Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Appendix M Aquitard Kv literature review
International Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review Report for Queensland Gas Company
Final 1
17 April 2012
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
International Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review
Final 1
17 April 2012
Sinclair Knight Merz ABN 37 001 024 095 Floor 11, 452 Flinders Street Melbourne VIC 3000 PO Box 312, Flinders Lane Melbourne VIC 8009 Australia Tel: +61 3 8668 3000 Fax: +61 3 8668 3001 Web: www.globalskm.com
COPYRIGHT: The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Sinclair Knight Merz constitutes an infringement of copyright.
LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd’s Client, and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the agreement between Sinclair Knight Merz and its Client. Sinclair Knight Merz accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE i
Contents
1. Introduction 3
2. Terminology 4
3. Objective 6
4. Surat Basin Conceptualisation 7
4.1. Regional Geological Setting 7
4.2. Hydrogeology 10
4.2.1. Major aquifers and aquitards 10
4.2.2. Vertical Hydraulic properties 10
5. Method 13
5.1. Data Search 13
5.2. Data Compilation 13
5.3. Permeability and hydraulic conductivity 14
6. Results 15
6.1. Distribution of Kv’ 15
6.2. Comparison of Kv’ and K 16
6.3. Effect of lithology on Kv’ 17
6.4. Effect of data source on Kv’ 21
7. Discussion 23
7.1. Effect of test methods on Kv’ 23
7.1.1. Laboratory tests 23
7.1.2. Field tests 24
7.1.3. Conductivity estimated from models 25
7.2. Effect of discontinuities, bores, and multiphases on Kv’ 26
7.2.1. Discontinuities (joints, fractures, and faults) 26
7.2.2. Bores 27
7.2.3. Multiphase conductivity 29
8. Conclusions 31
9. References 33
Appendix A Documents consulted 36
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 1
Executive Summary
An international literature review of 180 published papers has investigated the range of vertical
hydraulic conductivity (Kv’) for aquitards in sedimentary basins with lithology similar to those
encountered in the Surat Basin, such as sandstone, silt, siltstone, mudstone, clay, claystone and
shale.
The international literature review showed that around the world, the range of measured or
estimated vertical hydraulic conductivities of sedimentary facies typical of the Surat Basin is
extremely wide, ranging between 1 x 10-12
m/day (1 x 10-9
mD) and 3 m/day (3 x 10+3
mD).
The results of the literature review are summarised in the following table:
Median of lower values
Median of upper values
All lithologies (sandstone, coal, silt, siltstone, mudstone, clay, claystone,
shale)
All methods (285 citations)
10-5
m/day (10
-2 mD)
5 x 10
-4 m/day
(0.5 mD)
Fine grained lithology (mudstone, clay, claystone, shale)
All methods (193 citations)
10-6
m/day (10
-3 mD)
2 x 10-5
m/day (2 x 10
-2 mD)
Laboratory tests (47 citations)
10-8
m/day (10
-5 mD)
4 x 10-7
m/day (4 x 10
-4 mD)
Field Tests (45 citations)
4 x 10-5
m/day (4 x 10
-2 mD)
10-3
m/day (1 mD)
Field measurements are shown to yield systematically higher values of Kv’ (of approximately three
orders of magnitude) than laboratory testing of core samples. It is fair to assume that a large
proportion of field values collected in this review will contain results that are derived from shallow
depths (because many more tests will have been undertaken at shallow depths). It should also be
noted that as depth of burial increases, hydraulic conductivity typically decreases. These values
therefore may not be as representative of aquitards that are located at large depths.
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 2
Rock defects were shown to have a significant impact on regional Kv’. A simple set of vertical
non-intersecting vertical fractures of 0.1 mm (100 μm) openings spaced every 10km in a virtually
impervious matrix results in a regional Kv’ of 5.8 x 10-3
mD (5 x 10-6
m/day). Poorly constructed,
poorly decommissioned, abandoned or failed bores or those screened across multiple units, could
be considered to have a similar impact on regional Kv’ as those caused by rock defects.
The median Kv’ value of 1 x 10-3
mD (1 x 10-6
m/day) used in the GEN 2 model would appear to
be reasonable. However, the upper bound of the Kv’ range used in the GEN 2 groundwater model
(5 x 10-6
m/day) may be too low if the aquitard is fractured or contains poorly constructed bores.
The lower value of the range (5 x 10-7
m/day) can be regarded as appropriate.
Notes:
In the literature, hydraulic conductivities are reported in a large variety of forms. Some articles
provide single hydraulic conductivity estimation while most provide ranges of values. Single
values were considered as a range whose lower and upper values were equal. Therefore, hydraulic
conductivities are reported by two distributions: the first is constituted by the lower values of the
ranges and the second by the upper value of the reported ranges. The ―median of lower values‖ is
the median of the first distribution (i.e. all the ranges lower values) and the ―median of upper
values‖ is the median of the second distribution (i.e. all the ranges upper values).
Laboratory tests are reported regardless of the methodology used. It is important to note that
the methodology (particularly whether it is a permeability to gas or to water) yields outputs
that can range over 1 order of magnitude for the same samples.
Values were rounded to 1 significant figure and the conversion factor used in this document is
1mD = 10-3
m/day.
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 3
1. Introduction
Extraction of gas and water from the Walloon Coal Measures (WCM) will result in pressure
changes within this unit and has the potential induce vertical leakage from overlying and/or
underlying units. The amount and rate of potential leakage is predicted in the GEN2 model
(Golder Associates, 2011) to be small and the effects relatively localised. It is recognised,
however, that the model is based on assumed hydraulic properties, albeit a broad range.
Queensland Gas Corporation’s (QGC’s) Connectivity Programme (QGC, 2011) is designed to
provide much greater confidence in the predicted hydraulic impacts of pumping from the WCM.
The objectives of the Connectivity Programme are to:
1. Develop a scientifically robust and defensible understanding of the nature of the vertical
leakage induced by CSG development across the QGC tenements and adjacent areas
2. Demonstrate, through a comprehensive monitoring programme, the nature of the vertical
leakage
3. Characterise the key factors, both natural and anthropogenic, affecting vertical leakage
4. Characterise the spatial and temporal variation in vertical leakage
5. Identify any risks associated with unacceptable vertical leakage and develop response plans
for any risks
6. Develop a detailed understanding of the potential for extraction from the WCM on QGC
leases to affect vertical leakage from the Condamine alluvium.
The studies proposed to be undertaken to determine the hydraulic connectivity between the WCM
and the overlying and underlying aquifers, the leakage rates in and out of these aquifers and the
resulting impacts, are summarised in the Stage 1 CSG Water Monitoring and Management Plan
(WMMP).
This report presents the findings of the first task in the Stage 1 WMMP, Aquitard Vertical
Hydraulic Conductivity Review section.
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 4
2. Terminology
Aquifer Geological formation that comprises materials that have a moderate to high hydraulic
conductivity. Water supply wells are usually sunk into aquifers because the high
hydraulic conductivity enables moderate to high pumping rates
Aquitard Geological formation that comprises materials that have a low hydraulic conductivity.
Water supply wells are not usually sunk into aquitards because the low hydraulic
conductivity enables only low pumping rates
Intrinsic
permeability (k)
Intrinsic permeability is the portion of hydraulic conductivity which is representative of
the properties of the porous medium (not the fluid) and is a function of the size of the
openings through which the fluid moves
k = C d2 (dimensions are L
2 or Area)
C = dimensionless constant
d = mean pore diameter
dimensions are L2 or Area
Relationship between hydraulic conductivity and intrinsic permeability is K = k (ρg/µ)
ρ = density of fluid (g/cm3)
µ = dynamic viscosity of fluid
density units = g/cm3
viscosity units = centipoise
1 centipoise = 0.01 g/(cm sec)
g = acceleration constant due to gravity = 9.80665 m/s2
Hydraulic
conductivity
(K)
Hydraulic Conductivity is a term used for permeability of geologic material to water flow
K =Q/Ai (dimensions are L/T)
Q = discharge (L3/T)
A = cross sectional area of groundwater flow (L2)
i = groundwater gradient (L/L)
Kv vertical hydraulic conductivity of an aquifer
Kv’ vertical hydraulic conductivity of an aquitard
Kh horizontal hydraulic conductivity of an aquifer
Kh’ horizontal hydraulic conductivity of an aquitard
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 5
Millidarcy
(mD)
Intrinsic permeability (1 mD = 8.64 x 10-4
m/day).
m/day Hydraulic conductivity (1 m/day = 1,157.4 mD)
L/sec litres per second
a x 10-n scientific notation equivalent to a x 10-n
aE-N scientific notation equivalent to a x 10-n
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 6
3. Objective
The purpose of this project is to search international literature for documented values of vertical
conductivities related to leakage in confined aquifers, including existing CSG fields in North
America, Asia and Europe, major groundwater basins and geothermal fields. The literature search
aimed to identify the bounds (absolute minimal and maximal values) of vertical hydraulic
conductivities (i.e. coefficient of permeability) of aquitards overlying and underlying the producing
aquifer. It aimed to identify most likely values of vertical hydraulic conductivities for lithologies
comparable to the Surat Basin. It also aimed to document the main criteria controlling vertical
conductivities in order to provide some insight in the Surat Basin vertical hydraulic conductivities.
