layers above the Marcellus provide low-permeability barriers to fluid migration and/or submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. Since then. is produced from depths near 7. For example. Pittsburgh. sandstones and limestones. which stretches across the central Appalachians and is developed in Pennsylvania in a band from the southwest to the northeast (Figure 2). It is overlain by a thick sequence of shales. 2011 -5- .000 beneath the surface with a thickness of 50 to 150 . a Devonian-age formation consisting of interbedded shales and siltstones. The black circle highlights Dimock Township. a location of interest in this report.g. In addition. Pennsylvania has been the site of accelerated drilling of gas wells into the Marcellus Formation. Soeder (1988) surveyed shale gas resources in the Appalachians and found the Marcellus quite favorable with high porosity of 10% and a relatively high permeability of 20 µDarcy. Figure 4). 2011 The first modern well drilled to produce the Marcellus Formation in Pennsylvania was done by Range Resources in 2003 (Harper. not until recently have new technologies made gas drilling economical (e. From Harper (2008).

5-1. 50-150 thick. 2011 -6- .shtml) fracture migration (Arthur et al. Each interval requires 0.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12. to reduce the viscosity of the fluid (see PADEP 2010e for a useful discussion of the fracking process and the chemicals used). outcrop (from Shale-gas development of the Marcellus Formation utilizes a horizontal drilling system illustrated in Figure 5. and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. The horizontal portion of the well is perforated and then hydrofracked over 4-20 distinct intervals (PADEP 2010e).6 m on a side) in the hydrofracking process. the Marcellus must be fractured in order to produce natural gas. submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. Since that time. Cement may also be used outside the casing within the Marcellus Formation to control the hydrofracking process and to prevent natural gas from escaping the reservoir. Pennsylvania has had a long history of oil and gas development beginning with the original discovery of oil in 1859 in Titusville (Yergin. Pittsburgh. The well is drilled vertically for several thousand feet before being steered horizontally into the Marcellus Formation. the fracking operation uses a so-called “slickwater” approach that involves the use of large volumes of water and various proprietary chemicals designed. The fracking process is designed to maximize the horizontal length of the induced fractures compared to the vertical extent (Texas Railroad Commission 2010). 2008).4 to 15. This is a narrow target.0 million gallons of water (which corresponds to a cube of water 12.000 wells have been drilled. 2011 Figure 3: Fractures in a Marcellus Formation http://geology. 1991). This process is known as “hydrofracking” or “fracking” and involves pumping a mixture of water.000 (PADEP 2010e). some 350. Because of the impermeable nature of the shale. sand.com/articles/marcellus-shale. In shale-gas production. A properly designed wellbore system includes the use of cement outside the steel casing to protect drinking water resources. in part. and various chemicals deep into the formation. one of the major concerns in shale-gas development is the availability of water resources.. and the horizontal reach may extend for 2. Indeed.000 to 6.

7-15 Facies I . sandstone and conglomerate Undifferentiated upper Middle Devonian rocks Tully Limestone Hypothetical time line Figure 5: Generalized cross section of Catskill delta magnafacies across western Pennsylvania and Ohio (adapted from Harper.Gray to red mudstone. 2009) or respectively 6.000 square miles of the central Appalachians and typical development plans have well spacings of 40-160 acres per well (NETL. 2010). siltstone. If this shale-gas resource was fully developed. AU Ohio Shale SHELF Rhinestreet Shale Member Location of cross section Hamilton Group BASIN OHIO PENNSYLVANIA 0 0 100 Miles 150 Kilometers Adapted from Harper.4 to 1. While there are important differences submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. the preexisting well concentration will be even higher in the shale gas region. However. siltstone. The 350.54 wells/km2 . 2011 -7- Approximately 8000 feet . 1999. 2006). The lower part of the section. Finally. Pittsburgh. The remainder of the section is Upper Devonian.000 oil and gas wells already drilled since 1859 itself corresponds to about 3 wells/km2 if the wells were uniformly spread across the state of Pennsylvania. siltstone and fine-grained sandstone Facies IV . the development of shale gas in the Marcellus Formation has resulted in reports of methane leakage to the surface.Dark gray to black shale Facies II . The Marcellus Formation extends over some 95. 1. One of the key concerns in CO2 sequestration is the permanence of CO2 storage. shale gas exploration of the Marcellus Formation has increased at a rapid pace with about 2. Figure 4: Schematic cross-section showing the location of the Marcellus Formation (a member of the Hamilton Group) near the base of > 5000 of deltaic sediments (Milici and Swezey. as the shale gas wells will tend to be concentrated in areas where oil and/or gas were previously produced. 1999). Since 2003. has documented 8. some 0. and conglomerate Facies V .Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12. 2010a. concentrated in the northeast and southwest (Figure 6).2 Rationale for shale-gas as a CO2 sequestration analog As will be described below.18-1. PADEP. sandstone.200 wells drilled. from the Hamilton Group (Marcellus Shale and Mahantango Formation) to the Tully Limestone. .Dark gray shale and siltstone Facies III .5 million wells would be required (NETL. fig. 2010d).Fossiliferous mudrock. is Middle Devonian in age. 2011 Northwest Ohio Shale AU Approximately 1500 feet Devonian Siltstone and Shale AU Marcellus Sh.800 as having been abandoned prior to modern regulations (1985.Varicolored fossiliferous shale. PADEP.

Rather. Thus the fresubmitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference..edu). In both cases. 2007. Pittsburgh. 2008). which.000 and drilling activity began very recently in 2003. The target Marcellus Formation is buried beneath 1000’s of feet of rock and is accessed by steering the well into a horizontal stretch within the 50-150 thickness of the formation (from http://www.. the very great depth of the Marcellus and the numerous overlying shales suggest that hydrofracking by itself is not the source of surface leakage. One of the chief concerns in CO2 sequestration is the potential for leakage via defects in wellbore systems (e. the concern over hydrofracking is probably misplaced: the real concern should be on the impacts of hydrofracking on well integrity. between shale-gas and sequestration development (see below). if not properly cemented..g. The well design includes cementing the upper sections to isolate potential migrating fluids from near-surface drinking water resources.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12. 2011 -8- . it is much more likely that methane leaks are associated with wells. Indeed. the Marcellus Formation lies at depths > 5.marcellus. In Pennsylvania.psu. 2011 Figure 5: Schematic diagram of the horizontal well construction used to develop shale gas. there are useful parallels and lessons to be learned by a comparison between methane gas leakage and potential CO2 leakage. While there has been considerable concern expressed in the media about the potential for hydrofracking to create pathways to the surface. leakage involves buoyant fluids that escape from the deep surface along unintended defects in the reservoir system. Carey et al. provide a pathway to the surface. Viswanathan et al.

Emberley et al. Once the gases reach the surface.) quency with which leakage events occur in shale gas development should be informative of frequencies in CO2 sequestration. 2011 Figure 6: Wells in the Marcellus in Pennsylvania based on data from the Penn. Van Stempvoort et al. both methane and CO2 have the potential to cause changes to water chemistry that include dissolved gas and increased concentration of metals. the potential CO2 sequestration issues that the shale gas analog could address submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. of Environmental Protection (PADEP).php. 1985.edu/images/Wells-all.. higher alkalinity and pH... (Map from http://www. while at the Frio sequestration demonstration site in Texas. and reduction of sulfate (e.edu/resources/maps. (2006) observed higher Fe and alkalinity as well as decreased pH. 2011 -9- . In summary.psu. 2003). 2005). Laughrey and Baldassare. Baldassare and Laughrey. redox reactions lead to increased Mn and Fe.g. While there are differences between the CO2 sequestration and shale-gas environments that must be considered (see below). Kharaka et al. the occurrence of migrating CO2 and methane have been studied with similar tools and share obvious similarities (e. The region of methane-impacted groundwater at shale-gas sites could also be used as a surrogate for the potential area of influence of CO2 on groundwater chemistry changes. These changes in water chemistry mirror those reported for CO2 . (2005) document increased Ca and alkalinity and decreased pH. 1997..g. at the Weyburn CO2 -enhanced oil recovery site. In addition. For example.marcellus. Other maps can be found at http://www. Kelly et al. Dept.marcellus. In the case of methane. Thus the occurrence of water chemistry changes induced by methane can be used as a proxy for potential changes induced by CO2 .Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12.gif. Pittsburgh.psu. the measures taken to remediate these systems as well as the liabilities associated with leaking methane are very useful inputs for risk assessment.

