4.7 Article

Fugitive emissions of methane from abandoned, decommissioned oil and gas wells

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 547, Issue -, Pages 461-469

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.096

Keywords

Well integrity; Greenhouse gases; Shale gas

Funding

  1. Natural Environment Research Council (UK)
  2. Shell
  3. Chevron
  4. GDF Suez
  5. Ineos
  6. Centrica
  7. Environment Agency

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study considered the fugitive emissions of methane (CH4) from former oil and gas exploration and production wells drilled to exploit conventional hydrocarbon reservoirs onshore in the UK. This study selected from the 66% of all onshore wells in the UK which appeared to be properly decommissioned (abandoned) that came from 4 different basins and were between 8 and 79 years old. The soil gas above each well was analysed and assessed relative to a nearby control site of similar land use and soil type. The results showed that of the 102 wells considered 30% had soil gas CH4 at the soil surface that was significantly greater than their respective control. Conversely, 39% of well sites had significant lower surface soil gas CH4 concentrations than their respective control. We interpret elevated soil gas CH4 concentrations to be the result of well integrity failure, but do not know the source of the gas nor the route to the surface. Where elevated CH4 was detected it appears to have occurred within a decade of it being drilled. The flux of CH4 from wells was 364 +/- 677 kg CO2eq/well/year with a 27% chance that the well would have a negative flux to the atmosphere independent of well age. This flux is low relative to the activity commonly used on decommissioned well sites (e.g. sheep grazing), however, fluxes from wells that have not been appropriately decommissioned would be expected to be higher. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available