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 7
4. Surat Basin Conceptualisation
The geological setting of the Surat Basin has been described in detail in various previous QGC
reports, notably in the groundwater impact assessment report for the Queensland Curtis Liquefied
Natural Gas QCLNG (Golder Associates, 2011), from which most of the information below has
been sourced.
4.1. Regional Geological Setting
The Surat Basin is a sub-basin of the GAB, located across central southern Queensland and central
northern New South Wales (Figure 1). The Surat Basin is a complex multilayered sedimentary
sequence of fluvially deposited sandstone units interspersed with marginal-marine mudstone and
siltstone units. The GAB basin sediments extend to more than 3,000m in thickness, but the coal
measures targeted by the CSG extraction are generally at depth less than 1,200m. Figure 1
summarises the representative stratigraphic column of the Surat Basin units at QGC tenements. The
coal seams within the WCM unit are not present as laterally continuous seams or layers but as
numerous thin, disconnected coal plies in a matrix of generally low permeability sediments (Figure
2). The coal seams comprise 10% to 15% of the full thickness of the WCM and include up to 40 to
45 laterally discontinuous individual coal seams of varying thicknesses, extent and variable
permeability. These are the layers which are targeted for their CSG resource. The coal is
interbedded with shales, siltstones and mudstones, which comprise 85% to 90% of the full
thickness of the WCM.
Structurally, the lithological units are continuous across large areas within the basin although some
faulting, capable of locally displacing or disconnecting aquifers, is present. It has been suggested
that such faults can act as preferential permeable zones or alternatively as impermeable barriers to
groundwater movement (Habermehl, 2002 cited in WorleyParsons 2010). The sediments often dip
in a south-westerly direction. The WCM, outcropping on the eastern side of the basin, are found at
depths ranging from 100m to 800m along QGC tenements (Figure 3).
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 8
Figure 1. Surat Basin location (from QGC 2011)
Table 1. Lithology characteristics and hydrogeological role of the main units
Formation Dominant
behaviour
Lithology
Mooga
Sandstone
Aquifer Fluvial quartzose sandstone with thinly interbedded mudstone and
siltstone
Orallo
Formation
Confining Medium to coarse grained sandstone interbedded with
carbonaceous siltstone, silty mudstone, tuffs and coals
Gubberamunda Aquifer Medium to coarse grained quartz rich sandstone interbedded with
fine grained sandstone, siltstone and shale
Westbourne
Formation
Confining Interbedded shales, silstones and fine grained sandstone
Springbok
Sandstone
Poor Aquifer Sandstone, interbedded with carbonaceous siltstones, mudstone,
tuff and occasional coal beds
Walloon Coal
Measures
Coal measures Coal seams interbedded with shale, siltstone and mudstone
Confining layers Sandstone, siltstone and mudstone with high clay content.
Durabilla
Formation
Confining Fine to coarse grained sandstone interbedded with siltstone and
mudstone
Hutton
Sandstone
Aquifer Fluvial sandstone beds with minor thin conglomerate beds,
interbedded silts, and beds of mudstone rich in clay
Evergreen
Formation
Confining Thinly bedded mudstone, siltstone and sandstone intervals
Precipice
Sandstone
Aquifer Fine to coarse quartzose sandstone. Minor siltstone and clay matrix.
Bowen Basin
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 9
Figure 2. Coal Seam distribution within WCM
Figure 3. Schematic north-east to south-west cross section of the Surat Basin (from University of Southern Queensland, 2011)
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 10
4.2. Hydrogeology
4.2.1. Major aquifers and aquitards
As illustrated on Table 1, most formations within the Surat Basin comprise interbedded sandstone,
siltstone and mudstone. The formations that are dominated by Sandstones form the main aquifers,
with the aquitards dominated by shales, mudstones and siltstones. Due to the interbedded nature
within the formations, significant variability of hydraulic conductivity would be expected to occur
within each aquifer and aquitard. This variability may be greater within an aquifer or aquitard than
between aquifers and aquitards. For conceptualisation purposes and subsequent numerical
modelling, every unit was classified (Golder Associates, 2011) into aquifer and aquitard units
according to its most representative facies. The hydrogeological role played by each unit are
summarised in Table 1. The Surat Basin deposits can then be conceptualised by 5 main aquifers
(Mooga Sandstone, Gubberamunda, Springbok, Hutton, Precipice) separated by as many aquitard
(Orrallo, Westbourne, Durabilla, Evergeen formations). The WCM is also considered as an
aquitard despite the aquifer properties of the coal seams.
4.2.2. Vertical Hydraulic properties
According to Habermehl (2002, quoted in Worley Parsons, 2010) the representative horizontal
hydraulic conductivity for the GAB aquifers ranges from 0.1 to 10m/day (1 x 102 to 1.2 x 10
4 mD),
while the average vertical hydraulic conductivities for the leaky, low permeability, confining beds
range from 1 x 10-4
m/day to 1 x 10-1
m/day (0.12 to 120 mD).
Routine core analyses carried out on Walloon Coal Measure sediments from a range of wells across
the QGC tenements in the Surat Basin provide a range of hydraulic conductivities as summarised in
Table 2. All measurements were carried out at overburden pressure. Both vertical and horizontal
hydraulic conductivities show variation in hydraulic conductivities ranging over several order of
magnitudes. Downhole field estimates provide higher conductivities than laboratory core analyses.
This database formed a source of information upon which the hydraulic conductivities of the GEN2
numerical model were determined. The range of values used in the GEN2 model are summarised in
Table 3.
The University of Southern Queensland, in an attempt to assess the cumulative impacts in the Surat
Basin associated with the coal seam gas industry ( University of Southern Queensland, 2011), has
done a comparative study of hydraulic conductivities used in groundwater numerical models
among the four main CSG companies. Even though hydraulic conductivity values used in the four
models are mostly consistent, they vary by several orders of magnitude between models and up to 5
orders of magnitude for the Evergreen Formation. This emphasizes the difficulty in accurately
assessing hydraulic conductivities. The reason may be partly due to the lack of test results for some
of the units, but even results for well documented units such as the WCM are also spread over
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 11
several orders of magnitude. Well documented units are usually based on laboratory core sampling,
which do not account for rock fractures that are important to regional flow. Aquifer hydraulic tests
are often conducted over a too short a period to induce vertical flow through aquitards and obtain
estimates of vertical conductivity.
Table 2. QGC WCM hydraulic conductivity test results
Test method Lithology
Horizontal intrinsic
permeability and hydraulic
conductivity
Vertical intrinsic
permeability and hydraulic
conductivity
[mD] [m/day] [mD] [m/day]
Laboratory
core testing
Sandstone and
siltstones 0.01 to 128
8.6 x 10-6
to
1.1 x 10-1
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 12
Impacts, as identified by the numerical groundwater model (GEN2 in Golder Associates 2011), are
sensitive to hydraulic conductivity parameters and particularly for the vertical hydraulic
conductivity of confining layers separating pumped coal seams and GAB aquifers. The large
uncertainty associated with these parameters reduces the confidence of the potential impacts. The
current study aims at determining the extent to which this uncertainty can be reduced.
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 13
5. Method
5.1. Data Search
A review of existing literature and information on vertical hydraulic conductivity and leakage rates
for aquitards within major fractured rock and sedimentary basins throughout the world was
undertaken using the Science Direct On-line Reference Database and Willey Online Library.