This is microbially mediated. 1985). 1985). because methane in water results in nitrate reduction to N2 or NH+ (Kelly 4 et al.. Results of the analysis of the groundwater samples are shown in Figure 7. Homeowners were soon impacted by the 1982 gas migration incident and complained of an increased amount of iron in their water.. a natural gas pocket within the overlying Oriskany Formation caused a high-pressure bubble of natural gas to travel up the uncased wellbore and intrude into overlying formations. During drilling of the well into the Clinton Formation. What causes leakage to occur? 2. What is the areal extent of groundwater impacts? April 12. prompted a study of methane-induced groundwater chemistry (Kelly et al. and an intense sulfide odor. (1985) examined the impact of methane on groundwater chemistry. Combining field and experimental studies of methane-water-sediment interactions in North Madison. Some samples collected 265 days after the blowout were bubbled with methane and analyzed. Sulfate 3 concentrations in the methane-perturbed wells are lower compared to the undisturbed wells. 1985). What is the frequency of leakage problems? 3. What type of water quality problems exist and how well can models predict the impact? 5.. and are thought to be the result of precipitation of CaCO3 as HCO− is produced by methane oxidation. Nitrate concentrations are high only for the “control wells” (wells 5 and 6). These results led to the a schema of methane-induced redox reactions shown in Figure 8 (Kelly et al.. submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. without natural bacteria. a black precipitate. Ohio. due to the reduction of sulfate and precipitation of metallic sulfides. Their methods included collecting groundwater samples from the area 74 days and 265 days after the blowout. Kelly et al. What are the challenges to understanding and remediating leakage sources? 1. Their groundwater derives from an unconfined aquifer consisting of periglacial lacustrine plain deposits over glacial till. 2011 .Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration include: 1. the reaction did not occur in experiments by Kelly et al. 2011 4.3 Impact of methane on drinking water chemistry A methane gas well blowout and subsequent degradation of water quality in domestic wells in North Madison.10 - . Pittsburgh. Decreased concentrations of Ca2+ were observed. Wells with gas bubbling in them or with high levels of dissolved methane showed increased concentrations of Fe and Mn.

. due to sulfate reduction. These results were further corroborated by Van Stempvoort et al. Ohio following a methane gas leak (colored annotation added for emphasis. 1985) Figure 8: Summary of redox reactions found in methane-groundwater interactions by Kelly et al. (1985). Pittsburgh. 2011 . Samples showed that as sulfate concentrations decreased. bicarbonate concentrations increased.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12. Kelly et al. 2011 Figure 7: Water quality data from domestic wells in North Madison.11 - . (2005) in a study of water samples collected in proximity to an oil well that had leaked methane in the subsurface. submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference.

4 3.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12. An increased concentration of dissolved Fe and Mn. 2011 . A decreased concentration of SO2− and precipitation of metallic sulfides. Thus the plant will consume fuel whose energy content is 3×106 kJ/s. the well is assumed to penetrate one or more layers of impermeable caprock through which the injected CO2 cannot escape. We make the explicit assumption that the rock is self-supporting and hence the water/CO2 does not feel the pressure caused by the weight of the overlying rock. At a mass of 44 g/mole of CO2 . 1. Taking a round value for the energy content of coal of 500 kJ/mole of carbon. As the hydrostatic pressure is approximately 1 atm for every 10 m of water depth.4 Differences between CO2 sequestration and the shale-gas environment We start this analysis by reviewing the concept of underground sequestration of CO2 and examining the scales associated with a large coal-fired electric power plant with CO2 separation.4. We also make the assumption that an equal volume of water is removed from the injection site at depth to make room for the injected CO2 .12 - . thereby eliminating any risk of over-pressurization. an injection depth of 1 km will require at least 100 atm of pressure. 4. the plant is generating 264 kg CO2 /s or 8. The sequestration operation involves the drilling of one or multiple wells to a depth of typically 1 km or more. the injected CO2 filling the pore space. 2.000 mol/s of coal and hence producing an equivalent number of moles of CO2 . 3 5. Pittsburgh. Over a 50-year submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. The injection medium beneath the caprock is assumed to be a permeable formation with relatively good internal connectivity and generous porosity (20%) (sandstone porosities typically span the range of 3 to 30%). 2011 A summary of the water changes observed from methane perturbation include: 1. An increase in HCO− as methane is oxidized. At depth. A decreased concentration of Ca2+ . The rock formations involved are assumed to be saturated with water and hence the injected CO2 must have a pressure greater than the hydrostatic head of the water at the depth of the porous injection medium. while a 2 km deep injection field will require at least 200 atm of pressure. we find that the plant is consuming 6. Reduction of any nitrates present.1 Typical CO2 sequestration values In terms of CO2 injection volume we examine a 1 GW coal-fired. 1.33 million metric tons per year. advanced electric power plant operating at an efficiency of 1 when all the energy penalties associated with CO2 3 separation and sequestration are taken into account.

572 and 0.86 5 571.59 50 57.17 20 142.95 The sequestration site will be required to contain the CO2 for at least 1.com/CO2TablesWeb.carbon-dioxide-properties. the values in Table 1 will be compared to similar volumetric estimates derived from gas shale deposits. Taking round values of 30 ◦ C and 100 atm at 1 km depth and 60 ◦ C and 200 atm at 2 km depth as representative temperature and pressure values. thinning as it spreads.538 km3 .39 10 268.44 100 26.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12. 2011 lifetime the plant would generate 417 million metric tons of CO2 . Since the CO2 is buoyant.38 200 13.aspx) and thus 50 year volumes of 0. the current thickness of the CO2 and the height of the volume of water it has displaced. at which point it will spread laterally. Table 1: Rough estimate of the area of impermeable seal required to confine CO2 resulting from a 1 GW coal-fired power plant running for 50 years for two different injection conditions as a function of the thickness of the storage reservoir. 2011 .32 100 atm and 30 ◦ C for 50 yr Thickness Area (m) (km2 ) 500 5.9 and 728.72 200 14. The required area of impermeable caprock confining the reservoir depends on the thickness of the CO2 layer in addition to the volume of rock filled with CO2 . it will rise up against the confining impermeable layer.75 km3 .6 kg/m3 .73 2 1429.000 years and potentially 10. the CO2 viscosity. The rate of spreading will be a function of the permeability of the porous layer. the volume of rock filled with CO2 is a factor of 5 larger or roughly 2. 200 atm and 60 ◦ C for 50 yr Thickness Area (m) (km2 ) 500 5. submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference.76 20 134.79 5 537.13 - .93 10 285.29 100 28.88 50 53. respectively (http: //www.58 2 1343. The density of CO2 is strongly dependent on both temperature and pressure. Taking into account the 20% porosity of the storage reservoir. In order to compare sequestration and shale-gas activity. we have CO2 densities of 774. Table 1 gives a rough estimate of the area of caprock probed by the CO2 as a function of the assumed uniform thickness of the CO2 column. The values given assume a rock porosity of 20% and are approximate as the CO2 column will in reality not be of uniform thickness over its lateral extent and secondary effects such as dissolution of some of the CO2 into the water are not taken into account. Pittsburgh. and other factors.000 years.

000 225 5.E.408 4.488 5. BC Williston Basin Appalachia ND-SDMT-SKMB 385 360 Marcellus Geologic Age (MYA1 ): Lithology: 100 170 370 Siliceous Mudstone 50. Table 2: : A Comparative Study of North America’s Largest Shale Gas Reservoirs Deposit Name Location Barnett Ft.500 356 200 SandstoneSiltstoneCarbonate 200.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration 1.000 717 251 175 5.000 370 47 150 Mudstone Area (sq mi): Total Gas (tcf):2 Producible Gas (tcf): GIP (bcf/sq mi):3 Average well EUR (bcf):4 Average well IP (mmcf/d):5 Depth (feet): Thickness (feet): Eq.000 1.65 5.41 1.Brittle Carbonate Shale 9.2 Typical gas shale reservoir and production values April 12. Pittsburgh.1 20. head (psi):6 Pressure (psi): 95.75 1.2 n.500 300 3.2 10 7.14 - .000 350 3.5 7.178 5. 2011 . 7.000 327 50 150 Bitumen Shales 1.000 10.800 450 4.500 250 5.4.000 11.5 6.350 84 9 200 Mudstone.5 6.500 8.5 3. Texas Haynesville Horn River TX-LA N.66 28.800 7. 2011 The characteristics of several of the larger North American gas shale reservoirs are given in Table 2.020 4.600 continued on next page submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference.000 945. Worth Basin 340 Eagle Ford S.3 7.a.3 2.000 150 4.200 12.196 4.396 8.

and trillion standard cubic feet.2%. 7 Ro = Vitrinite Reflectance.html. 1. (◦ F): Temp.5 0 5.8 18 7 34 7 50 3.25 8 1.000 45 55 8 87 27 53 30 70 50 50 5 95 35 2. Converting the CO2 numbers into the more traditional units used by the submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. (nD): Clay (%): Silica + Carbonate (%): Adsorbed Gas (%): Horiz. economically viable shales usually have Ro values > 1.5 2.5 3 230 Marcellus 130 54 1. 8 TOC = Total organic carbon. Pittsburgh.3 Comparison of Sequestration Needs and Gas Shale Well and Reservoirs Comparing the values in the preceding two subsections indicates some similarities.000 April 12. billion. 4 EUR = Estimated Ultimate Recovery. 5 IP = Initial Production rate. bcf. 2011 . (◦ C) Ro:7 TOC (%):8 Porosity (%): Matrix Perm. as well as some important differences that will need to be taken into account when trying to use numbers from the gas shale reservoirs for application to CO2 sequestration situations.100 Haynesville Horn River 340 160 171 2. 1 MYA = Million Years Ago.4. First. we examine the required rate of CO2 injection with the natural gas production rates of the wells.25 3.5 Source: Predominantly from http://www.9 10 5 10.transformsw.com/publications/studies. 6 Hydrostatic pressure from a water column of height = Depth + Thickness/2 assuming seawater. tcf =respectively million.15 - . mmcf.8 20 4. 1 atm).5 6 250 Eagle Ford 335 168 1. 2011 Williston Basin 140 60 0.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration Table 2: continued Deposit Name Temp.2 3 6 658 71 2. 3 GIP = Gas In Place.5 4.5 11 1. 2 scf = standard cubic foot (amount of gas at standard conditions: 60F. Well Cost ($M): Barnett 200 93 2 4.

