Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Thomas S. Weber

Publications and source records attributed to Thomas S. Weber.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

Bottom-up characterization of geologic methane emissions in the San Juan Basin in the southwestern USA

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that plays an important role in atmospheric chemistry and global warming. The current global methane budget has large uncertainties, and a better understanding of the budget would help to guide strategies for reducing anthropogenic emissions to fight climate change. Natural geologic methane emissions are a particularly poorly constrained source, with top-down estimates from 14 C in ice cores suggesting much lower geologic emissions than bottom-up scaling of direct flux measurements. Our study aims to contribute to resolving this discrepancy through improved bottom-up characterization of geologic methane seepage in the San Juan Basin in southwestern Colorado and northwestern New Mexico, USA. We performed 983 new flux chamber measurements in this basin during summer 2022 and winter 2023 field campaigns. Our results, in combination with prior measurements, suggest that natural seepage in the San Juan Basin only occurs on or near the Fruitland coal outcrop. Specifically, our new measurements confirm previous measurements of seepage along the northwestern exposure of the Fruitland outcrop in Colorado (a known hydrodynamic overpressure region) and for the first time, identified seepage locations along the southernmost Fruitland outcrop exposure in New Mexico, in association with a coal cleat and a fault. Overall, seepage along the Fruitland coal outcrop is heterogeneously distributed, with both positive and negative (interpreted as microbial soil sink) methane fluxes. Features that are hypothesized to be predictive of seepage (e.g., faults) were not associated with positive methane fluxes in areas outside of the Fruitland outcrop. Our best estimate for total geologic methane seepage in the San Juan Basin from spatial interpolation and statistical upscaling is approximately 0.14 Tg CH 4 /yr, with a range from 0.029 to 0.48 Tg CH 4 /yr. This best-estimate value is lower than a previous bottom-up estimate from a gridded seepage inventory, but higher than a previous top-down estimate.

Colorado, New Mexico↗

New measurements indicate that natural geologic methane emissions from microseepage in the Michigan Basin are likely negligible

The magnitude of natural geologic methane (CH 4 ) emissions to the atmosphere (including emissions of fossil CH 4 from offshore and onshore gas and oil seeps, diffuse microseepage, mud volcanoes, volcanic vents, and geothermal areas) is highly uncertain. The largest component of geologic emissions is thought to be microseepage, which is the diffuse flux of CH 4 from soils across large areas of productive hydrocarbon basins. The accuracy of existing bottom-up estimates of microseepage is limited by low spatial coverage of published microseepage measurements. We present the first soil—atmosphere CH 4 flux measurements from Michigan Basin, USA. Results from 335 measurements taken during summer and winter seasons across a large portion of the basin suggest microseepage is nonexistent in the sampled region. Even areas with predictive features for microseepage (e.g., underlying mature, organically rich source rocks, proven gas accumulations, faults, and lineaments) yield null or negative fluxes, suggesting that CH 4 emissions from microseepage are negligible throughout our study region. A Monte Carlo method was used to place an upper limit on the regional-mean microseepage flux, in which synthetic patchy microseepage distributions were generated and tested against our observations to assess the impact of possible emission hot spots that were missed by our sampling strategy. Our analysis finds it is very unlikely that regional-mean emissions are as high as assumed in a previous global microseepage study. The observed lack of seepage may be explained by groundwater flow, active methanotrophy, glacial sediments, and bedded salt deposits, which could inhibit vertical gas migration and release to atmosphere.