Google and Google Scholar search engines were also used to search relevant literature. The search
was implemented by using either separately, or in combination, the following key words: Vertical
hydraulic conductivity, permeability, aquitard, coal seam gas, coal seam gas impacts, shale, clay,
mudstone, coal, siltstone, sandstones, Surat Basin, Bowen Basin, Shale gas, shale gas impact,
Barnett shale, Marcellus shale, Utica, geological nuclear waste management, etc.
After, collecting relevant articles some extended literature was researched using the references
quoted in articles, or by using search engines to search literature from authors identified as being
specialists on the hydrogeology of aquitards, such as C.E. Neuzil.
To manage the volume of material to be reviewed, emphasis was placed on major journals (e.g.
Groundwater). Relevant information quoted on free access abstracts was also considered.
Although the amount of reference material that could be obtained and reviewed is limited by the
timeframe for the study, a substantial resource comprising 180 references was compiled. The
documents consulted are referenced in Appendix A.
5.2. Data Compilation
In the literature, hydraulic conductivities are reported in a large variety of forms and units. The
reported hydraulic conductivities were obtained by a large variety of means, including several
laboratory techniques, field experiments, derived from modelling, or simply stated without
reference. They refer to various scales, ranging from decimetre large core samples to regional
aquitards comprising several stratigraphic units. Lithological descriptions of a single unit for which
a value of hydraulic conductivity is provided can also be very detailed (e.g. Fluvial sandstone beds
with minor thin conglomerate beds, interbedded silts, and beds of mudstone rich in clay) and such a
detailed description cannot be practically kept for a statistical analysis of hydraulic conductivity
references as it would generate as many categories as there are references. Consequently, for the
scope of this study it was necessary to group the references into explicit categories. Lithology was
grouped into the following six categories: clay, coal, mudstone, sandstone, shale and silt &
siltstone. For a complex lithological description the main lithology was adopted when it was clearly
stated; otherwise the lithology corresponding to the finest grain size was considered (e.g. the Kv’
for the unit given above as an example would then be put in the ―sandstone‖ category).
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 14
Results were categorised as ―laboratory‖, ―model‖ or ―field‖ obtained values irrespective of the
laboratory, modelling, or field testing methods used. Articles or book extracts referring to ranges of
conductivities without providing details on how the values were obtained were labelled ―text
book‖.
Some documents provide a range of values as they refer to several laboratory tested samples, or to
the uncertainty of the Kv’ estimation determined from field methods, whereas other articles provide
only a single value (which could be the average or the median value of a sample). So as not to
exclude any information, the distinction between Kv’ min and Kv’ max was retained and articles
providing single Kv’ values were given a Kv’ min and Kv’ max equal to that value.
Many references mentioned hydraulic conductivity (K) without discriminating between vertical
(Kv’) and horizontal conductivity (Kh’). References that did not make this distinction were
included if the material was considered relevant to this study. Thus in the collected literature, 132
references to vertical hydraulic conductivity were considered, along with 159 references to
hydraulic conductivity alone (i.e. where hydraulic conductivity was not categorised as horizontal or
vertical).
It is widely recognised that, due to the nature of sediment deposition and diagenesis, horizontal
conductivity can be up to several order of magnitude larger than vertical conductivity. Including
values of K in this study, which focuses on estimation of Kv’, would not underestimate Kv’ but
could potentially lead to an overestimation of the upper end of Kv’.
5.3. Permeability and hydraulic conductivity
It is important also to emphasize that permeability is an intrinsic property of a rock regardless of
the fluid (gas or liquid) flowing through it, and hydraulic conductivity characterises both the rock
and the viscosity of the fluid. Hydrogeologists tend to consider hydraulic conductivity to water
(expressed in m/day) while petrophysicists consider the intrinsic permeability expressed in
millidarcy (mD) which are usually measured on core sample with gas. The Darcy (and
consequently MilliDarcy) is not an SI (International System of Units). A medium with a
permeability of 1 Darcy permits a flow of 1 cm/sec of a fluid with a viscosity of 1 centipoise under
a pressure gradient of 1 atmosphere/cm. To convert to equivalent values of hydraulic conductivity
for water at 20ºC and at normal atmospheric conditions 1mD = 8.64 x 10-4
m/day and inversely,
1m/day = 1,157.4 mD. However, in this report, using that conversion factor, all units are presented
both in terms of hydraulic conductivity using units of m/day, and in terms of permeability using the
Millidarcy. Values were rounded to two significant figures.
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 15
6. Results
6.1. Distribution of Kv’
The distribution of all the data obtained from the literature review are presented in Figure 4. This
shows there is significant overlap between the minimum and maximum Kv’ values. The upper and
lower bound values of the min and max datasets are offset by approximately 2 orders of magnitude.
The median of the minimum and maximum value are 1 x 10-5
m/day (1 x 10-2
mD) and 5 x 10-4
m/day (5 x 10-1
mD).
Figure 4 Distribution of minimum and maximum Kv’
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
Co
un
t o
f va
lue
s
Log Kv' (m/day)
log Min (Kv')
Log Max (Kv')
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 16
6.2. Comparison of Kv’ and K
It is evident that the distributions of Kv’ and K (ie those that are not identified as Kv’ or Kh’)
values are similar as illustrated by Figure 5 and Figure 6. The inclusion of K references in the
report is therefore not considered to introduce any significant bias towards larger values of
hydraulic conductivity, but offers the advantage of increasing the pool of references. Also
noticeable, the lower value of hydraulic conductivity found in the literature refers to K and not to
Kv’.
Figure 5. Distribution of minimum hydraulic conductivity according to their references as Kv’ or K in the literature
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 17
Figure 6 Distribution of maximum hydraulic conductivity according to their references as Kv’ or K in the literature
6.3. Effect of lithology on Kv’
For this study the values of hydraulic conductivities presented in the literature, independently of the
methodology used to derive the values (laboratory testing, field tests, modelling, text books), have
been grouped into six relevant lithological categories. Figure 7 and Figure 8 represents the
distribution for all the lithologies in a combined graph. Figure 9 and Table 4 represent the
distribution for each of the lithologies separately. Note: sandstones are present within the aquitard
units of the study area and have therefore been included in the assessment.
Each lithology distribution of Kv’ ranges across several order of magnitudes and intersects. The
whole spectrum of Kv’ value ranges over 13 orders of magnitude. The breakdown into individual
lithology exhibits the same wide range of conductivities of over 10 orders of magnitude.
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 18
All lithologies except coal range over values of that are associated with both aquifer and aquitard
behaviour. It is therefore not possible on the basis of lithology alone to determine whether a
hydrogeological unit is primarily an aquitard or an aquifer.
Table 4. Distribution of Kv’ by lithology in mD (a) and in m/day (b).
Lithology Min Kv’ [mD] Max Kv’ [mD] Range, in order of
magnitude [mD]
Sandstone 1 x 10-5
1 x 10+4
10
Silt & Siltstone 1 x 10-8
1 x 10+5
14
Mudstone 1 x 10-9
1 x 10+4
14
Shale 1 x 10-9
1 x 10+3
13
(a)
Lithology Min Kv’ [m/day] Max Kv’ [m/day] Range, in order of
magnitude [m/day]
Sandstone 1 x 10-8
1 x 10+1
10
Silt & Siltstone 1 x 10-11
1 x 10+2
14
Mudstone 1 x 10-12
1 x 10+1
14
Shale 1 x 10-12
1 x 100 13
(b)
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 19
Figure 7 Distribution of minimum value of Kv’ by lithology in m/day
Figure 8. Distribution of maximum value of log Kv’ by lithology in m/day
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 20
Figure 9. Distribution of minimum and maximum log Kv’ in m/day for each lithology by their number of citation in literature
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 21
6.4. Effect of data source on Kv’
Values of hydraulic conductivity can be derived from field tests (eg pumping tests), laboratory
tests, or they can be derived from models and other reference material. The distribution of Kv’ per
acquisition method is presented in Figure 10 and Figure 11. These show that Kv’ derived from
field tests tend to be greater than those derived from laboratory tests, particularly for the minimum
Kv’ values. If we include only the lithologies that are most likely to form an aquitard (ie mudstone,
clay, claystone and shale this results in a significant 3 to 4 order of magnitude difference between
laboratory derived values and field test derived values (Table 5).