the actual shape of the CO2 plume will certainly not be that of a disk. depth. being its widest up against the caprock. That value turns out to be similar to the conditions of a CO2 reservoir at 2000 m. Pittsburgh. pressure.3. Provided that the injection region is along the length of a vertical drill hole. The exact shape of the CO2 plume is a strong function of the properties of the borehole (vertical vs. temperature. 60 ◦ C after 50 years of injection in a 5-m thick rock with 20% porosity (Table 1). and due to the buoyancy of the CO2 will grow more quickly than linearly with height as the caprock itself is approached (see Figure 9). permeability. More details on the plume size can be found in Nordbotten et al. mi. a factor of 43 smaller. This is certainly manageable. It is important to note that many of the parameters are cross-correlated with one another. In contrast. However. and in particular. with the radius of the plume at the caprock 1 growing at a much slower rate. the radius would thus grow as the square root of time. and 3. Even a cone shape is a relatively poor description as the radial extent of the CO2 will be nonzero at the deepest part of the well. namely as time 4 . While the radial growth of the CO2 plume may be quite slow with time. the initial production rates from individual gas shale wells are 10 mmcf or less. brine/CO2 density and viscosity. The actual gas recovered is however substantially less than this value. one notes that there are on the order of 200 bcf/sq mi. (2005). horizontal) and injection location including factors such as injection layer thickness. the differences in the density of CO2 and CH4 at those values. Comparing the producible to the total gas numbers in Table 2. meaning that only a small part of the gas is freed from the rock matrix during the gas shale fracturing and recovery process. Looking at the areal density of the gas/supercritical fluid for both the shale gas and the CO2 sequestration cases. which is non-realistic.2. one needs to take into account both the pressure and temperature values associated with the wells. [For a fixed-height injection along a vertical pipe. 2011 natural gas industry. volume grows approximately as the square of the plume radius. 4.6 at the given temperature and pressure values. and the rate of injection.000 psi and temperatures of 60.] Following termination of injection. but a value of about 1 is in 7 the middle of the range.gov/chemistry/fluid/. but instead more like the shape of an inverted cone. For the gas-shale well pressure we take a typical value from Table 2 of 5. the buoyancy of the CO2 will be the prime driver for the continued radial spread of the plume. one has producible gas areal densities that are about 30 bcf/sq. 2011 . and 170 ◦ C. for the shale gas (Table 2 GIP values). we find that CO2 is denser than methane by factors of 4.nist. we find that an injection rate of 264 kg/sec of CO2 corresponds to 433 mmcf/day or 158 bcf/yr. 90. Thus we find that typically for the gas shale recovery process. one should also submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. we see that the ratio varies substantially. that similarity holds for only one specific value of uniform plume thickness. Hence we need a factor of ≈10 more CO2 injection wells to handle the difference in volumes. porosity. However. Finally one notes that the radius of the CO2 plume is expected to grow approximately as the square root of the injection duration during the period of injection. since volume injected grows linearly with time at a constant injection rate. Using the density values derived from the web site http://webbook.16 - .Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12.

2 Shale-Gas Methane Leakage and Groundwater Contamination Incidents There has been a great deal of controversy surrounding shale-gas development in Pennsylvania..Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12. Thus the real numbers to be compared are the volume of the CO2 injected (at the reservoir pressure) and the volume of shale gas withdrawn (again at reservoir pressure). 2005). CO2 buoyancy. The injection layer is bounded at 0 and 30 m by impermeable layers. Horizontal layer geometry is assumed (based on Nordbotten et al. 2011 .17 - . Furthermore.youtube. Ohio.com/). The most dramatic moments in the film are provided by homeowners igniting their kitchen faucets following contamination of their private wells by leaking methane (http://www. note that the area of the caprock that the CO2 plume probes for leaks grows linearly with time. New York and West Virginia. at least during the injection period. This has been effectively dramatized in a recently released film called “Gasland” by Josh Fox that was shown earlier this year on both PBS and HBO (http://www. 2011 Figure 9: Typical shape of a CO2 plume following injection along a 30 m vertical well. relative viscosities of the brine and CO2 and the duration of the injection as well as the time since the end of the injection. Pittsburgh. The exact shape and extent of the CO2 plume is a strong function of injection rate.com/watch?v= submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference.gaslandthemovie. the area probed also grows linearly with the injection rate.

Pittsburgh. We list these incidents (> 60 in number) to give a sense of the magnitude and character of the problem. While it is possible for hydrofracking fluids to be carried with the methane to the surface (particularly in geopressured reservoirs that have in situ pressures greater than hydrostatic).http: //www. The latter has resulted in great public anxiety due to the proprietary (secret) chemical components of the fluid. but we note that the contents are labeled draft and we have not found a final version.) This report describes recent (1990’s and onwards) occurrences of methane gas in water wells. (This report appears to be the most comprehensive document available. http://www.g.. and abandonment. 2011.000 to the surface resulting in methane and hydrofracking fluid contamination of drinking water. submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. it appears that the combination of gas leak reports and surface spills of hydrofracking fluid have been merged to a single problem: hydrofracking has created fractures that allow fluids to migrate from 7. two separate issues are confused: leakage of methane and contamination of water resources by hydrofracking fluid. Abandoned Wells and Underground Storage of Natural Gas. those reports clearly linking methane leakage to shale-gas drilling support the theory that methane gas contamination associated with shale-gas has its origin in well integrity failure. completions.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12. As discussed above. methane gas leakage most likely occurs via defects in wellbore systems and represents a migration from the deep subsurface. many problems are attributed to abandoned wells without any known connection to modern shale-gas development. In 2009.18 - . The problem is that the two sources of pollution have separate origins. As discussed above. However.marcellus-shale.org.us/.http://www. 2011 .org/).com. Operating Wells.marcellusprotest. None of the reports document both methane and hydrofracking fluid impacts in well water. Such concerns have also led to a moratorium on shale-gas development in New York until May 15. numerous groups have organized to stop shale gas development (e. there are many more documented cases of surface spills occurring at the well pad during the handling of fluids. Table 3). Pennsylvania has had a long history of oil and gas development with the result that the state has 100’s of thousands of wells with many completed years before there were regulations governing drilling. and basements. 2011 dZe1AeH0Qz8&feature=related). As can be seen in the report. As a result. PADEP organized the report in terms of New Wells. PADEP issued a draft document describing a number of “stray gas” incidents that were under investigation (PADEP 2010h. Reports available from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) show an additional level of confusion. In the public media. soils. In the media and associated coverage of shale gas.un-naturalgas.http://nofracking.

Location. Jefferson.19 - . pressure relieved and more casing added. pressure reduced. county. other water quality problems Thermogenic gas in Five Mile Run continued on next page submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. Jefferson. 2011 Dimock. Susquehanna. 6000+ ft radius > 6 Water wells in Carter Road residences Hedgehog Lane. ongoing investigation Ongoing investigation 4 over pressurized wells now brought into compliance. McKean. [1] Jan-09 Apr-09 Multiple water wells. problem continues. Lycoming. [1] Date Jul-09 Cause NEW WELLS Casing failure. water quality improving New gas well affected abandoned well. Galbraith Gas Storage Field 4000 away?. Sources: [1]: Draft list of reports of stray gas associated with New Wells (PADEP 2010h). basement of nearby residence Minor gas explosion in community well. 2 creek tributaries. [2]: PADEP 2010c. ongoing investigation Recently drilled gas well. Location: township. [1] ? Knox. Pittsburgh. 2 neighboring water wells.] McNett. if reported. McKean. New gas well drilling occurs after sampling water Impacts April 12. problem continues. problem dissipating Over pressurized gas well. [1] Apr-09 Knox. ongoing investigation Over pressurized gas well. 2011 . Jefferson. ROI: is radius of impact. Washington. ongoing investigation Unknown. [1] 2008 Gas in 2 domestic wells. water degradation Little Sandy Creek. [Ref. Pre-1920’s wells?. [1] Foster. [1] Apr-08 Sep-07 Hickory.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration Table 3: Reports of migration of methane from subsurface shale-gas activities. [1] Hamlin. gas in private wells in village of Keshequa Gas in soils and private water supplies McCalmont. Cause: generally preliminary or suspected.