Michigan↗

Global methane budget 2000-2020

Understanding and quantifying the global methane (CH 4 ) budget is important for assessing realistic pathways to mitigate climate change. CH 4 is the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas in terms of climate forcing after carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), and both emissions and atmospheric concentrations of CH 4 have continued to increase since 2007 after a temporary pause. The relative importance of CH 4 emissions compared to those of CO 2 for temperature change is related to its shorter atmospheric lifetime, stronger radiative effect, and acceleration in atmospheric growth rate over the past decade, the causes of which are still debated. Two major challenges in quantifying the factors responsible for the observed atmospheric growth rate arise from diverse, geographically overlapping CH 4 sources and from the uncertain magnitude and temporal change in the destruction of CH 4 by short-lived and highly variable hydroxyl radicals (OH). To address these challenges, we have established a consortium of multidisciplinary scientists under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project to improve, synthesise, and update the global CH 4 budget regularly and to stimulate new research on the methane cycle. Following Saunois et al. (2016, 2020), we present here the third version of the living review paper dedicated to the decadal CH 4 budget, integrating results of top-down CH 4 emission estimates (based on in situ and Greenhouse Gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) atmospheric observations and an ensemble of atmospheric inverse-model results) and bottom-up estimates (based on process-based models for estimating land surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry, inventories of anthropogenic emissions, and data-driven extrapolations). We present a budget for the most recent 2010–2019 calendar decade (the latest period for which full data sets are available), for the previous decade of 2000–2009 and for the year 2020. The revision of the bottom-up budget in this 2025 edition benefits from important progress in estimating inland freshwater emissions, with better counting of emissions from lakes and ponds, reservoirs, and streams and rivers. This budget also reduces double counting across freshwater and wetland emissions and, for the first time, includes an estimate of the potential double counting that may exist (average of 23 Tg CH 4 yr −1 ). Bottom-up approaches show that the combined wetland and inland freshwater emissions average 248 [159–369] Tg CH 4 yr −1 for the 2010–2019 decade. Natural fluxes are perturbed by human activities through climate, eutrophication, and land use. In this budget, we also estimate, for the first time, this anthropogenic component contributing to wetland and inland freshwater emissions. Newly available gridded products also allowed us to derive an almost complete latitudinal and regional budget based on bottom-up approaches. For the 2010–2019 decade, global CH 4 emissions are estimated by atmospheric inversions (top-down) to be 575 Tg CH 4 yr −1 (range 553–586, corresponding to the minimum and maximum estimates of the model ensemble). Of this amount, 369 Tg CH 4 yr −1 or ∼ 65 % is attributed to direct anthropogenic sources in the fossil, agriculture, and waste and anthropogenic biomass burning (range 350–391 Tg CH 4 yr −1 or 63 %–68 %). For the 2000–2009 period, the atmospheric inversions give a slightly lower total emission than for 2010–2019, by 32 Tg CH 4 yr −1 (range 9–40). The 2020 emission rate is the highest of the period and reaches 608 Tg CH 4 yr −1 (range 581–627), which is 12 % higher than the average emissions in the 2000s. Since 2012, global direct anthropogenic CH 4 emission trends have been tracking scenarios that assume no or minimal climate mitigation policies proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (shared socio-economic pathways SSP5 and SSP3). Bottom-up methods suggest 16 % (94 Tg CH 4 yr −1 ) larger global emissions (669 Tg CH 4 yr −1 , range 512–849) than top-down inversion methods for the 2010–2019 period. The discrepancy between the bottom-up and the top-down budgets has been greatly reduced compared to the previous differences (167 and 156 Tg CH 4 yr −1 in Saunois et al. (2016, 2020) respectively), and for the first time uncertainties in bottom-up and top-down budgets overlap. Although differences have been reduced between inversions and bottom-up, the most important source of uncertainty in the global CH 4 budget is still attributable to natural emissions, especially those from wetlands and inland freshwaters. The tropospheric loss of methane, as the main contributor to methane lifetime, has been estimated at 563 [510–663] Tg CH 4 yr −1 based on chemistry–climate models. These values are slightly larger than for 2000–2009 due to the impact of the rise in atmospheric methane and remaining large uncertainty ( ∼ 25 %). The total sink of CH 4 is estimated at 633 [507–796] Tg CH 4 yr −1 by the bottom-up approaches and at 554 [550–567] Tg CH 4 yr −1 by top-down approaches. However, most of the top-down models use the same OH distribution, which introduces less uncertainty to the global budget than is likely justified. For 2010–2019, agriculture and waste contributed an estimated 228 [213–242] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the top-down budget and 211 [195–231] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the bottom-up budget. Fossil fuel emissions contributed 115 [100–124] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the top-down budget and 120 [117–125] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the bottom-up budget. Biomass and biofuel burning contributed 27 [26–27] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the top-down budget and 28 [21–39] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the bottom-up budget. We identify five major priorities for improving the CH 4 budget: (i) producing a global, high-resolution map of water-saturated soils and inundated areas emitting CH 4 based on a robust classification of different types of emitting ecosystems; (ii) further development of process-based models for inland-water emissions; (iii) intensification of CH 4 observations at local (e.g. FLUXNET-CH 4 measurements, urban-scale monitoring, satellite imagery with pointing capabilities) to regional scales (surface networks and global remote sensing measurements from satellites) to constrain both bottom-up models and atmospheric inversions; (iv) improvements of transport models and the representation of photochemical sinks in top-down inversions; and (v) integration of 3D variational inversion systems using isotopic and/or co-emitted species such as ethane as well as information in the bottom-up inventories on anthropogenic super-emitters detected by remote sensing (mainly oil and gas sector but also coal, agriculture, and landfills) to improve source partitioning.