Figure 10 Distribution of minimum log Kv’ [in m/day] in literature for different methods of value derivation
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 22
Figure 11 Distribution of maximum log Kv’ [in m/day] in literature for different methods of value derivation
Table 5 Median of minimum and maximum Kv’ of fine grained lithologies derived from laboratory and field test methods
Aquisition method
Median of lower values (m/day)
Median of upper values (m/day)
all methods 10-6
2 x 10-5
Laboratory tests
10-8
4 x 10-7
Field Tests 4 x 10-5
10-3
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 23
7. Discussion
7.1. Effect of test methods on Kv’
Hydraulic conductivity can be determined using a number of different methods including
laboratory tests on core samples, field tests using boreholes, and from groundwater models.
7.1.1. Laboratory tests
In a laboratory, hydraulic conductivity is tested on a small core sample which usually has a
diameter and length of decimetre scale. Various laboratory techniques are available, but the main
method consists of placing the core sample in a cell and applying the overburden pressure to the
core. An air pressure (or alternatively another gas like helium or methane or a liquid like water) is
then applied to one face of the sample, creating a flow of air through the core. By measuring the air
flow and the viscosity of air (or used gas), the conductivity can be derived using Darcy’s law.
The measure of hydraulic conductivity from core testing can provide lower hydraulic conductivity
values compared to other methods for the following reasons:
The integrity of a core sample relies on the absence of open fractures, thus fracture zones tend
not to be sampled for laboratory testing (Ahmed et al, 1989)
Non-cohesive materials (i.e. solid containing a high proportion of sand or silt) tend to be easily
damaged or disturbed during collection of the core and hence are less likely to be sampled for
testing (Hammenneister et al)
The fluids/muds that are used during drilling can alter the properties of the formation which
can lead to a reduction in hydraulic conductivity (Sharma and Wunderlich, 1985)
The measure of permeability depends on the laboratory technique used. Permeability obtained
by standard core analysis techniques using gas are different from those using water. Measuring
intrinsic permeability of sandstone and shale cores, Bloomfield (Bloomfield et al. 1995)
obtained an average permeability to gas one order magnitude greater than the permeability to
water (5.1 x 10-1
mD or 4.4 x 10-4
m/day and 4.3mD or 3.7 x 10-3
m/day respectively).
However, using three different laboratory methods to measure matrix gas permeability, Luffel
(1993) reported that one of the techniques yielded permeability estimations 3 to 10 times
greater than the two others. This emphasises that despite the controlled environment of a
laboratory and despite the potential biases in the core sampling, results from permeability
measurements remain uncertain. Any proposed values of permeability from laboratory tests
encompass an uncertainty of at least one order of magnitude.
The difference between Kv’ derived core tested in the laboratory and Kv’ from field tests described
in Section 6.4 and Table 5 indicate that core samples do not account for hydraulic conductivity
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 24
provided by discontinuities such as fractures and bedding joints which on a regional scale have a
significant effect on Kv’. Laboratory results, unless a large number of samples are tested, also do
not take into account the variability of lithology that occurs within an aquitard. Laboratory
measurements are precise, but provide little insight into large scale hydraulic conductivity besides
providing an absolute minimum for regional Kv’. This is consistent with Hart (2006), who showed
that while measurements of Kv’ from a core of the Moquoteka Formation ranged from 1.6 x 10-9
to
3.5 x 10-7
m/day (1.8 x 10-6
mD to 4.1 x 10-4
mD), the regional behaviour suggested that regional
Kv’ was more likely around 1.6 x 10-6
m/day (1.8 x 10-3
mD).
In general, therefore, laboratory results should be considered to represent a lower bound value for
regional Kv’.
7.1.2. Field tests
Field estimation of aquitard hydraulic conductivity can be undertaken directly by testing the
aquitard, or indirectly by inducing flow from an aquitard into an aquifer by pumping. These are
described below:
Rowe (1993) describes a pumping test method to evaluate the hydraulic conductivity of
aquitards. It consists of pumping the aquifer while monitoring the aquitard. The pumping test
should extend over a long enough period to trigger leakage in the aquitard. A pumping test
that is too short, which is often the case due to time and cost limitations, tends to result in an
under-estimate of Kv’ because there has been insufficient time for leakage from the aquitard to
occur during the test (Kruseman and de Ridder, 1991). Pumping tests within an aquitard can
provide an estimate of aquitard properties but tend to test only a small area due to the low
hydraulic conductivity of the aquitard.
Geochemical or isotopic method exist to evaluate groundwater age, flow path, transmissivity
and hence conductivity, of low permeable aquitards.
Estimation of the vertical hydraulic gradient across an aquitard, assuming steady state
conditions, can be used to estimate aquitard vertical permeability. Usually this technique is
applied with a numerical model for which the vertical conductivity of the aquitard is adjusted
as part of the calibration process to match observed heads.
Slug tests within a portion of an aquitard separated by packer have also been successfully used
(Ayan et al., 1994).
Methods using earth tides and barometric fluctuation can also be used to derive Kv’ (Cutillo
and Bredehoeft, 2011).
Compared to laboratory techniques, a major advantage of field testing is that discontinuities such as
joints, faults, bedding planes fractures, and heterogeneity are included in the resultant Kv’. Some
methods, such as long term pumping test can also determine Kv’ values that are representative of
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 25
large areas or thicknesses. Laboratory tests in comparison generally only represent a discrete
location within the test site (i.e. aquitard).
Field tests generally become increasingly difficult and expensive to conduct as the depth of
investigation increases. The duration of tests for deep wells tend to be short due to the difficulties
encountered in managing hot and/or saline/corrosive water, and limits on the power of bore pumps
to lift water from large depths which can result in an underestimation of Kv’. It is fair to assume
that a large proportion of field values collected in this review contain results that are derived from
shallow depths, because many more tests will have been undertaken at shallow depths. It should
also be noted that as depth of burial increases, hydraulic conductivity typically decreases (McKee
et al. 1986). These values therefore, may not be as representative of aquitards that are located at
large depths. However, it is difficult to make generalisations about the reliability of field tests
without knowing the full details of how the test site was configured, how the test was conducted, its
duration and how the data was collected. Usually this information is not available in reference
material such as that used in the study.
7.1.3. Conductivity estimated from models
Numerical groundwater modelling can be used to infer the value of vertical conductivity at a
regional scale. Indeed, every model needs to be calibrated to obtain a good match between
observed and calculated heads. The calibrated parameters can be used as an estimation of the real
parameter value. The most important limitation of this approach resides in the fact that
groundwater models generally do not have a unique solution. Various combinations of parameters
can calibrate a model and uncertainty in the parameter estimation occurs as a result. The quality of
the parameter estimation relies on a proper conceptualisation of the hydrogeological system. The
numerical model links all model parameters. The estimation of one parameter, in this case Kv’, will
directly rely on the estimation of the other parameters, which may also have levels of uncertainty
similar to those of Kv’, such as groundwater recharge and evaporation. The method also relies
directly on the quality and quantity of observed heads. Transient observations recorded over a large
number of years contribute to narrowing down the distribution of calibrating parameters and to the
success of this method.
If a system is well understood conceptually and well documented through proper long term
monitoring, groundwater modelling, by incorporating all the hydrogeological information
available, has the potential to reliably estimate accurate bounds for Kv’ across aquitards at a
regional scale (Macfarlane, 1993).
Hydraulic conductivity can also be obtained from grain size analysis models. This method has
been excluded from this assessment because they are only applicable to unconsolidated sediments,
which are not present in the formations of the GAB.
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 26
7.2. Effect of discontinuities, bores, and multiphases on Kv’
7.2.1. Discontinuities (joints, fractures, and faults)
Discontinuities play a key role in aquitard Kv’. If discontinuities form an interconnected network
they are likely to be a significant control on regional hydraulic parameters. If the discontinuities
can be considered as isolated features in a bulk mass of low conductivity material, the regional
conductivity will be only partially influenced by those features, depending on their spacing
(frequency) and width.