[1] Jun-06 Water quality complaints from 2 residences. Pittsburgh. Unknown. [1] Jan-08 Gas in water well. Possible neighboring gas well. ongoing investigation 2 neighboring gas wells were over pressurized. closest well was plugged and another repaired (3000 away). 2011 . House explosion resulting in 3 fatalities. Potter. Gas in soil around homes.20 - . Cameron. Hebron. Recently drilled neighboring gas wells. Gas decreased after casing put in gas well. Recently drilled neighboring gas well. McKean. Neighborhood evacuated for 2 months. April 12. Gas not present in May 2009. [1] Jun-07 Gas in water well in residence next to gas well. McKean. Amount of gas decreased significantly when wells were cased. all older wells within 1 mile under compliance.] Gibson. in private litigation. [1] OPERATING WELLS Mar-04 Pressure on annulus of one or more operating gas wells. Millcreek. DEP Compliance Order outstanding. Erie. No recent drilling. [Ref. new casing put in well. 2011 Impacts Sporadic gas in water well of residence. [1] 2007 Hamlin Twp. Packers and additional casing relieved pressure. [1] Date 2007 Cause Unknown.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration Table 3: continued Location. Liberty. continued on next page submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. but venting and additional production casing in gas well did not solve problem. Jefferson. 2 defective wells were plugged and packers put in remaining wells.

One residence evacuated. Explosion in boiler room of house. Domestic water well impacted. [1] Washington. [1] Armstrong. Problem well repaired. Jan-05 Migrating gas from operating well. Investigation lasted several months. Pittsburgh. April 12. [1] Warren. house explosions.21 - . Oct-07 Pressurization of surface casing in newly drilled gas well. [1] Pressurization of annulus on newly drilled gas well caused migration. [1] Hamlin. evacuation. ongoing investigation. Water well pump explosion. ongoing investigation. [1] Jul-08 Armstrong. [1] Date Mar-08 Cause Pressurization of surface casing on newly drilled gas well and fracking communicated with abandoned gas well and other operating wells. Clarion. Sep-06 Frac in recently drilled well communicated with abandoned gas well and migrated to shallow groundwater and soils. Fire. May-03 Casing leak in operating gas well. 2011 Impacts Area-wide gas migration. Oct-07 Gas migrated through septic system and to bathroom of residence. 2011 . Well was plugged and problem resolved. Jul-07 Casing failed on gas well. Explosion inside residence.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration Table 3: continued Location. Monroe. Explosion in home. [1] Washington. McKean. Gas entered through waterline conduit.] Armstrong. Gas well repaired. continued on next page submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. [Ref. Very old gas well (early 1900’s) with compromised casing. Gas impacted several private water supplies and soils.

[1] Stray gas in soils on private property. Stray gas in soils on private property. [1] Stray gas in soils in housing development. [1] Allegheny. Jun-09 Abandoned gas well. Allegheny. Allegheny. Pittsburgh. [1] Cause Pressurization of casing in operating gas well. Temporary vents installed. Location and mechanism of migration unknown. Owner installed venting/alarm system. [1] Westmoreland. 2011 Impacts House explosion and destruction.] Armstrong. Mar-09 Abandoned gas well. location unknown. Apr-09 Abandoned gas well. [1] Stray gas in soils on private property. Vents installed in area. area-wide evacuation. Historical stray gas incidents. [1] Stray gas in soils and inside home. Jan-92 Pressurization of casing in operating gas well. [1] Stray gas in soils in front of a business. one injury. Well put on list for plugging. ongoing investigation. ABANDONED WELLS Oct-09 Abandoned gas well. Beaver. ongoing investigation. Mar-09 Abandoned gas well. Well was repaired. Allegheny. Allegheny. Allegheny.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration Table 3: continued Location. Gas well was vented. Plugging did not alleviate stray gas. location of well unknown. [Ref.22 - . 2011 . [1] Stray gas in soils near residence. Jun-09 Abandoned gas well. Case not well documented. Well is being evaluated for proper venting/plugging. ongoing investigation. continued on next page submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. House explosion and destruction. one fatality. Location unknown. May-09 Abandoned gas well. Date 1999 April 12.

23 - . Allegheny. 2011 . Allegheny. [1] Date Mar-09 Cause Abandoned gas well. Abandoned gas well with unknown location. [1] Sep-08 Stray gas in residence of adjacent subdivision. Venting systems installed by owners. continued on next page submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. Washington. Allegheny. Abandoned gas well with unknown location. Operator refused to accept responsibility. Steel casings removed for scrap steel during WWII. [1] Mar-05 Stray gas in 7th Avenue area. did not solve problem. Over 175 abandoned wells from 1919-1921. Versailles. Stray gas in soils. Gas is migrating through an abandoned mine. ongoing investigation. Alarm system installed. 2011 Impacts Stray gas in soils and parking lot of business. borough. [1] Oct-07 Stray gas in soils at location of new commercial building. Origin of migration: unknown abandoned gas well. [1] Oct-08 Stray gas in private water well. Abandoned gas well(s) under mall parking lot. and DEP. One abandoned well plugged. Venting system installed until wells are located. Gas was vented.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration Table 3: continued Location. Allegheny. ongoing investigation. Pittsburgh. [Ref. DEP plugged well. DOE NETL conducted a $1 million study. [1] 2007 Stray gas from McKeesport Gas Field. Abandoned gas well with unknown location. ongoing investigation. April 12.] Washington. [1] Dec-08 Fayette.

[1] Nov-02 Stray gas in Senior Care home. Site is a camping spot and marked with a stone fire-ring to serve as campfire location. [1] Jun-05 Stray gas in soils on private property. Mitigation system installed. All gas wells under compliance. Westmoreland. April 12. Abandoned gas well with unknown location. Waterford. Washington.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration Table 3: continued Location. [1] Jul-08 Gas in domestic water well. No known source. Abandoned gas well with suspected casing/cement failure caused by mine subsidence. Washington. [1] Jul-01 Stray gas in soils on private property. No specific sources identified. Thermogenic gas but no specific source identified. Alarm/mitigation system installed. [1] Sep-05 Stray gas near several residences. ongoing investigation. Allegheny. Indiana. Mitigation system installed. Venting resolved problem. ongoing investigation. Pittsburgh. Abandoned gas well with unknown location. [1] 1987 Soil gas seep in area. 2011 . Abandoned gas will with unknown location. Coalbed/gas well. 2011 Impacts Stray gas in front of commercial building. Venting systems installed. Barnett. Erie. Clarion. [1] Nov-03 Stray gas in private residence. [1] Date Feb-07 Cause Abandoned gas well with unknown location.24 - . [Ref.] Allegheny. continued on next page submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference.

Thermogenic gas similar to neighboring gas wells. which are in compliance. Pittsburgh. Another well placed on plugging list. 2 wells within 6000 brought into compliance with production casing. Thermogenic gas. [1] Jun-05 East Mead. Clarion. Howe. Stray gas in domestic water well. Bradford. Thermogenic gas with no isotopic match to nearby gas wells. Erie. Did not completely solve problem.000 away. 2011 .Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration Table 3: continued Location. Rome. [1] Jun-05 Stray gas in 2 springs that serve as domestic water supplies. [1] Oct-07 Gas in domestic water well. not from nearby plugged well. [1] Jun-07 Stray gas in domestic water supply. [1] Date 2008 Cause Early 20th century abandoned gas wells. [1] continued on next page Aug-08 Gas near private residence. [Ref. ongoing investigation. but no apparent match to nearby gas wells. Columbus.] McKean. Warren. but legally defensible case against responsible party could not be demonstrated. Redbank. but problem unresolved. Microbial gas. submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference.25 - . were fracked. April 12. abandoned gas well on plugging list. Gas migration began at the same time that 2 gas wells 3. [1] Oct-08 Gas in domestic water well. Summit. Four plugged. Crawford. Gas wells are in regulatory compliance but source of migration not identified. Forest. 2011 Impacts Stray gas in domestic water supply.

