Methanogenesis: Part 3: Fingerprinting Methane by Isotopes Reveals Sources and CRISPR Gives Insights into Enzyme Mechanisms for Methanogenesis

     I am certainly no expert, but I think I should better explain methanogenesis for this multiple-part post. Methanogenesis refers to biologically produced methane and is also referred to as bio-methanization. In my oil & gas studies and work, I came to understand the two main sources of subsurface methane generation: biogenic and thermogenic. Methane in drilled natural gas fields may be of either type or a combination, but the bulk of it is thermogenic, produced by the heat and pressure in deeply buried rock that is rich in organic matter, typically decomposed algal matter. The PT conditions influence the chemical “cracking” of heavier hydrocarbons into methane. Dry natural gas occurs when the “wetter” liquids that make up crude oil are used up in the process. Dry natural gas occurs where hydrocarbons are said to be thermally mature. There is also abiotic methane produced by the interaction of seawater and magmatic olivine in the process known as serpentinization. This has recently been shown to be more prevalent at deep-sea trenches than thought. According to a 2019 release from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution:

“…seawater, moving through the deep oceanic crust, is trapped in magma-hot olivine.  As the mineral cools, the water trapped inside undergoes a chemical reaction, a process called serpentinization that forms hydrogen and methane. The authors demonstrate that in otherwise inhospitable environments, just two ingredients⁠—water and olivine⁠—can form methane.”   

     According to Wikipedia:

“Methanogenesis or biomethanation is the formation of methane coupled to energy conservation by microbes known as methanogens. It is the fourth and final stage of anaerobic digestion. Organisms capable of producing methane for energy conservation have been identified only from the domain Archaea, a group phylogenetically distinct from both eukaryotes and bacteria, although many live in close association with anaerobic bacteria. The production of methane is an important and widespread form of microbial metabolism. In anoxic environments, it is the final step in the decomposition of biomass. Methanogenesis is responsible for significant amounts of natural gas accumulations, the remainder being thermogenic.”

     Marine sediments are an important habitat for methane-generating microbial communities. In the most common pathway, the microbes consume acetate, which comprises two-thirds of global methane production. The abbreviated reactions are CO2 + 4 H2 → CH4 + 2 H2O and CH3COOH → CH4 + CO2. The pathways are shown in more detail below.

     Both carbon and hydrogen isotopes can be used to fingerprint methane. An August 2025 paper in Science explores the main enzyme in methanogenesis, methyl–coenzyme M reductase (MCR), and how modulating it with CRISPR alters the isotopic composition of microbial methane, showing that a similar modulation pathway exists in nature. Jonathan Gropp, the paper’s lead author, notes:

“…for methane, large uncertainties in fluxes exist -- within tens of percents for some of the fluxes -- that challenge our ability to precisely quantify the relative importance and changes in time of the sources. To quantify the actual sources of methane, you need to really understand the isotopic processes that are used to constrain these fluxes. Microbes respond to the environment by manipulating their gene expression, and then the isotopic compositions change as well. This should cause us to think more carefully when we analyze data from the environment."

     Co-author Dipti Nayak, UC Berkeley assistant professor of molecular and cell biology, added:

"It is well understood that methane levels are rising, but there is a lot of disagreement on the underlying cause. This study is the first time the disciplines of molecular biology and isotope biogeochemistry have been fused to provide better constraints on how the biology of methanogens controls the isotopic composition of methane. I think what's unique about the paper is, we learned that the isotopic composition of microbial methane isn't just based on what methanogens eat. What you 'eat' matters, of course, but the amount of these substrates and the environmental conditions matter too, and perhaps more importantly, how microbes react to those changes.”

     Geochemist and co-author Daniel Stolper, UC Berkeley associate professor of earth and planetary science, explained isotopic signatures and variation in methanogenesis pathways:

"Over the last 70 years, people have shown that methane produced by different organisms and other processes can have distinctive isotopic fingerprints. Natural gas from oil deposits often looks one way. Methane made by the methanogens within cow guts looks another way. Methane made in deep sea sediments by microorganisms has a different fingerprint. Methanogens can consume or 'eat', if you will, a variety of compounds including methanol, acetate or hydrogen; make methane; and generate energy from the process. Scientists have commonly assumed that the isotopic fingerprint depends on what the organisms are eating, which often varies from environment to environment, creating our ability to link isotopes to methane origins."

     The researchers used CRISPR to reduce the activity of the enzyme and found that when they did, the isotopic composition of the methane changed. They also discovered that changes in the availability of food sources for the microbes result in changes in gene expression that lead to changes in isotopic signatures. These archaean microbes consume acetate (essentially vinegar), methanol (the simplest alcohol), or molecular hydrogen (H2)  and produce methane, CH4, with a ratio of hydrogen and carbon isotopes different from the ratios observed in the environment. They found that the microbes, which normally get hydrogen from what they consume, can also get it from the water in the environment if their food source becomes scarce.