According to a simple parallel plate model from Snow (1968) and reported in (Hart, 2006), a
simple set of non-intersecting fractures of 0.1 mm (100 μm) openings spaced every 10km is enough
to produce an aquitard of a virtually impermeable matrix with a regional Kv’ of 5 x 10-6
m/day (5.8
x 10-3
mD, Figure 12). Similarly, assuming a negligible matrix Kv’, fractures with openings of 0.1
mm (100 μm) would need to be spaced every 100km to give the aquitard a regional Kv’ of 5 x 10-7
m/day (5.8 x 10-4
mD). Thinner fractures with 0.01 mm (10μm) openings would need to be spaced
every 100m for a similar Kv’. Consequently, the chosen minimal value of 5 x 10-7
m/day (5.8 x 10-4
mD) is likely to be associated with a virtually unfractured rock, while a value of 5 x 10-6
m/day (5.8
x 10-3
mD) would indicate little fracturing. A fractured rock aquitard with more open fractures
would have greater Kv’ values. The range of Kv’ values used in the GEN2 groundwater model for
some confining units (between 5 x 10-7
and 5 x 10-6
m/day or 5.8 x 10-4
and 5.8 x 10-3
mD) may
therefore be too limited to represent a fractured aquitard.
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 27
Figure 12 Combination of fracture aperture and spacing that creates regional hydraulic
conductivities of 5.7 x 10-4
, 5.7 x 10-3
and 5.7 x 10-2
mD (resp. 5 x 10-7
, 5 x 10-6
and
5 x 10-5
m/day)
7.2.2. Bores
As with natural discontinuities, poorly constructed, poorly decommissioned, abandoned failed
bores, or bores screened across multiple units, may also act as sites of preferred flow which can
potentially affect regional vertical hydraulic conductivity values (Figure 13).
Bore construction requirements vary depending on the legislation under which a bore is licensed
and as a result, bores (including recently drilled bores) may be constructed to standards that are not
suitable for the prevention of inter-aquifer flow. For example, bores drilled for water supply are
regulated under the Queensland Water Act (2000) which has stringent controls on bore design to
prevent inter-aquifer flow. Bores drilled under the Petroleum and Gas Act (2004) have different
controls on bore design for the prevention of inter-aquifer flow.
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 28
In a study of the Maquoketa Aquitard in Wisconsin (Hart, 2006) estimated that only 50 wells of 0.1
m radius open to aquifers above and below a shale unit and evenly spaced 10 km apart across the
~60 km x 100 km extent of the Aquitard would be sufficient to provide a Kv’ of 1.6 x 10
-6 m/day
(1.8 x 10-3
mD), while laboratory estimates of Kv’ from core samples from the same unit ranged
from 1.6 x 10-9
to 1.6 x 10-7
m/day (1.8 x 10-6
mD to 4.1 x 10-4
mD ).
A total of 1,158 flowing bores in the GAB have been capped between 1999 and 2010 resulting in
an ongoing reduction in discharge of 298,778 ML/year or 258 ML/year/bore (GABCC, 2010). A
further 537 bores were due to be decommissioned as part of the Phase 3 Basin renewal program.
When this is completed a total of 1,695 bores will have been decommissioned. Divided over the
full GAB area of 1.7 million km2 results in one bore per 1,468 km
2 (it is likely that this is an over-
estimate of the area per bore because the artesian area will be smaller than the total basin). Using
an average pressure head of 160 m, an assumed drawdown to ground surface (i.e. 160 m of
drawdown), and an average aquifer depth of 1,000 m, the vertical gradient is 0.16. Using Darcy’s
equation the resultant Kv’ is 3.0 x 10-6
m/day (3.5 x 10-3
mD) from bore discharge alone. If matrix
Kv’ is included the Kv’ would be expected to be greater than 3.0 x 10-6
m/day (3.5 x 10-3
mD).
Although this is a relatively crude analysis it demonstrates that flow through bores could have a
significant effect on Kv’.
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 29
Figure 13. Diagrammatic representation of possible leakage pathways through an abandoned well. a) Between casing and cement b) between cement plug and casing c) through the cement pore space as a result of cement degradation d) through casing as a result of corrosion e) through fractures in cement and f ) between cement and rock (from Gasda 2004)
7.2.3. Multiphase conductivity
Hydraulic conductivity of a porous medium is reduced when a gas phase appears in the bulk rock
(Kissel, 1975). With the porosity being jointly shared by the two phases, the volume of voids
available for water decreases as the volume of gas increases and thus the hydraulic conductivity
decreases. Figure 14 shows an example of a gas and water relative permeability curves derived
experimentally by Kissel (1975). It is noticeable that with a water saturation of 80%, the
permeability of the water phase is reduced by one order of magnitude compared to its value at
100% saturation. At 50% of water saturation the permeability to water becomes virtually zero
compared to the fully saturated value.
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 30
Figure 14 Example of gas and water relative permeability curves (from Kissel 1975)
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 31
8. Conclusions
The international literature review determined that around the world, measured or estimated
vertical hydraulic conductivities of facies similar of those encountered in the Surat Basin, such as
sandstone, siltstone, mudstone and shale, range over 14 orders of magnitude. The lowest vertical
hydraulic conductivity from core samples was 1 x 10-12
m/day (1 x 10-9
mD). The lowest vertical
hydraulic conductivities from field tests were one order of magnitude higher than laboratory tests.
The higher hydraulic conductivity, as determined from field tests, is potentially due to the influence
of defects (i.e. joints, faults, bedding planes) that cannot be represented in laboratory samples.
Short duration field tests (e.g. slug tests, packer tests or short duration pumping tests) may also
underestimate vertical hydraulic conductivity. The shallow depth that many of the field values in
this review may have been derived may lead to an over-estimate of Kv’ for aquitards that occur at
greater depths, such as those in the Surat Basin. In general laboratory results should be considered
to represent a lower bound value for regional Kv’.
Snow (1968) demonstrated the significance of defects on hydraulic conductivity by calculating that
a simple set of vertical non-intersecting fractures of 0.1 mm (100 μm) openings spaced every 10km
in an theoretical impervious matrix results in a regional Kv’ of 5 x 10-6
m/day (5.8 x 10-3
mD). With
the defects spaced at 100 km apart the Kv’ reduces to 5 x 10-7
m/day (5.74 x 10-4
mD), which is still
significantly greater than the lowest values identified in the literature search. This indicates that
Kv’ values less than 5 x 10-6
m/day (5.8 x 10-3
mD) are not likely to be representative of the
regional Kv’ because they do not take into account defects within the rock mass. Even if defects are
widely spaced they can have a significant impact on Kv’.
In addition to natural defects, poorly constructed, poorly decommissioned, abandoned or failed
bores, or bores screened across multiple units, may contribute to Kv’ by allowing flow between
aquifers. Hart (2006) estimated that only 50 wells evenly spaced 10 km apart would be sufficient to
provide a Kv’ of 1.5 x 10-6
m/day (1.8 x 10-3
mD), while laboratory estimation of Kv’ from core
samples ranged from 1.5 x 10-9
m/day to 3.5 x 10-7
m/day (1.8 x 10-6
to 4.1 x 10-4
mD).
Discharge from the 1,158 flowing bores in the GAB that have been capped between 1999 and 2010
is equivalent to a Kv’ of 3.0 x 10-6
m/day (3.5 x 10-3
mD), if the bores are assumed to be uniformly
spaced across the GAB. Given that the bores are not uniformly spaced, the Kv’ in some areas
would be greater than 3.0 x 10-6
m/day (3.5 x 10-3
mD) and in other areas less than 5.6 x 10-6
m/day
(6.5 x 10-3
mD). The number of poorly constructed, poorly decommissioned, abandoned or failed
bores and the nature of natural defects, potentially has a large influence on Kv’.
The literature review supports the current range of conductivities used in the GEN2 numerical
models (which were between 1 x 10-6
m/day to 1 x 10-5
m/day or 1.2 x 10-3
and 1.2 x 10-2
mD). The
range is within the expected values for Kv’ used for similar modelling approaches by 4 major
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 32
companies in the CSG industry in the Surat Basin, as investigated by the University of Southern
Queensland (2011).
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 33
9. References
Ahmed, U., Crary, S. F., and Coates, G. R. 1989: Permeability Estimation: The various Sources
and Interrelationships. SPE Anual Technical Conference, San Antonio, Oct 1989.
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/9928130/137174367/name/Perm+estimation+various+sources.pdf
Ayan C., Colley N., Cowan G., Ezekwe E., Wannell M., Goode P., Halford F. Joseph J., Mongini
A., Pop J. 1994. Measuring Permeability Anisotropy: The Latest Approach, Oilfield Review,
October 1994
Bloomfield J.P. and Williams A.T. 1995. An empirical liquid permeability – gas permeability
correlation for use in aquifer properties studies. Quaterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 28.
Cutillo, P. A, and Bredehoeft, J. D. 2011: Estimating Aquifer Properties from the Water Level
Response to Earth Tides. GROUND WATER No. 4 Vol. 49, pages 600–610, July-August 2011.
Duffield Glenn, 1996-2007. Aqtesolv for Windows, version 4.50 professional, hydrosolve Inc.
Ferris J.G., Knowles D.B., Brown R.H. and Stallman R.W. 1962. Theory of aquifer test, Geological
survey water-supply papaer 1536-E.
GABCC (2010): Great Artesian Basin Committee Annual Report 2009-2010.
http://www.gabcc.org.au/public/content/ViewCategory.aspx?id=70
Gasda S.E., Bachu S. and Celia M.A. 2004. Spatial characterization of the location of potentially
leaky wells penetrating a deep saline aquifer in a mature sedimentary basin, Environmental
Geology.
Golder Associates 2009. QGC Groundwater Study Surat Basin, Queensland, Report for
Queensland Gas Company Report 087633050 016 R.
Golder Associates 2011. Groundwater Impact Assessment Report for QCLNG Project, Report
107635002-019-R-5503.
Habermehl M.A. 2002. Hydrogeology, Hydrochemistry and Isotope Hydrology of the Great
Artesian Basin, Bureau of Rural Science program, Canberra, ACT.
Hammenneister, D. P., Blout, D., and McDaniel, J. C. DRILLING AMD CORING METHODS
THAT MINIMIZE THE DISTURBANCE OF CUTTINGS, CORE, AND ROCK FORMATION
IN THE UNSATURATED ZONE, YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEVADA, CONF-8511172—3 DE86
008851. http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/59845-QUVhus/59845.pdf
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/9928130/137174367/name/Perm+estimation+various+sources.pdfhttp://www.gabcc.org.au/public/content/ViewCategory.aspx?id=70http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/59845-QUVhus/59845.pdf
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 34
Hantush, M.S. 1960. Modification of the theory of leaky aquifers, Jour. of Geophys. Res., vol. 65,
no. 11.
Hunt, B. And Scott D., 2005. An extension of the Hantush and Boulton solutions. ASCE Journal of
Hydrologic Engineering, Vol. 10, No3.
Hart D.J., Bradbury K.R. and Feinstein D.T. 2006. The vertical Hydraulic Conductivity of an
Aquitard at two Spatial Scales, GroundWater Vol. 44, No.2, March April 2006.
Kissel F. N. and Edwards J.C. 1975. Two phase flow in coalbeds, Bureau of Mines Report of
investigations.
Kruseman, G. P., and de Ridder, N. A. 1991: Analysis of pumping test data, second edition.
International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, the Netherlands. Publication No.
47.
Luffel D.L., Hopkins C.W. & Schettler Jr. P.D. 1993. Matrix Permeability Measurment of
Productive Shales, Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference, 3-6 October
1993.
McKee et al. 1986, Using Permeability vs Depth Correlations to Assess the Potential for Producing
Gas from Coal Seam, Quarterly Review of Methane from Coal Seams Technology, Vol 4, No.1,
p.15-26.
MacFarlane P.A., 1993. The Effect of River Valleys and the Upper Cretaceous Aquitard on
Regional Flow in the Dakota Aquifer in the Central Great Plains of Kansas and SouthEastern
Colorado, Kansas Geological Survey, FY92.
Moench, A.F. 1985. Transient flow to a large-diameter well in an aquifer with storative
semiconfining layers, Water Resources Research, vol. 21, no. 8.
QGC 2010. Well completion reports (Broadwater #8, ATP 648P - Broadwater #9, ATP 648P -
Broadwater #10, ATP 648P - Broadwater #13, ATP 648P - Kenya East #25, ATP 648P - Kenya
East #26, ATP 648P - Kenya East #28, ATP 648P - Woleebee creek #4, ATP 651P - Woleebee
creek #5, ATP 651P - Woleebee creek #6, ATP 651P - Woleebee creek #7, ATP 651P).
QGC 2011. Stage 1 CSG Water Monitoring and Management Plan, QGC document submitted to
SEWPAC, 20 April 2011.
Rowe R.K. and Nadarajah P. 1993: Evaluation of the hydraulic conductivity of aquitards, Can.
Geotech. J. 30.
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 35
Sharma, M. M., and Wunderlich, R., W. 1985: The alteration of rock properties due interactions
with drilling fluid components. SPE 60th Technical Conference Las Vegas, 1985.
http://faculty.engr.utexas.edu/sharma/pdfs/conference/Conf-3.pdf
Snow, D.T. 1968. Rock fracture spacings, openings and porosities. Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers. 94.
University of Southern Queensland 2011. Preliminary Assessment of Cumulative Drawdown
Impacts in the Surat Basin Associated with the Coal Seam Gas Industry, 4 March 2011.
Worley Parsons 2010. Spatial Analysis of Coal Seam water Chemistry. Task1: Literature Review,
40513, WorleyParsons.
http://faculty.engr.utexas.edu/sharma/pdfs/conference/Conf-3.pdf
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 36
Appendix A Documents consulted
Note: Most of the documents consulted were freely available and downloaded from the internet.
The complete reference was not always available for each document and to consult those
documents, it is recommended to use a web search engine using the information provided in this
listing.
Abaci S. & al. 1992. Relative permeability measurements for 2 phase flow in unconsalidated
sands,Mine Water and the Environment, vol 11, No. 2, June 1992
Bloomfield J.P. and Williams A.T. 1995. An empirical liquid permeability – gas permeability
correlation for use in aquifer properties studies. Quaterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 28.
ACS laboratories - Not dated - Special core analysis final report of Walloon Coal and Sandstone
samples for QGC, ACS.
Al-Bazali T.M. 2005. Experimental study of the membrane behavior of Shale during interaction
with water-based and oil-based muds,PhD dissertation, University of Texas.
Armstrong J. & al. 2009. Potential for Gas Migration Due to Coalbed Methane Development,
Australian govt. 2011. Hydraulic Conductivity measurment,www.connectedwater.gov.au.
Barrash W. and Morin R.H. No date. Hydrostratigraphy and distribution of secondary permeability
in the Brule formation, cheyenne county, Nebraska,Geological Society of America bulletin v.99
No.4.
Barrett R. 2010. Coal-seam gas may cause Underground water level may fall, gas firms admit, the
Australian.
Bhark E. 2004 Integrated analysis Report for single - and multiple - well aquifer testing at
frenchman Flat Well Clustrer RNM-2s, Nevada Test Site, Nevada.
Black D. and Aziz N. 2011 Actions to Improve Coal Seam Gas Drainage Performance,11th
Underground Coal Operator's Conference, University of Wollongong & the Australasian Institute
of Mining and Mettallurgy, 2011.
Boisson J-Y. & al 2001. Insitu and laboratory investigations of fluid flow through an argillaceous
frmation at different scales of space and time, tournemire tunnel, southern France,Hydrogeology
Journal 9.
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 37
Borchardt M. A. & al. 2007. Human Enteric viruses in groundwater from a confined bedrock
aquifer.
Bradbury K., Kelleher D., No date ,Wisconsin Hydrogeologists expose aquitards realities.
Bradbury K.R. & al. , Not dated, Measures of Aquitard Integrety, ppt.
Bradbury K.R. & al. 2007. Evaluation of a bedrock aquitard for regional and local scale
groundwater flow, 2007 Annual Meeting Geological Society of America.
British Geological Survey, 2002 .Engineering geology of british rocks and soils - Mudstones of the
Mercia Mudstone groupd,British Geological Survey - Research Report RR/01/02
British Geological Survey, 1995. Engineering geology of british rocks and soils - Gault clay,British
Geological Survey - Technical Report WN/94/31.
Cheng Cheng & al. 2007. Evaluation of methods for determination of hydraulic properties in an
aquifer-aquitard system hydrologically connected to a river,Hydrogeology Journal 15
Cherry J.A. , Parker B.L. 2004. Role of Aquitards in the Protection of Aquifers from
Contamination: A "state of the Science" Report,Awwa Research foundation
Collective, no date. Part II: Case histories of land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal, No
Ref.
Colmenares L.B., Zoback M. D. 2007. Hydraulic fracturing and wellbore completion of coalbed
methane wells in the powder river basin, wyoming:Implications for water and gas
production,AAPG Bulletin.
Cook P.G., 2003. A guide to regional groundwater flow in fractured rock aquifers,CSIRO.
Crow W., Williams D.B., Carey J.W., Celia M., Gasda S.,2009. Wellbore integrity analysis of a
natural CO2 producer,Energy Procedia 1.
Davis S.N.,1988. Sandstones and shales, The geology of North america, vol. O-2, Hydrogeology.
Dep. Of Natural ressources, Mines & Energy, 2004. Coal Seam Gas water managment study,Dep.
Of Natural ressources, Mines & Energy.
Diomampo G. P. ,Aug 2001. Relative Permeabilty through fractures, Stanford University.
Doll P. & Schneider W.,1994. Comparison of laboratory and field measurments of the vertical
hydraulic conductivity of clayey silts,Groundwater Quality Management, IAHS Publ. no 220.
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 38
Duan Z., Mao S., 2006. A thermodynamic model for calculating methane solubility, density and
gas phase composition of methan-bearing aqueous fluids form 273 to 523K and from 1 to 2000
bar,Elsevier.
Duffield Glenn, 1996-2007. Aqtesolv for Windows, version 4.50 professional, hydrosolve Inc.
Eaton T.T. & al.,2007. Fracture control of ground Water Flow and Water Chemistry in a Rock
Aquitard,Vol. 45, No. 5 - GroundWater - sept-Oct 2007
Economides M. & al., No date. On the problem of fluid leakoff during hydraulic fracturing.
EPA, 2004. Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic
Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs,EPA.
EPA, 2011. Draft Plan to study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water
Resources, EPA publication.
EPA,Jun 2011. EPA identifies Case Studies for hydraulic Fracturing Study/agency to conduct field
work in various regions of the country starting this summer, EPA News release.
Ferris J.G., Knowles D.B., Brown R.H. and Stallman R.W. 1962. Theory of aquifer test, Geological
survey water-supply papaer 1536-E.
Gasda S.E. & al.,2010. Analysis in-situ wellbore integrity data for existing wells with long-term
exposure to CO2,Energy Procedia 00
Gasda S.E., Bachu S., Celia M.A.,2004. Spatial characterization of the location of potentially leaky
wells penetrating a deep saline aquifer in a mature sedimentary basin,Environmental Geology
Gasda S.E., NordBotten J.M., Celia M.A.,2008. Determining effective wellbore permeability from
a field pressure test: a numerical analysis of detection limits,Environ. Geol. 54,
Geological Society of London,1999. A short statement on the geological disposal of radioactive
waste,Geological Society of London
Geosyntec Consultants,2009. Aquitard status update, Morgan Hill, California,Geosyntec
Consultants
Golder Associates, 2011. Groundwater Impact Assessment Report for QCLNG Project,Report
107635002-019-R-5503
Habana M.D. ,Jun 2002. Relative Permeabilty of Fractured rock,Stanford University.
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 39
Habermehl M.A. ,2002. Hydrogeology, Hydrochemistry and Isotope Hydrology of the Great
Artesian Basin,Bureau of Rural Science program, canberra, ACT.
Halford K.J., Kuniansky E.L.,2002. Documentation of spreadsheets for the analysis of aquifer test
and slug test data,USGS Open file report 02-197.
Harpalani S., Chen G.,1997. Influence of gas production induced volumetric strain on permeability
of coal,Geotechnical and Geological Engineering.
Hart D.J., Bradbury K.R., Feinstein D.T.,2006. The vertical Hydraulic Conductivity of an Aquitard
at two Spatial Scales,Vol. 44, No.2 - Ground Water - March April 2006.
Helmuth M.,2008. Groundwater impacts of Coal Seam Gas Development - assessment and
monitoring,CWiMI - SMI – UQ.
Herczeg A.L., Love A.J., 2007. Review of Recharge Mechanism for the Great Artesian Basin,
nov. 2007, CSIRO.
Holmes M. ,2002. Capillary Pressure & relative Permeability Petrophysical Reservoir
Models,www.digitalinformation.com.
Howarth R.W. & al.,2011. Methane and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas from shale
formations.
Hunt B., 2005.Visual Basic programs for spreadsheet analysis,vol. 43, No 1 Groundwater.
Jackson R.B. & al.,2011. Study links Methane in Water to Gas Extraction,web.
Javadpour F.,2009. Nanopores and apparent permeability of gas flow in mudrocks( shale and
siltstone),Jounral of Canadian Petroleum Technology, volume48, No8.
Jorgensen P.R. & al., No date. Aquifer vulnerability to pesticide migration through till aquitards.
Katsube T.J. ,2000. Shale permeability and pore structure evolution characteristics,Geological
survey of Canada.
Kissel F. N. , Edwards J.C.,1975. Two phase flow in coalbed,Bureau of Mines Report of
investigations.
Kitajima H. & al., No Date. Permeability Structure and basin analysis of Miyazaki group,Division
of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Kyoto University.
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 40
Kleeschulte M.J., Seeger C.M.,2003. Stratigraphy and vertical Hydrulic Conductivity of the St.
Francois Confining Unit in the Viburnum Trend and Evaluation of the Unit in the Viburnum Trend
and Exploration Areas, Southeastern Missouri,Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4329.
Kruseman G.P. and De Ridder N.A.,1994. Analysis and Evaluation of pumping test data,ilri,
International institue for Land Reclamation and Improvement.
Lafollette R., 2007. Understanding the Barnett shale,Oil and Gas investor online.
Letham E.A., 2011. Matrix Permeability Measurment of gas shales: gas slippage and adsorption as
sources of systematic error,PhD Thesis, University of british Colombia.
Lewis R. & al., 2004. New Evaluation techniques for gas shale reservoirs,Schlumberger Reservoir
Symposium 2004.
Loucks R.G. & al., 2009. Morphology, genesis, and distribution of nanometer scale pores in
siliceous mudstones of the mississippian barnett shale,Journal of Sedimentary Research, V. 79.
Lucas T., 2011. Methane Levels 17 Times Higher in Water Wells Near Hydrofracking Sites.
Luffel D.L. & al., 1993. Matrix Permeability Measurment of Productive Shales,Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
Lustgarten A., 2009. Natural Gas Drilling: What we don't know,ProPublica online.
Lustgarten A., 2008. Buried Secrets: Is Natural Gas Drilling Endangering U.S. Water Supply,
ProPublica online.
Masset O., Loew S. 2010. Hydraulic conductivity distribution in crystalline rocks, derived from
inflows to tunnels and galleries in th central Alps, Switzerland,Hydrogeology Journal 18, feb. 2010.
Matthai S.K., Roberts S., 1996. The influence of fault permeability on single phase fluid flow Near
fault-sand intersections: results from steady state high resolution models of pressure driven fluid
flow,AAPG Bulletin V.80, No11.
McClain S., Huntley D., No Date. Fracture density and permeability with depth in crystaline
bedrock San Diego county, California, no ref.
Moran C. and Vink S.,2010. Assessment of Impacts of the proposed coal seam gas operations on
surface and groundwater systems in the Murray-Darling Basin, DSEW.
Mousseau N., 2011. La Revolution des Gaz de Schiste, Multimondes.
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 41
National water commission, 2010. Coal Seam Gas and Water Position Statement, NWC.
Neuzil C.E. No Date. Groundwater flow in Low-permeability environments.
Neuzil C.E., 1994. How permeable are clays and shales,
Neville C.J., 2008. Hydraulic conductivity and specific storage of clay tills,S.S. Papadopulos &
associates Inc.
Nordbotten J.M., Kavetski D., Celia M.A., Bachu s., 2009. Model for CO2 Leakage Including
Multiple Geological Layers and Multiple Leaky Wells,Environ. Sci. Technol. 43.
National Water Commission, 2011. Assessment of inter-aquifer leakage in the great artesian basin.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mineral Resources Managment, 2008. Report
on the Investigation of the Natural Gas Invasion of Aquifers in Brainbridge Township of Geauga
County, Ohio, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mineral Resources Managment.