Water well vented. [1] ? Unknown abandoned Gas in water well. Gas bubbling through body of standing water near Presque Isle State Park. 2011 . Armstrong County. Hamlin. [1] Erie. Clinton. [1] Abandoned gas well with unknown location. [1] 2008 Apr-08 Pittsburgh. Report does not specify if those wells were confirmed source of gas. McKean. Washington ? Coalbed/gas well No further details given County. [1] Nov-98 Stray gas in 3 water wells. [1] ? Abandoned gas well. Treatment systems installed in water wells. Leidy. Chartiers. UNDERGROUND STORAGE OF NATURAL GAS continued on next page ? Stray gas in 3 municipal water wells. Area was on type of migration. ˚ further details given Allegheny. Pavement removed and abandoned well plugged. vented. April 12. gas well. [1] Date 2004 Cause Three abandoned gas wells were plugged. [1] mixture. 2011 Impacts Elevated levels of gas in 15 residences. Abandoned gas well plugged.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration Table 3: continued Location. Tioga. Abandoned well paved over by PennDot. Allegheny. Pittsburgh. disturbed well and required to plug the well. Mitigation system installed.26 - . Air migration submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. Abandoned gas well plugged. DEP suspects gas well was leaking into a mine void. No Site developer on type of migration.] Sullivan. [Ref.

shale-gas drilling activities. a few salient observations can be made. in the youtube videos of flammable tap water it is not clear whether shale gas or abandoned wells are the source of the gas leakage. Sabinsville. it isn’t clear which type of activity resulted in the leakage. OTHER REPORTS Gas in Susquehanna River. operating wells: 17%.. Tioga. Focusing on the shale-gas incidents. The abstracted character of the PADEP report prevents detailed analysis of the methane leak incidents. [1] 2005 Gas in water supplies of several residences. six homes impacted April 12. The large majority of cases (35 wells or 56%) are due to leakage from old. Leakage occurs throughout the Marcellus development region.27 - . ongoing investigation. abandoned wells associated with traditional oil and gas. Wilmot Twp. 32% (6) of the cases have no information as to the type of wellbore failure causing the leak. However. [2] 2010 Gas source may be shallow The spatial distribution of these reports is shown in Figure 10. [Ref. Methane leakage events are associated with both new shale-gas development and with traditional oil and gas development. [1] Date 2001 Cause Gas from Tioga Storage Field. Pittsburgh. A small number of wells (2) are associated with natural gas storage. 2011 . 2008). In fact. 62% (8) are attributed to excessive pressure on casing. constituting 17 of the 63 reported cases (19%). The breakdown of leakage incidents with respect to well type is as follows: new wells: 21%.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration Table 3: continued Location. Water treatment systems provided to homeowners. natural gas storage: 2%. Tioga. high-pressure gas is migrating into the well submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. Of the remaining 13 cases. Bradford Co. 2011 Impacts Large spread gas migration. ongoing investigation. These statistics are consistent with risk assessment models for CO2 sequestration that place the greatest risk with abandoned (presumably older) wells (Viswanathan et al. abandoned wells: 59%. In these cases. In the seven remaining operating wells. Cause of migration has not been determined. Gas possibly from Sabinsville Gas Storage Field. although there is a concentration of incidents in Allegheny County. Thus it is clear that the controversy surrounding the Pennsylvania shale-gas development is complicated by the existence of legacy gas leakage.] Tioga. All of the new wells and four of the “operating wells” are associated with new..

New well incidents: blue numbers. abandoned well are providing a pathway for leaking gas. abandoned well incidents: white numbers. However. 2. Ohio There are no detailed reports from Pennsylvania documenting the impacts of methane leakage due to wellbore integrity failure. 3 of which resulted in explosions. Finally. and 4 cases of gas accumulating in building structures. Even with this type of failure. 2011 Figure 10: Spatial location of reported methane leakage provided by PADEP (2010h). the wells should not leak to groundwater or homes unless there is a further problem with the surfacing casing-cement work (Figure 5). etc.28 - .). no evidence is cited for this and it may be just as likely that shallow reaches of the old. Background landsat satellite image from http://geology. Interestingly. fortunately without reported injuries. The report cites two evacuations involving a neighborhood and a residence due to excessively high gas concentration. it is clear from the reports that the impacts are highly localized. 8% (1) of the problems are attributed to well casing “failure”. 5 soil leaks. PADEP writes that hydrofracking (at depth) created a connection between the new and abandoned wells. Pittsburgh. due to wellbore integrity failure within the Marcellus reservoir (inadequate or damaged cement. Only one report describes the region of impact of leakage as of the order of 1 mile in radius. operating well incidents: yellow numbers. we describe a well-documented example from Ohio of wellbore failure in a conventional gas submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. 2011 .1 Case History: Bainbridge. natural gas storage incidents: black numbers. In order to more fully characterize methane impacts. 31% (4) of the problems are due to leakage pathways through abandoned wells that were activated by shale-gas development work.com. 4 streams with gas shows. however. The report further identifies that shale gas development activities resulted in approximately 33 impacted water supplies. casing problems.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12.

as well as the location of the English #1 well and the approximate 0. Casing was set more than 50 into the aquifer and cemented to the surface.600-3. which extends to 1. about where the obstruction at 3. This is the depth of the Packer Shell. A total of 19 homes were evacuated as a result of high concentrations of methane.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12. Since 1981. 2011 field. and is 60-200 thick.000 wells have been drilled into the sandstone since 1897. OVESC proceeded to hydrofracture the well.29 - . Prior to the explosion. and then down to a total depth of 3. it should have filled to a depth of 3. Pressure rose from 90 psi to 320 psi on the third day. the sandstones and shales of the Cuyahoga Formation. On the day of the explosion. The bond log showed that the cement ran up to 3. poor documentation on that first day resulted in no water data recorded (DMRM 2008). Figure 11 shows the site of the explosion. In December 2007.658 was noticed.55-square mile affected area (Google Earth calculation). and overlying glacial sand and gravel deposits. of the Devonian Ohio Shale. Ohio Valley Energy Systems Corporation (OVESC) drilled the English #1 well through glacial till. Water wells drilled into the Bedford Shale/Berea Sandstone and Ohio Shale can contain natural gas.926 . DMRM (2008) determined that the extra cement went into natural fractures in the “Packer Shell”. a natural gas explosion in a home in Bainbridge. but the casing was cemented. in ascending order. also a natural gas aquifer. The English #1 gas well was determined to have an over-pressurized annulus and was cited as the source of the gas migration. At this point.650 . However. 2011 . OH (Geauga County) prompted a detailed investigation by the Ohio Division of Mineral Resources Management (DMRM) that pinpointed the source of the fugitive gas to casing problems in the English #1 well and which documented water quality effects of the migrating methane gas (DMRM 2008). One of the technicians noticed an odor of sour (sulfur-bearing) gas and a geophysical log was unsuccessful due to an obstruction at 3. pressure on the annulus was 360 psi. The Bainbridge Fire Department canvassed the neighborhood surrounding the explosion to determine which residences had methane in their well water. Pittsburgh. but noticed evidence of communication between the Clinton and the annulus. Groundwater aquifers in the region consist. The annulus was then shut in and pressure readings were taken over the next few days. There was some difficulty in setting the casing. Over 79. Despite problems with drilling and casing. which lies 3. the DMRM has issued 131 permits to drill into the Clinton (DMRM 2008). Normal pressure on a Clinton well is about 80 psi (DMRM 2008).900 beneath the surface.800 beneath the surface. Based on the quantity of cement used. The major gas-producing formation in Bainbridge OH is the Silurian Clinton Sandstone.350 .658 . methane was noted in the well of the Bainbridge police station. the Sharon Sandstone. to underlying bedrock (Cuyahoga Group). which is the depth of the Packer Shell. a shaley dolomite that overlies the Clinton sandstone. and a cement bond log was run. the annulus was closed while OVESC personnel were off site for the next 31 days. and submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. the Mississippian Bedford Shale and overlying Berea Sandstone.

it showed a good bond between the casing and well bore below that level.30 - . Cement was squeezed through perforations in the well casing to seal of the Newburg. in northeastern Ohio. which overlies the Clinton Sandstone. allowing a conduit for gas to migrate up to the aquifer. and English #1 well. Despite some channeling near the surface. which was the source of the methane leak (DMRM 2008). submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. However.350 depth needed. and evidence that the cementing did not extend up to the 3. 2011 Figure 11: Google Earth map of the Bainbridge.656 . enough to seal off the Newburg. impacted water wells. and artesian flow in some of the water wells on English Drive. OVESC continued to hydrofracture the well. there were reports of methane. which was allowing gas to escape from shallow sources. However. OVESC then ran a segmented bond log. increase in turbidity. gas was still present and it was determined the source was the Ohio Shale. Factors contributing to the explosion and gas migration on English Drive (DMRM 2008): 1. Another squeeze job was performed to seal the Ohio Shale. Ohio area including the explosion site. OVESC determined that the most likely source of gas in the annulus was from the Newburg member of the Lockport Dolomite. Despite problems with casing and cementing the well. The high pressure exerted by the fluids could have extended through the Packer Shell and communicated with natural fractures in overlying rocks. Another bond log showed there was possible channeling at around 330 . A cement bond log showed that the cement rose to a depth of 2.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12. Pittsburgh. 2011 . which shows a 360-degree view of the well. it is common for shallow gas to accumulate near the tops of wells. DMRM determined that the gas still present was from natural fractures in the Ohio Shale.