     According to Science Daily and the authors, using CRISPR in similar isotope/enzyme studies can help increase understanding:

“Beyond this study, the CRISPR technique for tuning production of enzymes in methanogens could be used to manipulate and study isotope effects in other enzyme networks broadly, which could help researchers answer questions about geobiology and the Earth's environment today and in the past.”

"This opens up a pathway where modern molecular biology is married with isotope-geochemistry to answer environmental problems," Stolper said. "There are an enormous number of isotopic systems associated with biology and biochemistry that are studied in the environment; I hope we can start looking at them in the way molecular biologists now are looking at these problems in people and other organisms -- by controlling gene expression and looking at how the stable isotopes respond."

     Another potential benefit could be using the knowledge gained to one day use it to reduce the methane output to the atmosphere, but this is likely far off.

 

 

    

References:

 

Methanogenesis. Wikipedia. Methanogenesis - Wikipedia

Scientists just found a hidden factor behind Earth’s methane surge: Using CRISPR to dial down enzyme helps to understand the isotope signatures of methane from different environments. Sceince Daily. University of California at Berkeley. August 17, 2025. Scientists just found a hidden factor behind Earth’s methane surge | ScienceDaily

Modulation of methyl–coenzyme M reductase expression alters the isotopic composition of microbial methane. Jonathan Gropp, Markus Bill, Max K. Lloyd, Rebekah A. Stein, Dipti D. Nayak, and Daniel A. Stolper. Science. 14 Aug 2025. Vol 389, Issue 6761. pp. 711-715. Modulation of methyl–coenzyme M reductase expression alters the isotopic composition of microbial methane | Science

Origin of Massive Methane Reservoir Identified. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. August 20, 2019. Origin of Massive Methane Reservoir Identified – Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Methanogenesis: Part 2: Deep-Sea Methanogens and Chemosynthesis: Quantifying Its Contribution

     New research is showing that there is much more to the global methane cycle than previously assumed, especially regarding methane seeping from cracks in deep-sea trenches. These deep methane seeps support strange forms of deep-sea life in those trenches. There is a clear need for a better understanding of deep-sea methane and the possibility that it is contributing to increases in atmospheric methane. The new discovery, published in July 2025 in Nature, was written about recently in Forbes by Ingmar Rentzhog.  She explains:

“This Deep-Sea discovery is so new it’s rewriting the map of life on Earth and it could reshape our understanding of the climate system. More than 9,000 meters below the Pacific Ocean, scientists have uncovered a 2,500-kilometer stretch of extraordinary life that doesn’t depend on sunlight at all — it runs on methane.”

“Between Russia and Alaska, in the deep-sea of the Kuril–Kamchatka and Aleutian trenches, clams, red-tipped tube worms, and invisible microbes thrive on gases seeping from cracks in the seafloor. These are the deepest methane-fueled ecosystems ever recorded — and they may be doing far more than surviving. They might be helping regulate our climate.”

     This methane-based deep-sea biological system is known as chemosynthesis. The scientists involved in the recent paper relied on an expedition to the Kuril–Kamchatka Trench and the western Aleutian Trench using the manned submersible Fendouzhe. The source of the methane is organic matter that is processed by deep-ocean microbes. As noted in the abstract, this chemosynthesis-based life may be more widespread than previously thought. There are also potentially huge implications for these hadal trenches for deep ocean carbon cycling. The new research underscores the fact that we need a better understanding of ocean methane and carbon cycling. It is difficult to explore these hadal trenches due to water depths reaching 9000 meters or more. Deep trenches occur at passive and active plate margins. The authors note that “probable chemosynthetic mats have been observed at a depth of 10,677 m at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.” The Mariana Trench is a Mid-Ocean Ridge where new basaltic sea floor is being created and spreading out from the mid-ocean toward the next tectonic boundary, which is likely a subduction zone associated with continental plates. The process of the emergence of sea floor spreading to re-submergence takes about 180 million years. The Kuril–Kamchatka Trench occurs at a subduction zone where one plate subducts under another plate. These cold seeps are very high-pressure environments.

“The detection of anomalously high methane concentrations and the potential for gas hydrate formation in the hadal zone provide new insights into deep carbon cycling. The widespread methane-rich environments in two hadal trenches, where microbial reduction of CO2 from sedimentary organic matter presumably results in methane production, suggest a vibrant and active microbial community in the hadal sediments. This indicates that the deep-subsurface biosphere may exert a more important influence on biogeochemical processes in subduction zones, representing a previously unrecognized energy supply. The accumulation of methane in sedimentary layers generated by this deep-subsurface biosphere could potentially sequester considerable amounts of sedimentary organic carbon, suggesting a portion of subducting organic carbon can be stored in the trench sediments in a form of methane for prolonged geological time, rather than being subducted to the deep lithosphere. It remains unknown whether the current findings can be extrapolated to other trench systems, but given the geological similarities hadal methane reservoirs may be more widespread, irrespective of the presence of fault zones that could serve as conduits for the release of methane-rich fluids. This hypothesis is supported by the recovery of gas hydrates from drilling sediments in the Middle America Trench and the Peru–Chile Trench at depths surpassing 5,000 m (ref. 48), and the presence of similar seep communities in the Japan Trench. These findings underscore the complex nature of carbon cycling in the deep sea and highlight the critical need to integrate hadal processes into global carbon models to improve the accuracy of predictions about carbon dynamics and climate change responses on geological timescale. Furthermore, the potential presence of methane hydrates at great depths in hadal trenches may enhance global inventory of methane gas hydrate resources.”