Earth System Science Data↗

Negligible atmospheric release of methane from decomposing hydrates in mid-latitude oceans

Naturally occurring gas hydrates may contribute to a positive feedback for global warming because they sequester large amounts of the potent greenhouse gas methane in ice-like deposits that could be destabilized by increasing ocean/atmospheric temperatures. Most hydrates occur within marine sediments; gas liberated during the decomposition of seafloor hydrates or originating with other methane pools can feed methane emissions at cold seeps. Regardless of the origin of seep methane, all previous measurements of methane emitted from seeps have shown it to have a unique fossil radiocarbon signature, contrasting with other sources of marine methane. Here we present the concentration and natural radiocarbon content of methane dissolved in the water column from the seafloor to the sea surface at seep fields along the US Atlantic and Pacific margins. For shallower water columns, where the seafloor is not within the hydrate stability zone, we do document seep CH 4 in some surface-water samples. However, measurements in deeper water columns along the US Atlantic margin reveal no evidence of seep CH 4 reaching surface waters when the water-column depth is greater than 430 ± 90 m. Gas hydrates exist only at water depths greater than ~550 m in this region, suggesting that the source of methane escaping to the atmosphere is not from hydrate decomposition.

North Carolina, Oregon, Virginia, Washington↗

Scientific basis for safely shutting in the Macondo Well after the April 20, 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout

As part of the government response to the Deepwater Horizon blowout, a Well Integrity Team evaluated the geologic hazards of shutting in the Macondo Well at the seafloor and determined the conditions under which it could safely be undertaken. Of particular concern was the possibility that, under the anticipated high shut-in pressures, oil could leak out of the well casing below the seafloor. Such a leak could lead to new geologic pathways for hydrocarbon release to the Gulf of Mexico. Evaluating this hazard required analyses of 2D and 3D seismic surveys, seafloor bathymetry, sediment properties, geophysical well logs, and drilling data to assess the geological, hydrological, and geomechanical conditions around the Macondo Well. After the well was successfully capped and shut in on July 15, 2010, a variety of monitoring activities were used to assess subsurface well integrity. These activities included acquisition of wellhead pressure data, marine multichannel seismic profiles, seafloor and water-column sonar surveys, and wellhead visual/acoustic monitoring. These data showed that the Macondo Well was not leaking after shut in, and therefore, it could remain safely shut until reservoir pressures were suppressed (killed) with heavy drilling mud and the well was sealed with cement.

Gulf of Mexico↗