Okiongbo K.S., 2011. Petrophysical properties of North sea shales,Research Journal of Applied
Sciences, Engineering and Technology 3(1), Jan 2011.
ONDRAF/NIRAS, 2001. Saphir 2,ONDRAF/NIRAF.
Osborn S.G. & al., 2011. Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas_well
drilling and hydraulic fracturing, PNAS.
Palmer, I. and Mansoori, J.,1996. How permeability depends on stress and pore pressure in
Coalbeds: A new model, paper SPE36737, Proceeding of the 71st annual technical conference ,
Denver, CO.
Pape H. & al.,1995. Permeability prediction for reservoir sandstones and besement rocks based on
fractal pore space geometry,Groundwater Quality: Remediation and Protection (Proceedings of the
Prague Conference) IAHS publ. No 225.
Parshall J., 2008. Barnett Shale showcases tight-gas development, JPT . Sept. 2008.
Peffer J.R. ,1991. Complex Aquifer-Aquitard Relationships at an Appalachian Plateau Site,Ground
Water Vol.9 No2.
Pekot L.J. & Reeves S.R. ,2001. Modelling the effects of matrix shrinkage and differential
swelling on coalbed methane Recovery and Carbon Sequestration,No Ref.
Petros V., Janko P., No date. Effects of seam thickness variations on the risk of rock burst.
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 42
Ponzini G. & al.,1989. The hydrogeological role of an aquitard in preventing drinkable water well
contamination: a case study,Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 83.
Prince C.M. ,2011. Shale diagenesis and permeability: examples from the Barnett Shale and the
Marcellus Formation, Search and discovery Article #50372.
QGC 2010. Well completion reports (Broadwater #8, ATP 648P - Broadwater #9, ATP 648P -
Broadwater #10, ATP 648P - Broadwater #13, ATP 648P - Kenya East #25, ATP 648P - Kenya
East #26, ATP 648P - Kenya East #28, ATP 648P - Woleebee creek #4, ATP 651P - Woleebee
creek #5, ATP 651P - Woleebee creek #6, ATP 651P - Woleebee creek #7, ATP 651P).
QGC 2011 Stage 1 CSG Water Monitoring and Management Plan, 20 April 2011, QGC document
submitted to SEWPAC.
Quirk D., No date. Optimization of hydraulic Fractures in CBM Wells,ppt found in web.
Rehm B.W. , 1980. Hydraulic Properties of coal and related Materials, Northern Great
Plains,Groundwater vol.18, No6.
Roberts S.B. , 2007. Coal in the front range urban corridor - ...,USGS DDS-69-P.
Rogiers B. & al., No date Groundwater model parameter identification using a combination of cone
penetration tests and borehole data.
Rojas A.M., 2005. Chemical osmosis in clayey sediments,University of Amsterdam.
Rowe R.K., Nadarajah P.,1993. Evaluation of the hydraulic conductivity of aquitards,Can.
Geotech. J. 30.
Rutqvist, J. & al., 2009. A comparative simulation study of coupled THM processes and their
effect on fractured rock permeability around nuclear waste repositories,Environmental Geology, v
57, n6.
Ryder T. , 2010. Surat Basin to become one of the nation's boom economies,the Australian.
S.S. Papadopulos & associates, 2008. Phase II Hydrogeologic characterization of the Mamm Creek
Field Area, Garfield County, Colorado,S.S. Papadopulos & associates.
Sakhae E., Pour A., Bryant S.L., 2011. Gas permeability of shales, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Scesi L. & al., 2006. Roughness control on hydraulic conductivity in fractured rock,Hydrogeology
Journal 15.
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 43
Schamel S., 2005. Shale gas reservoir of Utah. Survey of an Unexploited Potential Energy
resource,Utah Geological Survey.
Schulz E., Makuch D., Cherkauer D.S., No date. Relation of hydraulic conductivity and
dispersivity to scale of measurement in a carbonate aquifer.
Senior L. A. & al., 1998. Evaluation of Hydrologic data collected at the north penn area 12
superfund site, Montgomery county, Pennsylvania,water resources investigation report 98- 4076.
Snow D.T., 1979. Packer injection test data from sites on fractured rock,University of california
Berkeley.
Soeder D.J. , 1988. Porosity and permeability of eastern devonian gas shale,Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
Song J. & al., 2010. Variability of streambed vertical hydraulic conductivity with depth along the
Elkhorn River, Nebraska, USA,Chinese Science Bulletin vol. 55 No.10. Apr. 2010.
Srivastava M. , Harpalani S., No Date. Permeability variation with CO2 Injection in coalgas
Reservoirs and its impact on methane production.
Tanikawa W. & al.,2006. Klinkerberg effect for gas permeability and its comparison to water
permeability and its comparison to water permeability for porous sedimentary rocks,Hydrology and
Earth systen Sciences Discussions.
Taulis M.E., Milke M.W.,2007. Coal Seam Gas water from Maramarua, New Zealand:
Characterisation and Comparison to US analogues,Journal of Hydrology (NZ). 2007, 46(1).
Thyne G. ,2008. Review of Phase II Hydrogeologic Study or Garfield County.
Trinchero P. ,2009. Characterisation of spatial heterogeneity in groundwater applications,PhD
thesis, university of Catalonia.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2011. World shale gas resources: an initial assessment of
14 regions outside the unitaed states,U.S. Energy Information Administration. Apr. 2011.
University of Southern Queensland, 2011. Preliminary Assessment of Cumulative Drawdown
Impacts in the Surat Basin Associated with the Coal Seam Gas Industry,USQ.
URS, 2010. Hydraulic Fracturing Environmental Assessment,URS. Nov 2010.
USGS, 2000. Coal-Bed Methane: Potential and concern,USGS fact sheet. oct. 2000
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 44
van der Kamp G.,2001. A 30 year history of inflow into a demonstration cavity within clay-rich
aquitard,Hydrogeology Journal 9.
van der Kamp G., 2000. Methods for determining the insitu hydraulic conductivity of shallow
aquitards - an overview,Hydrogeology Journal 9.
Veevers J.J. , Not dated. Disposal of British RADwaste at home and in antipodean Australia, Dep.
Of Earth & Planetary Sc., Macquarie Uni.
Vermylen J.P. ,2011. Geomechanical studies of the Barnett shale, Texas, USA,PhD Dissertation,
stanford University.
Walker L. ,1999. Underground Coal gasification. A clean coal technology ready for
development,the australian coal review october 1999.
Walton W.C., Not Dated. Selected analytical methods for well and aquifer evaluation.
Waterlink International,2011. Blackpool Earthquake triggered by Fracking,www.
Welsh W.D., 2007. Groundwater Balance Modelling with darcy's Law,Thesis, Australian national
University.
Welsh W.D., 2000. Gabflow: A steady state groundwater flow model of the Great Artesian
Basin,Bureau of Rural Science, Canberra.
Wenjuan Lin, 2010. Gas Sorption and the consequent volumetric and permeability change of coal,
phD thesis.
Whou W.F., Weather H.S. Not Dated. Effect of aperture variation on two-phase flow in fractures.
Wolf K-H A.A. & al. ,Not dated. CO2 injection in and CH4 production from coal seams:
Laboratory experiements and image analysis for simulations, Delft Uni. Of tech.
Wood R. & al., 2011. Shale gas: a provisional assessment of climate change and environmental
impacts,tyndall Centre uni of Manchester.
Worley Parsons, 2010. 40513, Spatial Analysis of Coal Seam water Chemistry. Task1: Literature
Review,WorleyParsons.
Zekai Sen, 2000. Non-darcian flow in leaky aquifer.
Zhan H., Park E., 2003. Horizontal well hydraulics in leaky aquifers.
Aquitard Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Review and Analysis
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
T:\Projects\Groundwater Management\Stage 2 CSG WMMP\FINAL APPENDICIES\Appendix M - Aquitard kv_literature review_final1.docx PAGE 45
Zhang Y., 2004. Upscaling conductivity and porosity in three dimensional heterogeneous porous
media.
Zhou Q. & al., 2008. A semi-analytical solution for large scale injection induced pressure
perturbation and leakage in a leterally bounded aquifer-aquitard system.