     Microbes in the bodies of the deep-sea life of the trenches consume methane. They do not rely on sunlight at all.

     Below is the paper's abstract, pictures of some of the fauna, and an exploration of deep-sea methane origins.

     Below is a section from the Forbes article on how methane is measured in these deep-sea environments. It should be noted that under the high-pressure conditions of deep water, methane occurs in liquid form in seafloor sediments, usually as methane hydrates. It should also perhaps be noted that the amount of methane hydrate stored in seafloor sediments is much higher than the amount of methane generated thermogenically in the subsurface. This suggests that unknown fluxes releasing methane from methane hydrates could result in significantly higher biogenic emissions, since the source is so big. Those fluxes could be initiated by ocean currents, deep seafloor mining or disturbance, and the availability of organic matter and hydrogen.

     Difficult as it is, more research is needed about deep-sea methane and methanogenesis. Part 3 will explore how methane is fingerprinted by chemical isotopes.

     Below is an awesome video of "life in the trenches!'

    

References:

 

Flourishing chemosynthetic life at the greatest depths of hadal trenches. Xiaotong Peng, Mengran Du, Andrey Gebruk, Shuangquan Liu, Zhaoming Gao, Ronnie N. Glud, Peng Zhou, Ruoheng Wang, Ashley A. Rowden, Gennady M. Kamenev, Anastassya S. Maiorova, Dominic Papineau, Shun Chen, Jinwei Gao, Helu Liu, Yuan He, Inna L. Alalykina, Igor Yu. Dolmatov, Hanyu Zhang, Xuegong Li, Marina V. Malyutina, Shamik Dasgupta, Anastasiia A. Saulenko, Vladimir A. Shilov, …Andrey V. Adrianov. Nature (July 2025). Flourishing chemosynthetic life at the greatest depths of hadal trenches | Nature

Origin of natural gas within the deep-sea uncompacted sediments of the Shenhu area, northern South China Sea: Geochemical and methanogenic cultivation results. Hongfei Lai, Yinan Deng, Lu Yang, Jinqiang Liang, Lirong Dai, Ling Li, Yunxin Fang, Laiyan Liu, and Zenggui Kuang. Marine and Petroleum Geology. Volume 147, January 2023. Origin of natural gas within the deep-sea uncompacted sediments of the Shenhu area, northern South China Sea: Geochemical and methanogenic cultivation results - ScienceDirect

New Data Says Earth’s Dangerous Warming Traced To A Hidden Methane Culprit. Julie Majid. Petsnpals. September 1, 2025. New Data Says Earth’s Dangerous Warming Traced To A Hidden Methane Culprit

Deep-Sea Discovery Reveals Hidden Methane Cycle. Ingmar Rentzhog. Forbes. August 14, 2025. Deep-Sea Discovery Reveals Hidden Methane Cycle

 

Methanogenesis: Part 1: Discovery of New Oxygen-Tolerant Methanogens May Partially Explain Recent Increase in Biogenic Atmospheric Methane: Coastal Methanogenesis is More Abundant Than Thought and Implications for Methane Budgeting

      Researchers have discovered the culprit behind the increase in atmospheric methane over the past decade or so. It is likely more than one culprit. This post looks at research in intertidal coastal areas with permeable sand bottoms. Part 1 will follow this study. In another post, Part 2 will examine the recent discovery of the growing proliferation of deep-sea methanogens as a possible source of the methane. According to Part 1, the methane is thought to be from two previously unknown methanogen strains. The researchers from Monash University in Australia studied sandy coastal regions in Australia and Denmark. The new methanogen species can tolerate some oxygen, once thought to be impossible with methanogens. Lead author of their paper in Nature Geoscience, Professor Perran Cook, noted;

“Methanogenesis was thought to occur only in oxygen-free environments. We’ve now shown that these microbes survive oxygen exposure with no ill effects.”

     The microbes generate methane by metabolizing compounds released from decaying seaweed and seagrass, even in the presence of oxygen. The implications of this new knowledge include the new likelihood that sandy coastal areas with permeable sediments contribute much more methane than previously thought. In addition, the fact that they metabolize chemicals from decaying seaweed and sea grass roots means that so-called “blue carbon” carbon offset schemes may not be providing as much greenhouse gas sequestration as previously thought, possibly much less. The new understanding suggests that such schemes may not be as useful as thought. This certainly needs further research. There are other reasons, however, than sequestering greenhouse gases, for coastal restoration via seagrasses and seaweed.

