11

3.0 Acquisition of hydrogeological and related petroleum engineering data

12

3.0 The acquisition of hydrogeological and related petroleum engineering data

# Department Condition Description Completion date Status

Pre-Dec 2012 Post-Dec 2012

1 52c i 53B dCompletion of Stage 2 Monitoring Bore and VWP conversion programs (as outlined in this Plan)

March 2014

2 52c iIncorporation of potential additional UWIR groundwater monitoring requirements into Stage 2 Bore Construction Program

February 2013

3 52c i 53B d Construction of additional UWIR monitoring bores March 2014

4 52c iv 53B d Completion of bore baseline assessments and data analysis October 2013

13 52c 53B d Completion of interim Groundwater Monitoring Plan. April 2013

14 62f Collation and reporting of groundwater monitoring resultsApril 2014 and annually thereafter

15 52ciCollection and analysis of six-monthly groundwater quality samples

Biannually

16 52ciImplementation of the telemetry system for continuous groundwater level monitoring

April 2014

3249c and d, 52di I and II; 52d ii

53B d, 53B EConfirmation of early warning and threshold monitoring bore construction

October 2014

52 52c iImplementation of landholder bore monitoring – land access negotiations

October 2013

53 62f Commencement of monitoring of Landholder bores April 2014

Commitments completed Evergreen Commitments

Commitments work in progress Firm deliverables for that month

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The integrity of a water management strategy rests primarily on assembling quality data and on taking a long-

term view in establishing an effective monitoring network. QGC has initiated a number of hydrogeological data

collection programs augmented by the application of petroleum-related data to hydrogeological workflows. The

result is a growing body of information as the foundation for improving our understanding of the Surat Basin.

Accurate and robust data are central to the understanding of the Surat Basin, monitoring changes and managing

groundwater and QGC utilises a number of data streams as part of its hydrogeological conceptualisation. These

streams include a range of background and pre-existing information as well as project specific data acquisition.

The objectives of the data acquisition process can be summarised as:

• To provide the geological and hydrogeological data to characterise the groundwater system, and to enable

ongoing hydrogeological data collection;

• To generate ongoing data streams for analysis of any groundwater level and chemistry changes due to

naturally occurring processes (e.g. rainfall recharge, barometric and earth tide fluctuations), CSG activities

and/or other groundwater usage;

• To define the baseline and establish ongoing groundwater level and quality monitoring;

• To monitor any potential impacts from CSG activities on aquifers and MNES;

• To provide timely early warning on potential impacts to MNES and water users so that an appropriate

response plan can be initiated;

13

• To provide targeted monitoring at planned CSG appraisal pilot trials, (CSG water pumping tests) in support of

aquifer connectivity studies prior, during and after testing in order to identify possible hydraulic connection

between adjacent formations;

• To monitor aquifer injection trials (near-field and far-field monitoring of potential response);

• To support reservoir development activities; and

• To inform other programs and research as required.

A key innovation in the ongoing interpretation of the Surat Basin is integration of petroleum and hydrogeological

data and workflows. This Chapter describes the ongoing data acquisition streams that are bridging the

boundaries between petroleum engineering and hydrogeology, including:

• Downhole pressure and temperature monitoring through wireline tools such as MFT;

• Drill string conveyed testing such as drill stem tests (DSTs) and DFITs;

• Advanced geological and hydrogeological unit characterisation through seismic interpretation and wireline

logging;

• Petrophysical characterisation of aquifers from:

• Detailed sedimentological logging, petrography and flow analysis of cores from complete sections of

Surat Basin sediments; and

• Petroleum industry standard petrophysical logging.

3.2 DATA MANAGEMENT

3.2.1 INTRODUCTION

Data security and access are fundamental to successful analysis and interpretation of QGC’s groundwater

information. Very large volumes of baseline and time-series data are being collected as part of the groundwater

management and monitoring strategy. These data will be securely stored and provide efficient access for internal

and external users. An appropriate data security model is used, derived from the BG Group corporate data

management system.

Due to the specialised data types, it is not practical to store all the data using one database solution. The

QGC data management strategy consists, therefore, of a number of fit-for-purpose solutions with database

communications interfaces and an appropriate data access security model. Selected data streams are required to

deliver information to the regulatory bodies for compliance and to make information available to the community

via a web-based user portal.

The data is regularly and routinely updated into the relevant databases immediately following collection and

QA/QC. The systems are designed to allow users to interrogate data in a variety of ways to suit their needs

(i.e. by aquifer, by locality and field). The system is also intended to provide for reporting to OGIA and the

Department as required to demonstrate compliance with relevant approval conditions.

Figure 3-1 illustrates the data management process, the various data stores and the route by which data are

validated and published externally. The system is described in the following sections.

3.2.2 INTEGRATED CORPORATE DATA MANAGEMENT – KEYSTONE

The Keystone solution was conceived by BG Group to provide subsurface professionals a complete set of quality

assured, approved reference and interpretive data through a single point of access. Roll out of the solution

commenced in 2010 and was completed in 2012. The ultimate objective of the Keystone platform is to provide the

BG Group with a global subsurface data management and access tool. All data stored within Keystone conforms

to specified quality standards and is accessed through a single interface.

14

*Note – Production Delivery Management System (PDMS)

Figure 3-1 – Data management and storage process

3.2.3 GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL DATA – PETREL MASTER DATABASE

The Petrel master database is an integral component of the Keystone solution. The Schlumberger Software

Petrel models form the basis of both the CSG field development plan and the GEN3 groundwater model. The

geophysical, petrophysical and geological data stored within Keystone are linked to the Petrel master database,

which is itself interrogated to produce static geological models at various scales. New geological, petrophysical

and geophysical data is continuously added to the Keystone data store as exploration and appraisal drilling

takes place. This new data is interpreted and used periodically to update the Petrel static models. Both the static

geological model foundation and the dynamic groundwater model datasets are stored and managed within the

Keystone architecture. This provides a robust data management solution for reference and future enhancement

when further data becomes available. Additional data required for model calibration is stored within a range of

software tools in secure corporate network locations.

Water level time series data

Groundwater monitoring wells

PI historian

Data analysis spreadsheets

Hydrograph interpretation

Understanding of basin groundwater dynamics

Trend analysis

Data loggers

Well construction details

Telemetry

Manual measurements

Well construction performance analysis

SharePoint internal data distribution

Geochemist’s Workbench

Geochemical modelling

Envirosys environmental

database

Data analysis spreadsheets

GIS

Spatial analysis

Legacy spreadsheets

Data QA/QCPDMS

Keystone

Web portal – public access (Data and

published reports/research findings)

Existing processes/architecture

Corporate database

Planned upgrade/automation

WellviewBaseline assessments

Subsurface data

15

3.2.4 INTERNAL DATA DISTRIBUTION – SHAREPOINT

The SharePoint database provides the secure platform for the QGC intranet document storage and distribution

system. The software also includes proficient scheduling functionality and, on this basis, it was selected to store

information gathered from the groundwater bore baseline program conducted for the QCLNG project area.

3.2.5 SPATIAL DATA – GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS

All spatial data is stored and managed centrally. The GIS system is linked into a number of databases and is used

to combine spatial datasets for: comparative analysis, land access planning, risk analysis, site location planning,

infrastructure planning and management and spatial visualisation. The wells management database is a key

element of the business control and development process and the relevant spatial datasets are updated daily.

This data store has recently been upgraded to include a daily update of the proposed wells schedule in addition

to the drilled wells inventory.

Groundwater monitoring bores are incorporated within the same spatial datasets as the CSG wells and drilling

progress can be tracked on a daily basis.

3.2.6 WELL PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION – WELLVIEW

The Wellview system is used to manage well drilling implementation and has the capacity to store information

from the planning to abandonment stages of the well lifecycle. The system also includes a number of tools to

track drilling, development and completion progress. Wellview has historically been used as a component of the

CSG well drilling management process and has been adapted to accommodate the different requirements for

groundwater monitoring bore drilling.

3.2.7 PRODUCTION DELIVERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (PDMS)

The PDMS is the global BG Group standard for managing operations. Data is captured and delivered to PDMS

from data historian tools such as PI. PI forms one of the two main components of PDMS, the other being the

production database. The PI package is used to capture and store information on asset operation, wells and

facilities, which is used to provide input for validation, calculations and processes and subsequent reporting

and outputs from the production database. The PDMS outputs inform the business with regard to production

performance for the purposes of optimisation and commercial management.

3.2.8 FORMATION PRESSURE TIME-SERIES DATA – THE PI SYSTEM

The PI system forms the historian component of the PDMS and provides a scalable interface for real time

infrastructure management. The software has the capacity to interface with a number of front end products that

capture a range of data types (e.g. real-time operations data such as temperature, pressure and flow rates from

production wells). Data from the PI system is accessed through both a proprietary interface (the PI Process Book)

and by using a Microsoft Excel add-in tool.

The system provides functionality for the storage of large time series datasets collected using telemetry systems

(e.g. formation pressure time series datasets from groundwater bores). However, data storage and retrieval are

the only functions applied to the groundwater bores. The PI system has the capacity for real time monitoring

and remote systems management. It is intended that various tools will be used to provide notification of gauge

system failure and formation pressure perturbations indicative of specified trigger levels to monitor potential

production drawdown impacts.

16

3.2.9 GEOCHEMICAL DATA – ENVIROSYS

QGC’s groundwater group uses analyses of samples collected from both CSG production and pilot wells and

groundwater monitoring and private landholder bores. This covers the range of processes for associated water

produced as a consequence of CSG production, naturally occurring surface water accumulations (e.g. springs

discharge) and groundwater. The Envirosys database solution is used to capture and store the water analysis

results and also provides some rudimentary data interpretation tools. The interface allows for multiple criteria

interrogation of the database and has a data export facility. All water analysis data is stored in Envirosys to

provide a central data store.