Pittsburgh. Black sediment from a well on English Drive in Bainbridge is shown in Figure 12. Ohio incident in 2007 impacted water quality in wells that are relatively shallow. which allowed pressure to build up in the annulus.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12. The productive porosity in these aquifers is due to fractures. 1985) and from residents of Dimock Township. and other locations outside the affected area (Bair et al. 2011 2. to a depth of 300 . An expert panel assembled to further study conclusions reached by the Bainbridge investigation analyzed water samples taken from affected residences inside the Bainbridge area.. 2010). DMRM columns represent data from the Bainbridge investigation area. black precipitates were observed in water in households near the English #1 well in Bainbridge. which allowed gas to migrate into the aquifer. OH following methane leakage (Bair et al. 2011 . submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. Following the accident.org).31 - . ranging from a depth of 40 in the Sharon Sandstone. Well water data is given in Figure 13.. 2010). as well as metallic streaks on dishes (http://www. OH after a 1982 gas migration incident (Kelly et al. OH in (DMRM 2008).. as opposed to more conventional porous aquifers.propublica. The shutting-in of the well for 31 days. Figure 12: Black precipitate observed in well water from Bainbridge. far exceeded the hydrostatic pressure of the aquifer. These were similar to reports from commodes of residences in North Madison. The Bainbridge. within the Cuyahoga Shale/Berea Sandstone. and OEPA columns represent water samples from similar aquifers outside of the investigation area. Pennsylvania who complained of a black precipitate in their water.

Pottsville Group.. (1985). Although there are differences in the mean values of iron. 2010). The study compares water analyses from “inside” (i. and the DMRM samples were taken two months after the gas migration incident.32 - . 2010). OH region before and after methane-induced impacts to water quality. Pittsburgh. from residences affected by the migration (Bair et al. Cuyahoga Fm. Variations between maximum and minimum values are due to the range of aquifers sampled (glacial till. with a 95% confidence interval.. the p-values indicate. and sulfate that reflect the patterns shown in another Ohio-based study of methane-water chemistry conducted by Kelly et al. 2010). impacted by methane) versus outside the region (Bair et al. 2011 ... statistisubmitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. manganese. Berea Sandstone. The OEPA samples from outside the area where taken between 1976 and 2004. According to this study. that these differences are not statistically different. which have varying lithologies (Bair et al. 2011 Figure 13: Table of water quality analyses from the Bainbridge..e.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12. and Bedford Shale/Ohio Shale.

Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration cally speaking. It is notable that residents did not complain of black sediment in their water until after each incident. 2010). the high concentrations may also be due to the aquifer geochemistry (Bair et al. 2011 . the subsequent Expert Panel Report categorized these findings as inconclusive due to compromised well sampling strategies. Figure 14: Summary of water quality analyses from the DMRM 2008 investigation.. (1985). and particles of Ohio Shale dislodged by the gas migration. Sulfate-reduction reactions are also known to occur naturally within Geauga County aquifers (Bair et al. Whether the black precipitate is a natural result of aquifer geochemistry and submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. 2010). 2011 The original Bainbridge investigation (DMRM 2008) compared samples from wells within the investigative area to drinking water standards (not to reference. iron and manganese concentrations increase with methane perturbation. The original Bainbridge investigation (DMRM 2008) cited two possible sources of the black precipitate pictured in Figure 12: reduction of sulfates to form metallic sulfides. background standards). April 12. water quality has not been affected by the gas migration. As indicated by Kelly et al. The results shown in Figure 14 indicate a high percentage (58-61%) of wells exceeding the secondary standard (smell and taste) for iron and manganese. However..33 - . Pittsburgh. Since these samples did not correlate with residences having the highest concentration of methane in their wells.

2011 the residents observations were psychologically affected by knowledge of the gas explosions. 2009). 9. Pennsylvania On January 1. The DMRM (2008) study involved the following: 1. Decisive action in addressing changes to state regulations. and gathering other water well data. 2. an explosion blew apart a concrete slab at a residents drinking water well in Dimock. 3.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12. Compiling historic records representing background water quality (see Methane gas and water quality).34 - . 2. Full public disclosure on the state website with detailed information. or the diminished water quality is in fact related to methane migration remains to be seen. and charts. including fracture and joint orientations of all rock formations. maps. submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. Reviewing and conducting temperature logs 5. 2011 . The thorough and rapid rapid report of the Bainbridge incident are notable achievements and represent an effective method of advancing lessons-learned and developing public confidence in regulatory response and actions. Conducting a detailed geologic survey. Sufficient state resources devoted to completing a thorough and timely investigation. Reviewing well construction records 3. PA. Reviewing annular pressure measurements in the English #1 well and other nearby gas wells 2. Several children fell ill with stomach cramps after drinking their well water. Some of the factors include: 1. and metallic streaks on their dishes. Pittsburgh. Reviewing water well logs in those wells. 6. Identifying surrounding homes for water quality surveys and collecting samples 8. and the water was flammable (Lustgarten.2 Case History: Dimock. Reviewing and conducting cement bond logs 4. 2009. Quickly implementing new permit conditions in January 2008 to address the conditions that resulted in the over-pressurization of the English #1 well 7. Neighbors nearby noticed a foul smell and a black precipitate in their water.

the Pennsylvania DEP filed a notice of violation against Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation. while the 24 wells cited in the violation occupy an area of 4. Three of the wells within the area have been plugged because of improper casing (Craig Lobins. 4) Failure to submit a plugging certificate for the Gesford 3A well (PADEP 2009). submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference.4% of all Marcellus wells drilled to date.84 square miles. The gas wells in the Marcellus Formation in Susquehanna County represent 8% of the 1702 Marcellus gas wells in Pennsylvania. and two other residents complained of methane gas and associated odors in their drinking water. Fifteen residents have sued Cabot for destroying their aquifer and the case is in litigation (Lustgarten. as well as water testing data. The closest well is 0. Pittsburgh. 2010g) while a fourth has been remediated. were not available. and DEP continues to investigate exactly how the gas migration occurred (Craig Lobins. Four of the nine residents now must use alternate sources of water. personal communication.35 - . detailed information on the construction of the wells listed in the violation report. July 21. Victoria Hubert. The wells within the gas migration area in Susquehanna County represent 1. All of the 130 gas wells drilled in the county are in the Marcellus Formation and the first well was not drilled until 2006. 3) Failure to submit well record and completion reports for 24 wells.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12. Of particular note in this case is the very recent drilling history in Susquehanna County (Table 4). personal communication. 2009).500 beneath the surface. and 14 Cabot gas wells were drilled within this area. 2010. migrated due to Cabots drilling activities (Lustgarten. 2011 After an investigation. owner and operator of 81 gas wells within a 22. Laboratory results of the water tests were not available at the time of this writing.The nine residents affected live in a 1.5-square-mile area of each other. has ten Cabot gas wells within 1.2-square-mile area surrounding the site of the well water contamination. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2011 . The violation cites Cabot for 1) Unpermitted discharge of polluting substances. 2009). At the time of this report.2 miles away (Google Earth calculation. Elevated levels of free methane and dissolved methane gas were present in the water wells of nine residents at the time of the investigation.2 miles of her home. The methane was traced to a gas-bearing upper Devonian shale formation 1. 2) Failure to prevent gas from entering fresh groundwater. July 21. while the remaining five are required to use methane detectors in their homes. Figure 15). 2010). who now must use an alternate source of water. and according to the DEP.

The 4. Baker 1 and Gesford 3. 2011 Figure 15: Map of Cabot Oil and Gas Company wells in Dimock. PA. Yellow pointers indicate two of the three plugged wells.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12.84 square mile area within the pink boundary shows the 24 gas wells owned by Cabot and cited in PADEPs notice of violation (PADEP 2009). 2011 . submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. The identity of the third plugged well was unknown at the time of this report.000 ) of directional gas wells and follows the fracture trend in the Marcellus (see Figure 2). The blue lines trending NW-SE show the trend at depth (near 7.36 - . Pittsburgh.5 square mile area defined by residents whose water wells were contaminated by methane. All other wells on this map are vertical. The smaller area outlined in green represents the 1. Yellow circles represent residences and red lines connect each resident to the closest wells listed on the violation report.

The well was then plugged around April 14. gas migration area 100 100 52 0 0 18 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL Table 5 lists all of the Dimock Township. 2010 1 5 33 62 32 130 Number of Cabot wells drilled within Dimock Twp. with their drilling dates and total depths as indicated on the DEPs rig reports. 2009 (PADEP 2009). the third well is unknown. The source is from Devonian shales 1.37 - .000 beneath the surface (Lustgarten. Dimock Township residents did not notice symptoms of gas migration into water wells until January 1. grouting failures.e. It is clear from the rig report posted by the DEP that drilling stopped at 888 vertical feet and the well was subsequently plugged around April 16. Susquehanna County gas wells drilled. The majority of these wells were drilled within a six-month span from January to June in 2008. The cause of the leak has not been determined. 2011 Percent of drilled wells within Dimock Twp. not biogenic (i. The Gesford 3 well was permitted for 7. The DEP investigation has concluded that the origin of the methane in the well water was indeed thermogenic.. The Baker 1 well was permitted to drill to 7. It is interesting to note that the wells within the Dimock Township gas migration area comprise 100% and 52% of the wells drilled in Susquehanna County in 2007 and 2008. In the most recent development in this case.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration Table 4: Drilling history in Susquehanna County. Pennsylvania. Several months passed between the drilling of the well and the plugging of the well. gas migration area 1 5 17 0 0 23 April 12.500 vertical drill into the Marcellus. or over pressurized gas wells. Year Number of wells drilled in Susquehanna County as of June 3. the violation report was filed February 27. 2010 (DEP well location plat). poor annulus seals. Two of those wells were the Baker 1 and Gesford 3 wells. No information is available from the DEP concerning construction and testing of the well. After a DEP investigation. 2009). the state of Pennsylvania has committed to providing a water line to 18 homes in Dimock Township as a permanent solution to water quality and safety issues created by methane leakage (PADEP 2010g). respectively.500 beneath the surface instead of from the deeper Marcellus. which lies 7. submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. Three wells were plugged as a result of the investigation. from shale-gas resources and not from shallow methane sources).500 and drilled to 7. but could be due to subsurface fractures. No information is available concerning construction and testing of the well.450 in February 2008. failed well casing. Pittsburgh. 2009. 2011 . 2010 (DEP well location plat).