     The paper notes the changing implications of the study for climate change analysis:

“The evidence presented here shows the activity of the most oxygen-tolerant methanogens described so far, both in whole-community and isolate settings. Combined with high-rate measurements and evidence of macrophyte biomass being the primary driving factor, this redefines the range of environments that can be described as highly methanogenic and suggests climate consequences to changes in coastal permeable environments, which have not been previously considered.”

“The shallow and turbulent nature of waters overlying coastal permeable sediments, combined with advective transport in the sediments, gives the study additional importance. In deeper waters and cohesive sediments, the balance of methanogenesis and methanotrophy is such that in the bulk of the ocean, the volume is undersaturated in methane with respect to the atmosphere. However, in rippled permeable sediments, the redox seal is broken, with flow from reduced reaction zones exported directly through ripple peaks or lee sides depending on bedform and flow interactions. This allows methane produced in shallow anoxic regions to reach the shallow overlying water where low residence times and high turbulence causes high rates of export to the atmosphere. Therefore, the contribution of methane production in shallow permeable sediments to total marine methane emissions is probably disproportionately large.”

     It seems likely that much of the methane emissions are seasonal, related to the growth and decay of plants.

     Other implications involve two increasingly common phenomena: 1) the presence of eutrophication and large algae blooms along coastal zones receiving excess nutrients, phosphorus in particular, from rivers draining agricultural areas, and 2) rising sea temperatures – these higher temperatures support algal blooms and biomass collecting on beaches that will later decay.

     The study utilized a combination of in situ monitoring, laboratory experiments, and genomic analysis. Lab experiments were conducted with slurries. There are implications for climate modeling and carbon budgeting, especially since these permeable sandy coasts make up half of the world’s continental margins.

“Here, we have shown that deposition of this excess algal biomass on sandy coasts may result in increasingly large and frequent pulses of methane to the atmosphere and should be accounted for in future marine methane budgets and modelling. In particular, we note that many studies that quantify the net carbon sink/source dynamics of vegetated ecosystems focus on the sites where these macrophytes grow, and we suggest that future work should focus on the mobility of degrading biomass and its potential greenhouse gas emissions when deposited in different ecosystems. As well as unintentional excess macrophyte growth caused by eutrophication, the results of this study further complicate CO2 removal by macrophytes, seagrasses or ‘blue carbon’ as a climate change mitigation strategy, as enhanced methane emissions may offset much of the CO2 removal by these ecosystems.”

     The researchers were able to rule out groundwater as a source of the extra methane by comparing methane concentrations to radon concentrations in the groundwater. While methane increased, radon did not, indicating a non-groundwater source. They used liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry (LC-MS) to evaluate chemical components in the study. They also isolated and sequenced the genomes of the methanogens. They found that methylotrophic archaea dominate the intertidal coastal emissions. This was unexpected since it was thought that the frequent presence of oxygen in the environment would inhibit archaeal methanogenesis.    

“We investigated acetoclastic, hydrogenotrophic and methylotrophic methanogenesis pathways using targeted substrate addition (Fig. 2d) and found that methylotrophic methanogenesis predominated…”   

     The metagenomic analysis and the isolation of novel microbes confirm that aerotolerant methanogens were the culprit in the enhanced methane generation. They also found that in both locations, Australia and Denmark, with much different climates, the methanogenesis pathways were remarkably similar:

“Analyses of the genome sequences of both isolates revealed remarkable similarities in their methanogenesis pathways and antioxidant systems, despite being isolated from geographically and climatically distinct locations, suggesting that these traits are important for adaptation in sandy sediments.”

 

     

 

References:

 

New Data Says Earth’s Dangerous Warming Traced To A Hidden Methane Culprit. Julie Majid. Petsnpals. September 1, 2025. New Data Says Earth’s Dangerous Warming Traced To A Hidden Methane Culprit

Coastal methane emissions driven by aerotolerant methanogens using seaweed and seagrass metabolites. N. Hall, W. W. Wong, R. Lappan, F. Ricci, K. J. Jeppe, R. N. Glud, S. Kawaichi, A-E. Rotaru, C. Greening & P. L. M. Cook. Nature Geoscience. August 7, 2025. Coastal methane emissions driven by aerotolerant methanogens using seaweed and seagrass metabolites | Nature Geoscience

Monash University scientists unlock seaweed secrets that could transform climate models.Monash University.  August 11, 2025. Monash University scientists unlock seaweed secrets that could transform climate models - Science

Deep Utica Offers Big Dry Gas Potential as Tier 1 Marcellus Acreage Shrinks: DUG Appalachia Insights

      The deeper parts of the Utica-Point Pleasant dry gas play in Pennsylvania and West Virginia will become more important as time passes. These gas wells are truly huge, but deeper and more expensive to drill. One might compare them to the deeper Western Haynesville/Bossier play in Texas.

     New insight from oil & gas executives at the recent DUG Appalachia conference is considering the deep Utica to be a bigger part of the future of the Appalachian Basin region as it becomes the engine of U.S. LNG exports. The deep Utica play is not new but has been drilled sparsely due to expense, gas offtake capacity constraints, low natural gas prices, and availability of good Marcellus Tier 1 acreage. Early exploration efforts from 2014 onward have resulted in defining some of the play’s extents and production rates, which can be quite impressive. I believe the biggest well to date, at least by IP rate, remains EQT’s Scotts Run well drilled in Greene County, Pennsylvania, in 2014, which tested at an initial rate of 73MMCF/day. There were several other wells with IPs near or above 50MMCF/day. The 12-well pad that hosts the Scotts Run well has produced over 111 BCF of gas and is still producing over 2 BCF per year.  

     According to Huntley & Huntley’s Mike Hillebrand at the August 2025 DUG Appalachia conference, the deep Utica wells are “smoking” Marcellus RORs. That is saying a lot since Marcellus RORs are great. Early exploration showed that the high well production rates extend over a large area, overlapping the Southwestern part of the Marcellus Tier I and Tier II acreage. The extensive overlap provides unlimited opportunities for stacked pay pads and drainage. In some areas, the Burket/Geneseo Shale provides a third stacked pay. Early concerns were in drilling through hole-caving Salina Salts above the Utica and simply the greater well depths, roughly 9,000 to 14,000 ft, but often greater than 12,000 ft TVD. These challenges have been largely overcome. With years of production in the deep Utica, the economics are showing sustained production and low decline rates. Hillebrand also noted that “Huntley & Huntley, which recently completed the sale of its Olympus Energy subsidiary to EQT for $1.8 billion, is working on its next startup, which will focus on "deep Utica and Tier II Marcellus."

     As the graph below shows, the Marcellus is making about  ~77% of Appalachian production, with the Utica at ~23%.

     Of course, there is plenty of Tier I Marcellus acreage available now, but it won’t last forever. The increasing numbers of 20-year LNG offtake agreements being signed and planned between now and 2030 suggest that there will be a strong demand for Appalachian natural gas at least till 2050 and likely beyond then.

     CNX Resources has been drilling the deep Utica for several years now and is just beginning to drill and turn in line more and more wells. The COO of CNX Resources, Navneet Behl, reported during July’s earnings call that the Utica wells' performance is:

"…within our expectations and our latest TILs that we got in Q2 are slightly above our expectation. So we are really excited about the deep Utica play, and we look forward to kind of continuing to kind of get more wells in there."  

     They also report that Utica is economically competitive with the Marcellus, and plans are to continue drilling deep Utica. The company is also “waiting for concrete data center contracts before committing to long-term agreements.” These self-help gas contracts are expected to become more common for AI data centers, many of which are expected to be built in the Marcellus and deep Utica region in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. In late 2024, CNX paid just over $500 million for local operator Apex, which was drilling Marcellus and deep Utica in nearby Westmoreland County. It is a nice bolt-on acquisition for them.

     Utica production peaked in 2019, at 7.4 BCF per day. Production dropped to about 6 BCF/day in 2024. Utica production will likely rise as more LNG is sourced from the region. Incorrys’ forecast shown below has the Utica troughing to 5.6 BCF/day in 2028 and then rising gradually to 6.4 BCF/day by 2040. I believe that if more wells are drilled, longer wells are drilled, and more stack pay pads are drilled, production could exceed forecasts considerably, if the market is ripe for it. Incorrys’ forecasts for Utica EURS to drop a bit to 2030 may be off as well, especially if more deep Utica wells are drilled relative to the shallower Utica in Ohio. This will also depend on natural gas prices, oil prices, and NGL and other liquids prices. The first graph is Utica production in BCF/day. Graph 2 is IP rates. Graph 3 is EURs. 

     I remember going to a conference in Pittsburgh around 2011 or 2012 when Utica reserves were being tabulated. I remember that gas-in-place for all Utica and Marcellus zones was calculated to over 1000 TCF or 1 quadrillion cubic feet (QCF), with technically recoverable reserves much less and economically recoverable reserves even less. I enjoyed using the term QCF! 

     A 2017 study in the Journal of Sustainable Energy Engineering was focused on well spacing and production optimization. The paper gave the following reservoir parameters.

     A summer 2025 blog post by Ron Summers of Wright & Company explored development trends in the Marcellus and Utica in 2022, 2023, and 2024. Average Utica lateral lengths in 2024 are a little longer, about 14,400 ft vs. about 12,700 ft for Marcellus wells. Lateral length averages continue to increase, but maximums have not changed much and are not expected to increase much. Median frac stage spacing for the Utica is about 200 ft, similar to the Marcellus. Median proppant loading was about 2200 lbs/ft for both plays.

     A March 2025 paper in Geoenergy Science and Engineering studied Utica-Point Pleasant production and forecasting. The Utica-Point Pleasant has already produced about 20TCF and currently produces about 2 TCF per year. At that rate, cumulative production by 2035 would be about 40BCF, although the paper inexplicably predicts the EUR at 23 TCF by 2035. I am not sure what they mean there unless they are predicting production to drop or citing the metric in a different way. That does not include liquids production.

     Another deep Utica player was Olympus, which was acquired recently by EQT. CNX and Olympus drilled several deep Utica wells in the past several years. Other executives at the recent DUG Appalachia echoed the excitement for the deep Utica. One also noted that it may become a key source of future LNG. It will be needed for increased exports, especially after 2030. It seems likely that these two Appalachian formations will produce a few hundred TCF of gas by 2050.

     

 

     

References:

 

US E&Ps Drill Down on Dry Gas Potential of ‘Deep Utica’. Mark Davidson. Ed. Michael Sultan. Energy Intelligence. August 29, 2025. US E&Ps Drill Down on Dry Gas Potential of ‘Deep Utica’ | Energy Intelligence

Deep, Dry Utica: "Super" Gas Shale. (The Technology of Horizontal, Multistage Fracking Continues to Improve). ~ 2015. The Energy Consulting Group. Utica Super Shale Play:  Deep, dry Utica

Tug Hill Unlocks the Deep Utica in West Virginia. Keith Mauck. Gohaynesvilleshale.com. July 29, 2019. Tug Hill Unlocks the Deep Utica in West Virginia - GoHaynesvilleShale.com

Physics-based, data-driven production forecasting in the Utica and Point Pleasant Formation. Daniela Arias-Ortiz and Tadeusz W. Patzek. Geoenergy Science and Engineering. Volume 246, March 2025. Physics-based, data-driven production forecasting in the Utica and Point Pleasant Formation - ScienceDirect

DEVELOPMENT TRENDS IN THE MARCELLUS AND UTICA SHALES. Ron Summers. Wright & Company, Inc. June 16, 2025. DEVELOPMENT TRENDS IN THE MARCELLUS AND UTICA SHALES - Wright & Company, Inc

Utica Raw Natural Gas Production Forecast to 2040. Incorrys. February 12, 2025. Utica Raw Natural Gas Production Forecast to 2040

CNX Resources outlines $30M annual 45Z tax credit run rate opportunity amid drilling efficiency gains and steady activity. July, 24, 2025. Seeking Alpha. CNX Resources outlines $30M annual 45Z tax credit run rate opportunity amid drilling efficiency gains and steady activity (NYSE:CNX) | Seeking Alpha

Horizontal Well Spacing and Hydraulic Fracturing Design Optimization: A Case Study on Utica-Point Pleasant Shale Play. Alireza Shahkarami and Guochang Wang. Journal of Sustaainable Energy Engineering. Vol. 5, No. 2, July 2017. Horizontal_Well_Spacing_and_Hydraulic_Fracturing_D.pdf

CNX Announces Strategic Bolt-On Acquisition. Stock Titan. December 5, 2025. CNX Resources Expands Marcellus Footprint with $505M Apex Energy Acquisition, Adds 180 MMcfe/d Production | CNX Stock News

 

Biomass Burial: Company ‘Mast Reforestation’ Buries Burnt Trees for Temporary Carbon Credits: Biomass Carbon Removal & Storage is Followed by Re-Planting That Allows Re-growth to Happen Faster

     A process known as biomass carbon removal and storage is being used by the company Mast Reforestation. It involves burying trees at wildfire-burned sites. The company has developed a carbon credit scheme for its process, which involves burying the burned-out trees and planting new trees. The credit is retired earlier than other reforestation credits. The company’s method involves burying the charred trees in an oxygen-free landfill. According to the article in Trellis:

“The company recently raised $25 million in a Series B funding round led by the venture capital firm Pulse Fund, which specializes in climate tech investments. It has also secured a pre-issuance project rating from carbon ratings agency BeZero for the Montana pilot of BBBe, meaning that there is a “moderate likelihood” that one credit will achieve one metric ton of emissions reduction.”

“The project should generate about 30,000 metric tons of carbon removal credits by 2026, the company estimates, and it is seeking corporate buyers for those credits. The new funding round will enable it to generate an initial 5,000 metric tons of credits while reforesting 125 acres of land.”

     The company is focused on reforestation. They say that this biomass burial is a good complement to reforestation. With the burial, they do not issue carbon credits for replanting as they do in other schemes, but only for burial. Replanting is seen as a co-benefit. They believe that biomass burial offers a chance to accelerate reforestation.

     The method, as shown below, involves burying the trees deeply, presumably near or below the water table, where oxygen would be low or not present. They also note that there are problems with leaving charred trees on the ground, including as fuel for future fires, as a continuing source of disease and infestation if applicable, and as biomass that emits carbon slowly into the atmosphere. Burying them deep sequesters the carbon, can reduce disease and infestation, and takes away fuel.

     After a severe burn, it is common to apply forest management techniques. These include reforestation with newly planted seeds. One issue with reforestation accounting in burned-out areas is that many seeds that are planted do not grow; only a percentage of them.

     Mast Reforestation develops carbon removal credits by burying post-wildfire biomass, which is then used to finance reforestation efforts. The company also coordinates with its two nurseries, giving them the largest seed bank in the Western U.S.

     There are a few other companies involved with biomass burial. Australian company Inter Earth is one. They hope to do more of their work on low-rainfall farmland, something which is abundant in Australia. Inter Earth also uses a dry stacking technology where the biomass is stored in above-ground chambers that are monitored for outgassing and have been shown to be an inert, non-decomposing environment. They replant with native Australian Eucalyptus and Acacia trees, which “have high C:N ratio, high crystalline cellulose and aromatic tannin contents all of which positively contribute to decomposition recalcitrance.”

     Their dry-stack method involves stacking the biomass, covering it with a waterproof barrier, and then covering it with a thick layer of soil. They monitor soil gases to document that there is no outgassing.

     Another company from Houston, Texas, Carbon Sequestration, Inc., buries trees in anoxic underground vaults. They are also developing their own carbon credit system. Some of their methodology is shown below.

     The company notes on their website:

“By integrating waste management, soil improvement, carbon sequestration, and reforestation, Carbon Sequestration, Inc. turns what was once a disposal problem into an enduring climate solution and a model for holistic land renewal. Our approach is scientifically rigorous, regulatory compliant, and independently validated-delivering transparent, permanent, and audit-able climate benefits while restoring land and supporting local communities!”

     With these three companies and likely a few more that will come online, the technique of biomass burial, or biomass carbon removal and storage, will likely become more commonplace as a decarbonization and carbon offset solution.

 

     

 

References:

 

Mast Reforestation generates carbon credits by burying trees. Meg Wilcox. Trellis. April 3, 2025. Mast Reforestation generates carbon credits by burying burnt trees

Carbon Removal for Wildfire Recovery. Mast Reforestation. Restoration for Resilience

Partnering with nature to tackle our biggest environmental challenge. Inter Earth. Inter.Earth - Partnering with nature

Restoring Land. Capturing Carbon. Protecting Communities: Pioneering nature-based carbon removal with real-world environmental benefits. Carbon Sequestration, Inc. Innovative Carbon Sequestration Solutions | Terrestrial Storage & Biomass 

Legacy Phosphorus Management in Agricultural Soils and the Local Environment: The 4R Nutrient Stewardship Management Program

     This post is a review and summary of an article in Crops & Soils Magazine about managing legacy phosphorus (P) in agricultural soils and their immediate local environment, including runoff into water bodies, accumulation in the soil, and factors that affect availability to plants.

 

What is Legacy Phosphorous?

“Legacy phosphorus is an evolving concept useful in the responsible management of crop nutrition. A cumulative balance of inputs and outputs is part of responsible management of plant nutrition and 4R nutrient stewardship. This cumulative balance can be used to compare fields that have differed in their historical inputs and productivity and identify where current replenishment, deficit, and surplus rates are appropriate. In addition, the legacy concept is also useful for situations in which soil testing is impractical.”

     Some definitions of legacy phosphorus in scientific literature are given below:

·        “The P accumulated in soil through human activity, based on the definition of legacy as something received from the past or carried over from past actions” (Turner & Kim, 2024).

·        “The P within the environment (e.g., sediments, water bodies, soils) resulting from historic human activity, excluding geogenic P stores” (Shober et al., 2024).

·        “The P that exists in soils and catchments as a result of either past anthropogenically released rock phosphate-derived P, or of human impacts on P fluxes in aquatic systems, including non-fertilizer P sources (e.g., sediment loading via erosion)” (Margenot et al., 2024).

     Legacy P is understood to be the P that is left over in the soil year-over-year. Legacy P is both beneficial as an available fertilizer and detrimental when soil erodes and the P enters local water bodies and their sediments as a component of runoff. Manured farm plots often result in a surplus of P.

 

Phosphorous Cumulative Input/Output Balance

     When evaluating legacy P, it is important to consider the cumulative input/output balance of additions and removals. In many of the regions of the world with high crop yields, there is a surplus resulting in legacy P. This means that over time, more phosphorus is added than is removed. Measuring P levels is not easy and requires extensive soil testing. Legacy P is both beneficial and potentially detrimental. The goal in managing it is to keep sufficient levels of legacy P without losing it to the local environment, where it can’t be taken up by the plants it was designed to aid.

“On a national scale, 82% of the world’s countries have a historical cumulative surplus of P since 1961 (FAO, 2024). While the soils may be at a cumulative surplus, these countries also account for 87% of current removal of P by crop harvest. Maintaining a surplus P balance supports the current high levels of cropland productivity.”

     The graph below shows the average input/output nutrient balance for phosphorus over time. The plateau of P surplus since the early-mid 2000s can be seen as well as the balancing of inputs and outputs that was reached in the mid-2010s.

     The graph above, however, is just an overall average. The real situation is that farm fields differ drastically in their amount of P surpluses and deficits. The graph below shows the broad distribution of soil test P levels in U.S. cropland. For the U.S. as a whole, there is a considerable legacy P surplus, but some farm areas still have deficits of P.

“Describing legacy P in soils is complicated by the fact that both natural and human-induced factors are at work. Phosphorus in most soils originates as calcium phosphate minerals in the parent material. As soils weather, the forms of P as phosphate bound to iron and/or aluminum and/or organic matter become more prominent.”

     Some of the legacy P is not available to the target crops, but over time, it does replenish bioavailable P. This means that the surplus is adding to availability, albeit slowly, and that it can achieve a balance of addition and removal while still providing optimum crop yields. (N.Barrow, et. al., 2021) showed that phosphorus added to cropland has a buffering effect on soil pH. The effects of soil pH on plant roots can increase plant uptake of phosphorus. Some highlights and conclusions of the paper are shown below.

     The Crops & Soils article explains some of the conclusions of Barrow et. al, as follows:

“First, added phosphate slowly penetrates soil particles through solid-state diffusion, increasing their negative charge and reducing P sorption and soil P-buffering capacity. A second benefit is that this diffusive penetration eventually slows and stops. The third benefit is that the natural processes transforming soil P to less soluble forms are slowed. Thus, over time, a legacy of surplus P input to the soil allows crops to be sufficiently fertilized with amounts of P no greater than those removed by the previous crop.”

     Unfortunately, these chemical processes also increase the risk of loss of P in drainage water. When the buffering capacity is reduced, so is the capacity to retain P. Soils with low P buffering capacity can be identified via soil testing and would not benefit from too much added P, especially manure. Those soils should also be targeted with conservation practices for decreasing soil erosion.

 

Phosphorus in the Context of 4R Nutrient Management

     The 4R program of agricultural nutrient management includes the 4Rs: right source, right rate, right place, and right time. Past sources of phosphorus, such as bat guano and bones, are in limited supply, and there are efforts to extract P from manure in a more pure and concentrated form. The most common source of phosphorus now is mined rock phosphates that are often made into granules.

“The main source, fertilizer P, is manufactured from phosphate rock through acidulation followed by processing into granular or fluid forms. Phosphorus fertilizers are often ammoniated, meaning that nitrogen (N) is added to the product (i.e., DAP or MAP).”

     The right rate of P to apply to a given soil is determined by soil testing. There is a critical rate, above which soil can draw enough P from existing stores to balance the P being applied. Below that critical rate, more P is applied than is removed, since less of the legacy P is available to the plants/ Soils should be managed to keep legacy P near that critical rate where P input and output are balanced. This method of optimizing P is known as the ‘Build and Maintain’ approach. The goal is to keep an optimal amount of P available, without losing much of it through drainage and runoff, keeping legacy P in the soil where it can gradually become available. The time of application is important, especially for the likelihood of runoff. Thus, application of P, especially if it is broadcast on top of the soil, should ideally be in seasons when there is less chance of runoff events. Placement of the P fertilizer is important as well. If it can be placed below the soil surface, then it is less vulnerable to the initial runoff that can carry away P applied on top of the soil. Early-season applications of P often involve adding it with the seeds as they are planted.  

     The Crops & Soils article concludes with the following recap:

“Legacy P is an important consideration when developing 4R nutrient management plans. A cumulative balance of inputs and outputs is part of responsible management of plant nutrition and 4R nutrient stewardship. This cumulative balance can be used to compare fields that have differed in their historical inputs and productivity and identify where current replenishment, deficit, and surplus rates are appropriate. In addition, the legacy concept is also useful for situations in which soil testing is impractical.”

 

 

     

References:

 

Managing legacy phosphorus with 4R nutrient stewardship. Tom Bruulsema and Leanna Nigon. Crops & Soils Magazine. Volume 58, Issue 8. August 18, 2025. Managing legacy phosphorus with 4R nutrient stewardship | Science Societies

Effect of phosphate sorption on soil pH. N.J. Barrow, Abhijit Debnath, and Arup Sen. European Journal of Soil Science. September 8, 2021. Effect of phosphate sorption on soil pH

Phosphate-solubilising microorganisms mainly increase plant phosphate uptake by effects of pH on root physiology. N. J. Barrow and Hans Lambers. University of Western Australia. Phosphate-solubilising microorganisms mainly increase plant phosphate uptake by effects of pH on root physiology - the UWA Profiles and Research Repository