The Production Chemistry group within QGC manages the data flow into Envirosys and conducts preliminary

quality assurance and quality control prior to releasing the data for general access. The data is exported from

Envirosys, subjected to a second phase of QA/QC and used for geochemical modelling and interpretation.

3.2.10 PUBLIC ACCESS

QGC has commenced development of an interactive web-based GIS system that will enable information on water

production, aquifer and bore status conditions to be accessed by the community, including landholders on QGC

tenements (via a secure web interface).

This transparent approach provides greater clarity on groundwater levels within aquifers, including seasonal

trends and changes to groundwater levels as influenced by existing water users and CSG operations. This project

is scheduled for completion by mid-2014.

It is intended that both water level and water chemistry data from designated monitoring bores be made

available via technical reports (such as bore completion reports) and other reporting media as required.

This same data form an integral part of annual aquifer reporting requirements to Australian and Queensland

government agencies. Annual reporting of all groundwater level and quality data commenced from April 2013. It

is planned that raw data will be provided in annual reports, along with relevant interpretive graphs, diagrams and

figures.

3.3 BORE BASELINE ASSESSMENTS

3.3.1 INTRODUCTION

The assessment of landholder bores in the QCLNG project area was completed in accordance with the

requirements of the Department of Environment and Resource Management (DEHP) (now Department of

Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP)) Baseline Assessment Guidelines (May 2011) and the Bore Baseline

Assessment Plan for QGC’s Northern, Central and Southern Development Areas, Surat Basin (the Plan), which was

approved by DEHP in August 2011. The program was completed seven months ahead of the Plan's schedule.

First field assessments commenced in May 2011 and the last assessment was completed in November 2012.

During the program, a total of 388 bore assessments were completed at 250 properties. The data collection phase

of the program is now complete and data evaluation is ongoing.

17

Figure 3-2 – Bore baseline flowchart

Scheduling

Contractor site visits

Data review of field forms and associated documents

Upload data

Submission of WQ samples and field parameter measurements to labs

by contractors

Receipt of lab results

Submission to landowners and QWC

Upload data

Prioritise monitoring locations and implement

QGC review of lab results

Well integrity assessment

Data interpretation – levels and hydrochemistry

Bore inventory field work scheduling

Reporting

Well and data evaluation

Field work and quality assurance

Laboratory analysis and quality assurance

Overall, a total of 2,659 private properties were approached as part of the bore baseline assessment with:

• 1,015 properties offering 'no response'; and

• 1,272 properties found to have no bore.

Figure 3-2 illustrates the process from initial landholder communications through to final data assessment.

Appendix C contains details of the assessments and results.

18

3.3.2 COMMUNICATIONS PROCESS

The landowner communication process identified in the Plan was as follows:

• Landowners were contacted by mail and phone according to the bore baseline priority schedule identified in

the Plan, to identify if bore(s) exist on the property. At least one letter and one phone call attempt was made

for each landholder (with the exception of 'do not call' landholders). If no contact was established after the

initial attempts, one to two letters would have been sent in total and up to three phone calls;

• If bore(s) exist, a site visit was scheduled based on the availability of landowners or other interviewees;

• Site access rules were reviewed and field schedules created for assessment contractors;

• A 10-day notification letter was sent for site access and a courtesy call was made to the landholder

48 to 74 hours prior to site assessment; and

• Following the receipt and review of contractor assessment forms and documentation and any laboratory

results, a report was sent to the landowner incorporating the baseline assessment results.

Assessments were completed in approximately six field phases between May 2011 and October 2012, allowing

efficient management of scheduling, field work and data review, processing and reporting based on available

resources.

Landowners who did not respond to an initial letter or repeated subsequent attempts to contact them by

telephone were sent a close-out letter advising that QGC had made numerous attempts at contact and

requesting they advise of any water bores. No responses were received. A final letter was mailed to all landholders

who had indicated there were no bores on their property, confirming this status and requesting that they contact

QGC if this information was incorrectly recorded. No responses were received.

3.3.3 LANDOWNER REPORTS

On receipt and review of laboratory results and field forms, documents were collated for mailing to landowners.

The bound results packet included:

• The final field form (early in the program DEHP indicated that field forms had to be signed by landowners and

so both an original signed and revised form were provided. When this requirement changed, only a revised

form was provided);

• Laboratory certificates where a water sample was collected;

• Copies of scanned documents provided by interviewees; and

• Copies of all photographs collected during the site visit.

The date that results were mailed to the landowner was recorded in QGC’s communications database.

3.3.4 LANDOWNER CONTACT RESPONSE AND BORE ASSESSMENT COMPLETIONS

Multiple attempts were made to contact landowners for more than 2,500 properties within the QCLNG project

area. No response was received from 1,015 of these properties. A total of 1,272 properties were identified as

not having bores, either through communication with the landowner or assessment team site visits to other

properties owned by the same landowner.

A total of 388 bores were assessed in this baseline program. Figure 3-3 shows the contact status of each property

within the project area and a list of completed bores is provided in Appendix C. There were 82 bores assessed

outside QGC tenements and the project area. In summary:

• 48% of properties were identified as not having bores;

• 10% of properties had completed assessments; and

• 38% of properties had no contact response.

19

50

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

TARA

DALBY

MILES

YULEBA

DULACCA

WANDOAN

JANDOWAE

CHINCHILLA

CECIL PLAINS

Bore Baseline AssessmentContact Status by Property

±0 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

DATA SOURCE: Towns - GARoads - StreetProDCDB - DNRM

Map Projection: GDA 94 SCALE: 1:700,000 (A3)

"Based on or contains data provided by the State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Resource Management) 2013. In consideration of the State permitting use of this data you acknowledge and

agree that the State gives no warranty in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability,completeness, currency or suitability) and accepts no liability (including without limitation,

liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating toany use of the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of the privacy laws."

Note: Every effort has been made to ensure this information is spatially accurate. The location ofthis information should not be relied on as the exact field location.

8/07/2013C

DATE:CREATED BY:

MAP NO:REV NO:MAP TYPE: Other

PLAN REF:CHECKED BY: JG

M_25640_01TM

v4

X Town/City

Principal Road

Property Boundary

QGC Owned Land

QCLNG Project Area

Assessment StatusAccess Denied

Completed

No Bores

No Contact Details

No Response - Closed

0

Kilometres

Bore baseline assessment contact status by property

10 20 30 40

Access DeniedCompletedNo BoresNo Contact DetailsNo Response – Closed

Assessment Status

Town / City

Principal Road

Property Boundary

QGC Owned Land

Northern Development AreaCentral Development AreaSouthern Development Area

Figure 3-3 – Bore baseline contact status by property

3.3.5 FIELD SURVEYING

The field component of the program involved 356 field days for the assessment teams. The bore assessments

involved an interview with the landowner or property contact, if available, to obtain information and any

available documentation about bore construction and maintenance, capacity and use, and previous water

samples and water level measurements. An interviewee was present for 87% of the assessments. If there

was access to the bore and the water level tape was unlikely to become entangled with downhole pumping

equipment, assessors obtained a total depth and water level measurement. Water level measurements were

obtained for 42% of the bores assessed. If a bore had an operational pump, it was purged and field and laboratory

water quality samples were collected. A water quality sample was obtained for 46% of the bores assessed. In

order to avoid possible damage to the bore or pumping equipment, the field team as a rule did not undertake

any manipulation of the bore headworks. If access into the bore casing to obtain water level and gas readings

was restricted, the landowner was asked to assist if simple manipulation was required. Where a lengthy effort,

excessive or potentially damaging modification was required, access was typically not obtained.

20

Figure 3-5 – Assessment data evaluation

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

JenWill

AlexCam

Kate

Sean

Ross Carla

Harry

Owen

David

Codie

Acrux

Teviot

Myrtle

Peebs

Kenya

Clunie

Poppy

Argyle

Cassio

Lauren

Jordan

Polaris

Barney

Lawton

Marcus

Connor

Celeste RubyJo Isabella

Mamdal

Jammat

McNulty

Cougals

Michelle

Bellevue

Kathleen

Margaret

Aberdeen

Pinelands

Maire Rae

Glendower

Ridgewood

Kenya East

Broadwater

Berwyndale

Avon Downs

Matilda-John

WoleebeeCreek

ParadiseDowns

BerwyndaleSouth

KOGAN

CONDAMINE

TARA

MILESDULACCA

WANDOAN

CHINCHILLAJANDOWAE

ATP 648

ATP 621

ATP 651

ATP 574

ATP 620

ATP 676

ATP 632

ATP 676

ATP 632

ATP 648

ATP 676

PL 275

PL 273

PL 276

PL 278

PL 279

PLA 262

PLA 261

PL 171

PL 277

PL 228

PL 442

PL 474

PL 180

PL 398

PL 466

PL 263

PL 247

PL 211

PL 201

PLA 458

PL 179

PLA 472

PLA 393

PLA 399

PL 229

PL 212

PLA 392

PL 274

PLA 461

PLA 443

PLA 459

PL 257

151°E

151°E

150°E

150°E

26°S 26°S

27°S 27°S

Environmental Authority Applications

Map Projection: GDA 94

DATA SOURCE: Towns, Railways, Roads - GATenements - DME "Based on or contains data provided by the State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Resource Management) 2012. In consideration of the State

permitting use of this data you acknowledge and agree that the State gives no warranty in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability,completeness, currency or suitability) and accepts no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs(including consequential damage) relating to any use of the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of the privacy laws."

Note: Every effort has been made to ensure this information is spatially accurate.The location of this information should not be relied on as the exact field location.

SCALE: (A3)

DATE:

CREATED BY:

MAP NO:

REV NO:

M_11152_0118/09/2012

TM F

ÖÖ

ÖÖ

ÖÖ

ÖÖ

ÖÖ

ÖÖ ÖÖ

ÖÖ

ROMA

MACKAY

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

CLERMONT

GLADSTONE

CHINCHILLA

TOWNSVILLE

!. Town

Major Roads

Railway

QCLNG Project Area

QGC Fields in QCLNG Project Area

Environmental Authority Areas

Avon Downs and McNulty EA

Berwyndale South EA

Bellevue EA

Jordan EA

Kenya EA

Ruby EA

Wolleebee Creek EA

QGC Development Areas

Central Gas Fields

Northern Gas Fields

Southern Gas Fields1:600,000

0 9 18 27 364.5

Kilometers

±

Facility type Facility purpose Presence of gas Potential for contamination Other

Artesian ceased flow: <1% Artesian condition unknown: <1% Artesian controlled flow: 2%

Artesian uncontrolled flow: <1%

Sub-Artesian: 6%

Agriculture: 5%

Irrigation: <1%

Stock intensive: 1%

Stock: 32%

Stock and domestic: 16%

Domestic: 4%

Town water supply: <1%

Other (mostly unused): 40%

No gas according to interviewee: 49%

No gas during assessment: 2%

Unknown/interviewee not present: 26%

Gas present according to interviewee: 16%

Gas present during assessment: 7%

Fuel staining or fuel source nearby: 2%

Interaquifer connectivity likely due to corrosion or ingress of surface water: 55%

Both of above: 3%

No or minimal potential: 36%

Not specified: 4%

Interviewee present: 87%

Bore construction details provided: 22%

Bores matched with DNRM RN: 57%

Water quality sample collected: 46%

Abandoned and destroyed: 6% Abandoned and usable: 23% Pump Installed: 59% Pump not installed: 12%

Status

Static water level confidence Bore integrity

Suitability for water level monitoring

Suitability for water quality

monitoring

Water level measurement obtained: 42%

No water level measurement obtained: 58%

Water level obtained not considered static: 11%

Possibly static: 5%

Likely static: 11%Considered static: 19%

High bore integrity: 17%

Likelihood of corrosion/failure unknown: 13%

Corrosion/failure possible: 19%

Corrosion/failure likely: 51%

Not recommended: 63%

Unknown: 2%

Possibly suitable: 31%

Likely suitable: 4%

Not recommended: 64%

Unknown: 2%

Possibly suitable: 29%

Likely suitable: 5%

Formations identified agree with QGC geological model: 70%

No aquifer information provided: 46%

Anecdotal information only provided: 13%

Documentation provided: 41%

Aquifer confidence

Figure 3-4 – Bore assessment data summary

21

Laboratory samples, including duplicates, triplicates and field blanks, along with laboratory method blanks,

spikes, duplicates and surrogates were scrutinised by QGC’s production chemists to assess the traceability

and confidence in the precision, accuracy and representativeness of reported results. On receipt and review of

laboratory results and field forms, documents were printed and bound for mailing to landowners. The bound

results included the final assessment field form, laboratory certificates where a water sample was collected,

copies of scanned documents provided by the interviewee and copies of photographs collected during the field

visit. Results have been reported according to OGIA (and its predecessor QWC) requirements.

3.3.6 BORE ASSESSMENTS DATA SUMMARY

Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5 summarise the information obtained from assessment field forms. More detailed

information is provided in Appendix C.

A key outcome from the bore baseline exercise was to identify bores which QGC can monitor to enhance its

understanding of the hydrogeological and hydrochemistry of the Surat Basin and patterns of water use. An

evaluation is underway into bore integrity so that only bores where QGC has confidence in the data are included

in the network. Identified high quality bores will be equipped with pressure transducers and loggers and sampled

for water quality.

3.4 THE GROUNDWATER MONITORING BORE PROGRAM

3.4.1 INTRODUCTION

The foundation of the hydrogeological conceptualisation is the construction of the groundwater monitoring bore

network. As of July 2013, the network is approximately 80% complete. The aim is to complete the network by the

end of 2013, ahead of major depressurisation of the Walloon Coal Measures associated with LNG production.

The objectives of the monitoring bore network are:

• To provide geological and hydrogeological data to characterise the groundwater system, provide a baseline

dataset and enable ongoing hydrogeological data collection;

• To generate ongoing data streams for analysis of any groundwater level and chemistry changes due to

naturally occurring or anthropogenic processes (e.g. rainfall recharge, barometric and earth tide fluctuations),

CSG activities and/or other groundwater usage;

• To define the baseline and ongoing groundwater level and quality monitoring;

• To monitor any potential impacts from CSG activities on aquifers, EPBC listed springs and private landholder

bores;

• To provide timely early warning or potential impacts to MNES and water users for the appropriate response

plan to be initiated;

• To provide targeted monitoring at planned appraisal pilot trials (CSG water pumping tests) in support of

aquifer connectivity studies prior, during and after testing in order to identify possible hydraulic connection

between adjacent formations;

• To monitor aquifer injection trials (near and far-field monitoring of potential response);

• To ensure this network has been designed to comply fully with federal and Queensland state regulatory

requirements (in particular, OGIA and Queensland environmental authorities);

• To support reservoir development activities; and

• To inform other programs and research as required.

Appendix D has a full description of the network along with monitoring procedures.

22

A formal review of the adequacy of the groundwater monitoring network will be implemented in 2015. This

exercise will be informed by the first two years of operational data and the results of the GEN3 modelling,

which will provide groundwater drawdown results. Also, at this time, the second UWIR will be implemented.

The results of this will be incorporated along with the review and agreement of the monitoring network

implementation reports. Included in that review will be EPBC requirements and the adequacy of the network to

address monitoring of MNES. Once there is confidence that good quality groundwater drawdown projections

are available, an evaluation of the use of statistical methods will be considered as part of the ongoing network

review.

3.4.2 TECHNICAL GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS

A number of key guidelines and standards provide the framework around the network design and

implementation including drilling, monitoring, sampling and water quality. Table 3-1 shows the relevant

guidelines and standards.

Area Description

Legislation • Australian Government – EPBC Act

• Queensland Government – Water Act (2000)

• Queensland Government – Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act (2004)

• Queensland Government – Environmental Protection Act (1994) (including amendments)

Guidelines and policies • Queensland Government – CSG Water Management Policy (2012)

• Queensland Government – Baseline Assessment Guideline (2011)

• Queensland Government – Queensland Water Quality Guidelines (2009)

• Queensland Government – Monitoring and Sampling Manual 2009 Environmental Protection (Water)

Policy 2009, V2 (2010)

Standards • National Uniform Drillers Licensing Committee: 2012 – ‘Minimum Construction Requirements for Water

Bores in Australia’ Edition 3

• Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management: 2010 – ‘Minimum Standards for

the Construction and Reconditioning of Water Bores that intersect the Sediments of the Artesian Basin

in Queensland’, State of Queensland

• Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 5667.11:1998 ISO 5667-11:1993 – Water Quality – Sampling Part

11: Guidance on sampling of groundwaters

• US EPA: 1996 – ‘Low-Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Groundwater Sampling Procedures’

• US EPA Region 1: 2010 – ‘Low-Stress (Low Flow) Purging and Sampling Procedure for the Collection of

Groundwater Samples from Monitoring Wells’.

• American Public Health Association – Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater

Reports • Queensland Government – Underground Water Impact Report for the Surat Cumulative Management

Area 2012

Table 3-1 – Applicable legislative and regulatory guidance

23

Figure 3-6 – Groundwater monitoring bore locations

XX

X

X

X

X

X

)!

)!

)!

)!

)!

)!)!

)!

)!

)!

)!)!

)!)!

)!

)!

)!

)!

)!

)!

)!

)!

!)!)

!)

!)!)

!)

!)

!)!)

!)

!)

!)!)

!)

!)

!)!)!)!)!)

!)!)!)

!)

!)!)!)

!)!)!)!)

!)

!) !)

!)!)!)

!)!)

!)!)

!)

!)!)

!)!)

!)

!)

!)!)

!)!)!)

!)

!)

Lila

Jen

Will

Elly

AlexCam

Kate

Sean

Ross

Dunk

Carla

Harry

Owen

David

Codie

Acrux

Teviot

Justin

Myrtle

Peebs

Phillip

Kenya

Arthur

Clunie

Poppy

Utopia

Mekah

Argyle

Cassio

Lauren

Jordan

Polaris

Massie

Botany

Charlie

Barney

Lawton

Marcus

Connor

Celeste

Shanus

Andrew

RubyJo Isabella

Mamdal

Jammat

McNulty

Cougals

Michelle

Penrhyn

Acheron

Pleiades

Orpheus

Bellevue

Murdock

Fantome

Kathleen

Margaret

Fishburn

Cameron

Charlotte

Overston

Thackery

Arlington

Aberdeen

Tanna

Bickley

Merryfull

Owlman

Sophie

Kinkabilla

Pinelands

Maire Rae

Havannah

Daydream

Friendship

Frizzle

Bambi

Hinchinbrook

Bookers

Anesbury

Langer

KimberliteParker

Suomi

Pemberton

Leghorn

Copper

Chalk

Molle

Coochiemudlo

BathurstLion

Kanowna

Quartz

Dora

Glendower

Ridgewood

Kenya East

Borrowdale

Broadwater

Bloodworth

Portsmouth

Berwyndale

AvonDowns

Matilda-John

Scarborough

GoldenGrove

CHAR2729

WoleebeeCreek

ParadiseDowns

BerwyndaleSouth

Spofforth

BRIS1226

Bannerman

CHAR1290 CHAR1291 CHAR1294 CHAR1295

Boyle

Serenity

Sandstone Jasperoid

Tardrum Croker GullyCoconut

Will GW1

Kenya GW2

Poppy GW1

Poppy GW2

Lauren GW4

Lauren GW1

Lauren GW2

Peebs GW16, GW17, GW18

Cassio GW1

Teviot GW4

Teviot GW1

Charlie GW1Charlie GW2

Bellevue GW2

Polaris GW23

Cougals GW13

Charlotte GW2Charlotte GW1

Broadwater GW1, GW4,GW11, GW15

Kenya East GW1 - GW2

Coochiemudlo GW2

Coochiemudlo GW1

Woleebee Creek GW10

Berwyndale South GW1Berwyndale South GW2

RubyJo GW2, GW3, GW4, GW5

Kenya East GW32

Broadwater GW7

Woleebee Creek GW1 - GW4,Woleebee Creek GW7 - GW9

Kenya East GW7

Cassio GW2

Woleebee Creek GW11

Kenya East GW3, GW4,GW5, GW6, GW8

TARA

MILES

TAROOM

WANDOAN

DULACCA

CONDAMINE

CHINCHILLA

Sean 15M

Argyle 6

Celeste 6

Bellevue 1M

Woleebee Creek 17M

Jen 1RubyJo 1

Sean 19M

Sean 17M

Kenya East 1

Broadwater 14M

Lawton 9M

Cassio 6M

Charlie 1

Polaris 22

Thackery 6M

Harry 6

David 6

Poppy 13M

151°E

151°E

150°E

150°E

26°S 26°S

27°S 27°S

Existing/Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Wells & Converted Pressure Monitoring Wells

Map Projection: GDA 94

DATA SOURCE: Tenements - DME, Roads, Towns - StreetPro"Based on or contains data provided by the State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) 2013. In consideration of the Statepermitting use of this data you acknowledge and agree that the State gives no warranty in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability,completeness, currency or suitability) and accepts no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs(including consequential damage) relating to any use of the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of the privacy laws."

Note: Every effort has been made to ensure this information is spatially accurate.The location of this information should not be relied on as the exact field location.

SCALE: (A3)

DATE:

CREATED BY:

MAP NO:

REV NO:

M_33551_014/11/2013

TM B

!) Existing Groundwater Monitoring Well

!) Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Well

)! Existing Walloon Coal Measures Pressure Monitoring Well

)! Proposed Walloon Coal Measures Pressure Monitoring Well1:650,000

0 10 20 30 40

Kilometers

±

ÖÖ

ÖÖ

ÖÖ

ÖÖ

ÖÖ

ÖÖ ÖÖ

ÖÖ

ROMA

MACKAY

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

CLERMONT

GLADSTONE

CHINCHILLA

TOWNSVILLE

Bowen Basin

Surat Basin

Queensland

New South Wales

South Australia

MAP TYPE: Otherv4PLAN REF: Preliminary Map

X Town / CityPrincipal RoadQGC Block

Existing and proposed groundwater monitoring wells and converted pressure monitoring wells

Kilometres

0 10 20 30 40

Town / City

Principal Road

QGC Field

XX

X

X

X

X

X

)!

)!

)!

)!

)!

)!

)!

)!

)!

)!)!

)!)!

)!

)!

)!)!

)!

)!

)!

)!

!)!)

!)

!)!)!)

!)!)

!)

!)

!)!)

!)

!)

!)!)

!)

!)

!)!)!)!)!)

!)!)!)

!)

!)!)!)

!)!)!)!)

!)

!) !)

!)!)!)!)!)

!)!)

!)!)

!)

!)

!)!)

!)!)

!)

!)

Lila

Jen

Will

Elly

AlexCam

Kate

Sean

Ross

Dunk

Carla

Harry

Owen

David

Codie

Acrux

Teviot

Justin

Myrtle

Peebs

Phillip

Kenya

Arthur

Clunie

Poppy

Utopia

Mekah

Argyle

Cassio

Lauren

Jordan

Polaris

Massie

Botany

Charlie

Barney

Lawton

Marcus

Connor

Celeste

Shanus

Andrew

RubyJo Isabella

Mamdal

Jammat

McNulty

Cougals

Michelle

Penrhyn

Acheron

Pleiades

Orpheus

Bellevue

Murdock

Fantome

Kathleen

Margaret

Fishburn

Cameron

Charlotte

Overston

Thackery

Arlington

Aberdeen

Tanna

Bickley

Merryfull

Owlman

Sophie

Kinkabilla

Pinelands

Maire Rae

Havannah

Daydream

Friendship

Frizzle

Bambi

Hinchinbrook

Bookers

Anesbury

Langer

KimberliteParker

Suomi

Pemberton

Leghorn

Copper

Chalk

Molle

Coochiemudlo

BathurstLion

Kanowna

Quartz

Dora

Glendower

Ridgewood

Kenya East

Borrowdale

Broadwater

Bloodworth

Portsmouth

Berwyndale

AvonDowns

Matilda-John

Scarborough

GoldenGrove

CHAR2729

WoleebeeCreek

ParadiseDowns

BerwyndaleSouth

Spofforth

BRIS1226

Bannerman

CHAR1290 CHAR1291 CHAR1294 CHAR1295

Boyle

Serenity

Sandstone Jasperoid

Tardrum Croker GullyCoconut

Will GW1

Kenya GW2

Poppy GW1

Poppy GW2

Lauren GW4

Lauren GW1

Lauren GW2

Peebs GW16, GW17, GW18

Cassio GW1

Teviot GW4

Teviot GW1

Charlie GW1Charlie GW2

Bellevue GW2

Polaris GW23

Cougals GW13

Charlotte GW2Charlotte GW1

Broadwater GW1, GW4,GW11, GW15

Kenya East GW1 - GW2

Coochiemudlo GW2

Coochiemudlo GW1

Woleebee Creek GW10, GW11

Berwyndale South GW1Berwyndale South GW2

RubyJo GW2, GW3, GW4, GW5

Kenya East GW3, GW4,GW5, GW6, GW8, GW32

Broadwater GW7

Woleebee Creek GW1 - GW4,Woleebee Creek GW7 - GW9

Kenya East GW7

Cassio GW2

TARA

MILES

TAROOM

WANDOAN

DULACCA

CONDAMINE

CHINCHILLA

Sean 15M

Argyle 6

Celeste 6

Bellevue 1M

Woleebee Creek 17M

Jen 1RubyJo 1

Sean 19M

Sean 17M

Kenya East 1

Broadwater 14M

Lawton 9M

Cassio 6M

Charlie 1

Polaris 22

Thackery 6M

Harry 6

David 6

Poppy 13M

151°E

151°E

150°E

150°E

26°S 26°S

27°S 27°S

Existing/Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Wells & Converted Pressure Monitoring Wells

Map Projection: GDA 94

DATA SOURCE: Tenements - DME, Roads, Towns - StreetPro"Based on or contains data provided by the State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) 2013. In consideration of the Statepermitting use of this data you acknowledge and agree that the State gives no warranty in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability,completeness, currency or suitability) and accepts no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs(including consequential damage) relating to any use of the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of the privacy laws."

Note: Every effort has been made to ensure this information is spatially accurate.The location of this information should not be relied on as the exact field location.

SCALE: (A3)

DATE:

CREATED BY:

MAP NO:

REV NO:

M_33551_0115/10/2013

TM A

!) Existing Groundwater Monitoring Well

!) Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Well

)! Existing Walloon Coal Measures Pressure Monitoring Well

)! Proposed Walloon Coal Measures Pressure Monitoring Well1:650,000

0 10 20 30 40

Kilometers

±

ÖÖ

ÖÖ

ÖÖ

ÖÖ

ÖÖ

ÖÖ ÖÖ

ÖÖ

ROMA

MACKAY

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

CLERMONT

GLADSTONE

CHINCHILLA

TOWNSVILLE

Bowen Basin

Surat Basin

Queensland

New South Wales

South Australia

MAP TYPE: Otherv4PLAN REF: Preliminary Map

X Town / CityPrincipal RoadQGC Field

Existing Groundwater Monitoring Well

Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Well

Existing Walloon Coal Measures Pressure Monitoring Well

Proposed Walloon Coal Measures Pressure Monitoring Well

24

3.4.3 LOCATION OF GROUNDWATER MONITORING POINTS

Figure 3-6 illustrates the extent of the groundwater monitoring network across the QCLNG development area.

In realising the monitoring bore network, meeting the key objectives involved considering a range of technical

elements namely:

• Element 1 – Aquifer Connection to Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES)/Sensitive

Receptors/Current Use;

• Element 2 – Development of Baseline Datasets, Establishing Trends;

• Element 3 – Ongoing Monitoring, Assessing Impacts;

• Element 4 – Supporting Connectivity Studies;

• Element 5 – Field Development and Tenement Coverage;

• Element 6 – Bore Located to Verify and Validate Groundwater Conceptual and Numerical Models; and

• Element 7 – Geological and Hydrogeological Data Acquisition to assist in conceptual and numerical model

reconciliation across a number of disciplines.

Statistically-based methods for the design of groundwater monitoring networks have been considered. Examples

discussed in Merrick, 1998, and Theodossiou and Latinopoulos, 2006 were evaluated. However, in this context

these are of limited applicability as there are many different factors (as discussed below in detail) which

determine monitoring bore locations.

A review of the adequacy of the groundwater monitoring network is proposed once the (UWIR) requirements are

finalised and the results of the GEN3 modelling are providing ‘history matched’ groundwater drawdown results.

OGIA requirements call for a second phase of monitoring wells in 2016, the locations of which will be optimised

following the second UWIR (due in 2015) and the first two years of operational data. Once there is confidence that

good quality groundwater drawdown projections are available, an evaluation of the use of statistical methods

will be considered as part of the ongoing network review.

3.4.4 RELATION TO OGIA UWIR REQUIREMENTS

The OGIA’s 2012 Underground Water Impact Report (UWIR) provided details of the Water Monitoring Strategy

(WMS) for the Surat Cumulative Management Area (CMA). In response to this strategy, a Monitoring Network

Implementation Plan (MNIP) (QGC 2013) was prepared to meet the WMS obligations (submitted to the

Department as Commitment 2) which incorporates the Stage 2 outline. Considering these objectives, the MNIP

document presents:

• Bore design and construction guidelines and design and drilling procedures for the current and proposed

network;

• Existing network details, including relevant location data;

• Installation details to meet OGIA requirements;

• Installation details additional to OGIA requirements in support of the network rationale defined above; and

• Spring monitoring information.

Appendix E presents the plans prepared to meet OGIA requirements.

As of October 2013, there are 51 monitoring bores required in the UWIR monitoring network, out of a total QGC

monitoring program of 64 bores. 49 Monitoring Bores have been endorsed by OGIA. The two outstanding

non-endorsements relate to timing of access to existing landholder bores. Of these, one location has now been

visited to assess suitability for monitoring. Access has been refused by the second landholder and DNRM is

facilitating negotiations.

25

Figure 3-7 – Schematic of monitoring bore types

3.4.5 MONITORING BORE TYPES

There are a range of different monitoring bore types, as illustrated in Figure 3-7.

The network has been implemented in two phases, namely:

• Phase 1: 2011 – Shallower bores to the Gubberamunda and Springbok aquifers; and

• Phase 2: 2012-2013 – Bores to deep and shallow aquifers and aquitards above and below the Walloon Group.

The Phase 1 monitoring bore network consists of open standpipe type bores. Open standpipe simply means

the bore is constructed to tap one formation only with cemented steel casing open to the atmosphere. It is

completed with some form of fitted cap (typically lockable) that is easily opened or lifted off by hand. These open

standpipe bores may be constructed in a wide variety of diameters depending on intended use (50 to 150 mm)

and are used for both water level measurements and hydrochemical sampling.

Gubberamunda Formation

Shallow

Westbourne Formation

Springbok Sandstone

Walloon Subgroup

Eurombah Formation

Reservoirperformance

pressure

WCM Flows and Hydrochemistry

Pressures WCM

Cored wells converted into monitoring wells

(WCM MandV)

Multiple pressures

Cored wells converted into monitoring wells(WCM and Springbok

MandV)

Water level / quality

Private bores converted into monitoring bores

(after baseline assessment)

Reservoir and aquifer

pressure monitoring

Aquifer monitoring pressure and water quality

Shallow aquifer monitoring pressure and water quality

Aquifer / aquitard pressure monitoring

Hutton Sandstone

Evergreen Formation

Precipice Sandstone

Permo-triassic or basement

PDHG PDHG

PDHG VWP

VWP

VWP

VWP

VWP

VWP

VWP

Precipice water monitoring

Hutton water monitoring

Eurombah water monitoring

Springbok water monitoring

Westbourne water monitoring

Gubberamunda water monitoring

Data loggers

Water levelWater level

Multiple pressures NEW

VWP Monitoring wells (Top WCM to surface)

Multiple pressures NEW

VWP Monitoring wells (Eurombah to Precipice)

Water level / qualityNEW nested monitoring bores

Deep nested bores Shallow nested bores

Aquifer / aquitard pressure monitoring

26

Figure 3-8 – Groundwater monitoring bore site – various formations (Kenya East)

The Phase 2 monitoring bore drilling program is currently underway. Some bores penetrate the reservoir and

are designed to manage a potential gas kick of up to 3,000 psi. The bores are also designed to comply with the

‘two barrier’ industry standard (i.e. P&G Act monitoring wells), where the first barrier to gas migration is the

cemented casing and the second barrier is the wellhead. These bores are also used to collect water levels and

hydrochemistry samples. QGC is liaising with DNRM to amend the Code of Practice for water bores to enhance

safety.

Where pressure data must be collected from a number of formations a multi-level cemented pressure gauge

well design is used. This technique involves installation of six to eight pressure gauges at a range of depths. Once

the string of gauges has been lowered into their positions, cement is pumped and allowed to fill back to surface,

effectively plugging the well. The gauges are then connected to a telemetry system and data is transmitted to

central databases to be analysed regularly.

A percentage of the bores in the long-term groundwater monitoring program will be bores owned and operated

by third parties, particularly farm water supply bores. These bores are completed in a wide variety of styles

depending on functional requirements. Some are equipped with windmills, others with electric submersible

pumps and some will be artesian.

27

A number of sites have monitoring bores targeting multiple levels within the stratigraphic sequence and include

the Walloon Subgroup. These nested sites are typically targeted at the location of CSG appraisal pilots where

there is trial pumping from the Walloon Subgroup to determine porosity, permeability, etc. Monitoring aquifers

and aquitards during pumping is a powerful tool in establishing the degree of aquifer connectivity (see Chapter

7). Table 3-2 summarises the boreholes and monitoring points that have been drilled and/or planned. There

may be multiple monitoring points within one borehole, hence the apparent discrepancy in numbers between

boreholes and monitoring points.

Boreholes

Standpipe (hydrochemistry and pressure) Pressure only Conversions (Walloons only)

39 12 18

69 Boreholes

Monitoring Points

Formation StandpipeMonitoring points

pressure only

Condamine Alluvium 2 –

Gubberamunda 6 7

Westbourne 2 2

Springbok 12 17

Walloons 0 78

Eurombah 2 3

Hutton 8 6

Evergreen – 4

Precipice 7 6

Total 39 123

162 separate aquifer / aquitard pressure monitoring points, 39 water quality monitoring points

Table 3-2 – Summary of monitoring network

In addition to the aquifer and aquitard monitoring network, there will be approximately 78 pressure monitoring

points in the Walloon Subgroup to measure the groundwater pressure response of the reservoir to CSG water and

gas extraction.

28

3.4.6 ESTABLISHING BASELINE CONDITIONS

It is critical that a valid baseline be derived prior to active large-scale depressurisation activities, and this has

driven the monitoring network implementation schedule. The drilling program has been structured so that bores

are drilled ahead of field development to allow for baseline conditions (including any seasonal variability) to be

defined. Baseline periods for each monitoring site are defined in Chapter 4.

Once the bores are completed water level data is collected prior to CSG production – this constitutes the

’baseline‘ water level program. QGC calibrates its gauges by checking against manual dips every six months as

part of its sampling regime. Representative baselines will be defined for each monitoring site and may include

trend analysis. A trend analysis methodology has been prepared. It is included in Chapter 4.

Considering the program plan as defined by the Monitoring Network Implementation Plan submitted to OGIA

and the current field development plan, the baseline data availability are defined for each development area, as

shown in Figure 3-9.

3.4.7 GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM REVIEW

Groundwater level and hydrochemistry monitoring will be reviewed and optimised as more information becomes

available and field development priorities change. The next review will be undertaken once the updated UWIR is

published in 2015.

Such evaluations may assess the optimal frequency of monitoring and spatial distribution of the monitoring

locations. Additional factors include the monitoring criteria required in areas where cumulative impacts from

neighbouring CSG operators could be observed. Also, a deviation in the monitoring results (from the predictions

derived from modelling efforts) may trigger alternative monitoring requirements.

In instances where monitoring frequencies are proposed to be altered, the alterations will be documented

and administered through a formal change management process, including consultation with internal and

external stakeholders prior to implementation. Typically changes to the monitoring program will be flagged and

documented as part of the annual GWMP update. Similarly the commissioning of new operational areas will

require an update to the current Groundwater Monitoring Plan.

3.5 PETROLEUM WELL DATA

A key enhancement to the current groundwater investigation in the Surat Basin is access to petroleum industry

data and interpretive techniques. The relevance of key data types to the hydrogeological conceptualisation is

outlined in the following sections.

3.5.1 GEOLOGY AND STRATIGRAPHY

Seismic surveys form the initial component of hydrocarbon exploration work in central and southern Queensland.

For example, Figure 3-10 shows a seismic line interpretation from west to east across the Basin. In parts, the Surat

Basin overlies the Bowen Basin. However, on the flanks, the Surat Basin overlies crystalline basement rock. Also

note the laterally continuous seismic-stratigraphic packages in the Surat Basin section (from Ryan et al., 2012).

The relevance of this work is the provision of large scale, regional geological models which can be verified later

by drilling results. Figure 3-11 illustrates the petroleum wells which have been used to verify the stratigraphy of

the basin. The regional formation positions and layers are the basis of the geological model used in numerical

modelling of groundwater flow in the basin.

29

Figure 3-9 – QCLNG Project area stage 1 monitoring bore data availability

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

TARA

DALBY

MILES

YULEBADULACCA

WANDOAN

JANDOWAE

CHINCHILLA

CECIL PLAINS

KOGAN

TAROOM

CONDAMINE

CONDAMINE RIVER

MOONIE RIVER

AUBURN RIVER

DAWSON RIVER

CONDAMINE RIVERWill (P)

Poppy (S)RubyJo (S, H, P)

Lauren (G, S)

Teviot (P)

Lauren (P)

Bellevue (S)

Kenya East (G, S, E, H, W)

Broadwater (A)

Broadwater (A, S, P, H)

Kenya East (G, S)

Berwyndale South (G, S)

Kenya East (P)

Peebs (G, W, S)

Teviot (S, P)

Cougals (G)

Polaris (P)

Jen 1RubyJo 1

Argyle 6

Sean 17David 7

Celeste 6

Bellevue 2Bellevue 1

Isabella 7

Isabella 6

Berwyndale 4

Kenya East 1

Berwyndale 1

Berwyndale 20Berwyndale 19

Matilda-John 1

Sean 19

Kenya 2 (S)

Coochiemudlo (H, P)

Cassio (H, P)

Charlotte (H, P)

Charlie (H, P)

Kathleen 18

Ross 6

Woleebee Creek (P)

Woleebee Creek 8Woleebee Creek (G, W, S, E, H, P)

Peebs (P)

Broadwater (P)

151°E

151°E

150°30'E

150°30'E

150°E

150°E

26°S 26°S

26°30'S 26°30'S

27°S 27°S

27°30'S 27°30'S

QCLNG Project Area Stage 1 Monitoring Bore Data Availability

Map Projection: GDA 94

DATA SOURCE: Towns, Major Rivers - GAMajor Roads - StreetProTenements - DME

"Based on or contains data provided by the State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) 2013. In consideration of the Statepermitting use of this data you acknowledge and agree that the State gives no warranty in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability,completeness, currency or suitability) and accepts no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs(including consequential damage) relating to any use of the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of the privacy laws."

Note: Every effort has been made to ensure this information is spatially accurate.The location of this information should not be relied on as the exact field location.

SCALE: (A3)

DATE:

CREATED BY:

MAP NO:

REV NO:

M_30008_0118/07/2013

TM A

Legend!. Town

Major Road

Major River

Current Production Blocks

QCLNG Project Area

Monitoring Bores!( Existing, More than 1 year of data before QCLNG Production Starts

!( Proposed, More than 1 year of data before QCLNG Production Starts

!( Proposed, Less than 1 year of data before QCLNG Production Starts

Vibrating Wire Piezometers#* Existing, More than 1 year of data before QCLNG Production Starts

#* Proposed, More than 1 year of data before QCLNG Production Starts

Data Availability by QGC BlockMore than 1 year of data before QCLNG Production Starts

Less than 1 year of data before QCLNG Production Starts

Other QGC Blocks

Formation to be MonitoredA Alluvium

G Gubberamunda

W Westbourne Formation

S Springbok Sandstone

E Eurombah Sandstone

H Hutton Sandstone

P Precipice Sandstone

0 10 20 30 405Kilometers

±1:600,000

!!

QCLNG CentralGas Field production

commences in October2014

!!

Depressurationcommenced in 2005 fordomestic gas production

!!

QCLNG SouthernGas Field production

commences in October2014

!!

QCLNG NorthernGas Field production

commences in October2014

!!

Woleebee CreekP1 Pilot Test Area

!!

Kenya EastP3 Pilot Test Area

!!

Ruby JoP2 Pilot

QCLNG Project area stage 1 monitoring bore data availability

0

Kilometres

9 18 27 36

30

Figure 3-11 – Location of wells used in the stratigraphic interpretation

Figure 3-10 – Seismic line BMR84-14 highlighting the structure of the Surat and Bowen Basins

440,000 480,000 520,000 560,000 600,000

400

1,200

2,000

2,800

800

1,600

2,400

3,200

Two

Way

Tim

e (m

s)

W

E

Top WalloonBase Walloon

Base Jurassic

Top Permian

Surat Basin

Bowen Basin

Basement

0 10 20 30

Kilometres

ChinchillaRoma

147°0’E 148°0’E 149°0’E 150°0’E 151°0’E 152°0’E

28°0’S

27°0’S

26°0’S

25°0’S

Kilometres

0 40 80 120

GEN3 Stratigraphy Wells

Cities and Towns

QCLNG Project Area

GEN3 Model Boundary

Surat and Clarence-Moreton Basins

31

3.5.2 THE APPLICATION OF PETROPHYSICS TO THE SUBSURFACE UNDERSTANDING OF

GROUNDWATER SYSTEMS

Petrophysical interpretation of wireline log data has been used for several decades in the oil and gas industry

to characterise the subsurface. The requirements for aquifer characterisation are not dissimilar to those

necessary for establishing a hydrocarbon play concept. Advanced petrophysical techniques and the associated

interpretations are now readily available to hydrogeologists working within the coal seam gas (CSG) industry.

After a section of a bore or well has been drilled, geophysical logging tools are lowered into the uncased hole

section to measure various properties of the formation as function of depth. Physical properties are measured

from the rock and recorded at the surface in a process called wireline logging. In petrophysical log evaluation,

the measured properties can be interpreted for lithology, porosity, fluid type and saturation, fluid volume and

saturation, fracture presence, and permeability. The logs that are acquired from the groundwater bores are

temperature, calliper, gamma ray, bulk density, neutron density, photoelectric factor, resistivity, compressional

and shear sonic, and spontaneous potential. This information provides the basis for modelling rock property

distributions in static geological models that are the foundation of dynamic fluid flow simulations.

Multiple log response interpretations require calibration with drill core analysis data to ensure that the log

output reflects the physical properties of the rock. For example, as a similar gamma ray response may be

generated by both clay minerals and certain clastic components of the sandstone framework, it is important that

the gamma log response is calibrated and interpreted correctly to identify low and high clay content zones.

Once suitable calibration has been completed wireline log data from multiple wells can be interpreted with a

high level of confidence without the need to acquire additional drill core. This equates to a significant cost saving

and additionally facilitates a very rapid method of characterising subsurface geological properties. Specialist

software packages have been developed to rapidly import, interpret and correlate geological properties spatially.

Petrophysical flags of formation characteristics have been developed by QGC to provide an efficient and economic

suite of tools that could be used to identify aquifers and aquitards and interpret their thickness and spatial

distribution. The methods of calibration traditionally employed by the petroleum industry are being modified to

facilitate the identification of hydrostratigraphic units. These informal subsurface units contribute to a scheme

that forms the foundation of understanding the influence of heterogeneity and anisotropy on the bulk hydraulic

properties of geological units at various scales. The distribution of porosity and permeability provide the starting

point for understanding groundwater hydraulics. It is intended that a form of ‘rock-typing’ will be developed

whereby combinations of wireline log signatures can effectively be used for aquifer characterisation.

Intrinsic permeability is an integral component of hydraulic conductivity (a value incorporating both the pore

space distribution in the rock mass and the properties of the hosted fluids). Wireline log interpretations of

intrinsic permeability distributions can be used as inputs in combination with other data to calculate the spatial

distribution of hydraulic conductivity within a hydrostratigraphic unit.

The availability of large, calibrated wireline log datasets will provide much tighter constraints for conceptual

hydrogeological models. The appropriately interpreted signatures allow for more accurate interpretations of the

geometry and spatial extent of hydrostratigraphic units and the internal distribution of hydraulic properties.

Developing a reliable ‘aquifer characterisation methodology using wireline log data will potentially provide a

very rapid mechanism by which conceptual hydrogeological models can be formulated. Once identified the

representative hydraulic properties can be assigned to aquifers and aquitards and an interpolation of the bulk

property distributions between data points can be attempted. It is considered that this type of approach will

provide a higher level of confidence in the interpretations used to understand groundwater behaviour as a

consequence of coal seam gas production activities.

32

Tool Name Measurement Units and range Measuring Qualitative use Quantitative use

Caliper CALI Bore hole radius Inches Radius • Observing washout

and under gauge

borehole

Gamma ray GR Gamma radiation

from the formation

API

0 to 150

Gamma

radiation

• Shale versus non-

shale

• correlation

• Depth control

• Shale content

Bulk density DENS Impact of Gamma

Rays on electrons in

the formation

g/cc

1.95 to 2.95

Total formation

density

• Nature of fluid

in pores

• Gas detection

• Porosity

• Density

• Seismic velocity

Photoelectric

factor

PEF Impact of gamma

rays on electrons in

the formation

PE B/E

1 to 4

Barns per

electron

• Lithology

Neutron

density

NEUT Impact of neutrons on

hydrogen atoms

NEUT PERC

45 to -15

Fluid filled

porosity

• Lithology

• Gas detection

• Porosity

Resistivity DEPRES

MEDRES

FERES

Electrical resistivity of

the formation

ohmm

0 to 2000

Electrical

resistivity

• Observing

• Permeable zones

• Determine water

saturation

Sonic DTCO Propagation of sound

through formation

Us/ft

140 to 20

slowness • Lithology

• Identifying

fractures

• Porosity

• Seismic velocity

Spontaneous

Potential

SP Electrical charge of

well bore

mV

170-230

Electrical

charge

• Detection of

permeable zones

• Formation water

salinity

• Bed thickness

determination

Table 3-3 – Wireline log types and derived petrophysical rock properties

3.5.3 FORMATION TESTING

Formation testing is a process of isolating and measuring the pressure and temperature, under dynamic

conditions, of intervals within geological formations. Formation tests are typically local-scale tests but the large

number of data points can reveal patterns in permeability and porosity. There are several testing options available

depending on the formation's properties. The most appropriate testing method is chosen and planned based on

geological assumptions and the required data acquisition:

• With pressure testing, drill pipe conveyed tools, DST (drill stem test) is considered to be the best option for

high permeability (~>300 mD) formations due to high inflow capacity;

• Wireline conveyed tools with in-built pumps, FRT (Flow Rate Tester) and MDT (Modular Formation Dynamic

Tester) are more appropriate for low permeability formations. The MFT (M-Series Formation tester) is a

wireline tool that pushes out a finger sized probe onto the borehole wall for a range of permeabilities. These

methods provide pressure versus rate analysis data for calculating the zones productivity index (the ability of

the well to produce or flow). FRT and MDT wireline formation testing utilizes the dual packer interval isolation

concept. A small pump in the tool string draws fluid from the formation and gauges measure the rate and

pressure. The pump is stopped and the pressure build up is again monitored until it stabilises, thus giving the

productivity potential; and

33

Notes:

Track 1 – GR, Gamma Ray, measures the amount of radioactive elements; CALI, Caliper, measures the diameter of the borehole; SP, Spontaneous Potential,

measures the natural electrical potential difference

Track 2 – Resistivity logs, measures the formation fluid resistivity at various depths of investigation.

Track 3 – PEF, photoelectric factor, measures photoelectric absorption properties for determining mineralogy; DENS, density, measures the density; NEUT, neutron

porosity, measures the hydrogen index.

Track 4 – DTCO, compressional sonic log, measures the interval transit time.

Figure 3-12 – Example well section for Woleebee Creek

1

Woleebee Creek GW4 (MD)

Zones MD SP RESDEP PEF DTCO

1:675 -200 mV 200 0.2 ohm.m 2,000.0 0 4 200 us/ft 50

CALI RESMED DENS Colour fill

4 in 12 0.2 ohm.m 2,000.0 1.95 g/cm3 2.95

GR Colour fill NEUT

0 gAPI 150 0.45 ft3/ft3 -0.15

Hu

tton

San

dsto

ne

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,298

Hutton Sandstone

Evergreen Formation

34

• A DFIT (Diagnostic Formation Injection Testing) is conducted in very low permeability formations and when

mechanical properties of the formation are necessary. It is a small volume, low rate water injection procedure

followed by an extended shut-in period where pressure and temperature are measured for the entirety of

the test. This type of testing is used in conjunction with fracture stimulation operations to help engineers

determine both the dynamic and mechanical properties of the formation interval. The behaviour of the

reservoir during the ‘leak-off’ period enables pore pressure, permeability and any boundaries in the area

surrounding the wellbore to be assessed. Similar to DSTs the DFIT interval is isolated using packers, thus the

treatment area is constrained to a specific interval of interest.

To April 2013, a total of 32 formation tests have been performed on groundwater monitoring bores.

3.6 PUMPING TESTS AND TRIALS

In contrast to formation tests, pumping tests provide information over a wider volume of material and can help

characterise inter-formation relationships and the presence of hydraulic boundaries. A number of pumping tests

have been implemented for the project, not only to look at testing of one aquifer but also to measure multi-

formation responses.

Figure 3-13 – Woleebee Creek P1 pilot test monitoring bores

Bowen Basin

NW

4 5 6

7GW2 GW1

SEWoleebee Creek Bores800

600

400

200

0

-200

-400

-600

-800

-1000

-1200

m A

HD

GW7 GW9

GW8GW3GW10

GW11

GW4

Water productionWater production Precipice SandstoneInjection

Evergreen Formation

Hutton Sandstone

Eurombah Formation

Springbok Sandstone

Westbourne Formation

Walloon Subgroup

Gubberamunda Formation

Orallo Formation

Metres

0 100 200 300 400 500

4 WCK_WH0045 WCK_WH0056 WCK_WH0067 WCK_WH007

Existing Walloon Subgroup monitoring

Existing Walloon Subgroup monitoring

Production/injection well

Aquifer monitoring bore

GW1 WCK_GW001GW2 WCK_GW002GW3 WCK_GW003GW4 WCK_GW004

GW7 WCK_GW007GW8 WCK_GW008GW9 WCK_GW009GW10 WCK_GW010

Aquifer monitoring bore

35

3.6.1 PHASE 1 AQUIFER TESTS

A groundwater pumping test program was initiated for the Phase 1 monitoring bores. The pumping test program

had several purposes:

• To allow estimates of aquifer hydraulic properties (transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity) to be calculated, to

inform various groundwater studies both underway and being planned (e.g. GEN3 model);

• To assess aquifer response to pumping to gain a qualitative understanding of aquifer behaviour (e.g. identify

leakage or boundaries);

• To allow groundwater quality sampling to satisfy the sampling commitments of the GWMP; and

• To allow groundwater quality sampling for a range of parameters (including isotopes) to provide data for

various groundwater studies being undertaken.

The aquifer testing program involved:

• A multi-rate step test, typically three 30-minute steps, to assess well efficiency and identify a target rate for a

longer term constant rate test;

• A constant rate pumping test typically of eight hours duration, to allow estimates of aquifer hydraulic

properties to be calculated and to assess aquifer response to pumping to gain a qualitative understanding of

aquifer behaviour; and

• A monitored recovery test to 95% of the pre-pumping water level, to allow estimates of aquifer hydraulic

properties to be calculated to further gain a qualitative understanding of aquifer behaviour.

Table 3-4 presents a summary of the results which have been used in analysis and modelling.

Figure 3-14 – Observed groundwater level at WCK_GW004

255

245

235

260

250

240

230

Oct 2012

Gro

un

dwat

er e

leva

tion

(m A

HD

)

Nov 2012

Dec 2012

Jan 2013

Feb 2014

WCK_GW004_PIT_001

WCK_GW004_PIT_002

Downhole pressure gauges

36

FormationGeometric mean T

(m2/day)

Geometric mean Kh

(m/day)

Max Kh

(m/day)

Min Kh

(m/day)

Gubberamunda 8.1 0.5 8.3 0.02

Springbok (all tests) 0.34 0.03 0.10 0.003

Springbok (upper, 1 test) 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.01

Springbok (mid, 2 tests) 0.86 0.06 0.08 0.04

Springbok (lower, 5 tests) 0.30 0.02 0.10 0.003

Table 3-4 – Summary of permeability estimates from Phase 1 pumping tests

Key findings of the Stage 1 aquifer testing program are:

• In general, the Gubberamunda Sandstone aquifer is up to an order of magnitude more permeable than the

Springbok Sandstone;

• The middle Springbok Sandstone may be generally more permeable than the lower Springbok Sandstone;

• Most of the tests were subject to boundary conditions influencing the drawdown curves (either boundaries

or recharge). These boundaries may be related to faulting or facies changes; and

• No leakage was detected in the Gubberamunda tests. Four of the seven Springbok tests detected leakage,

which is likely to be derived from Springbok Formation strata immediately above or below the pumped sand

unit.

3.6.2 APPRAISAL PILOTS AND CONNECTIVITY

Three pilot production tests (shown in Figure 3-9) represent the core of the connectivity studies. These tests are

designed to provide definitive evidence of the possible pressure effects in the adjacent formations due to up to

six months of CSG development. The monitoring network is now in place and background data is being collected.

Progress to date has been limited due to pumping problems. Three pilots are underway at:

• Woleebee Creek – Northern Gas Fields;

• Kenya East – Central and Southern Gas Fields; and

• Ruby Jo – Southern Gas Fields.

The status of the three tests are summarised below, locations are depicted on Figure 3-9.

Woleebee Creek P1

A cross-section showing the Woleebee Creek P1 pilot test production wells and observation bores is shown in

Figure 3-13. Woleebee Creek P1 full dewatering commenced on 23 November 2012. The WCK pilot wells have all

recently been shut in due to safety issues around high water gathering pressures downstream from the CSG

wells. Testing is expected to restart in September 2013 with preliminary results available in April 2014. This will

still be done before major depressurisation in the Northern Gas Fields commences in October 2014.

Kenya East P3

Kenya East P3 began diagnostic testing on 12 March 2013. KEE#27 and KEE#28 were shut in as scheduled. It is

expected that the full dewatering is expected to commence in September 2013.

Ruby Jo P2

Ruby Jo P2 started testing 9 October 2012. Full dewatering commenced on 17 January 2013. Wells #8 and #9 are

flowing. RBY #10, #11 and #12 received work overs and are currently waiting on further work. It is expected that full

dewatering will recommence in September 2013.

37

Figure 3-15 – Combined water level plots at Woleebee Creek

BWS GW2 Springbok Sandstone

BWS GW1 Gubberamunda Sandstone

282

278

274

270

280

276

272

268

Sep 2011

Pote

nti

omet

ric

leve

l (m

AH

D)

Nov 2011

Jan 2012

Mar 2012

May 2012

Jul 2012

Sep 2012

Nov 2012

Jan 2013

284

286

288

Figure 3-16 – Combined water level plots at Berwyndale South

38

3.6.3 WCK_GW4 LONG-TERM PUMPING TEST

A long-term pumping test has been carried out on Woleebee Creek GW4 bore since 11 December 2012, see

Figure 3-14. This Precipice Sandstone bore will be pumped for a period of six months to determine transmissivity,

hydraulic conductivity and storativity of the Precipice Sandstone aquifer, as an input to injection studies.

Figure 3-15 illustrates the pumping well drawdown associated with this test. The monitoring bore GW10, which

is located 3.28 km from the production well at Woleebee Creek, monitors the changes in the Precipice Sandstone

pressure during the pumping test. The remaining aquifer monitoring bores will measure any changes due to

leakage from overlying formations.

3.7 GROUNDWATER LEVEL AND PRESSURE RESULTS

Groundwater level data is analysed as a series of time-series hydrographs that include the following:

• Hydrographs according to region or area of interest;

• Hydrographs according to formation(s) of interest across the tenement areas; and

• Hydrographs including rainfall and water abstraction (CSG abstraction and other use abstraction where

available).

On a routine basis, hydrographic data may be analysed to different levels of complexity. All hydrographs are

subject to regular assessment and preliminary interpretation, and the graphs and interpretive works are included

in the relevant reporting schedule. Bores at MNES monitoring locations and selected other bores are subject to

detailed trend analysis using the methods outlined in Chapter 4. Adjusted hydrographs (following trend analysis)

of MNES monitoring bores are then assessed against relevant threshold and trigger values, and any exceedances

are examined in more detail, according to the relevant Response Plan (Chapter 13).

Table 3-5 lists the types of water level data being collected and their frequency.

Items monitored Infrastructure Frequency Monitoring suite

Groundwater level/aquifer

pressure – manualNested wells Six-monthly Water level

Groundwater level/aquifer

pressure – continuous

(automated)

Nested wells

Daily transducer measurements

and semi-annually manual

measurements

Water level

Aquifer pressure continuous

(automated)Private bores* Six-monthly Water level

Aquifer pressureVWP (equipped with

datalogger)

Daily, six-monthly

downloadedWater level

*Planned to commence in 2014

Table 3-5 – Summary of water level and pressure monitoring

39

Figure 3-17 – Groundwater quality field measurement and sampling system

Appendix F presents the first annual monitoring report, with all data collected to date. Some examples are

presented below:

• Figure 3-15 illustrates the range of data being collected in aquifers, aquitards and the Walloon Subgroup at the

Woleebee Creek multi-level monitoring site prior to dewatering in 2014. A key feature of the plot is the slow

decline in the low permeability Westbourne and Eurombah Formation and Springbok Sandstone following a

standard variable head permeability test.

• Figure 3-16 shows the response in the Springbok Sandstone and Gubberamunda Sandstone aquifers over the

Berwyndale South gas field which has been operating since 2005. The data indicates that there has been no

downward trend in groundwater level in the Springbok Sandstone.

• The Berwyndale South plot also illustrates a common feature across the project area, which is the upward

gradient from the Springbok Sandstone to the Gubberamunda Sandstone.

3.8 HYDROCHEMISTRY DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Prior to a water sample being collected, the bore is developed to a standard where the water generated is

considered representative of the target aquifer, with very minimal sediment, drill cuttings or drilling mud present.

Processes to develop bores are varied, and depend on the type and age of the bore, along with construction

and completion design. Hydrochemistry samples, in the medium- to long-term, will be collected using low

flow techniques. Until then, samples are collected using a submersible pump to purge the bore and collect the

sample. Table 3-5 presents the schedule and suites for hydrochemical sampling. This program is in line with the

monitoring requirements for springs monitoring as per the Joint Industry Plan (see Chapter 8).

PRESSURE MANAGEMENT

VALVE

Water level

Pre filter and sample release valve

pH Eh EC T DO

DISPOSAL

Low flow

pump

Screen

Test Well

Reagent/blank phials

Field spectrophometer measurement of Fe2+/S2-/NO2- for

redox couples

Alkalinity titration

Dissolved cations syringe filter 0 .1µm preserve with 2% ultrapure HNO3

Total metals unfiltered preserve with 2% ultrapure

HNO3

Sample holding beaker

Fluid discharge Anions unfiltered

preserve on iceIsotopes unfiltered

no preservation required for

2D 18O and 13C

Measurement of goundwater physico-chemical parameters

Ground level

40

Item monitored Infrastructure Frequency Monitoring suite

Water quality Private bores* Six-monthly Field suite, GW suite**

Water quality Aquifer monitoring Six-monthly Field suite, GW suite**

Water quality CSG well Six-monthly CSG characterisation and CSG indicator suites*

** Private bore monitoring to commence in 2014

* Isotope suite to be applied as required.

Table 3-6 – Summary of hydrochemistry monitoring

Sampling is carried out in accordance with DEHP Monitoring and Sampling Manual 2009.

The low-flow continuous purging and sampling method uses a submerged air actuated bladder pump adjusted

to deliver groundwater to the surface at very low flow rates. The system significantly reduces water volumes to be

managed at surface and means that only water necessary for sampling is abstracted from the target aquifer.

The principle behind the technique is to ensure the flow rate exerted by the pump is set to equal or less than the

inflow from the target aquifer.

Figure 3-18 – Example of Piper and Durov plots

Groundwater Analyses - Lauren Field

Mg++

Na+ + K

+80%

50%

20%

Ca ++80%

50%

20%

SO4--

Cl –80%

50%

20%

HCO 3– +

CO 3--

80%

50%

20%

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

TDS (mg/l)

pH

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M M M

M

I

I I I

I

I

I I I

I

J

J J J

J

J

J J J

J

J

J J J

J

O

O O O

O

O

O O O

O

O

O O O

O

O

O O O

O

O

O O O

O

O

O O O

O

O

O O O

O

20%

20%

20%

40%

40%

40%

60%

60%

60%

80%

80%

80%

Mg

++

Ca++

20%

20%

20%

40%

40%

40%

60%

60%

60%

80%

80%

80%

SO4 --

Cl–

SO4-- +

Cl–

Ca ++ + Mg ++

HCO 3– +

CO 3--

Na + + K +

80%

80%

60%

60%

40%

40%

20%

20%

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

M M

M

I I

I

I I

I

JJ

J

J

J

J

JJ

J

OO

O

O O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O O

O

O O

O

41

This results in the stratification of the water in the bore, with only fresh aquifer water flowing into the bore

at the low-flow pump inlet depth. Following this theory the stagnant water column within the bore remains

undisturbed, while the recovery of representative samples of the water in the target formation adjacent to the

bore screen occurs. The other key benefit is a reduction in water abstraction from potentially thousands of litres

per bore to tens of litres.

The water abstracted is continually monitored for a number of chemical and physical parameters using a flow

through cell and field instrumentation. Figure 3-17 illustrates how the sample is collected and managed at

surface.

Hydrochemistry data is reviewed and presented in the following formats:

• Piper Diagrams and Durov and expanded Durov plots for hydrochemical facies characterisation

(e.g. Figure 3-18);

• Major ion components and salinity are also plotted against depth to evaluate trends within each geological

unit and through the sedimentary pile;

• Mapping of spatial hydrochemical facies distributions;

• Two and three dimensional visualisations of hydrochemical facies distributions;

• Isotopic trends are plotted to evaluate groundwater fingerprinting applications and the potential for

determination of boundary fluxes between units spatially and with depth; and

• Evaluation of reversible and irreversible changes with time where temporal data are available.

• Durov plots of water analyses are used to establish hydrochemical facies types, visualise links between

aqueous geochemical character and physico-chemical parameters such as dissolved solids and pH and to

identify potential mixing trends in large data sets. When used in conjunction with spatial and sample depth

data Durov plots provide a powerful component for the construction of conceptual groundwater geochemical

models. The example shown was plotted using data from the Lauren CSG field in the QGC Central

Development Area. The samples are from bores within the boundaries of the field and show a narrow range

of compositions all plotting within the Na-HCO3 hydrochemical facies zone of the diagram.

Additionally the horizontal extension of the plot shows the relationship between compositional variation and

salinity. The vertical extension of the plot shows the range of pH values, which shows that all the samples are

alkaline. The multiple relationships displayed on a Durov plot can be used to identify systematic trends between

salinity, groundwater compositional character and pH. These inter-relationships can also be used as part of a

quality control exercise, e.g. pH values are intimately related to alkalinity, which is a function of bicarbonate and

carbonate activity, therefore; a pH value below 4.7 cannot be associated with a Na-HCO3 hydrochemical facies.

The plot results can be used to assist with well engineering applications to identify the potential for corrosive

subsurface conditions and the potential reactions with drilling fluids. This information also provides a basis for

estimating environmental impacts as a consequence of exploration and development activities.

Using these techniques, groundwater quality data are then applied to a hydrochemical model that aims to review

and establish potential inter aquifer relationships. From a hydrochemical perspective hydrochemical facies are

used to group the analyses. The facies groups are compared spatially and in relation to depth and geological unit.

Analysis and interpretation of both major and selected minor ion ratios is conducted using cross plots of the

relative molar concentrations. A preliminary hydrochemistry model is presented in Chapter 9.

42

3.9 DATA ACQUISITION – CONCLUSIONS

QGC has developed a robust data collection system to characterise the groundwater dynamics of the Surat Basin

and to monitor future changes. Petroleum and hydrogeological data acquisition and interpretation tools are

being integrated in innovative ways to inform further research and understanding.

The status of the Commitments relevant to data acquisition is as follows:

# Department Condition Description Completion date Status

Pre-Dec 2012 Post-Dec 2012

1 52c i 53B dCompletion of Stage 2 Monitoring Bore and VWP conversion programs (as outlined in this Plan)

March 2014

2 52c iIncorporation of potential additional UWIR groundwater monitoring requirements into Stage 2 Bore Construction Program

February 2013

4 52c iv 53B d Completion of bore baseline assessments and data analysis October 2013

13 52c 53B d Completion of interim Groundwater Monitoring Plan. April 2013

14 62f Collation and reporting of groundwater monitoring resultsApril 2014 and annually thereafter

15 52ciCollection and analysis of six-monthly groundwater quality samples

Biannually

16 52ciImplementation of the telemetry system for continuous groundwater level monitoring

April 2014

3249c and d, 52di I and II; 52d ii

53B d, 53B EConfirmation of early warning and threshold monitoring bore construction

October 2014

52 52c iImplementation of landholder bore monitoring – land access negotiations

October 2013

53 62f Commencement of monitoring of Landholder Bores April 2014

Commitments completed Evergreen Commitments

Commitments work in progress Firm deliverables for that month

Success depends on integrity, responsible environmental stewardship and the development of positive and enduring relationships.