The Department tested six private water systems and found some with methane gas contamination and three with iron and manganese above regulatory limits. 6034 directional 7500 directional 7145 vertical 6950 directional 6950 directional 7183 vertical 6975 vertical 7400 directional 7192 vertical 888 vertical 7012 vertical 7314 vertical 7500 vertical 7284 vertical 7200 vertical 7484 vertical 7156 vertical denotes plugged well listed on rig report as “non-Marcellus” well Teel 1 not found on rig report. The source appears to be six wells operated by Chesapeake located 2-3 miles from the river. = not available) Well Baker 11 Black 1H Black 2H Brooks 1H2 Costello 1 Costello 2 Ely 1 Ely 1H Ely 1H Ely 2 Ely 6H Ely 4H Gesford 2 Greenwood 1 Heitsman 1H Lewis 2 Gesford 31 Hubbard 1 Lewis 1 Teel 13 Teel 2 Teel 5 Teel 62 Teel 7 1 2 3 Drilling date 2/6/08 5/14/08 6/5/08 5/15/08 3/26/08 4/30/08 2/14/08 5/14/08 7/16/09 9/6/07 4/16/08 3/14/08 3/12/08 7/31/07 5/14/08 3/7/08 12/18/07 4/11/08 3/25/08 5/24/06 12/3/07 1/31/08 12/3/07 1/31/08 Total Vertical Depth (ft) 7450 vertical n. date is for permit and depth is anticipated 2. Pennsylvania In September 2010. Pittsburgh. a methane leak developed in Bradford County that was first observed as gas bubbles in the Susquehanna River (PADEP 2010c). Ventilation systems were installed in all six wells submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference.3 Bradford. 8504 directional 9450 directional 7047 vertical 7150 vertical n. 2011 . The wells had not been hydrofracked.a.38 - .Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12.a.a. Pennsylvania. (n. 2011 Table 5: Wells drilled in Dimock Township.

3 Discussion and Implications for CO2 Sequestration The shale-gas experience in Pennsylvania demonstrates that gas migration to the surface should be a serious concern for CO2 sequestration activities. The public does not readily distinguish between these two issues. but they vividly illustrate that gases can readily migrate from subsurface operations into drinking water and into structural dwellings.4% of the Marcellus wells. This leads to a relatively high failure rate of 1.. despite the fact that. Sub-surface versus surface operations: The shale-gas experience shows that much of the public concern focuses on hazards associated with drilling operations at depth. The impacts of methane are more serious than CO2 due to the danger of explosion. 2011 .1 Legacy Issues April 12. 2.39 - .[). in streams and in soils. However. 3. These include the following: 1. Pittsburgh.3. However. The gas also accumulates at sufficient concentrations to appear as a free gas in wells. Water quality impacts: Methane leakage damages water quality and demonstrates that leaking gas mixes sufficiently with groundwater to result in measurable chemical changes. This experience suggests that CO2 leakage would also impact water quality and would be readily detectable as modified water chemistry or as a free gas.186 wells have been drilled into the Marcellus Formation to produce shale gas (Figure 6). The PADEP report (2010h) documents at least 18 cases of gas accumulation in structures including 9 explosions. 2011 Pennsylvania has had a long history of problems with gas leakage (Harrison. The shale gas analog provides a number of useful statistical measures and lessons learned for CO2 sequestration. 4. the number of wells requiring remediation or attention is approximately 30 (Table 3). These demonstrate that there are real health and safety concerns that could be associated with CO2 leakage. 1985. Structure impacts: Methane readily migrates and accumulates in structures. in principle. but is also probably difficult to determine precisely. 1983. e. This will be even more critical for CO2 . The precise number of problem wells is not well documented by PADEP (2010h). submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration 2. One of the clear lessons from the Pennsylvania experience is that background measurement of water quality are essential for confidently attributing leakage to drilling activities. Problems with surface operations can thus lead to damaging publicity for the entire operation. the vast majority of environmental impacts are associated with surface operations and the handling of fluids.g. Frequency: Approximately 2. which is ubiquitous in the environment and will therefore require better baselines to determine impacts. surface operations are much more easily controlled and handled.

Rate of migration: The experience in Pennsylvania demonstrates very rapid appearance of gas in the shallow subsurface.. over-pressurization of the annulus was cited. improperly abandoned well that allows fluids to migrate to the surface submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. Gas can migrate into the open annulus between these zones either because there are shallower gas-bearing strata or because of poor cement integrity in the productive zone (e.. Role of Hydrofracking: The issue of hydrofracking complicates both the understanding of methane leakage and its application to CO2 sequestration (although hydrofracking may also be used to enhance porosity for sequestration). or enter structures (see Harrison. within days to a few years at most. it can exert a pressure greater than the hydrostatic gradient and can find a weak or permeable point at shallow depth and flow out of the well and contaminate groundwater. 1985). PA involved migration of gas some 2-3 miles. 1985. Area of impact: Methane leakage appears to be quite localized and measured in the 1000’s of feet. for examples and mechanisms drawn from old oil and gas operations in Pennsylvania). The observations also suggest that observation wells within a few thousand feet may be able to detect the source of leaking gas. The implications for sequestration are not clear.g. 1983. R´v´sz et al.000 ). 7. 2011 . permeable fault system that allows fluids to migrate to the surface (b) Fractures at depth connect to a deep. Over-pressurization as key source of gas leakage: All of the methane gas leakage events described by PADEP (2010h) were attributed to wellbore integrity problems. 2010). Typical oil and gas wells are cemented only at the surface and at depth within the productive interval (Figure 5). Harrison. Pennsylvania has used isotopic analyses extensively to determine sources (e. CO2 will be a greater challenge because it is ubiquitous in both the shallow and deep environment and defining “abnormal” concentrations may be a challenge. it is possible that the more limited amounts of gas available in shale-gas operations limits the area of impact. On the other hand. 8. Once gas at depth is connected to the annulus. but it is clear that background measurements are e e very helpful. enter drinking water wells.40 - . There are three other possible mechanisms: (a) Fractures at depth connect to an existing. 9. Pittsburgh. In most of these cases. The very great depth of the Marcellus Formation and the intervening shales preclude the possibility that hydrofracturing is creating new fault or fracture pathways to the surface. 1983. enter improperly abandoned wells. these observations may indicate that gas migrates out of the shallow surface rapidly and therefore over a relatively small region.g. 6. this indicates migration along defective wells due to the great depth of the shale-gas formations (7. The incident at Bradford.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12.. As discussed earlier. Attribution: The methane case illustrates the difficulty in determining the origin of migrating gas. 2011 5.

This situation applies to CO2 sequestration which would also want to avoid false attribution of modern operations to legacy problems from abandoned oil and gas operations. Abandoned wells: While shale-gas has received much of the attention. Other problems required evacuation of homes and neighborhoods and associated dislocation expenses. The report does not provide evidence about this connection. although at this time we do not have estimates of costs to the industry.. Pennsylvania now has recently approved new regulations governing oil and gas development that were drafted in response to these problems (PADEP 2010f. Pittsburgh. and delivery of temporary or permanent sources of drinking water. The standards for shale-gas well development did not include a significant design review and did not involve regular testing of well integrity. 10.” This can be a lesson to the CO2 sequestration effort in the pitfalls of inadequate regulation as well as a demonstration that rules can make a difference in performance. 11. In several places. 2011 . or combinations of inadequate casing and cementing or over-pressured casing seats. While it is possible that there are abandoned wells sufficiently deep and within or close to the Marcellus. without more documentation it is not possible to clearly identify old and new leakage sources. that these abandoned wells are also channeling shale-gas leaks. 2011 (c) Hydrofracturing damages the producing gas well (e. Many of these contamination problems are in litigation with economic impacts as yet unknown. Some activities were straightforward involving repair or proper abandonment of leaking wells. abandoned wells from Pennsylvania’s long oil and gas development history are by far the most significant source of methane leakage.41 - . 12. cement returns. Significant amounts of laboratory testing of water samples were required and a difficult process of separating contamination due to shale-gas as compared to other contamination problems was needed. The preamble to the new rules states “The Department finds that most gas migration issues stem from inadequate cementing procedures. It is possible. the more likely scenario is that over-pressurization due to compromised wellbore integrity has allowed gas to migrate out of the well in the shallow subsurface where it encounters an uncemented abandoned well. The proposed regulations include: submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. especially given that these reports have been filed in the past few years. Remediation: Methane leakage has resulted in significant remediation efforts. but it is clear that producing wells are leaking and it is reasonable to conclude that the hydrofracturing process may damage wells and create pathways to the surface.g. it fractures the cement) and allows gas to migrate back up the well to the surface None of these mechanisms has been demonstrated. the PADEP (2010h) report suggests that hydrofracking has resulted in a connection between an improperly abandoned well and deep Marcellus gas. Role of regulatory environment: The problems with the Marcellus development appear to be due in some part to a lax regulatory environment. 2010b). However. Homeowners required installation of ventilation systems.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12. remediation or clean-up of domestic water wells.

