Literature DB >> 27497852

Geochemical indicators of the origins and evolution of methane in groundwater: Gippsland Basin, Australia.

Matthew Currell1, Dominic Banfield2, Ian Cartwright3, Dioni I Cendón4,5.   

Abstract

Recent expansion of shale and coal seam gas production worldwide has increased the need for geochemical studies in aquifers near gas deposits, to determine processes impacting groundwater quality and better understand the origins and behavior of dissolved hydrocarbons. We determined dissolved methane concentrations (n = 36) and δ13C and δ2H values (n = 31) in methane and groundwater from the 46,000-km2 Gippsland Basin in southeast Australia. The basin contains important water supply aquifers and is a potential target for future unconventional gas development. Dissolved methane concentrations ranged from 0.0035 to 30 mg/L (median = 8.3 mg/L) and were significantly higher in the deep Lower Tertiary Aquifer (median = 19 mg/L) than the shallower Upper Tertiary Aquifer (median = 3.45 mg/L). Groundwater δ13CDIC values ranged from -26.4 to -0.4 ‰ and were generally higher in groundwater with high methane concentrations (mean δ13CDIC = -9.5 ‰ for samples with >3 mg/L CH4 vs. -16.2 ‰ in all others), which is consistent with bacterial methanogenesis. Methane had δ13CCH4 values of -97.5 to -31.8 ‰ and δ2HCH4 values of -391 to -204 ‰ that were also consistent with bacterial methane, excluding one site with δ13CCH4 values of -31.8 to -37.9 ‰, where methane may have been thermogenic. Methane from different regions and aquifers had distinctive stable isotope values, indicating differences in the substrate and/or methanogenesis mechanism. Methane in the Upper Tertiary Aquifer in Central Gippsland had lower δ13CCH4 (-83.7 to -97.5 ‰) and δ2HCH4 (-236 to -391 ‰) values than in the deeper Lower Tertiary Aquifer (δ13CCH4 = -45.8 to -66.2 ‰ and δ2HCH4 = -204 to -311 ‰). The particularly low δ13CCH4 values in the former group may indicate methanogenesis at least partly through carbonate reduction. In deeper groundwater, isotopic values were more consistent with acetate fermentation. Not all methane at a given depth and location is interpreted as being necessarily produced in situ. We propose that high dissolved sulphate concentrations in combination with high methane concentrations can indicate gas resulting from contamination and/or rapid migration as opposed to in situ bacterial production or long-term migration. Isotopes of methane and dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) serve as further lines of evidence to distinguish methane sources. The study demonstrates the value of isotopic characterisation of groundwater including dissolved gases in basins containing hydrocarbons.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gippsland; Groundwater; Isotopes; Methane; Methanogenesis; Unconventional gas

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27497852     DOI: 10.1007/s11356-016-7290-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int        ISSN: 0944-1344            Impact factor:   4.223


  10 in total

1.  Occurrence and origin of methane in groundwater in Alberta (Canada): Gas geochemical and isotopic approaches.

Authors:  P Humez; B Mayer; J Ing; M Nightingale; V Becker; A Kingston; O Akbilgic; S Taylor
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2015-11-11       Impact factor: 7.963

2.  Gas formation. Formation temperatures of thermogenic and biogenic methane.

Authors:  D A Stolper; M Lawson; C L Davis; A A Ferreira; E V Santos Neto; G S Ellis; M D Lewan; A M Martini; Y Tang; M Schoell; A L Sessions; J M Eiler
Journal:  Science       Date:  2014-06-27       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Noble gases identify the mechanisms of fugitive gas contamination in drinking-water wells overlying the Marcellus and Barnett Shales.

Authors:  Thomas H Darrah; Avner Vengosh; Robert B Jackson; Nathaniel R Warner; Robert J Poreda
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-09-15       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 4.  A critical review of the risks to water resources from unconventional shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing in the United States.

Authors:  Avner Vengosh; Robert B Jackson; Nathaniel Warner; Thomas H Darrah; Andrew Kondash
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2014-03-07       Impact factor: 9.028

5.  Effect of Different Sampling Methodologies on Measured Methane Concentrations in Groundwater Samples.

Authors:  Lisa J Molofsky; Stephen D Richardson; Anthony W Gorody; Fred Baldassare; June A Black; Thomas E McHugh; John A Connor
Journal:  Ground Water       Date:  2016-03-24       Impact factor: 2.671

6.  Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction.

Authors:  Robert B Jackson; Avner Vengosh; Thomas H Darrah; Nathaniel R Warner; Adrian Down; Robert J Poreda; Stephen G Osborn; Kaiguang Zhao; Jonathan D Karr
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-06-24       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing.

Authors:  Stephen G Osborn; Avner Vengosh; Nathaniel R Warner; Robert B Jackson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-05-09       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Groundwater protection and unconventional gas extraction: the critical need for field-based hydrogeological research.

Authors:  R E Jackson; A W Gorody; B Mayer; J W Roy; M C Ryan; D R Van Stempvoort
Journal:  Ground Water       Date:  2013-06-07       Impact factor: 2.671

Review 9.  Impact of shale gas development on regional water quality.

Authors:  R D Vidic; S L Brantley; J M Vandenbossche; D Yoxtheimer; J D Abad
Journal:  Science       Date:  2013-05-17       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Assessing Connectivity Between an Overlying Aquifer and a Coal Seam Gas Resource Using Methane Isotopes, Dissolved Organic Carbon and Tritium.

Authors:  Charlotte P Iverach; Dioni I Cendón; Stuart I Hankin; David Lowry; Rebecca E Fisher; James L France; Euan G Nisbet; Andy Baker; Bryce F J Kelly
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-11-04       Impact factor: 4.379

  10 in total
  2 in total

1.  Cultivating hope for a better future: research contributions from young scholars in earth and environmental sciences.

Authors:  Peiyue Li; Ken W F Howard; Matthew Currell
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2017-04-21       Impact factor: 4.223

2.  Can groundwater sampling techniques used in monitoring wells influence methane concentrations and isotopes?

Authors:  Christine Rivard; Geneviève Bordeleau; Denis Lavoie; René Lefebvre; Xavier Malet
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 2.513

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.