ohio. 2011 . (2008) The Marcellus Shale – an old “new” gas reservoir in Pennsylvania. geauga county. Gunter. R. J. (2007) Analysis and performance of oil well cement with 30 years of CO2 exposure from the SACROC Unit. J. F. J. M. M. B. Pennsylvania Geology 38: 2–13. Ground Water 21: 689–700. B. Saskatchewan. S. Canada.. Mayer.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration (a) Use of centralizers (b) Cement and casing plan approval (c) Quarterly testing (d) Use of blow-out-preventers April 12. K.. M. September 21-24. I. Harrison.. and Laughrey.42 - . Pittsburgh. S. West Texas.. W. Cincinnati. Carey. M. D. WoldeGabriel. D... submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference..aspx. D. E. (2010) Subsurface gas invasion. Wigand. S. Pawar.. P. (1997) Identifying the sources of stray methane by using geochemical and isotopic fingerprinting. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 1: 75–85. S. Bohm. Baldassare. E. OH.. In The Ground Water Protection Council Annual Forum. Bair. and Perkins. Website (retrieved ?? December 2010). Chipera. Hutcheon.. Environmental Geosciences 4: 85–94. S. References Arthur. 2008 . Wehner. C.. J. USA. G. (2008) Hydraulic fracturing considerations for natural gas wells of the marcellus shale. and Senko. 16. and Guthrie.. com/mineral/bainbridge/tabid/20484/default.S. W... Applied Geochemistry 20: 1131–1157. J.. (1983) Evaluating system for groundwater contamination hazards due to gas-well drilling on the glaciated Appalachian Plateau.. 2011 3.. Harper. Jr. (2005) Monitoring of fluid-rock interaction and CO2 storage through produced fluid sampling at the weyburn CO2 -injection enhanced oil recovery site.. Shevalier. Emberley. A. Lichtner. D.1 Comparison to Barnett and other shale gas experience 4 Acknowledgments We wish to thank U. and Layne. H. Department of Energy-NETL’s “Mid-Continent ICCS Project” for supporting this research. M.. G. S. Raines. http://ohiodnr. Freeman. bainbridge township. Durocher. D. C. p.

D. Ohio Department of Natural Resources.43 - .pdf.com/propublica/assets/methane/pdep_nov_cabot_090227. (2005) Injection and storage of CO2 in deep saline aquifers: Analytical solution for CO2 plume evolu-tion during injection. Pittsburgh.. S. Website (retrieved 28 December 2010). Division of Mineral Resources Management (2008) Report on the investigation of the natural gas invasion of aquifers in Bainbridge Township of Geauga County. Vengosh. R. Nordbotten. Kharaka. M. Technical report. Warner. A.pdf. NETL (2010) Impact of the Marcellus Shale Gas Play on Current and Future CCS Activities. D. B. (2009) Officials in three states pin water woes on gas drilling (april 26. National Energy and Technology Laboratory.. K. R. G. B. http://s3. Kelly. R. Website (retrieved ?). M. Environmental Geosciences 10: 107–122. (2011) Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. 2009). S.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12. Ohio. Matisoff. Celia. (1985) Effects of a gas well blow out on groundwater chemistry. and Freifeld.. United States Geological Survey. Environmental Geology Water Science 7: 205–213. Hovorka. and Bachu. Y. Lustgarten. Website (retrieved 23 December 2010). J. Geology 34: 577–580. Written by the Groundwater Protection Council and All Consulting.. NETL (2009) Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer . submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference..org/article/ officials-in-three-states-pin-water-woes-on-gas-drilling-426. amazonaws. M. (2006) Gas-water-rock interactions in Frio Formation following CO2 injection: Implications for the storage of greenhouse gases in sedimentary basins. F. (1985) Contamination of aquifers by overpressuring the annulus of oil and gas-wells. Technical report. National Energy and Technology Laboratory. S. http://s3. A.amazonaws.. R. S. 70 pp. http://www. G. Knauss. K. D.propublica. and Baldassare. Osborn. C. C. J. S. Laughrey. and Swezey. W. (2006) Assessment of Appalachian Basin Oil and Gas Resources: Devonian Shale–Middle and Upper Paleozoic Total Petroleum System. Technical Report Open-File Report Series 2006-1237.. Cole. and Jackson. B. C. and Fisher.. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2009) DEP notice of violation to Cabot Oil & Gas Company. G. Gunter. (2003) Some applications of isotope geochemistry for determing sources of stray carbon dioxide. R. S.. com/propublica/assets/natural_gas/ohio_methane_report_080901. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 8172–8176.. 2011 Harrison. J. Milici. Transport in Porous Media 58: 339–360. N. 2011 . Ground Water 23: 317–324.. W. D.. A.

dep. permanent water supply to Susquehanna County residents impacted by natural gas migration.pt/ community/newsroom/14287?id=14274&typeid=1.elibrary.state. http://www. Website (retrieved 14 December 2010).state. Website (retrieved 15 December 2010). OIL AND GAS WELLS. Protection of Natural Resources Article I. http://www. Website (retrieved 15 December 2010).pt/document/921161/final_annex_a_9_27_20101_pdf. Department of Environmental Protection Subpart C.us/dep/subject/advcoun/oil_gas/2009/Stray%20Gas% 20Migration%20Cases.state.44 - .pa. Website (retrieved 23 December 2010). Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2010h) Stray natural gas migration associated with oil and gas wells. Railroad Commission of Texas (2010) Water use in the Barnet Shale.tx.pdf. Chapter 78 Oil and Gas Well Cementing and Casing.portal.us/dep/ deputate/minres/oilgas/new_forms/marcellus/Reports/DEP%20Fracing%20overview. Website (retrieved 23 December 2010).us/portal/server. 2011 .state.pt/document/921162/final_og_ order_9_20_2010_pdf. Website (retrieved 15 December 2010). 2011 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2010a) 259 abandoned oil and gas wells plugged in 2009.pa. http://www. Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2010c) DEP monitors stray gas remediation in bradford county requires chesapeake to eliminate gas migration. us/portal/server. http://www. php.pa.pt/community/newsroom/14287?id=8901&typeid=1.state. http://www. Code.pa.portal.portal. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2010f) Notice of Final Rulemaking Department of Environmental Protection Environmental Quality Board 25 PA.portal. Website (retrieved 14 December 2010). http://www.us/barnettshale/wateruse_barnettshale. pdf.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12. http://www.state. us/portal/server.dep. http://www.us/portal/server. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2010b) ANNEX A Title 25. state. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2010e) Hydraulic fracturing overview.pa.pt/community/newsroom/14287?id=14522&typeid=1. Website (retrieved 15 December 2010). submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference. Environmental Protection Part I. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2010d) Fact sheet: Orphan oil and gas wells and the orphan well plugging fund.state.pdf. Land Resources CHAPTER 78. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2010g) Public water lines to provide safe.rrc.pa.dep. Website (retrieved 28 December 2010).us/portal/server.pa.portal.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-82185/ 5500-FS-DEP1670. http://www.

Applied Geochemistry 25: 1845–1859..... Society of Petroleum Engineers 3: 116–124. D. submitted to the 10th Annual CCS Conference.. Jaworski. H. J. P. Keating. (1988) Porosity and permeability of eastern Devonian gas shale. J. Van Stempvoort. (1991) The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil. (2005) Oxidation of fugitive methane in ground water linked to bacterial sulfate reduction. Pawar.45 - . C. S. K.Shale-Gas and CO2 Sequestration April 12. Yergin. E.. 876 pp. Breen. Olsen. K. A.. and Burruss.. and Rich. Stauffer.. (2008) Development of a hybrid process and system model for the assessment of wellbore leakage at a geologic CO2 sequestration site. Kavetski.. and Guthrie. G. Simon and Schuster. 2011 . G. Money & Power . W. Maathuis.. R. Baldassare... M. Soeder. Carey. D. S. J. Society of Petroleum Engineers Formation Evaluation. K. J. N. Viswanathan. Ground Water 43: 187–199. Pittsburgh.. P. Kaszuba. Environmental Science & Technology 42: 7280–7286. J. H. 2011 R´v´sz. Mayer. H. C. J. D.. (2010) Carbon and e e hydrogen isotopic evidence for the origin of combustible gases in water-supply wells in north-central Pennsylvania. D. R.. B. D. Jr.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful