Upload
others
View
7
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
COAL SEAM GAS WATER QUALITY AND IMPACTS
ON DOWNSTREAM TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Chantelle Rebello
Masters by Research
Dr. Sara Couperthwaite
Prof. Graeme Millar
Prof. Leslie Dawes
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science (Research)
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Queensland University of Technology
2017
Coal Seam Gas Water Quality and Impacts on Downstream Treatment Technologies
© 2016 Page i
Keywords
CS water, beneficial use, coal seam gas, environmental management, Environmental Protection
Act 1994, Queensland, regulations, Surat Basin, surrogate indicators, principal component
analysis, water quality, reverse osmosis.
Coal Seam Gas Water Quality and Impacts on Downstream Treatment Technologies
© 2016 Page ii
Abstract
The coal seam gas (CSG) industry in Australia is of significant importance economically,
especially in Queensland where a substantial increase in the amount of gas extracted over
the past six years has occurred. CSG formation, relation to local geological features,
extraction approach and the potential impact/benefits of coal seam (CS) water has been
considered by reviewing the location of CSG wells in relation to each other, the depth of the
well in relation to the coal seam with which the CSG is associated, and the quality of the CS
water compared with the requirements for each beneficial use application. An outline of the
limited current legislative requirements on physical and chemical properties of CS water as
regulated by the Queensland Government is provided, as well as the current treatment
technologies used by the major CSG companies to ensure compliance with these
requirements. Water quality from 150 CSG production wells from the Surat Basin,
Queensland has been analysed and compared within and between multiple gas fields in a
small geographic area prior to any storage, disposal and treatment. Chemical analysis
revealed the CS water to have high bicarbonate, high sodium, and low calcium, low
magnesium and very low sulfate concentrations. The chemical analysis also confirmed that
the pre-treatment concentration levels of specific parameters such as sodium, chloride, total
dissolved solids, and sodium adsorption ratio were above that required for use by agricultural
and industrial sectors, therefore requiring treatment prior to use. This study has shown that
the amount of each type of mineral that comprises coal, such as clay, sulfide ores, oxide ores,
quartz and phosphates, may explain the water quality patterns by assessing the mineral
content of the associated CS water in relation to the chemical composition of Surat Basin coal
seams. Through the use of multivariate analysis, it has been shown, in these particular CS
water samples, that the depth of the CSG production well and the location of the CSG
production well does not show correlations for the CS water quality. The physical and
chemical parameters that have been analysed in this study will aid in the efficient
management of CS water and provide information to legislators so as to better understand
environmental impacts of pre-treatment and post treatment beneficial use of CS water. A
linear regression model has been developed which predicts values for sodium adsorption
ratio and total dissolved solids, for a wide range of CS water samples. The use of surrogate
indicators at the water source will aid in a more efficient management of CS water by CSG
industries. It was also shown that the design of an appropriate reverse osmosis (RO) system
for CS water treatment could be enhanced by examination of the wide range of CS water
compositions collected in this study from 3 CSG fields in the Surat Basin, with commercial
Coal Seam Gas Water Quality and Impacts on Downstream Treatment Technologies
© 2016 Page iii
software packages such as ROSA and IMS Design. The predictions of ROSA and IMS Design,
were found not to be completely in agreement, albeit the general consensus was that the
scaling potential of barium sulphate and calcium fluoride species was the primary concern
for CS water. Consequently, the use of anti-scalants and/or ion exchange softening was
proposed as being necessary to maximise the operational parameters of the RO unit.
Calculation of the Langelier Saturation Index (LSI) revealed that it was positive and that
calcium carbonate scaling may also be an issue to address. As such, lowering of the CS water
pH by acid addition was also determined to be useful in protecting the membranes from
fouling. It was concluded that the CS water types evaluated were not amenable to drinking
water use as the total dissolved solids content in the permeate was not always in accord with
regulatory guidelines. However, it was recommended that irrigation or stock watering may
be the preferred beneficial reuse options.
Coal Seam Gas Water Quality and Impacts on Downstream Treatment Technologies
© 2016 Page iv
Table of Contents
Keywords .................................................................................................................................................. i
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... vii
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. viii
List of Publications ................................................................................................................................. ix
Statement of Original Authorship ........................................................................................................... x
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1
Context .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Purposes .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Significance ............................................................................................................................................. 2
Thesis Outline .......................................................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................... 7
Gas Industry ............................................................................................................................................ 7
CS Water .................................................................................................................................................. 9
Geology and Stratigraphy ...................................................................................................................... 10
Water Catchment and Aquifers ............................................................................................................ 12
Extraction and Production of Coal Seam Gas ........................................................................................ 14
Legislative and RE-Use Options of CS Water ......................................................................................... 16
Treatment Technologies ....................................................................................................................... 26
Desalination Technologies .................................................................................................................... 31
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 33
Implications ........................................................................................................................................... 33
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN ..................................................................................................... 35
Site Selection ......................................................................................................................................... 35
Sampling Program ................................................................................................................................. 36
Characterisation Techniques ................................................................................................................. 37
Quality Control ...................................................................................................................................... 40
Modelling .............................................................................................................................................. 40
Limitations ............................................................................................................................................. 46
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS & ANALYSIS – WATER QUALITY ................................................................... 47
Chemical Compoition of CS Water ........................................................................................................ 48
Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................................................. 48
Coal Seam Gas Water Quality and Impacts on Downstream Treatment Technologies
© 2016 Page v
Solution pH ............................................................................................................................................ 51
Alakalinity .............................................................................................................................................. 51
Sodium Ions ........................................................................................................................................... 52
Chloride Ions ......................................................................................................................................... 53
Hardness................................................................................................................................................ 54
Barium and Strontium Ions ................................................................................................................... 55
Aluminium and Iron Ions ....................................................................................................................... 57
Total Dissolved Soilds and Electrical Conductivity ................................................................................ 58
Sodium Adsorption Ratio ...................................................................................................................... 59
Total Suspended Solids ......................................................................................................................... 60
Fluoride and Bromide Ions .................................................................................................................... 61
Boron ................................................................................................................................................... 62
Silica ................................................................................................................................................... 63
Parameters Excluded from Analysis of CS Water .................................................................................. 63
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS & ANALYSIS – PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS ....................................... 65
CHAPTER 6: RESULTS & ANALYSIS – SURROGATE INDICATORS ...................................................... 72
CHAPTER 7: RESULTS & ANALYSIS – SCALING POTENTIAL & REVERSE OSMOSIS DESIGN ............... 80
Scaling Potential .................................................................................................................................... 80
Pre-Treatment Selection ....................................................................................................................... 86
Comparison of Permeate to Drinking Water, Irrigation Water and Stock Water Trigger Values ......... 87
CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 95
Practical Implications ............................................................................................................................ 96
Future Work .......................................................................................................................................... 96
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 98
APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................. 110
Coal Seam Gas Water Quality and Impacts on Downstream Treatment Technologies
© 2016 Page vi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Extent of the Surat Basin .......................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2: pH and Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 of CS water for the A, B and C Field in the Surat Basin ............................................................................................................................................. 52
Figure 3: Na+ and Cl- Values of CS water for the A, B and C Field in the Surat Basin ............................ 54
Figure 4: Ca2+ and Mg2+ Values of CS water for the A, B and C Field in the Surat Basin ........................ 56
Figure 5: Ba and Sr Values of CS water for the A, B and C Field in the Surat Basin ............................... 57
Figure 6: Al and Fe Values of CS water for the A, B and C Field in the Surat Basin ............................... 58
Figure 7: TDS and EC Values of CS water for the A, B and C Field in the Surat Basin ............................ 59
Figure 8: SAR Values of CS water for the A, B and C Field in the Surat Basin ........................................ 60
Figure 9: TSS Values of CS water for the A, B and C Field in the Surat Basin ........................................ 61
Figure 10: Br- and F- Values of CS water for the A, B and C Field in the Surat Basin .............................. 62
Figure 11: B and Si Values of CS water for the A, B and C Field in the Surat Basin ............................... 64
Figure 12: Biplot for the Two Principal Components from the PCA of Water Quality Parameters and the A, B and C Field in the Surat basin.......................................................................................... 66
Figure 13: Biplot for the Two Principal Components from the PCA of Water Quality Parameters and the A, B and C Field for the Juandah Coal Seam in the Surat Basin .............................................. 67
Figure 14: Biplot for the Two Principal Components from the PCA of Water Quality Parameters and the A, B and C Field for the Taroom Coal Seam in the Surat Basin .............................................. 69
Figure 15: Measured SAR vs. Calculated SAR ........................................................................................ 73
Figure 16: Relationship between EC and Measured TDS ...................................................................... 74
Figure 17: Measured TDS vs. Calculated TDS ........................................................................................ 74
Figure 18: Measured TDS vs. Calculated TDS Wyoming USA [41] ......................................................... 76
Figure 19: Measured SAR vs. Calculated SAR Wyoming USA [41] ......................................................... 77
Figure 20: Measured TDS vs. Calculated TDS Utah USA [13] ................................................................ 78
Figure 21: Measured TDS vs. Calculated TDS Bowen Basin Australia [3] .............................................. 78
Figure 22: Field A Scaling Potential ROSA Data ..................................................................................... 82
Figure 23: Field B Scaling Potential ROSA Data ..................................................................................... 82
Figure 24: Field C Scaling Potential ROSA data ..................................................................................... 82
Figure 25: Field A Scaling Potential IMS Design Data ............................................................................ 84
Figure 26: Field B Scaling Potential IMS Design Data ............................................................................ 84
Figure 27: Field C Scaling Potential IMS Design Data ............................................................................ 84
Figure 28: Boron Concentration A, B and C Field .................................................................................. 91
Figure 29: TDS Concentration A, B and C Field ...................................................................................... 92
Figure 30: Sodium Concentration A, B and C Field ................................................................................ 93
Figure 31: Irrigation Water Drinking Water and Stock Water Trigger Level Sodium, Nitrate, Chloride and TDS ......................................................................................................................................... 94
Figure 32: Irrigation Water Drinking Water and Stock Water Trigger Level Barium and Boron ........... 94
Coal Seam Gas Water Quality and Impacts on Downstream Treatment Technologies
© 2016 Page vii
List of Tables
Table 1: Beneficial Use Approval Water Quality Requirements for Reuse of CS water in the Surat Basin ............................................................................................................................................. 19
Table 2: QGC Environmental Authority Water Quality Requirements for Petroleum Lease Tenure in the Surat Basin ............................................................................................................................. 19
Table 3: Origin Energy Environmental Authority Water Quality Requirements for Petroleum Lease Tenure in the Surat Basin ............................................................................................................. 21
Table 4: Arrow Energy Environmental Authority Water Quality Requirements for Petroleum Lease Tenure in the Surat Basin ............................................................................................................. 22
Table 5: Santos Environmental Authority Water Quality Requirements for Petroleum Lease Tenure in the Surat Basin ............................................................................................................................. 22
Table 6: CS Water Treatment Infrastructure in the Surat Basin for Major CSG Operating Companies 30
Table 7: Parameters Tested for CS water in the Surat Basin ................................................................. 37
Table 8: Values for ROSA Model Field A ................................................................................................ 43
Table 9: Values for ROSA Model Field B ................................................................................................ 44
Table 10: Values for ROSA Field C ......................................................................................................... 45
Table 11: Minimum and Maximum Values of Parameters Tested from Surat Basin CS water ............. 49
Table 12: Mean for Parameters Tested from Surat Basin CS water ...................................................... 50
Table 13: Parameters Excluded from Analysis for CS water in the Surat Basin .................................... 64
Table 14: Drinking Water and Irrigation Water Compared with Field A Permeate .............................. 88
Table 15: Drinking Water and Irrigation Water Compared with Field B Permeate............................... 89
Table 16: Drinking Water and Irrigation Water Compared with Field C Permeate ............................... 90
Coal Seam Gas Water Quality and Impacts on Downstream Treatment Technologies
© 2016 Page viii
List of Abbreviations
Atomic Adsorption Spectrophotometry AAS
Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water
Quality
ANZECC & ARMCANZ
Australian Laboratory Services ALS
Coal Seam CS
Coal seam gas CSG
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection DEHP
Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroscopy ICP-AES
Gigalitres GL
Great Artesian Basin GAB
Liquefied natural gas LNG
Limit of Reading LOR
Megalitres ML
Million years ago Ma
National Association of Testing Authorities NATA
National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site
Contamination) Measure 1999 Guidelines
NEMP
Petajoules PJ
Principal component PC
Principal component analysis PCA
Reverse osmosis RO
Reverse Osmosis System Analysis ROSA
Relative Percent Deviation RPD
United States of America US
World Health Organization WHO
Coal Seam Gas Water Quality and Impacts on Downstream Treatment Technologies
© 2016 Page ix
List of Publications
Chantelle A. Rebello, Sara J. Couperthwaite, Graeme J. Millar, Les A. Dawes “Understanding
coal seam associated water, regulations and strategies for treatment”, Journal of
Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources 13 (2016) 32–43.
Chantelle A. Rebello, Sara J. Couperthwaite, Graeme J. Millar, Les A. Dawes “Coal seam
water quality and the impact upon management strategies”, Journal of Petroleum Science
and Engineering, 150 (2017) 323-333.
Chantelle A. Rebello, Mariam Darestani, Sara J. Couperthwaite, Graeme J. Millar, Les A.
Dawes “Scaling Potential Assessment and Implications for Use of Coal Seam Produced
Water”, manuscript in preparation.
Coal Seam Gas Water Quality and Impacts on Downstream Treatment Technologies
© 2016 Page x
Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for
an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and
belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except
where due reference is made.
Signature:
Date: 3 November 2017
QUT Verified Signature
Coal Seam Gas Water Quality and Impacts on Downstream Treatment Technologies
© 2016 Page xi
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my principal supervisor Dr Sara Couperthwaite, and my associate
supervisors Professor Graeme Millar and Professor Leslie Dawes for their considerable
assistance, time and support and for the opportunity to undertake this research project.
I would like to thank laboratory staff at Queensland University of Technology particularly
Kenneth Nuttall and Mitchell De Bruyn for their time and assistance in the laboratory with
analytic instruments and experimental support.
I would like to thank staff and students in the School of Chemistry, Physics and Mechanical
Engineering and the School of Earth, Environment and Biological Sciences, for their time at
meetings and critic of my research project. I would also like to thank the HDR staff in the
Science and Engineering Faculty for their administrative support.
I would like to thank Arrow Energy for information contained within, permission to publish,
and support during the preparation of this research project. I would also like to thank staff at
Arrow Energy for their assistance in the collection of samples, development of instruments
to facilitate the monitoring program and logistical support.
Chapter 1: Introduction
© 2016 Page 1
1Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter outlines the background and context of the study, the overarching objectives of the
study, and the significance of this research. Finally, it includes an outline of the remaining
chapters of the thesis.
BACKGROUND
The coal seam gas (CSG) industry in Australia is relatively new, and as such few studies have been
published regarding environmental management techniques for coal seam (CS) water. CS water
is produced during the extraction process of CSG. This research project was developed in order
to understand the physical and chemical composition of CS water in the Surat Basin in
Queensland. This research project also targeted the development of methods to analyse CS
water. In addition, an overview of the current legislation was provided and strategies for water
treatment investigated. This approach assisted with water quality assessment and the
subsequent selection of treatment technologies for CS water relevant to the beneficial reuse
application.
CONTEXT
This investigation of 150 production wells from the Surat Basin included: characterisation of
chemical and physical properties of CS water; identification of the influences on the water quality
including analysis of the location of each well; and the geological chemistry surrounding each
individual well (stratigraphy). An assessment of the water quality on the basis of the intended
application of the water, and ability to predict water quality parameters using univariate and
multivariate analysis was also investigated. This assessment was based on information available
from the Queensland Government that regulates the CSG Industry, as well as information on
current treatment technologies and re-use.
PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to provide an analysis and comparison of the chemical composition
of CS water within and between multiple gas fields in a small geographic location of the Surat
Basin, prior to any storage, disposal and treatment. In addition, an objective was to identify
differences between water chemistry and to identify relationships with depth and location
of the CSG production well using multivariate analysis. From this information, beneficial re-
Chapter 1: Introduction
© 2016 Page 2
use options were explored, including the most appropriate and economical means to store
and treat CS water based on location, depth and regional geology. Selection of pre-treatment
methods and RO methods and membranes for parameters of significance was developed
from the water quality data. CS water quality parameters that can only be tested in
laboratories which are often situated long distances from the CSG basins, were correlated in
order to develop surrogate indicators. Ultimately, this work provided a basis for
management and treatment of CS water. The specific objectives associated with this study
included:
1. To analysis of the physical and chemical composition of CS water.
2. To identify patterns in the data using univariate and multivariate analysis and the
implications of the legislation and current treatment technologies being used in the Surat
Basin.
3. To develop surrogate indicators to predict key water quality parameters that can only be
tested in the laboratory.
4. Evaluate: how variations in concentration and composition of CS water impact RO
performance; what are the scaling potentials which can be expected for CS water
compositions; and which pre-treatment methods are recommended to minimise fouling
and scaling of RO membranes.
SIGNIFICANCE
This research provided fundamental knowledge regarding the variability of CS water and
assessed its composition based on the location of the aquifer associated with the coal seam
and the geology that surrounds it. Water quality correlations enabled predictive models for
CS water to be developed.
A demonstration was made of the impact of specific water quality parameters on the
beneficial re-use options that are legislated by the Queensland Government. Included was
the analysis of the treatment technologies that are currently being used by CSG operating
companies in the Surat Basin.
The identification of surrogate indicators for parameters that are only able to be tested in a
laboratory could reduce the cost and time associated with water sampling, enabling better
decisions to be made on water management.
Chapter 1: Introduction
© 2016 Page 3
Knowing the variability of CS water and how this variability impacts water treatment
technologies such as RO, improves processing conditions and decisions that enable beneficial
reuse water to be produced.
This research project considered CS water quality in relation to the current government
legislation, and its current uses as beneficial reuse and the treatment technology required to
achieve these regulatory values.
Chapter 1: Introduction
© 2016 Page 4
THESIS OUTLINE
Figure 1 (a): Outline of MSc Thesis Topic
Following a literature review (Chapter 2) a comparison of the current legislative requirements
was required in order to identify what use CS water has in Queensland. Understanding the
legislative requirements can play a major role in determining the effectiveness of this study
for the CSG industry in Australia. There are 4 major operating companies in the Surat Basin
CSG industry; QGC, Arrow Energy, Santos and Origin in which this study has focused. The
legislative requirements differ between these 4 CSG companies with each company
operating under many approvals (Environmental Authorities). A comparison has been made
of the differences between and within the CSG companies regulated water quality trigger
values.
Literature Review
Water Sampling
Program
Comparison of Legislative Requirements
for CS water Re-Use
Overview of Treatment Technologies
Used by Each CSG Operating Company
Univariate Analysis
Multivariate Analysis
Surrogate
Indicator
Development
Application of software tools such as ROSA
and IMS Design to assist with management
of RO Treatment
Chapter 1: Introduction
© 2016 Page 5
Following the comparison of the legislative requirements it has been determined that a
review should be undertaken of the current treatment technologies being utilised by each
company. The treatment technologies in the Australian CSG Industry are similar for the
primary treatment technologies however are varied for the pre-treatment technologies. This
stage of the study attempted to assess the reason for the differences with suggestions such
as the final use of the CS water, water quality of the feed water and the, amount of water
being treated per day.
A water sampling program (Chapter 4 and 5) has been undertaken of CSG production wells
in the Surat Basin, Queensland. The water sampling program was undertaken to try to
identify patterns within the data and whether correlations existed due to the depth of the
coal seam and for the geology associated with the coal seam. This related to the legislative
requirements discussed earlier, as understanding the water quality and having the ability to
predict the water quality prior to CSG extraction or development of exploration wells and
fields will help with the management of the CS water in relation to the storage of CS water,
treatment technologies required and reuse opportunities.
The water sampling program generated a large amount of water quality data as there were
150 CSG production wells sampled and 48 parameters analysed. The water quality data was
required to be analysed using univariate and multivariate analysis in order to identify any
patterns present. The first stage was to use univariate analysis on each individual parameter
with a comparison made between 3 current operating production fields in the Surat Basin.
Particular parameters were chosen to be analysed simultaneously and were graphed to
determine if patterns could be developed from geology and depth. Further to this was a
multivariate analysis of the water quality data. The technique used was a chemometric
method. Principal component analysis was used to identify patterns based on location of the
well and the depth of the well. Depth was an indication of the coal seam in which the gas
was being extracted from; with the CS water being extracted from one of two coal seams in
Surat Basin for this study, one at a depth of approximately 400m (Juahdah) and the other at
a depth of approximately 800m (Taroom).
This study (Chapter 6) was focused on the CSG industry in Australia and particularly
Queensland in order to develop management strategies to assist with CSG water quality
management. In order to assess water quality some parameters needed to be sampled and
then sent to a laboratory to be tested. De to the large area (400 km in length) and
Chapter 1: Introduction
© 2016 Page 6
remoteness of the Surat Basin this situation can mean an extended time period between the
time of the water sample and the water quality results. The implications of this for CSG
operating companies can include time delays, financial costs, and mismanagement of CS
water. Surrogate indicators have been used to assist with water quality analysis in other
industries. Surrogate indicators were used in this study to develop a method for testing CSG
water quality at the water source and predict parameters required to be known in order to
determine final use of the CS water or downstream treatment requirements. .
The final stage of this study (Chapter 7) was to assess the effect variable CS water quality
data had on RO as a primary treatment technology using ROSA and IMS Design simulation
software. RO has been used in the CSG industry for the treatment of brackish water and is
currently being used by all CSG companies in the Surat Basin. This simulation assisted with
the prediction of the pre-treatment technologies, antiscalant requirements and membrane
and membrane maintenance based on the water quality of the feed water (water input into
the system).
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 7
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This chapter reviewed literature on the following topics: the CSG industry and economic
significance; an understanding of CS water both in Australia and overseas; the geology and
stratigraphy of the Surat Basin; water catchment and aquifer reserves of the Surat Basin; the
extraction process and production of CSG to the domestic energy market and as an export
commodity; the legislative requirements and options for beneficial re-use of CS water; and
an overview of the current treatment technologies currently used in the Surat Basin by the
four major CSG operating companies. In order to effectively manage the environmental
impact of the CSG industry this study explained the nature of the gas deposits, methods for
gas collection, the physicochemical composition of the by-product CS water and the
technologies available for water remediation. This review was of significance in relation to
the formulation of the most appropriate and cost effective management of CS water, while
simultaneously preserving existing water resources and the environment.
GAS INDUSTRY
CSG is an emerging industry in Australia and in particular Queensland where it is an important
part of the economy in terms of a domestic energy resource and also as a significant export
commodity [1-3]. Mining of CSG in the Surat Basin involves drilling of vertical wells from the
surface to within the coal seam, wherein the trapped gas is released by dewatering [4]. The
deeper the coal seam the higher the pressures acting on the seam [5]. As a consequence, a
substantial volume of water (termed CS water) is collected in retention basins with the water
quality being typically saline in character [6, 7].
Conventional gas sources have been exploited in Australia for several years, and in 2013-14,
24 million tonnes of liquefied natural gas (LNG) was exported from Western Australia, the
Northern Territory and Queensland with a combined revenue of A$16.4 billion [8].
Unconventional resources such as coal seam gas (CSG) have emerged more recently, and
now represent an important part of the Queensland economy in terms of an energy resource
for domestic consumption and export [1-3]. The CSG industry has been operating in
Queensland since the early 1990’s, with commercial production commencing in 1996 [3].
There were approximately 600 production wells drilled in Queensland in 2010-11 and annual
gas production has evolved from 2 petajoules (PJ) in 1997-98 to 234 PJ in 2010-11 [9]. The
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 8
potential for CSG extraction in Queensland is due not only to the relatively shallow depths at
which the gas is present, but also the large quantity available, with approximately 64 % of
the proven and probable reserves found in the Surat Basin [10]. The Surat Basin (Figure 1) is
located along Eastern Australia, within the southern section of Queensland, occupying an
area of approximately 300,000 km2 [11].
Figure 1 (b) : Extent of the Surat Basin
It is predicted that the Surat Basin alone contains an estimated 33,000 PJ in methane reserves
[9]. The key geological feature of the Surat Basin is the Walloon Subgroup, which is a series
of volcanolithic sandstones, coal, mudstones and siltstones with a maximum thickness of
about 250 m [2]. The Walloon Subgroup is found at depths of approximately 200 to greater
than 800 m, which is amenable for CSG to be extracted relatively easily [10, 12]. Coal seams
found in the Walloon Subgroup are geologically predictable and found in large quantities [10,
13]. Other gas resources in Queensland include the Bowen, Galilee, and Clarence-Moreton
basins [14].
Regional context of this study
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 9
CS WATER
Australia is prone to drought, with 70 % of the Australian continent receiving less than 500
mm of rain annually and as such it is classed as arid or semi-arid [15]. Therefore, the
sustainability of water resources is of major concern. One of the greatest challenges faced
by the CSG industry is the substantial volume of water produced during the gas extraction
process known as CS water. CS water is typically brackish in character which does not allow
it to be used for most applications without being treated due to a high salinity and variable
pH [7, 16]. In addition, the CS water has a highly variable chemical composition, and as such
a universal treatment method is not available [6]. This variability is significantly enhanced
when comparing the northern and southern ends of the Surat Basin, due to the sheer size of
this aquifer system, spanning over numerous geological compositions [17]. Similar variation
in the composition of coal seam gas water has been found in samples from the United States
(US). For example, Dahm et al. described an extensive study of several thousand wells from
the Rocky Mountain area and found a substantial range of salinities varying from a few
hundred mg/L total dissolved solids concentration to in excess of 35,000 mg/L [18]. Rice
(2003) reported that the Ferron coal seam gas fields also exhibited major changes in water
quality between individual wells [19]. Reasons for the disparity and complexity of the CS
water were outlined by Pashin et al. and included geological and hydrodynamic factors [20].
To aid selection of treatment options for the range of coal seam gas water types produced,
Plumlee et al. developed a software program which took into account a large selection of
operational parameters and options for beneficial reuse [21]. Knowledge of the CS water
characteristics in Australia is not as comprehensive compared to the US. Kinnon et al.
reported analysis of coal seam water from the Bowen Basin in Queensland, and generally the
total dissolved solids content was less than 10,000 mg/L [3]. The dominant dissolved species
were sodium, chloride and bicarbonate with minor amounts of alkaline earth ions,
potassium, fluoride, aluminum and iron.
In theory, the availability of CS water should represent an opportunity for local communities
due to the potential for beneficial reuse. However, public perception has been shown to
view CSG mining as a threat to water supplies [22]. Tan et al. proposed that this latter
viewpoint was partially due to a lack of information regarding the relationship between CSG
mining operations and aquifers [23]. Vink has also emphasized the dangers of
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 10
misinformation inhibiting the development of the CSG industry and the need to accumulate
data into one resource [24].
Consequently, it would be useful to gain a better understanding of the pertinent issues that
encompass the geological aspects, extraction, legislation, reuse and treatment of CS water.
There is a need to improve the management of CS water produced in the CSG industry, not
only in Australia but in other areas of the world such as the US [25]. This research focused in
particular upon the Surat Basin, as it is the major CSG region on the Eastern coast of Australia.
The aim of this paper was to facilitate water conservation in Australia and to guide
appropriate management practices for the anticipated quantities of CS water.
GEOLOGY AND STRATIGRAPHY
The Surat Basin is composed of sedimentary rocks from the Jurassic to Cretaceous periods
[26] and is part of the Great Artesian Basin (GAB), which encompasses approximately one-
fifth of Australia [27]. There are a number of groundwater systems located within the GAB
and these include the Condamine Alluvium (up to 150 m thick), the Kumbarilla Beds (100 to
200 m thick) and the Walloon Coal Measure (100 and 500 m thick). Underlying these systems
are the Hutton Sandstone/Marburg Subgroups (120 to 180 m thick) and the Precipice
Sandstone systems [17]. The Condamine Alluvium is situated west of the Surat Basin
connected by the Kumbarilla Ridge to the east of the Clarence-Moreton Basin [26]. The key
lithostratigraphic units of the Surat Basin include the Kumbarilla Beds (comprising of Mooga,
Gubberamunda and Springbok sandstones) overlying the Walloon Coal Measures, and the
Walloon Coal Measures overlying Hutton/Marburg Sandstone [26]. The groundwater
systems of these geological formations are complex and the aquifers potentially
interconnected. Younger Tertiary basalts cap the Walloon Coal Measures and
Hutton/Marburg Sandstone to the east of the Condamine Alluvium [26]. The Kumbarilla Beds
are described as restricted outcrop (visual exposure of bedrock) [26]. The Hutton/Marburg
Sandstone is made up of sandstone with interbedded siltstone, shale and mudstone [26].
The Walloon Coal Measures are comprised of fine to medium grained, labile, argillaceous
sandstone, siltstone, mudstone and coal, with minor calcareous sandstone, impure
limestone and ironstone, and coals (located within the upper 75% of the geological sequence)
[26]. The geological sequence of the Surat Basin was deposited over time from the late
Triassic, 206 – 227 million years ago (Ma) to the early Cretaceous, 99 – 144 Ma, while the
Walloon Coal Measures were predominately deposited from the Early Middle Jurassic to the
Late Jurassic (197 – 145 Ma) [12, 26].
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 11
The coal measures of the Walloon Subgroup are of Middle to Late Jurassic age [12] and make
up the north and east portion of the Surat Basin [10, 12]. The Walloon Subgroup was named
and then re-named, between 1907 and 1973, into three sub-units: the Taroom Coal
Measures, Tangalooma Sandstone, and Juandah Coal Measures [12]. Coals are located in the
lower Taroom Coal Measures and the upper Juandah Coal Measures [10]. The Juandah Coal
Measures and the Taroom Coal Measures contain a number of seams each individually
named. The Juandah Coal Measures includes the Juandah, Kogan, Macalister (upper and
lower), Nangram, Wambo, Iona and Argyle [12], while the Taroom Coal Measures include
Auburn, Bulwer and Condamine [12].
The Juandah and Taroom coal seams are comprised of coals that are sedimentary and formed
through the decomposition of organic material, which has been buried over time and
subjected to pressure and high temperatures [28]. It has been shown that the coal can
contain up to 125 different minerals dependent upon the specific environment in which the
coal was laid down, the environment in which the maturation process of the coal took place
and the transport of minerals through and around the coal by wind and water over time [28].
The mineral matter of coal can have an effect on the mineral matter of the aquifers
surrounding them through dissolution [28]. Coal can go through up to six stages of formation
which includes peat, lignite, sub-bituminous, bituminous, anthracite and graphite stages [28].
The Walloon Coal Measures are in the sub-bituminous to bituminous phase of formation [10],
according to classifications based upon colour, moisture content, heat content and density
[29].
CSG is generated by the decomposition of organic matter by anaerobic microorganisms [13].
It is formed within the pore space of the coal during the first stage of decomposition, namely
formation of peat [13]. The microorganisms metabolise organic matter by oxidation-
reduction reactions as this provides them with energy for growth and maintenance [13]. The
redox reaction of CSG involves the oxidation of CSG by oxygen (O2) to carbon dioxide (CO2),
while the oxygen is reduced to water [13]. CSG generation is governed by five important
criteria: anoxic environments, sulfate deficient environments, temperature, presence of
organic matter, and space [13]. The processes of aerobic respiration and subsequent
consumption of oxygen, sulfate reduction and anaerobic oxidation of organic matter
additionally contributes to the production of CSG [13]. While CSG formation in marine
sediments is created primarily via CO2 reduction, which occurs during the anaerobic oxidation
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 12
of organic matter, it has been suggested that there is no influence by marine sediments on
interior basins, which are those that are greater than 200-300 km from the ocean [10, 13,
30]. These non-marine influenced basins may be entirely fluvial and therefore the
recognition of sequence boundaries is more complicated to understand [30, 31]. It is
estimated that the Jurassic coast was more than 300 km from the eastern edge of the Surat
Basin suggesting that it is classified as an interior basin [30].
WATER CATCHMENT AND AQUIFERS
The Surat Basin has been used primarily for irrigated agriculture since the 1960’s [32]. The
Condamine-Balonne River is one of the major catchment areas within the Surat Basin and it
is the head of Australia’s Murray Darling River system [33].
Figure 1 (c): Condamine-Balonne River Catchment (Source:
http://155.187.2.69/water/policy-programs/entitlement-
purchasing/condaminebalonne.html)
The Condamine-Balonne River is used as a water resource for not only irrigated agriculture
through the development of three main irrigation projects but also for the domestic supply
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 13
of water [32]. The Upper Condamine irrigation project encompasses 196 km of the
Condamine-Balonne River followed by the Chinchilla Weir irrigation project which is situated
in the middle of the catchment and extends 88 km. The St George irrigation area is situated
at the lower end of the Condamine-Balonne River and has a length of 140 km [32]. Domestic
water storage is located at Leslie Dam, Chinchilla Weir, Beardmore Dam, and Jack Taylor Weir
which are located from the upper to the lower part of the catchment respectively [32]. The
Condamine-Balonne River passes through numerous private lands and may also contain
water storage within these areas [32]. The Condamine-Balonne River has a catchment area
of 143,900 km2 and receives a large input of water, but flows for most of its length across a
dry interior [32]. Freshwater can infiltrate through the coal aquifer, which can impact on the
quality of water and may result in the dissolution of minerals causing increased
concentrations of different chemical species [5]. The catchment of the Condamine Alluvium
within the Surat Basin can have highly variable rainfall patterns, experiencing periodical high
intensity rain and extended periods of drought [32, 33]. Most rainfall occurs in the summer
months, decreasing from east to west across the catchment, and is associated with tropical
monsoonal activity [32]. Consequently, average stream flow in the Condamine-Balonne
catchment is highly variable and all streams are ephemeral [34].
During periods of low rainfall, irrigated agriculture in the Surat Basin is dependent on
groundwater which is extracted from the Condamine Alluvium groundwater system [33].
Approximately 90 % of the water taken from the Condamine Alluvium, between 2005 and
2006, was for the irrigation of crops [33]. It has been found that there has been a decline in
the standing water level of the Central Condamine Alluvium from 1960 to 2008 [33]. The use
of the Condamine Alluvium by various industries highlights the importance of appropriate
management of water extraction during CSG operations.
The confined aquifers of the Surat basin are comprised of sandstone, which are separated by
mudstone and siltstone units [26]. The mudstone and siltstone are the confining beds and
recharge can only occur in the northern and eastern zones of the geological sequence [26].
This zone is in close proximity to the outcrop and the units are exposed sufficiently to allow
this to occur [26]. The sequence of the Condamine Alluvium consists of unconfined and semi-
confined aquifers [33]. Historical groundwater resources have been reliant upon the
Condamine Alluvium [35], however, these are mostly confined to the Central Condamine
Alluvium within the upper aquifers [33]. The Condamine-Balonne River can be characterised
by four distinct zones which operate under varied hydrological behaviour [32]. They are the
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 14
armoured, mobile, meandering, and the anabranch zones [32]. The armoured zone is an
immobile bed sediment with minimal movement in a floodplain environment, the mobile
zone is an active riverbed and channel, the meandering zone is an extensive floodplain with
sand channels, and the anabranch is characterised by multiple channels and a floodplain
system [32].
Hydrological processes operate at various time scales and geographic scales and as such the
complexity of the hydrology of the Condamine-Balonne River and the Condamine Alluvium
is extensive [32]. Factors such as formation and weathering processes acting on aquifers of
the Walloon Coal Measures are inherently varied. The geological contact between the
Walloon Coal Measures and the Condamine Alluvium is also a difficult system to identify as
the sediments are similar and geological logs are problematic to analyse [26]. The influence
of sea level change has in contrast been found to be negligible on the Surat Basin due to it
being classified as an interior basin [30].
EXTRACTION AND PRODUCTION OF COAL SEAM GAS
The CSG industry in Queensland is relatively new, and therefore there is some
unpredictability in the placement of exploration and production wells [3]. Often the amount
of water that is required to be extracted can also help to indicate the potential for production
performance [3]. A good producing well is classified as having a large gas reservoir,
saturation and permeability [3]. However, all three parameters cannot always be obtained.
A number of stages are required prior to CSG being removed: collection of seismic data,
analysis of core holes, and the development of exploration wells followed by production
fields with numerous wells.
Seismic data is used widely in the oil and gas industry and is a form of investigation to obtain
specific geological information [8, 36, 37]. Seismic data is obtained by the generation of
seismic waves that travel through the earth, which are either reflected or refracted, and
received back at the earth surface over a specified time period [8, 36, 37]. Using this gathered
information 2D, 3D or 4D pictures of the subsurface of the earth can be created [8, 36, 37].
Seismic data is used to obtain geological information during the exploration phase of the CSG
process in order to determine the geological strata including location, depth and thickness of
a coal seam prior to any drilling taking place.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 15
Further investigation into the location of the potential coal seams is obtained by drilling a
core hole into the coal seam from the surface ranging in depth from 200 – 800 m for the
Walloon Subgroup. The core hole is approximately 10 – 30 cm in diameter and exposes the
rock and coal seam to allow for assessment [8]. The core hole provides information about
the amount of gas content, permeability of the geological strata, and thickness of the coal
seam [8]. Once the core hole is assessed, exploration wells are required to determine the
viability of a particular production field. Exploration wells in the Surat Basin consist of a
number of wells in a potential location, which are observed over time and are assessed based
on water and gas content. A large amount of water is initially extracted to enable the start
of gas removal from the coal seam [8, 38]. The pressure of each well is a determining factor
in how much water must be extracted prior to the gas being released [8]. During the process
of exploration the well will be dewatered and degassed until it is depleted. The gas produced
during the exploration phase is normally not used for power generation, but instead is cold
or hot vented to the atmosphere and this is undertaken due to legislative requirements by
the Queensland Government under the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004
which states that exploration activity cannot be used for power generation. The years that
it takes to dewater and degas the exploration well will show the potential for the wells
productivity.
Once CSG reserves are assessed using seismic data, core holes and exploration wells, it may
be classed as economically viable for gas production. Drilling of numerous wells in close
proximity to each other is necessary to extract CSG during the production phase [8]. The
infrastructure within the well consists of a drill head in the deepest part of the well and casing
which changes from conductor, surface, intermediate to production casing from the surface
to the gas reservoir [8]. The casing has alternate open and closed spaces through the
geological sequence, which corresponds to areas of coal seams [39]. The surface
infrastructure of the well includes a well head, power source, pump and pipelines [8]. CSG is
extracted and sent to a gas processing facility, which operates to dehydrate the gas and
compress it to extreme levels, which allows for the gas to yield the most energy when used
for power generation [8]. The CS water is moved to holding ponds where it awaits use and/or
treatment by various methods [40]. The final stage is for CSG to be used in an existing power
station or to be transferred to another processing facility to change the CSG to liquid, which
enables it to be exported overseas. CSG in Queensland is either sold into the national and
domestic electricity markets or to overseas markets as LNG [2]. In order for CSG to be
exported as LNG it is first transported by high-pressure pipelines to Curtis Island located off
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 16
the coast of Eastern Australia approximately 470 km north west of Brisbane [8]. Three
separate plants will be built on the Island to undertake this process with each being operated
by a different CSG operating company; QGC, Origin Energy and Santos [8]. The primary
application of the plant is to cool the CSG to the point at which it becomes liquid
(approximately minus 160°C) [8]. The LNG is transported by ship from Curtis Island to
countries such as China, Singapore, Japan and Chile [8]. The future of the Australian CSG
industry is to export overseas with approximately 24 million tonnes of LNG being exported
during 2013-14 with a revenue of $16.4 billion Australian dollars [2, 8].
CSG is trapped within a coal seam by the pressure of an aquifer which surrounds it and can
only be released by partial dewatering [4]. The geological profile can have impermeable
layers e.g. clay above and below the coal seam and this also contributes to the ability of the
coal seam to trap CSG [38]. Mining of CSG in the Surat Basin involves drilling of vertical and/or
lateral wells from the surface to depths of between 200 and 800 m to within the coal seam
[10]. During the drilling process of a CSG well, a two layer steel casing is inserted as the hole
is drilled. The steel casing is surrounded by cement to maintain exclusion of the drilled well
from the overlying and adjacent geology including aquifers [8, 41]. In the Surat Basin, the
extraction process of CSG from the coal seam generates a substantial amount of CS water
[7]. CSG is held within the spaces of the coal seam by the pressure of the aquifer [5]. As the
water is released by mechanical methods and the pressure drops, the gas is also released.
The deeper the coal seam the higher the pressures acting on the seam [5].
During the extraction of CSG varying amounts of CS water will be produced from each well
[4, 38, 42]. This is a consequence of the amount of pressure that is acting on the coal seam,
and over time the amount of water will decrease and the amount of CSG extracted will
increase until the CSG is depleted [42]. The production fields can range in not only size but
also the number of production wells in each field. An example is the comparison of the 600
production wells drilled in Queensland in 2010-11, and the Powder River basin in Wyoming
and Montana in the US which has 16,000 wells under production [4, 43].
LEGISLATIVE AND RE-USE OPTIONS OF CS WATER
CS water has a particular chemical composition based on the location from which it is
extracted, however, there are some similarities between CS water at great distances from
each other [42]. Similarities exist for CS waters from New Zealand, the US and Australia and
include high bicarbonate (HCO3-) high sodium (Na+), high chloride (Cl-), low calcium (Ca2+), low
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 17
magnesium (Mg2+) and low sulfate (SO42-) concentrations [1, 5, 38, 42, 44]. CS water from
the Juandah and Taroom coal measures are generally characterised as brackish water
consisting of primarily high salt content (200 – 10,000 mg/L) and high bicarbonate content
(1000 mg/L) [34]. Other parameters that are characteristic of CS water from New Zealand,
the US and Australia are high sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), high total dissolved solids (TDS)
and high alkalinity [1, 38, 44]. Although similarities exist, it has been noted that variation in
chemical composition can exist between samples taken from a single well over time and can
be due to factors such as pressure loss when the CS water is brought to the surface,
interaction of the CS water with the atmosphere or temperature at the surface [38].
Legislative Requirements
There is potential for CS water to impact the environment if it is released to land or to surface
waters untreated [43-46]. Concentration limits for water quality parameters are set to
maintain a minimum impact upon the natural environment such as soils, vegetation and river
systems. The plant and equipment associated with a particular industry is also considered in
relation to the health of fauna species. Therefore, the Australian Government, through State
legislation, regulates the use and discharge of CS water for all companies that operate
exploration and production CSG wells within the Surat Basin. The CS water is regulated by
the Environment Protection Act 1994, for physical and chemical parameters, and the
concentrations required are dependent on the application in which the CS water is to be used
[47]. Currently, CS water from the Surat Basin is legislated to be used for livestock watering,
irrigation, coal washing, aquaculture, industrial and manufacturing operations, drinking
water, and domestic purposes for landowners within petroleum tenure [48]. CSG operating
companies are permitted to use CS water for drilling operations and construction purposes
e.g. dust suppression [47]. Two permit types exist to regulate the use of CS water for
particular activities: Environmental Authority and beneficial use approval. The
Environmental Authority is used when a CSG operating company is using the CS water for
CSG related activities such as drilling, dust suppression or construction. The beneficial use
approval is used to stipulate conditions that are required to be met prior to the CS water
being used by other industries not related to CSG production or operation. This process is
administered in Queensland by the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection
(DEHP) [47, 48].
Beneficial use approval contains specific physical and chemical water quality parameters to
be met for every CSG operating company. On the other hand, the Environmental Authority
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 18
is specific to petroleum tenure, with each CSG operating company working under multiple
petroleum tenures. A petroleum tenure is a parcel of land that is no more than
approximately 210 km2 and entitles the holder to explore, produce and process petroleum
and gas and must be applied for through the Queensland Government [49]. Consequently,
companies face the prospect of dealing with many Environmental Authorities due to working
in many petroleum tenures. At this time there are 33 Environmental Authorities current in
the Surat Basin [47]. Table 1 shows the physical and chemical limits for each industry that is
able to use CS water in the Surat Basin [47]. Tables 2-5 detail each Environmental Authority
and the physical and chemical limits that allow CSG operating companies to use CS water for
construction purposes and drilling operations. Tables 2-5 show that the water quality
specifications vary between Environmental Authorities for each CSG operating company, for
the same application, around parameters such as pH, TDS, EC, TPH, SAR and bicarbonate ion
content. There are two companies, QGC and Origin Energy that have six Environmental
Authorities that include 20 other parameters that are required to be tested prior to the CS
water being used for hydrostatic testing or low point drain release and this is described in
Table 2. This shows that the hydrostatic testing and low point drain application are subject
to different conditions depending on the CSG company, with QGC and Origin Energy having
a larger testing suite than Arrow Energy or Santos.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 19
Table 1: Beneficial Use Approval Water Quality Requirements for Reuse of CS water in the Surat Basin
Use [48] Requirements of the Producer Requirements of the User
Aquaculture Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC & ARMCANZ)
ANZECC & ARMCANZ
Landscape and Revegetation TDS 1000mg/L
pH 6 – 9.5 −
Domestic, Stock, Stock Intensive and Incidental Land Management
ANZECC & ARMCANZ ANZECC & ARMCANZ
Table 2: QGC Environmental Authority Water Quality Requirements for Petroleum Lease Tenure in the Surat Basin
Reference Number [47]
Last Revised
Company Purpose pH TDS mg/L TSS mg/L EC μs/cm TPH mg/L SAR Bicarbonate
Ion mg/L
EPPG00611313 2014 QGC
Origin
Construction, Dust,
Industrial, Manufacturing
6 – 9.5 1000 − − − − −
EPPG00652513 2015 QGC
Drilling, Simulation,
Dust, Construction,
Industrial, Manufacturing, Coal Washing, Landscaping, Revegetation
6 – 9.5 1000 − − − − −
EPPG00932613 2014 QGC Hydrostatic
Test * 6.5 – 8.5 − − 2000 10 8 – 12 −
Dust 6 - 9 2000 − − 10 8 – 12 −
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 20
Reference Number [47]
Last Revised
Company Purpose pH TDS mg/L TSS mg/L EC μs/cm TPH mg/L SAR Bicarbonate
Ion mg/L EPPG00797813 2014 QGC Dust 6 - 9 3000 30 − 100 8 - 15 100 EPPG00878413 2014 QGC Construction − − − − − − −
Landscaping, Revegetation
6 - 9 1000 − − − − −
Industrial,
Manufacturing 6 – 9.5 − − − − − −
EPPG00889613 2014 QGC Dust,
Construction − − − − − − −
Landscaping, Revegetation
6 – 9.5 100 − − − − −
Industrial,
Manufacturing 6 – 9.5 − − − − − −
Livestock ANZECC & ARMCANZ
EPPG00903513 2014 QGC Dust,
Construction − − − − − − −
Landscaping, Revegetation
6 – 9.5 1000 − − − − −
Industrial,
Manufacturing 6 – 9.5 − − − − − −
Livestock ANZECC & ARMCANZ
* Testing requirements also include the following: Na, Ar, Se, B, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Fe, Mn, Zn, N, P, Hg, F, Al, Ni, Ag, V
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 21
Table 3: Origin Energy Environmental Authority Water Quality Requirements for Petroleum Lease Tenure in the Surat Basin
Reference Number [47]
Last Revised
Company Purpose pH TDS mg/L TSS mg/L EC μs/cm TPH mg/L SAR Bicarbonate
Ion mg/L
EPPG00304413 2014 Origin − − − − − − − −
EPPG00300013 2014 Origin − − −
EPPG00611313 2014 QGC
Origin
Construction, Dust,
Industrial, Manufacturing
6 – 9.5 1000 − − − − −
EPPG00653413 2015 Origin Construction 6 -9 2000 − − 10 − −
Hydrostatic Test*
6.5 – 8.5 − − 2000 − − −
EPPG00853013 2014 Origin Hydrostatic
Test* 6.5 – 8.5 − − 2000 − − −
EPPG00853213 2014 Origin Hydrostatic
Test* 6.5 – 8.5 − − 2000 − − −
EPPG00885313 2014 Origin Hydrostatic
Test, Low Point Drain*
6.5 – 8.5 − − 2900 10 − −
EPPG00968013 2015 Origin Hydrostatic
Test* 6.5 – 8.5 − − 2000 − − −
* Testing requirements also include the following: Cl, Ar, Se, B, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Fe, Mn, Zn, N, P, Hg, F, Al, Ni, Ag, V
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 22
Table 4: Arrow Energy Environmental Authority Water Quality Requirements for Petroleum Lease Tenure in the Surat Basin
Reference Number [47] Last Revised Company Purpose pH TDS mg/L TSS
mg/L EC μs/cm
TPH mg/L
SAR Bicarbonate
Ion mg/L EPPG00653213 2013 Arrow Dust 6 – 9 2000 30 − 10 − −
EPPG00972513
2014 Arrow Dust,
Construction, Operation
6 – 9 1500 − − 10 6 - 12 −
PEN100251408 PEN200405209 PEN200528910 PEN201259310
2011 2010 2011 2011
Arrow No requirements for water quality parameters
Table 5: Santos Environmental Authority Water Quality Requirements for Petroleum Lease Tenure in the Surat Basin
Reference Number [47] Last Revised Company Purpose pH TDS mg/L TSS
mg/L EC μs/cm
TPH mg/L
SAR Bicarbonate
Ion mg/L EPPG00892413 EPPG00898213 EPPG00928713 EPPG00980113 PEN100395309 PEN100395409 PEN100401209 PEN200748210 PEN200748310 PEN200767410 PEN201029710 PEN201644210 PEN202693011
2010 - 2015 Santos
Dust, Construction, Hydrostatic Test, Low
Point Drains
No requirements for water quality parameters
Livestock ANZECC & ARMCANZ
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 23
The difference between the Environmental Authority for the same water quality parameters
and the same applications is of significance. It has been shown in other studies worldwide
that there may be regional differences of large or small scales in CS water and this may or
may not correspond to the differences in concentration limits for the water quality
parameters in the Queensland legislation through the Environmental Authority [1, 5, 38, 42,
44, 50]. CSG operating companies through water quality monitoring programs may be able
to provide region specific water quality data. As a consequence, this information may enable
the Environmental Authorities to better address particular CS water types, which in turn
could promote more effective and efficient use.
Beneficial Re-Use of CS Water
There are several different re-use methods that CSG operating companies have identified
and are currently undertaking for CS water. Re-use strategies can be separated into those
undertaken by the company themselves or the transfer of the CS water to external industries.
When the CSG operating companies use CS water in their own business, this is undertaken
mostly during the construction of gas related infrastructure and also during the drilling of
exploration and/or production wells [47].
Agriculture
The Surat Basin has an economic stake in the production of meat cattle and intensive farming
such as feedlots [15]. The requirements for cattle drinking water as outlined by the
Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC &
ARMCANZ) illustrates a range of criteria which need to be satisfied, including TDS <5000
mg/L, fluoride <2 mg/L, boron <5 mg/L, chloride <2000 mg/L, and aluminum <5 mg/L [51].
At the low end of the salinity range CS water can be used directly as stock drinking water
which is currently being undertaken in the Surat Basin for cattle feedlots without any
treatment needed to improve water quality. Alternatively, mixing CS water with potable
water may be necessary to ensure all water parameters are compliant to concentration levels
in accordance with the ANZECC and ARMCANZ.
Irrigation
Irrigation for cropping farms is also a significant economic resource in the Surat Basin and
water security is a major part of this industry [15]. CS water is now being used as part of the
current water schemes (the process of delivering water through infrastructure) and an
example of this is the Chinchilla Weir water scheme in which CS water is being transferred
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 24
[52]. The Chinchilla Weir is used both for irrigation along the Condamine River and also to
enhance the water supply to the townships of Chinchilla and Toowoomba [52]. The crops
irrigated using the Chinchilla Weir include cereal, melons, pasture and fodder crops [52]. Up
to 85 ML/day can be treated and transported to the Chinchilla Weir [52]. The supply storage
of the Chinchilla Weir is 9780ML and in 2008-09 approximately 3000 – 3500 ML was used
[52]. CS water salinity can have a variable range and therefore it is important to understand
not only salinity range for CS water but also crop salt tolerance levels [53]. This is typically
assessed by calculating SAR:
SAR = Na+
√12
(Ca2+ + Mg2+)
A major problem of CS water for use as irrigation water in the Surat Basin is the parameter
SAR, which can increase sodicity in soils, leading to the soils inability to form stable
aggregates and thus structure [53].
Dust Suppression
During the construction of any infrastructure, the requirement to remove vegetation and
topsoil is essential, which results in exposure of the subsoil. The CSG industry in Queensland
must not only drill CSG production wells but other infrastructure must be built such as water
treatment plants, water holding dams, gas compression facilities, offices, mining camps and
more. Nuisance or environmental harm can be caused by dust due to displacement and
deposition in locations such as creeks and rivers or landowners houses. This behaviour
occurs during the time when the subsoil is exposed and subjected to wind movement. The
most common method to alleviate this problem is through the application of a thin layer of
water to the areas that are susceptible [47, 48]. The CSG industry is currently using CS water
for this application, in some cases CS water can be used directly for dust suppression without
any treatment, however companies must adhere to legislative requirements which means
that treatment may be required prior to use [47].
Drilling Activities
CSG operating companies also require water when undertaking drilling activities specifically
for addition to drilling fluid which can be made up of a combination of CS water, sand, acetic
acid, caustic soda, calcium chloride, guar, and/or potassium chloride [8, 54]. Fracturing fluid
chemistry takes in to account the geological characteristics of the location being drilled and
the chemical characteristics of the aquifers involved with the drilling process [55]. The drilling
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 25
fluid is used down the hole to cool the drill bit or prevent destabilisation of the hole [8]. The
drilling fluid is subsequently mixed with the cuttings removed from the hole and this is
separated above ground with the separated fluid potentially being returned down the hole
for reuse as drilling fluid. However in some cases, the fluid is not able to be used for this
application and must be disposed of [8].
Hydrostatic Testing and Low Point Drains
Pipelines constructed to transfer gas and water from the production well to other
infrastructure such as gas compression facilities or water holding dams are called gathering
systems. These pipes typically require testing prior to use to ensure that they can withstand
design pressure and are safe for operation [56, 57]. This process involves hydrostatic testing
and in the CSG industry it is undertaken using CS water. The CS water must be released
periodically along the length of the pipeline through high point vents where only small
amounts of water are released. In some instances, release may occur from the pipeline itself
and or be released to the ground. Therefore, the concentration level of the CS water should
adhere to the legislative requirements set out in the Environmental Authority [47, 56, 57].
Another requirement of pipelines associated with CSG transfer is known as low point drains,
which are installed at set locations along the pipeline in the low points of the topography.
The provision of drains is required as the CSG is saturated as it is in contact with CS water in
the well and at any surface separator. The gas becomes supersaturated as the gas cools
through the gathering system, condensing and accumulating at the low points of the pipeline
and must be released [56, 57]. Low point drain release is subject to similar legislative
requirements as hydrostatic testing [56, 57].
Managed Aquifer Recharge
Managed aquifer recharge of CS water has been undertaken in countries such as the US and
has been found to be a successful management tool [58, 59]. This technique is used if the CS
water is not required for any other re-use method and is a way to not only alleviate storage
space required for large amounts of CS water but also to comply with Australian Government
Federal legislation. In Australia managed aquifer recharge is being tried by some of the CSG
operating companies in the Surat Basin [60, 61]. Although being a convenient way to dispose
of CS water and allowing for the protection of depleting an aquifer, it is essential that the
water re-injected protects the ecology of the aquifer. Key points to consider include pH
adjustment, deoxygenating, and sterilisation (removal of solids and bacteria) of the CS water
prior to reinjection [60]. Reinjection wells are drilled to the precipice sandstone aquifer
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 26
(approximately 1500 m), the Hutton sandstone aquifer (approximately 680 m), or an aquifer
that avoids interconnectivity with the coal seam being exploited. This could be any aquifer
above or below the coal seams which are being exploited for CSG [60]. pH adjustment is
necessary to ensure that water returned to the aquifer resembles the chemical composition
of the water that is already present, and also to ensure minimal environmental impact to
aquifer occurs, such as preventing the precipitation of minerals [60]. The pH of CS water is
normally reduced by hydrochloric acid reinjection [60]. The presence of oxygen can cause
deterioration of the steel casing of the well [60, 61]. Equally problematic is the dissolution
(and / or oxidation) of precipitated species and subsequent mobilisation [60]. Removal of
oxygen, using hydrophobic gas transfer membranes or alternative technology, is required as
the water present in the sandstone aquifers typically has a dissolved oxygen content that is
very low (less than 10 μg/L) [60]. Sterilisation is undertaken in order to kill bacteria present
in the CS water, with ultraviolet disinfection conveniently used [60]. In the US as much as
100 ML per day of CS water can be re-injected, however in Australia current trials average
between 10 to 50ML per day [60].
DEHP is continually reviewing the way in which the CSG industry in Queensland regulates
water quality by reviewing conditions within the Environmental Authority and beneficial use
approval periodically [47, 48]. Conditions that may be revised include physical and chemical
parameters that govern the way in which the CS water can be used. Through the appropriate
management of water quality within environmental permits in the CSG industry the risk of
water shortage in Australia can be significantly reduced. Due to the variable nature of CS
water, consistent monitoring programs for the duration of CSG extraction may be required
to ensure that specific water quality information is being assessed and included in
environmental permits. This will enable CSG operating companies to use the most cost
effective and efficient treatment technologies and therefore CS water can be used as a
valuable resource.
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
The composition of untreated CS water may render it unsuitable for large scale beneficial use
therefore it may be necessary for a treatment method to be implemented. The treatment
methods for CS water vary and are dependent upon regulations, cost, time and application.
Each beneficial use application requires a specific quality of water, which means a number of
pretreatment, principal treatment and post treatment systems may be required to satisfy all
regulatory measures [47, 48]. As the CS water quality is not consistent, a range of treatment
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 27
methods may be used by each CSG operating company and indeed can be different
depending upon which region of the Surat Basin is involved.
Pre-treatment
Pre-treatment of CS water is necessary to protect the principal treatment method from
fouling of the filters and reducing the efficiency [62]. This is necessary as the principal
treatment technology is normally the more expensive treatment both in terms of cost to set
up and ongoing maintenance cost. The most common objective of pre-treatment, (including
holding dams, filtration and chemical amendment) is to remove fine / coarse solids and
bacteria / algae to improve efficiency of the principal treatment technology and prevent
fouling of the membranes [62]. Holding dams are used to store CS water prior to treatment
and they reduce sediment over time by settling processes. The CS water stored in holding
dams most commonly use coarse sediment filters when the water is transferred for
treatment and this is undertaken to remove solids. The dams can vary in size, with current
basin sizes in the Surat Basin ranging from 10 to 160 ML [61, 62]. The holding times for CS
water within the holding dams is based on the amount of input from CSG production wells
and the amount of water that can be treated per day by the principal treatment technologies
[61, 62]. Further pre-treatment methods that are used by the CSG operating companies in
the Surat Basin include either micro-filtration or ultrafiltration. These techniques are a
separation process that involve passing water through a specific pore size filter and high
velocity and low pressure [62]. The filters can range from 0.1 – 10 μm for micro-filtration
and 0.1 - 0.001 μm for ultrafiltration. This process typically restricts coarse sediment, algae,
bacteria and other microorganisms [62]. RO is the major technology selected to treat CS
water so that it is of a quality specified by government regulatory agencies, and therefore
able to be beneficially used [40, 63].
Principal Treatment
The principal treatment method used by all CSG operating companies in the Surat Basin is
RO, which reduces many water parameters simultaneously [44]. RO is a system based on the
application of sufficient pressure to semi-permeable membranes and the ability of the
membrane to separate particles or dissolved matter nearly completely from water [62, 64,
65]. The output is classified into two water types; permeate and the concentrated salt
solution termed brine [62, 64]. The chemical composition of the permeate is of high quality,
with heavy metals, SAR, TDS, EC, HCO3-, and Na+ removed [62, 66]. An advantage of the RO
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 28
system is that it can typically recover between 75-80% of the water as permeate depending
on the type of membranes that are used and the type of water that is input into the RO
system [62, 67]. The membranes work by moving the water across different pressures, which
is permeable for water only [62, 65]. A major component of the maintenance of the RO
equipment includes dosing the water with chemicals prior to treatment in order to prevent
scaling and fouling [62, 68, 69]. Fouling is caused by a number of different species such as
high contents of suspended solids, salt, calcium, magnesium, silica, boron and organics [62,
68, 69].
Ion exchange is a technique that is commonly used as a water treatment technology for the
removal of alkali metal and alkaline earth ions [70, 71]. In the US, ion exchange has been
used as the principal desalination technology for CS water [72]. However, in Queensland the
main area of interest for ion exchange application is water softening (removal of alkaline
earth ions – Mg and Ca) [73]. The process involves the removal of alkaline earth ions from
the solution by the introduction of a polymeric resin [74]. This has been found to be
successful in reducing contaminants in water and therefore protecting the RO membranes if
ion exchange is used prior to RO treatment [75].
Post Treatment
The amendment process is a post treatment technology that incorporates the change of
concentration of a particular element after the principal treatment technology has been
undertaken [76]. Permeate water can be treated with CaCl2, re-mineralised, re-hardened, or
disinfected by chlorination during the post treatment phase [62]. Another post treatment
method is lime dosing (addition of lime powder or liquid to the CS water) which is undertaken
to specifically increase Ca2+ in water prior to the water being used for irrigation purposes
[45]. CaCl2 is another amendment process that is used to decrease SAR specifically when the
water is going to be used on the ground. The amendment of SAR is of particular importance
for due to the negative impact that Na+ has on soil [45]. An increased concentration of Na or
high SAR can result in the inability of soil to uptake water and increases the soils breakdown
of chemical bonds and thus structure and susceptibility to subsequent erosion [77, 78].
Table 6 shows the major CSG operating companies in the Surat Basin, Arrow Energy, QGC,
Origin Energy and Santos and the treatment technologies that are currently utilised to treat
CS water. This shows that RO water treatment plants with input from retention dams is the
principal treatment technology for all companies. The amount of water being treated is
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 29
varied and could be due to the location and/or the number of CSG production wells i.e. area
being used. Pretreatment and post treatments are varied between CSG operating companies
as treatment is dependent on the water re-use strategy that is in place and the quality of
water to be treated.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 30
Table 6: CS Water Treatment Infrastructure in the Surat Basin for Major CSG Operating Companies
Company Pre-Treatment Principal
Treatment Post Treatment Location Water Treated Reference
Arrow Energy Retention Basin Microfiltration
Reverse Osmosis CaCl2 Dalby – 2 sites 2.5ML/day [79, 80]
QGC Retention Basin Ultra Filtration Disc Filtration
Ion Exchange Reverse Osmosis
Lime Dosing Chinchilla Wandoan
92ML/day [81]
Origin Energy Microsand Ballasted
Flocculation Reverse Osmosis −
Roma Chinchilla
20ML/day [54, 82, 83]
Santos Microsand Ballasted
Flocculation Reverse Osmosis −
Roma Fairview
10ML/day 20ML/day
[76, 81, 82]
Santos −
CS water Amendment Facility using
H2SO4 & CaSO4
− Roma 20ML/day [84]
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 31
Each CSG operating company has designed the CS water treatment technologies in different
ways and with the capacity to treat varied amounts of water. The amount of water requiring
treatment is also directly proportional to the number of production wells that are operating.
Therefore, the water treatment facilities developed by each company must anticipate the
CSG production wells that will be drilled for the duration of the CSG extraction. Not only
does the amount of water need to be taken into consideration but also the major beneficial
use applications. If a significant proportion of the treated CS water is to be used for a specific
purpose then specific principal and post treatments may be required.
DESALINATION TECHNOLOGIES
The water quality of the associated or produced coal seam (CS) water is highly
variable but as a general observation is in the brackish water range (500 to 10,000
mg/L) in Australia, but can be of higher total dissolved solids (TDS) values in other
countries such as the USA [18]. The major dissolved salts present are sodium chloride
and sodium bicarbonate, along with concentrations of alkaline earth ions (Ca2+, Mg2+,
Ba2+ & Sr2+), potassium, sulphate and other minor species (iron, aluminium,
ammonium) bicarbonate [6, 16, 85]. In many cases CS water requires treatment prior
to beneficial reuse due being incompatible with regulations for irrigation, stock
watering and drinking water as examples [86].
Desalination technologies such as reverse osmosis (RO) have been deployed as they
are a proven and robust process for production of high purity water [6, 7, 67, 74]. As
such, electricity costs can be relatively expensive as can be the number of pre-
treatment methods employed to ensure that RO achieves acceptable water recovery
rates [7, 87]. Pre-treatment methods prior to the RO membranes include but are not
limited to lime softening, coagulation, microfiltration, ultrafiltration, anti-scalants, pH
adjustment, ion exchange softening [86]. The objective of the pre-treatment stages
is to reduce the incidence of fouling of equipment and membranes by species such
as organic material [88], scale forming species such as calcium carbonate [89] and
silicates [90]. Scaling occurs when salts are concentrated within the element beyond
their solubility limit [91]. The most common of these salts are CaSO4, CaCO3, and
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 32
silica [92]. The direct reduction of these salts presence prior to introduction of the
CS water into the system will reduce scaling of the RO membranes [91, 92].
The inherent variability of CS water composition poses a challenge for consistent
operation of RO plants. This study investigated the CS water composition from 150
wells located in the Surat Basin in Queensland, Australia (the results of which have
recently been published [93]). It was found that even in the same region of a CSG
basin that the water composition ranged not only in the amount of total dissolved
solids but also the quantity of scale forming species such as alkaline earth ions and
dissolved silicates. CS water contained up to 3700 mg/L sodium ions, 5910 mg/L
chloride ions and 2030 mg/L bicarbonate ions. Notably, calcium ion concentrations
could spike in intensity from values usually below 20 mg/L to in excess of 100 mg/L.
Similarly, magnesium ions were recorded to range from 1 to 34 mg/L and silica from
13.8 to 23.1 mg/L. A key conclusion was that the different CS water compositions
may cause problems when desalinated using reverse osmosis as the scaling potential
may promote membrane fouling.
At present in the literature there is information about CS water compositions, plus an
indication that reverse osmosis technology is used to desalinate CS water but not a
basis for design of suitable RO systems complete with pre-treatment stages.
Consequently, a methodology is required to predict what the configuration and
operating conditions of a suitable reverse osmosis desalination plant should be.
Several authors have used computational methods to simulate performance of
various membranes for a range of water compositions ranging from brackish to
seawater types. Alhadidi et al. [94] used the software package IMS design supplied
by Hydranautics to evaluate the scaling behaviour of species such as barium sulphate,
calcium sulphate, strontium sulphate, silica and calcium carbonate from canal; water
when being treated by a reverse osmosis unit. The resultant data allowed the plant
operator to reduce the demand for anti-scalant use and to predict the required
operating pH of the water to minimise precipitation of scale forming species.
Poovanaesvaran et al. [95] applied Reverse Osmosis System Analysis (ROSA) software
from Filmtec to examine reverse osmosis plant configurations for treating brackish
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 33
water and concluded a two stage system was preferable to a single stage process due
to a lesser total energy consumption. Aghdam et al. [96] also applied ROSA software
to predict the scaling potential of brines produced from treatment of Central Arizona
Project water by a nanofiltration membrane. Altaee [97] extensively used ROSA
software to examine whether end feed or central feed designs for RO pressure
vessels were preferable. End feed designs were found to require less energy for
operation, however, they were more susceptible to issues with scaling. Several
authors have compared fundamental models they developed for reverse osmosis
systems with ROSA and found acceptable levels of agreement [98, 99].
SUMMARY
The CSG industry in Australia is of importance not only for domestic gas supply markets but
also for significant export potential as LNG. The environmental impact of CS water produced
during the extraction of CSG needs careful consideration with regards to the quantity and
quality of the water. There is no doubt that the CS water has the potential to benefit a range
of industries such as agricultural, mineral mining, manufacturing and aquaculture and should
be seen as a resource. The chemical composition of the water can be impacted by it’s
geological location and the depth at which it is found, and can be complex due to multiple
hydrological processes and aquifers which can interact with the coal seams. In most
instances, the CS water may require treatment prior to beneficial reuse. A number of
different water treatment strategies have been implemented in the Surat Basin by CSG
companies, and these have been selected according to factors such as the amount of CS
water that is to be treated and the way in which the CS water will be re-used (subject to
legislative requirements). The formation, extraction, and production of CSG as well as the
treatment of CS water including current requirements by the Queensland Government has
been outlined, and it has been shown that the legislative requirements are not consistent
between CSG operating companies. The appropriate selection of pre-treatment technologies
as well as RO membranes, based on the concentration of the water quality parameters, will
ensure that CS water can be treated to the point it is compliant with regulations provided by
the Queensland government and used for the most appropriate beneficial use applications.
IMPLICATIONS
This study focussed primarily on the Surat Basin located in Queensland and northern New
South Wales. The mechanism for CSG formation, relation to local geological features,
Chapter 2: Literature Review
© 2016 Page 34
extraction approach and the potential impact/benefits of associated water have been
discussed. An outline of the current legislative requirements on physical and chemical
properties of associated water in the Surat Basin was also provided, as well as the current
treatment technologies used by the major CSG companies. This review was of significance in
relation to the formulation of the most appropriate and cost effective management of
associated water, while simultaneously preserving existing water resources and the
environment.
The aim of this study was to extensively analyse a large number of operating CSG wells in the
Surat basin, determine compositional variability and to interrogate physical relationships for
water within and between multiple gas fields. Specific objectives included the identification
of trends in water chemistry, related to depth, or location of the CSG production well in order
to provide information which could aid management of the CS water. Multivariate analysis
was employed to link parameters and to recognise patterns in the water data. From this
information, systematic identification of the most appropriate and economical means to
store and treat associated water may evolve based on location, depth and regional geology.
A predictive model will be discussed later in the thesis which concerns relation of total
dissolved solids and conductivity of CS water. Electrical conductivity of CS water can be easily
tested at the well head or management dam, and it will be shown later that this measure is
accurate enough to be practically useful for assessing water quality and aiding decision
making for water management.
The application of software tools such as ROSA and IMS Design can be used to aid in the
design of RO units which can operate over a wide range of CS water compositions and assess
their performance on changes in water quality. Consequently, this study was undertaken to
answer the following research questions: (1) Evaluate how variations in concentration and
composition of CS water impact RO performance; (2) What is the impact of membrane
selection upon desalination operation; (3) What are the scaling potentials which can be
expected for CS water compositions; (4) Which pre-treatment methods are recommended
to minimise fouling and scaling of RO membranes. This study used CS water compositions
which represented mean, minimum, and maximum concentrations of water in the Surat
Basin, Queensland. Water quality after RO was predicted and then compared with irrigation
guidelines.
Chapter 3: Research design
© 2016 Page 35
2Chapter 3: Research design
The methodology used in this study and the stages at which this methodology was
implemented is discussed. A list of all the instruments and analysis techniques used in the
study and the corresponding standards and guidelines is also outlined. The modelling
programs used to analyse the water quality have been described.
SITE SELECTION
CSG samples in this study are from the Surat Basin, Queensland, Australia. The Surat Basin is
a large interior basin of an area of approximately 300,000 km2 and extends (approximately
400 km in length) from Queensland to New South Wales [11]. The coal seams from which
the CSG is currently being sourced are the Walloon subgroup which include both the Juandah
and Taroom Coal Measures. The Walloon subgroup is located in the eastern section of the
Surat Basin, between Dalby, west to Roma and north to Wandoan [12]. Well site selection is
based on the CSG production wells that are in operation from the eastern Surat Basin during
July to September 2012 [Figure 2 (a)].
Figure 2 (a): Petroleum tenures in Condamine-Balonne area: Source;
Chapter 3: Research design
© 2016 Page 36
http://www.bioregionalassessments.gov.au/assessments/12-resource-assessment-
maranoa-balonne-condamine-subregion/12322-proposed-csg-projects
SAMPLING PROGRAM
The sampling program involved the collection of CS water samples from 150 CSG production
wells that were in close proximity to each other, with the greatest distance between wells
being approximately 36 km and the least less than 1 km. The CSG production wells were
operational at the time of sampling. The CSG was being withdrawn from the coal seam and
being transferred to an existing CSG production facility for processing and delivery to a power
station. The water that holds the CSG at pressure in the coal seam is withdrawn and is
separated from the CSG at the production well and transferred to separate holding ponds.
The water samples in this study were taken from the CSG production well prior to the CS
water being transferred to the holding ponds, therefore no storage or treatment had
occurred at the time of sampling.
The method used to sample the water was the standard groundwater practice as described
by the DEHP, Monitoring and Sampling Manual 2009 and the Australia and New Zealand
Standards, Guidance on Sampling of Groundwater [100, 101]. The process of water
extraction is from a direct connection of PVC plastic tubing to the components of the CSG
production well from where the water could be sourced by way of a valve. Approximately 3
m length of plastic tubing was used to transfer the CS water to a plastic sampling bucket from
which the water sample was taken. In order to ensure that all residual water from the well
components was released prior to sampling being undertaken approximately 5 times the
volume of the length of the plastic tubing was purged. To reduce agitation of the water
during sampling a flow meter was used which trapped the CSG and allowed the water to pass
through to the sampling container. The CS water samples from site were collected in
accordance with Australian Standards and Australian Laboratory Services (ALS) collection
procedures and sample bottles [102, 103]. The water samples were transferred from the site
at which they were collected to ALS Brisbane laboratory for analysis, within 24 hours from
when the water sample was taken. Samples were kept chilled for preservation reasons prior
to the sample being analysed.
Chapter 3: Research design
© 2016 Page 37
CHARACTERISATION TECHNIQUES
The CS water samples were analysed by ALS for a number of physical and chemical parameters
that were used to undertake this research project. Table 7 shows the parameters that have been
tested as part of this study.
Table 7: Parameters Tested for CS water in the Surat Basin
Parameter Units Abbreviation
pH pH units -
Sodium Absorption Ratio - SAR
Electrical Conductivity µS/cm EC
Total Dissolved Solids (field filtered to 0.45 µm) mg/L TDS
Total Suspended Solids mg/L TSS
Turbidity NTU -
Total Hardness as CaCO3 mg/L Hardness
Residual Alkali mg/L RA
Alkalinity species (total, bicarbonate, carbonate and
hydroxide) mg/L CaCO3
Total anions – bromide, carbonate, sulfate, chloride mg/L Br- Cl- SO42-
Total cations – dissolved calcium, magnesium, sodium,
potassium mg/L Ca2+ Mg2+ Na+ K+
Metals – total and dissolved (Aluminum, Arsenic,
Barium, Beryllium, Boron, Cadmium, Chromium (VI
and III), Cobalt, Copper, Iron (ferrous and ferric), Lead,
Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Strontium,
Selenium, Vanadium, Zinc (ferrous and ferric) (field
filtered to 0.45µm)
mg/L
Al3+ Ar Ba Be B Cd
Cr Co Cu Fe+ Pb
Mn+ Mo Ni Sr Se V
Zn
Mercury mg/L Hg
Trivalent and Hexavalent Chromium mg/L Cr
Silica (soluble and reactive) mg/L SiO2
Fluoride mg/L F-
Total Ammonia as N mg/L _
Nitrogen species mg/L N
Phosphorus species mg/L P
Dissolved Organic Carbon (field filtered to 0.45 µm) mg/L DOC
Chapter 3: Research design
© 2016 Page 38
Total Organic Carbon mg/L TOC
Physical Parameters
Electrical conductivity is measured by passing a current between two electrodes placed in
the water sample. It is the measure of the number of charged particles in the water and the
unit of measurement is micro Siemens per centimetre (μS/cm) or milli Siemens per
centimetre (mS/cm). Electrical conductivity indicates low nutrient and high salinity in water.
pH is a measure of the concentration of hydrogen ions and describes the acidity or alkalinity
of the sample. It is measured on a scale of 1 to 14 pH units with 1 being the most acidic and
14 being the most basic. pH is measured electrochemically using a glass electrode and a
reference electrode and it is calibrated with a three point buffer solution of pH 4, pH 7 and
pH 10.
Turbidity in water is a result of suspended or colloidal matter (organic or inorganic material)
and is a measure of the clarity of the water. Turbidity is measured by passing a light through
the water column and this is compared to the light scattered by a standard reference, it is
measured in nephelometric turbidity units (NTU).
Laboratory Tested Parameters
Total suspended solids are the total solids in the water sample that are of a measured pore
size, for this project this is >0.45 μm. The water sample is filtered, dried and the weight is
then measured in mg/L. Total dissolved solids is a measure of concentration of dissolved
solids in the water sample. TDS is measured in mg/L and can be determined by the
evaporation of water sample and weighing the material that remains (the dissolved solutes).
Sodium adsorption ratio has been calculated by a mathematical equation using the sodium,
calcium and magnesium ion concentrations determined by:
SAR = Na+
√12
(Ca2+ + Mg2+)
The measurement unit is a ratio.
Chapter 3: Research design
© 2016 Page 39
Total hardness is a measure most predominately of the concentration of calcium and
magnesium ions in water and can be expressed as calcium carbonate (CaCO3). The total
hardness is calculated as a mathematical equation from the amount of calcium and
magnesium and is expressed in units of mg/L. Total alkalinity as CaCO3 expressed in mg/L is
the total amount of carbonates, bicarbonates, hydroxides, borates, phosphates, and silicates.
The analysis method is a titration with a hydrochloric acid solution to pH 3.7 end-point.
Total organic carbon (TOC) is the covalently bonded carbon in organic molecules and does
not represent any other organically bound elements. Higher levels of TOC are seen in waters
such as wastewater. TOC is a high temperature combustion technique and IR detection
method.
Methods used to analyse total metals include ion chromatography, inductively coupled
plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES), and atomic adsorption spectrophotometry
(AAS). During the collection of unfiltered water samples, each sample container contained
hydrochloric acid as a preservation method. The following total metials were analysed,
aluminum (Al), boron (B), calcium (Ca2+), iron (Fe), potassium (K+), magnesium (Mg2+), sodium
(Na+), strontium (Sr) and manganese (Mn).
Sulphate (SO42-) is determined titrimetrically with barium chloride solution using thorin as
the indicator. The sample is treated with a cation exchange resin prior to titration.
Silica (SiO2) can have negative impacts on water sources at increased levels and can cause
algal blooms. The analysis method for SiO2 is automated molybdite-reactive silica method
and the unit of measurement is mg/L.
The analysis of bromide (Br-) involved filtering samples through 0.45 μm pore size of a cellulose
acetate filter. The filtered sample is analysed using a spectrophotometric method and the unit
of measurement is in mg/L. Chloride (Cl-) analysis is undertaken using the Mohr titration method
or the mercurimetric titration method for samples with expected concentration of <10mg/L. The
concentration of fluoride (F-) is measured using a fluoride electrode and a pH meter to measure
the activity of fluoride ions in the water sample. This can be undertaken as fluoride activity is
proportional to pH.
Chapter 3: Research design
© 2016 Page 40
QUALITY CONTROL
The National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) is the authority that regulates
laboratory facilities in Australia and the laboratory chosen to undertake independent
sampling for this research project, ALS, is accredited by this association.
NATA is an independent accreditation which assured that technical competence was met to
a specific standard that was consistent with all laboratory facilities in Australia. This
accreditation related to testing, inspection, calibration, systems, products and any other
related activities undertaken by the laboratory. The laboratory was provided with
documentation of accreditation that is available on the ALS website.
Quality control at ALS was undertaken by use of laboratory duplicate, method blank,
laboratory control spike and matrix spike. The laboratory duplicate was a randomly selected
intra-laboratory split which identified method precision and sample heterogeneity [103]. The
permitted ranges for the relative percent deviation (RPD) ranged from 0-50 % depending on
the concentration above the limit of reading (LOR) for the analysis method used. The method
blank referred to an analyte free matrix to which all reagents were added in the same
volumes or proportions as used in standard sample preparation [103]. This method
monitored potential laboratory contamination. The laboratory control spike was a known
interference free matrix spiked with target analytes. This method monitored precision and
accuracy independent of the sample matrix [103]. Matrix spike was an intra-laboratory split
sample spiked with a representative set of target analytes. This method monitored potential
matrix effects on analyte recoveries. All methods were presented in reports from ALS with
the water sample analysis reports.
MODELLING
Graphs
Modelling of the results was initially undertaken using Microsoft Excel 2011, version 14.4.4
using the graphing tools. This was used to analyse, compare and draw conclusions regarding
the physical and chemical parameters for the CS water.
Principal Component Analysis
Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to determine relationships between water
quality parameters, CSG production fields and location within each and between fields.
Chapter 3: Research design
© 2016 Page 41
Water quality analysis historically has been assessed using a comparison method with the
tested parameter being compared to a recommended value [104, 105]. Environmental data
has been successfully assessed using chemometric techniques in a number of situations
including wastewater monitoring, water classification, selecting water sources for human
consumption, and evaluation of pollution [106]. Chemometrics can provide useful
information about the origin of particular water quality parameters, the anthropogenic
activities, management techniques of the water, the complex interpretation of
hydrochemical data, and the exact parameters of most importance. PCA is a method of
chemometric analysis that has been used in water quality data research and this information
can then be used to assess and manage water resources [104, 106, 107]. PCA is a multivariate
process of reducing data points to provide the most meaningful points, which are called the
principal components [104]. The new data points are orthogonal (completely independent)
and uncorrelated to each other [104].
Data pre-treatment was undertaken prior to PCA being performed and involved treating the
missing values with the value for the limit of reading. This was undertaken so that all values
would have a positive value. Auto-scaling was then used as a pre-treatment prior to PCA
being performed and involved a combination of mean centering and standardisation. Mean
centering used a calculation of the mean of each parameter for the entire data set which was
then subtracted from each corresponding data point. This removed any difference in size or
importance of measurements in the data set. Standardisation required each variable to be
divided by the corresponding standard deviation. Standardisation was used to remove
weighting that was artificially imposed by units of the variables. The combination of the two
methods resulted in data with zero mean and unit variance (standard deviation of 1). Further
pre-treatment was then undertaken by performing natural log on each variable, due to
negative values as an outcome of auto-scaling, a value of 100 was added to each variable.
This method normalised the data because there was variation between the order of
magnitude and analytical parameters [104]. Microsoft Excel 2011, version 14.4.4 including
the statistical software XLSTAT 2013.1 was used for PCA including the data pre-treatment.
Linear Regression Modelling
The Pearson Correlation Coefficient was used for linear regression modelling as it is a
measure of two sets of data and determined how well the data was related to each other
using a linear dependence around a line of best fit. Statistical analysis was undertaken using
Microsoft Excel 2011 version 14.4.4 including the statistical software XLSTAT 2013.1. Specific
Chapter 3: Research design
© 2016 Page 42
parameters investigated were those that are outlined by the Queensland legislation which
are required to be analysed prior to CS water being re-used beneficially. Some of these
parameters were unable to be tested at the water source, and instead needed to be analysed
in a laboratory environment. Therefore the time and cost associated with testing was at
times significant.
The large amount of water that is present when CSG is extracted and also the extensive area
in which the CSG industry spans, results in a considerable amount of water sampling and
testing being required. The use of surrogate indicators for water quality parameters that
must be tested in a laboratory is therefore beneficial.
Surrogate indicators were chosen for water quality parameters, TSS, TDS and SAR as they are
frequently required to be tested prior to CS water being used and they are most accurately
tested in a laboratory. The surrogate indicators were those that can be tested at the water
source and included turbidity and EC. The surrogate indicators were chosen based on the
correlations between parameters and the known relationships as shown in the literature [77,
108].
This study identified surrogate indicators for a specific set of water samples from 150 CSG
production wells in a small geographical location in the Surat Basin. The extrapolation of this
data has not been extended to areas outside of the study area. The surrogate indicator
equations were developed using Microsoft Excel 2011, version 14.4.4.
Scaling Potential Simulations
The CS water for this study was based upon samples collected from 3 different fields (A, B,
and C) in the Surat Basin, Queensland [Tables 8, 9 & 10] Due to confidentiality reasons we
cannot provide more specific information about the fields of interest. Average, minimum,
and maximum values were evaluated in order to determine the robustness of the predicted
reverse osmosis system performance. Overall, the CS water studied ranged from medium-
salinity brackish water (TDS <5000 mg/L) to high-salinity brackish water (TDS 5000 – 15000
mg/L) with medium to low Total Organic Carbon (TOC) [91]. The following tables show the
water quality for each field:
Chapter 3: Research design
© 2016 Page 43
Table 8: Values for ROSA Model Field A
Parameter (mg/L) Average CS Water Minimum
CS Water
Maximum CS
Water
Ammonium 1.06 0.77 1.9
Potassium 6.91 4 14
Sodium 1487.02 909 2700
Magnesium 3.78 1 16
Calcium 9.04 2 55
Strontium 2.3 0.65 9.03
Barium 1.37 0.526 4.39
Carbonate 38.09 5.0 203
Bicarbonate 1038.59 276 1620
Nitrate <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Chloride 1595.41 471 4390
Fluoride 2.17 0.8 3.2
Sulphate 1.57 <1 18
Silica 16.91 13.1 19.6
Boron 0.34 0.22 0.54
pH 8.47 7.92 8.89
Total Dissolved Solids 4443.52 2490 7600
Chapter 3: Research design
© 2016 Page 44
Table 9: Values for ROSA Model Field B
Parameter (mg/L) Average CS Water Minimum
CS Water
Maximum CS
Water
Ammonium 1.26 0.72 1.81
Potassium 6.08 3 10
Sodium 1451.86 786 2010
Magnesium 3.12 1 8
Calcium 6.96 3 19
Strontium 2.12 0.699 4.5
Barium 1.18 0.379 2.32
Carbonate 30.14 12 80
Bicarbonate 959.78 470 1540
Nitrate <0.01 <0.01 0.03
Chloride 1579.37 875 2930
Fluoride 2.01 1 3.3
Sulphate 1.96 1 48
Silica 17.73 13.9 23.1
Boron 0.41 0.24 0.68
pH 8.43 7.94 8.76
Total Dissolved Solids 4046.44 2190 5790
Reverse Osmosis System Analysis (ROSA) by Filmtec is a membrane system development
program. ROSA was used in this study to perform a simulation on the CS water to investigate
the potential for scaling. IMS Design by Hydranautics is a software design program that runs
a similar simulation to that of ROSA. This software was used in conjunction with ROSA to
simulate CS water from this study as it predicted not only the concentration of permeate but
also the scaling potential.
Chapter 3: Research design
© 2016 Page 45
Table 10: Values for ROSA Field C
Parameter (mg/L) Average CS Water Minimum
CS Water
Maximum CS
Water
Ammonium 1.31 0.84 2.7
Potassium 10.63 5 20
Sodium 2098.33 1130 3700
Magnesium 8.79 1 34
Calcium 26.17 3 137
Strontium 5.52 0.994 20.2
Barium 2.73 0.622 9.38
Carbonate 101.54 12 482
Bicarbonate 713.92 168 1350
Nitrate <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Chloride 2938.04 823 5910
Fluoride 1.6 0.4 2.7
Sulphate 1.38 1 5
Silica 16.46 13.8 19.2
Boron 0.31 0.17 0.61
pH 8.3 7.83 8.63
Total Dissolved Solids 5655 3050 10200
The water type chosen for this simulation was CS well water with a silt density index (SDI) <3
which is a water quality that most resembled that of the CS water parameters when it is pre-
filtered. The SDI of brackish water has been shown to be over 5 [91, 109] and it is a measure
of the quantity of particulate matter in water which correlates with the fouling tendency of
RO and nanofiltration systems [91]. Therefore, the CS water would normally be pre-treated
with microfiltration (MF) or ultrafiltration (UF) prior to RO. This is common in the Australian
CSG industry with all CSG operating companies using some form of pre-treatment such as
microfiltration, ultrafiltration, disc filtration, ion exchange, flocculation, ballasted, and/or
Chapter 3: Research design
© 2016 Page 46
micro-sand [47, 54, 80-83]. It has been shown that SDI can impact on permeate TDS, power
consumption, and cost [97].
The membrane selection is dependent on using either the ROSA or IMS Design simulation.
The membrane chosen for the ROSA simulation was BW30-2540 balanced with NaCl. The
membrane is a high rejection brackish water membrane with manufacturer specifications
that suited parameters of the CS water from this study [1, 2, 7, 14, 65]. The membrane
chosen for the IMS Design simulation was ESPA-2540 which is a brackish water high rejection
membrane also compatible with the CS water compositions studied [109]. The temperature
of the water was set at 25°C for the simulations with ROSA and IMS Design. The recovery
rate was set to 70% for the simulations with both ROSA and IMS Design, and it was shown
through simulation that if the recovery rate was reduced the Langlier Saturation Index (LSI)
would concomitantly reduce. However, for this study the lowest recovery rate that was
deemed satisfactory for field applications was 70%.
For brackish water with TDS <10,000mg/L, LSI expressed the potential for calcium carbonate
scaling [91]. The LSI was a positive value without pre-treatment and in order to control
calcium carbonate scaling the LSI must be adjusted to a negative value [91]. Adding acid to
the feed solution will decrease the LSI value and will also change the pH [91]. The simulation
was run with no pre-treatment, and if the LSI was > 0 hydrochloric acid was added to adjust
the pH and therefore reduce the LSI and subsequently the pH. Hydrochloric acid was chosen
for pH adjustment as the CS water in this study showed high barium content which may have
precipitated if sulphuric acid was used.
The system configuration that was used in this study was a 1 stage pass with 8 pressure
vessels in each stage and 6 elements in each vessel. This system was chosen in order to
simplify the simulation and mimic a plant that would treat 5000 m3 of feed water per day
with a recovery rate of 70 – 75%. More complex system configurations were not evaluated
in this study.
LIMITATIONS
The CSG production wells in this study were not correlated with the geological bore logs from
the well itself due to the analysis using univariate and multivariate analysis not identifying
any specific patterns which would require further analysis of the bore logs. The geological
discussion made within this study was that from the literature only.
Chapter 4: Results & Analysis – Water Quality
© 2016 Page 47
3Chapter 4: Results & Analysis – Water
Quality
The chemical composition of CS water although not well reported in Australia has been
described in other countries such as the US and New Zealand. The CS waters from CSG
extraction in New Zealand and the US generally have high bicarbonate 402-435 mg/L (HCO3),
high sodium 184-334 mg/L (Na+), low calcium 6-20 mg/L (Ca2+), low magnesium 0.9-6.5 mg/L
(Mg2+) and low sulfate 0.7-27.6 mg/L (SO42-) with high chloride 49.3-146 mg/L (Cl-)
concentrations [1, 5, 38, 42]. Other parameters that are characteristic of CS water are high
sodium adsorption ratio, high total dissolved solids and high alkalinity [1, 38, 44]. Factors
that have been reported as possibly having an effect on the chemical composition of CS water
include location of the gas fields and depth of the coal seam [7, 50]. The chemical
composition of untreated CS water normally renders it unsuitable for beneficial use therefore
it is necessary for a treatment method to be implemented.
Adequate evaluation of CS water quality data is therefore highly important. It has been
shown that large data sets can be generated for water quality monitoring in areas which are
highly regulated by legislation. However, through the use of chemometrics (a multivariate
analysis application) the data can be analysed more efficiently [110]. Historically, water
quality analysis has been assessed using a comparison method with the tested parameter
being compared to a recommended value [104, 105]. Environmental data has been
successfully assessed using chemometric techniques in a number of situations including
wastewater monitoring, water classification, selecting water sources for human
consumption, and evaluation of pollution [106]. Chemometrics can provide useful
information about the origin of particular water quality parameters, the anthropogenic
activities, the management techniques of the water, the interpretation of hydrochemical
data, the spatial and temporal variability, seasonal effect and can identify important
parameters that can be used to assess and manage water resources [104, 106, 107, 111, 112].
The CS water was analysed using both univariate and multivariate analysis. Parameters
chosen for analysis were significant due to levels being legislated by the Queensland
Government and controlled when the water was used by other industries or CSG operating
Chapter 4: Results & Analysis – Water Quality
© 2016 Page 48
companies. All parameters have the potential to adversely impact the environment or the
industry that the CS water is being used for as beneficial re-use. Parameters for analysis were
also chosen on the basis of the impact to the environment, for example, the potential for
excessive levels of particular elements to cause damage to soil or plant toxicity. In addition,
parameters that can impact the efficiency and productivity of treatment technologies
commonly used in processing CS water prior to use, such as RO, have also been included in
the analysis. The water quality parameters included in this analysis were pH, SAR, CaCO3, B,
F-, SiO2, TOC, SO42-, Fe2+, Fe3+, Mn+, Al3+, EC, TDS, Hardness, Cl-, Br-, Sr+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, and
K+.
CHEMICAL COMPOITION OF CS WATER
The chemical composition of CS water in this study had a high pH, bicarbonate alkalinity (as
CaCO3), Na+, Cl- and low Ca2+, Mg2+and SO42-. The descriptive statistics for the CS water
samples were undertaken to describe the mean, standard deviation, standard error,
minimum and maximum values of the dataset and therefore the range for each parameter
[1, 5, 10, 38, 42]. The similarity between chemical composition of New Zealand, US and
Australian CS water has been described in other studies and has been attributed to the
geochemical processes that act on the CS water, the depth of burial, the mixing of waters
from varied aquifers around the coal seam, recharge process and the coal rank [1, 5, 10, 38,
42]. The coals seams in Australia are the oldest; being deposited in the Jurassic to Cretaceous
(145.5 Ma), followed by the US from the upper Cretaceous (65.5 Ma) to the Paleocene (55.8
Ma) and New Zealand being the youngest deposited in the Eocene (55.8 – 33.9 Ma) [1, 5, 10,
38, 42].
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
The descriptive statistics which were undertaken to describe the mean, minimum and
maximum values of the dataset and therefore the range for each parameter. This has been
described for each field separately and included the total 150 well sites. The descriptive
statistics were first undertaken to identify if there were any differences between each
production field being A, B or C. It was shown that there were differences between the three
Fields for the parameters minimum and maximum values shown in the following tables:
Chapter 4: Results & Analysis – Water Quality
© 2016 Page 49
Table 11: Minimum and Maximum Values of Parameters Tested from Surat Basin CS water
Parameter
mg/L unless otherwise
specified
A Field B Field C Field
EC (mS/cm) 3850 – 13300 3630 – 9410 5150 – 17200
SAR (ratio) 69.6 – 177 86.4 – 163 62 – 156
pH (pH units) 7.92 – 8.89 7.94 – 8.76 7.83 – 8.63
TSS 5-7560 6-1520 7-265
TDS 2940 – 7600 2190 – 5790 3050 – 10200
Hardness 276 – 1620 12 – 80 12 – 482
CaCO3 5 – 203 470 – 1540 108 – 1350
Br- 1.93 – 12.7 2.82 – 11.7 2.75 – 16.6
Cl- 471 – 4390 875 – 2930 823 – 5910
SO42- 1 – 18 1 – 48 1 – 5
Ca2+ 2 – 55 3 – 19 3 – 137
Mg2+ 1 – 16 1 – 8 1 – 34
Na+ 909 – 2700 786 – 2010 1130 – 3700
K+ 4 – 14 3 – 10 5 – 20
Al3+ 0.02 – 40.9 0.01 – 17.8 0.01 – 2.08
Mn+ 0.002 – 0.54 0 – 3.59 0 – 0.13
Sr+ 0.65 – 9.03 0.7 – 4.5 0.99 – 20.2
B 0.22 – 0.54 0.24 – 0.68 0.17 – 0.61
Fe+ 0.16 – 45.1 0.09 – 351 0.3 – 6.16
SiO2 13.1 – 19.6 13.9 – 23.1 13.8 – 19.2
F- 0.8 – 3.2 1 – 3.3 0.4 – 2.7
Ba 0.53 – 4.39 0.38 – 2.32 0.62 – 9.38
Sr 0.65 – 9.03 0.7 – 4.5 0.99 – 20.20
TOC 1 - 71 1 - 138 4 – 138
Chapter 4: Results & Analysis – Water Quality
© 2016 Page 50
Table 12: Average Parameter Values from Surat Basin CS water
Parameter
mg/L unless otherwise
specified
Field A Field B Field C
N 54 73 23
Mean
EC (mS/cm) 7084.26 6742.88 9764.58
SAR (ratio) 120.05 121.18 112.48
pH (pH units) 8.47 8.43 8.3
TSS 434.72 271.88 72.13
TDS 4443.52 4046.44 5655
Hardness 38.09 30.14 101.54
CaCO3 1038.59 959.78 713.92
Br- 6.03 5.57 8.87
Cl- 1595.41 1579.37 2938.04
SO42- 4.44 8.0 3.25
Ca2+ 9.04 6.96 26.17
Mg2+ 3.83 3.12 8.79
Na+ 1487.02 1451.86 2098.33
K+ 6.91 6.08 10.63
Al3+ 2.92 2.08 0.65
Mn+ 0.06 0.11 0.04
Sr+ 2.30 2.12 5.52
B 0.34 0.41 0.31
Fe+ 5.12 8.73 2.44
SiO2 16.91 17.73 16.46
F- 2.17 2.01 1.6
Ba 1.37 1.18 2.73
Sr 2.3 2.12 5.52
TOC 19.44 24.88 27.36
The descriptive statistics showed that further investigation should be undertaken for each
parameter separately and this was done using graphs to illustrate the concentration for each
Chapter 4: Results & Analysis – Water Quality
© 2016 Page 51
production well in Fields A, B and C and to determine if they were similar and within a specific
range to comply with legislative guidelines.
SOLUTION PH
Figure 2 shows pH values from the sampled production wells for Field A, B and C with values
ranging from 7.83 to 8.89, with an average of 8.43. The current Queensland legislation for
discharge of CS water is dependent upon the environment or industry in which it is to be
used, however, it can be used in most applications with a pH of between 6 to 9 [48]. During
the degassing process, as the CS water was removed and brought to the surface, it can exhibit
a higher pH than exists when the CS water is within the coal seam aquifer [38]. This is because
the CS water is stabilised by the geological formation and therefore the pH can be shown to
be stable over time [4]. CS water has been demonstrated to be different between projects
with Taulis and Milke reporting a pH of 7.65 to be high in their study on CS water in
Maramarua, New Zealand [5]. McBeth et al., described a pH value of 8.26 to be high and
characteristic of CSG water in holding ponds in Wyoming, US [41]. This latter data, supported
the conclusion that pH is highly variable between CS water sources, with this study showing
a range of 1.6 pH units between all three Fields and within each Field.
ALAKALINITY
Previous research has shown that a high concentration of HCO3- is common for CS water
within locations such as the Surat Basin [10, 34], New Zealand [1, 5, 10, 38, 42], and the US
[1]. Current Queensland legislation stipulates a range of 20-100 mg/L for hardness (CaCO3)
to ensure that chemical tolerance levels are not exceeded for the aquaculture industry when
CS water is used in this application [48]. Criteria have also been outlined for CS water for
beneficial use for irrigation with a maximum bicarbonate ion concentration of 100 mg/L [48].
Bicarbonate alkalinity as CaCO3 from the CS water samples in this study showed high values
and a large range with a maximum across Fields A, B and C of 1620 mg/L and a minimum of
168 mg/L. As shown in Figure 2, the CS water from this study exceeded the Beneficial Use
Approval for all applications as outlined by the Queensland Government and would therefore
require treatment prior to use [48]. Chaffee et al. has found that the amount of ash yield can
indicate the presence of inorganics or minerals; the Surat Basin coals have indicated this
presence and can be described in terms of materials such as CaCO3 [113]. HCO3- found in CS
water has been reported as being high due to multiple processes, such as cation exchange
and methanation. The process of cation exchange and bicarbonate derived precipitation of
Chapter 4: Results & Analysis – Water Quality
© 2016 Page 52
calcite (CaCO3) and dolomite (CaMg)(CO3)2 reduces SO42- and subsequently increases HCO3
-,
whilst depleting Ca2+ and Mg2+. These cation exchange reactions are suggested to be the
primary pathway for high levels of HCO3- in CS water [1, 38]. Another process that increases
HCO3- is the dissolution of carbonate (CO3
2-) by the methanation process, which involves the
decomposition of organic material [42]. The accumulation of HCO3- can occur when not all
of the CO2 is converted during the methanation process and is converted to HCO3-, which
then remains trapped in the CS water [42]. Lastly, the infiltration of HCO3- at the outcrop
(visual exposure of bedrock) through groundwater recharge (inflow of water to the
groundwater system from the surface) may also contribute to HCO3- concentrations in CS
water [1, 9, 26].
Figure 2: pH and Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 of CS water for the A, B and C Field in the
Surat Basin
SODIUM IONS
High Na+ concentrations typically found in CS water can be detrimental to the environment
and should be reduced to a lower level prior to use in beneficial applications, such as
irrigation water [44]. The amount of Na+ in water may have an effect on the soils ability to
7.6
7.8
8.0
8.2
8.4
8.6
8.8
9.0
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71
pH
Well Number
A Field B Field C Field
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71
CaC
O3
mg/
L
Well Number
A Field B Field C Field
Chapter 4: Results & Analysis – Water Quality
© 2016 Page 53
be permeable and a high concentration of Na+ can result in a soils inability to hold water, and
also its ability to allow water to flow through the soil that causes lateral flow [114]. Na+ is
adsorbed into soils at the expense of Ca2+ and Mg2+ which are essential nutrients for plant
growth and development [3, 115]. Soils with high Na+ content have a tendency to be
dispersive erode more easily and also lose the ability to uptake water, increasing the
potential for runoff [32, 43].
Figure 3 shows a high content of Na+ in the CS water samples with an average of 1567 mg/L
and a range of 786 – 3700 mg/L. High Na+ content of CS water can be attributed to ion
exchange between minerals and water when the CS water is found within clays [38], which
is shown in geological bore logs from the production wells sampled [38]. A high Na+ content
has also been described for CS water in Queensland, New Zealand and the US [1, 38, 44].
Taulis and Milke (2012) and Wang et al. (2012) reported high Na+ concentrations at 300 and
563mg/L respectively. However these latter values were significantly lower than the Na+
content found in this study, in the Surat Basin [1, 38, 44].
CHLORIDE IONS
A study in the US from six producing basins (Powder River, Uinta, San Juan, Piceance, Raton,
and Black Warrior) has found that coals influenced by marine beds (the influence of the
marine environment when the deposits are being formed) have increased Cl- and Na+
contents with variations attributed to groundwater infiltration and the recharge zone [1].
Queensland legislation has also set a limit for Cl- for the beneficial use application for CS water
when used for livestock drinking water at 2000mg/L [48]. Figure 3 shows the high and
variable Cl- concentrations in the CS water sampled in this study with a range of 471 to 5910
mg/L. The highest values were shown in the C field with 67 % exceeding 2000 mg/L, whilst
Field A and B showed only 22 % and 11% exceeding 2000 mg/L respectively. This latter trend
was also apparent in the concentrations of Na+, with the highest values being described by
Field C. Cl- concentrations can also have an effect on plant growth, even though they are a
necessary micronutrient, as all elements essential for plant function can become toxic at
particular concentrations [116]. The current Environmental Authority and the Beneficial Use
Approval do not specify a concentration limit for Cl- for the use of CS water for irrigation
purposes [47, 48].
Chapter 4: Results & Analysis – Water Quality
© 2016 Page 54
Figure 3: Na+ and Cl- Values of CS water for the A, B and C Field in the Surat Basin
HARDNESS
Hardness in groundwater is described by Ca2+, Mg2+ and HCO3-. High levels of these
parameters can result in the formation of insoluble CaCO3. Problems associated with CaCO3
include the build-up of this insoluble material on operating components of treatment
technologies such as the membranes of the RO plant, which requires continual maintenance.
Ca2+ and Mg2+ levels are regulated in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines with a limit of
200mg/L permissible [117]. Research by Van Voast on CS water states that when HCO3-
values range from approximately 100 to 1000 mg/L, Ca2+ and Mg2+ values are below 50 mg/L
and decrease with increasing HCO3- [1]. Van Voast’s research was based on CS water across
six principal producing basins in the US [1]. The same trends for HCO3-, Ca2+ and Mg2+ were
shown in other studies from Australia and New Zealand [5, 10, 38, 42].
Figure 4 shows the variability of Ca2+ and Mg2+ concentrations from the sampled CS water.
The values on average were low, 11 mg/L for Ca2+ and 4.28mg/L for Mg2+. All values for Ca2+
were below 52 mg/L except for two locations in Field C with a concentration of 137 and 106
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71
Na+
mg/
L
Well Number
A Field B Field C Field
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71
Cl-
mg/
L
Well Number
A Field B Field C Field
Chapter 4: Results & Analysis – Water Quality
© 2016 Page 55
mg/L. All values for Mg2+ were below 18 mg/L except for the two corresponding wells with
high Ca2+ values and were 33 and 34 mg/L, respectively. On average, Field C showed the
highest average for Ca2+ and Mg2+ and was approximately 2 – 3 times higher than that of
Fields A and B.
As shown in Figure 4 the two wells with higher concentrations of Ca2+ and Mg2+ were within
close proximity to each other (approximately 600 m). However, there were two wells that
were in closer proximity to both wells (approximately 100 – 300 m) that did not show high
values. The depth of the two wells showing high Ca2+ and Mg2+ were between 250 to 280 m
deep, while those closer in proximity were further down at 420 to 440 m deep. Well depths
in Field C ranged from 154 – 524 m. The variance in depth and thus the geological
composition was believed to be responsible for the large variance in Ca2+ and Mg2+ between
wells. The Walloon Coal Measures consist of the Macalister Coal Seam, Lower Juandah Coal
Measures, and Taroom Coal Measures, which are of the greatest depth. They are separated
by two sandstone formations which act as aquifers and are contained by the Upper Walloons
Formation and the Euromabah Formation which act as aquitards [26].
The low Ca2+ and Mg2+ concentrations shown in CS water were presumably due to inorganic
precipitation of calcite (CaCO3) and dolomite (CaMg)(CO3)2, which occurs when solubility is
reduced in the presence of HCO3- [1, 38]. The relationship between high bicarbonate and
reduced SO42-, also was an indication of low Ca2+and Mg2+concentrations in the CS water [1].
SO42- concentration in the CS water from this study was also low and possibly occurred due
to the SO42- reduction process during the decomposition of anaerobic bacteria, as they
consumed the organic matter [42].
BARIUM AND STRONTIUM IONS
Barium and strontium can be partially removed during water treatment such as desalination or
the process of dilution [118]. Water quality parameters such as Ba and Sr have been found to be
more susceptible to being transported in water, and studies such as Warner et al. showed that
shale gas water post treatment when released to surface waters contain concentrations of Ba
and Sr, although levels had been reduced from pre-treatment levels [118]. Figure 4 shows the Ba
and Sr concentrations for Fields A, B and C: Ba ranged from 0.38 – 9.38 mg/L, while Sr ranged
from 0.65 – 20.20 mg/L. Ba and Sr can cause scaling problems when concentrations are present
in the treated water and re-use methods can become limited [118]. An example is the use of
Chapter 4: Results & Analysis – Water Quality
© 2016 Page 56
treated CS water for hydraulic fracturing in which the water containing Ba and Sr can cause
damage to metal equipment [55].
Figure 4: Ca2+ and Mg2+ Values of CS water for the A, B and C Field in the Surat Basin
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71
Ca2
+m
g/L
Well Number
A Field B Field C Field
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71
Mg2
+m
g/L
Well Number
A Field B Field C Field
Chapter 4: Results & Analysis – Water Quality
© 2016 Page 57
Figure 5: Ba and Sr Values of CS water for the A, B and C Field in the Surat Basin
ALUMINIUM AND IRON IONS
Figure 5 shows the Al and Fe concentrations for the A, B and C Field for the CS water samples.
The Al concentration ranged from 0.01 to 40.9 mg/L and the Fe concentration from 0.09 to 45.1
mg/L. There was generally a direct relationship between the recorded Al and Fe concentrations
in each well. CSG water quality from the US has shown that Al3+ concentrations can vary when
samples are taken from either production wells or from discharge ponds [119]. Dissolved iron is
one parameter that can restrict CS water from being treated by RO if it is found at high
concentration [46]. A study in the US has shown that Fe3+ in CS water can commonly exceed
drinking water guidelines, and guidelines for uses such as irrigation or livestock drinking water
[18]. Similarly studies from groundwater in CSG exploration wells in Canada have shown that
levels of Fe3+ exceed the limitations in which aquatic life can be sustained [46]. This is in contrast
to Fe3+ concentrations in CS water from Maramarua, New Zealand where only trace elements
were present [5]. In the Surat Basin the concentration of Al3+ and Fe3+ is shown to be relatively
high as it exceeds the Australian drinking water guideline limits of 1.159 and 1.324 mg/L,
respectively. Iron concentrations in Bowen Basin CSG production wells have shown a range of
0
2
4
6
8
10
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71
Ba
mg/
L
Well Number
A Field B Field C Field
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71
Sr m
g/L
Well Number
A Field B Field C Field
Chapter 4: Results & Analysis – Water Quality
© 2016 Page 58
0.57 to 16.6 mg/L [3]. The average concentration levels of dissolved iron in fields A, B and C were
5.12, 8.73 and 2.44 mg/L respectively.
Figure 6: Al and Fe Values of CS water for the A, B and C Field in the Surat Basin
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOILDS AND ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY
The salt content (NaCl) of CS water impacts the TDS and EC content, and it has been shown
in previous studies that the CS water in Queensland has relatively high salt concentrations
[3, 44]. CS water from New Zealand has high and low salt contents, which was attributed to
the location of the well within the basin and its distance from the area of recharge that dilutes
the salt concentration, as recharge water mixes with CS water [42]. This study has shown a
large range for both TDS and EC. Knowledge of salt content is important for irrigation
applications as an increased level in soil can be detrimental to plant growth and development
[115].
The TDS and EC content of the CS water, as shown in Figure 7, were comparatively high with
an average of 4444 and 7345 mS/cm, respectively. There was a wide range for both the TDS
and EC contents for the CS water with the TDS value ranging from 2190 to 10,200 mg/L and
EC ranging from 3630 to 17,200 mg/L. Salt content has been regulated by the Queensland
Government through the Environmental Authority in which the limit for TDS is 1500 mg/L for
use in the applications of construction water (compaction) and dust suppression water, while
the Beneficial Use Approval states the TDS limit to be 300 to 6000 mg/L for livestock drinking
0
10
20
30
40
50
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71
Al m
g/L
Well Number
A Field B Field C Field
0
10
20
30
40
50
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71
Fe m
g/L
Well Number
A Field B Field C Field
Chapter 4: Results & Analysis – Water Quality
© 2016 Page 59
water and 3000 mg/L for irrigation [47, 48]. The salt content of CS water reported in this
study inhibited the use of the CS water for beneficial use apart from drinking water for some
species of livestock and would require treatment to produce a suitable water quality for
other applications [48].
Figure 7: TDS and EC Values of CS water for the A, B and C Field in the Surat Basin
SODIUM ADSORPTION RATIO
SAR is used to determine the ratio between Na+, Ca2+ and Mg2+ [44]. SAR predicts the effect
on a soils ability to form aggregates by breaking bonds in the chemical structure of the soil,
which increases erosion due to the small particle size [43, 114]. This effect is due to Na+ being
adsorbed in soil at the expense of Ca2+ and Mg2+ [44]. Salinity in soil can change ecosystems
by adaptation to more salt tolerant vegetation, which can have a significant impact on areas
in which agriculture, forestry or remnant vegetation are dominant [120]. Salinity in soils has
become a major problem in Australia and increased salinity has occurred from vegetation
clearance, irrigation, and land use such as drainage practices [120]. Figure 8 shows the SAR
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71
TDS
mg/
L
Well Number
A Field B Field C Field
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
20000
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71
EC μ
S/cm
Well Number
A Field B Field C Field
Chapter 4: Results & Analysis – Water Quality
© 2016 Page 60
value in the CS water. It was found to be high with a range of 62 to 177 and an average of
119. Current legislated values for re-use of CS water in Queensland has a maximum range of
6 to 12. Based on the water quality of the wells in this study the untreated CS water could
not be used for irrigation purposes without further treatment.
Figure 8: SAR Values of CS water for the A, B and C Field in the Surat Basin
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TSS in CS water is regulated by the Queensland Government through the Environmental
Authority and the Beneficial Use Approval and has varying limits depending on the intended
application. Figure 9 shows that an average of 300 mg/L was found in Fields A, B and C. One
high value of 7560 mg/L was identified in a well in Field A, while another six wells had TSS
values of >1000 mg/L. Current beneficial use of CS water for aquaculture and human
consumption is limited by a TSS value of <40 mg/L, while the discharge of CS water to
waterways requires a TSS value of <180 mg/L [47, 48]. In its current form the CS water
analysed in this study does not meet these requirements and would require treatment.
TSS particulate matter size is important when RO treatment is being used for CS water
processing, and is normally removed prior to the RO membrane by use of screens, cartridge
filters, coagulation or flocculation [62]. It has been identified during the sampling program
that some water samples contained large amounts of visible coal fines and/or visible subsoil
or bedrock particles whereas other samples looked visibly transparent, which could account
for the variable TSS content.
0
50
100
150
200
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71
SAR
mg/
L
Well Number
A Field B Field C Field
Chapter 4: Results & Analysis – Water Quality
© 2016 Page 61
Figure 9: TSS Values of CS water for the A, B and C Field in the Surat Basin
FLUORIDE AND BROMIDE IONS
The Queensland Government has legislated F- in the Beneficial Use Approval for re-use of CS
water for industry and also in the Environmental Authority that governs discharging water to
the natural environment such as waterways. The inclusion of F- into the legislation is due to
the effect of F- on human health and has been reported to cause dental and skeletal fluorosis
in excessive amounts [121]. World Health Organization (WHO) limits for F- in drinking water
is set at 1.5 mg/L [122]. Br- has been found to have very low toxicity effects to humans and
as such does not have a specific concentration limit set by the WHO for drinking water,
however it has been suggested that the acceptable daily intake of Br- is 0.4 mg/kg of body
weight in humans [123]. Although the content of F- in CS water was low [Figure 10] with a
range between 0.4 and 3.3 mg/L and an average of 2 mg/L, the CS water is still deemed
unacceptable for cattle feedlot drinking water in Queensland (2 mg/L) and beneficial use for
irrigation (1 mg/L). Figure 10 shows that values for F- were above the 2 mg/L re-use limits for
cattle feedlot drinking water by 63 % for Field A, 45 % for Field B and 23 % for Field C. Figure
10 also shows that the Br- at the levels recorded for re-use or discharge, however there can
be implications for efficiency and maintenance of the RO membranes. There exist several
treatment methods that can be used to remove F- and Br- in CS water prior to RO and these
include chemical adsorption or precipitation, ion exchange, or by selection of appropriate RO
membranes [121, 124].
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71
TSS
mg/
L
Well Number
A Field B Field C Field
Chapter 4: Results & Analysis – Water Quality
© 2016 Page 62
Figure 10: Br- and F- Values of CS water for the A, B and C Field in the Surat Basin
BORON
Figure 11 shows that boron (B) was present in all CS water samples with an upper limit of
0.68mg/L. Different limits for B have been set for different applications of water with the
WHO setting the current limit for drinking water at 2.4 mg/L [125], thus the CS water was
compliant with regulations in all instances.
The removal of B in a typical desalination process has been shown to be difficult depending
on the treatment technology used [126-128]. RO operation has shown that the optimal
removal of B is dependent on pH, amount of passes of the water through the RO membrane
and the type of commercial membrane used. Even though RO is able to remove B, a
significant amount of energy is required to undertake this process [126]. Pre-treatment
methods for the removal of B prior to CS water being treated by RO may include adsorption
or ion exchange. Adsorption as a treatment technology is limited by pH, temperature, and
the properties of adsorbent used, however it is cost effective and can remove B to a low
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71
F-m
g/L
Well Number
A Field B Field C Field
02468
1012141618
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71
Br-
mg/
L
Well Number
A Field B Field C Field
Chapter 4: Results & Analysis – Water Quality
© 2016 Page 63
concentration (<0.05 mg/L) [128]. RO membranes and ion exchange together have also been
found to be beneficial for B removal to reduce the cost associated with RO membranes alone
[126].
Boron present in CS water could be due to B being lost or released during the early stages of
the coalification process and is either organically combined or adsorbed to coal macerals or
inorganic matter [127]. Although B is required for all plant growth, at high levels B is toxic to
plants and animals (1 to 2 m/L) [128].
SILICA
Figure 11 shows the dissolved Si content in Fields A, B and C and is represented by a range of
13 – 23 mg/L. In Australia natural water has a range for Si of 1 – 30 mg/L and groundwater
generally has a range of 20 – 100 mg/L [129]. Si is one of the most complicated particles in
water purification and it can be found in soluble, colloidal, and suspended form [92]. The
solubility of Si can be a major limitation to the RO treatment as it can result in scaling
problems and can decrease the water production rates, as well as decrease energy efficiency
[92, 129, 130]. If insoluble Si is present in CS water it can impact on the RO treatment by
forming a layer on the surface of the RO membranes during the high pressure movement of
water across them [129].
PARAMETERS EXCLUDED FROM ANALYSIS OF CS WATER
The remaining parameters described in Chapter 3 that were below the detection limit for the
instrumentation used during analysis, and other parameters that have a low concentration
range are provided in the following table. The results of this study has shown that CS water
at these production wells do not have the potential to contain high concentrations of these
parameters and may be excluded from testing requirements in the future as legislated by the
Queensland Government. It should be noted that trace elements of parameters described
in Table 9, will increase and decrease in concentration when left for extended periods of time
in holding ponds [7]. A study in the US has shown increases in As in holding ponds, while
other studies show both increases and decreases from holding ponds over time for elements
such as aluminium, iron, arsenic, selenium, fluoride, barium, manganese, chromium and zinc
[39].
Chapter 4: Results & Analysis – Water Quality
© 2016 Page 64
Figure 11: B and Si Values of CS water for the A, B and C Field in the Surat Basin
Table 13: Parameters Excluded from Analysis for CS water in the Surat Basin
Parameter Range (mg/L)
Residual Alkali 1.7 - 33
Total Metals
Ar Be Cd Cr Co Cu Pb Mo Ni Se V Zn
Highest average
0.03
Mercury <0.001
Trivalent Chromium <0.01 – 0.02
Hexavalent Chromium <0.01
Total Ammonia as N 0.72 – 2.7
Total Nitrogen 0.5 – 6.1
Total Phosphorus 0.01 - 1.48
Dissolved Organic Carbon 1 – 55
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71
B m
g/L
Well Number
A Field B Field C Field
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71
Si m
g/L
Well Number
A Field B Field C Field
Chapter 5: Results & Analysis – Principal Component Analysis
© 2016 Page 65
4Chapter 5: Results & Analysis – Principal
Component Analysis
PCA was performed on the water quality parameters and included all well sites that were
sampled during this study. This was undertaken to identify if Field A, B and C could be
geographically identified by water chemistry by either location or depth. Depth was
differentiated using CS water from the Juandah coal seam and the Taroom coal seam.
The biplot for the A, B and C Field for all water quality parameters is shown in Figure 12.
Three groups of water quality parameters described the data on both PC1 and PC2. Iron,
manganese, and aluminium were found to describe PC2. Bromide, magnesium, strontium,
potassium, hardness, calcium, chloride, EC, TDS and sodium appeared as a group and are
negative on PC1. A third group consisting of fluoride, bicarbonate alkalinity as CaCO3, SAR,
pH, boron, SiO2, TOC, and sulphate are positive on PC1. Sulphate and TOC were less
associated with the PC1 than the other parameters. It was found that PC1 and PC2 were
responsible for describing 67.8 % of the data.
There was no distinction between well sites from each field when the PCA was performed on
the entire data set, instead they were spread amongst each of the three groups of water
quality parameters. This data showed that water composition was not geographically
distinguished by the location of CSG production wells within the scale of this study.
Well sites from the Juandah coal seam consisted of 116 of 150 well sites sampled during this
study. Figure 13 shows that PC1 and PC2 were responsible for 67.4 % of the variance in the data.
Three similar groups are shown which describe PC1 and PC2 as shown in previous PCA performed
such as iron, manganese and aluminium which were identified to positively correlate for PC2.
Bromide, magnesium, calcium, chloride, hardness, EC, TDS, sodium, potassium and strontium
were highly correlated on the negative PC1 and fluoride, bicarbonate alkalinity as CaCO3, SAR,
pH, boron SiO2, TOC, and sulphate being positively correlated with PC1: sulphate and TOC being
only slightly correlated with this group as compared with other water quality parameters.
Chapter 5: Results & Analysis – Principal Component Analysis
© 2016 Page 66
Figure 12: Biplot for the Two Principal Components from the PCA of Water Quality Parameters and the A, B and C Field in the Surat basin
AAAA
AA
AA
AA
AA
A A
AA
A A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AA
AAA
AAA
A
A
A
A
AA
A
A
A
AA
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
BBB
B
B
BB
B
B
B
BB
B
BB
B
BB
B
B
B
B
B
B
BB
B B
B
BB
B
BBB
BBB
B
B
B
BB
B
BBBB
BBB B
B
BBB
BB
BB
B
B
BB
B
B
B
BB
BC
CC C
C
CC CC
CC
C
CC
CCC C CC
C
CC
pH
SAR
ECTDSHardness
Br-
Bicarb CaCO3
SO4-Cl
CaMgNaK
Al
Mn
Sr
B
Fe
SiO2
F-
TOC-18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
PC
2 (
11.3
%)
PC1 (56.5%)
Chapter 5: Results & Analysis – Principal Component Analysis
© 2016 Page 67
Figure 13: Biplot for the Two Principal Components from the PCA of Water Quality Parameters and the A, B and C Field for the Juandah Coal Seam in the
Surat Basin
AA A AA A
A AA A AAA
A AAA
AAAAA
AA A
A
A
AAA
AA
AA
A
BB
BB BB
B
B
BB B
B
B
B B
BB
B
B
B BB B
B
BBB
B BB
B
BB B B
BBBB BBB BB
B BBB B
BBB
BB B
B
B
BBB
B
CCC
CC CC
CC
CC CC C CC
CC C
pH
SARECTDSHardness
Br-
Bicarb CaCO3
SO4-ClCaMgNaK
Al
Mn
Sr
B
Fe
SiO2
F-TOC
PC
2 (
11.4
%)
PC1 (56.0%)
Chapter 5: Results & Analysis – Principal Component Analysis
© 2016 Page 68
Well sites from the Taroom coal seam from this study consisted of 34 of 150 well sites
sampled and are shown in Figure 14. PC1 and PC2 described 62.7 % of the variance of the
data. Similar correlations were identified in the Juandah PCA with bromide, magnesium,
calcium, chloride, hardness, EC, TDS, sodium, potassium and strontium being highly
correlated on the negative PC1 and iron, manganese and aluminium grouped for PC2: but
negatively as compared with positively as shown for the Juandah PCA. A difference with the
parameters fluoride, bicarbonate alkalinity as CaCO3, SAR, pH, boron, siilca, which were
positively correlated on PC1 as seen in all other PCA that was performed, is that TOC and
sulphate are now correlated on negative PC1.
Chapter 5: Results & Analysis – Principal Component Analysis
© 2016 Page 69
Figure 14: Biplot for the Two Principal Components from the PCA of Water Quality Parameters and the A, B and C Field for the Taroom Coal Seam in the
Surat Basin
A
A
AA
A
A AA
AAA
AA
A
A
AA
A
BB
B
B
B
B
B
BB
B
BBC
C
CpH
SARECTDS
HardnessBr-Bicarb CaCO3
SO4-Cl
CaMg
Na
K
Al Mn
Sr
B
Fe
SiO2F-
TOC
PC
2 (
17.5
%)
PC1 (45.2%)
Chapter 5: Results & Analysis – Principal Component Analysis
© 2016 Page 70
PCA has identified 3 groups of correlated water quality parameters, which consist of:
1. EC, TDS, Hardness, Cl-, Br-, Sr, Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, K+
2. Fe, Mn+, Al3+
3. pH, SAR, CaCO3, B, F-, SiO2 ,TOC, SO42-
As described PCA has found a strong correlation between parameters EC, TDS, hardness,
calcium, magnesium, sodium, chloride, potassium, bromide and strontium for PC1 for all PCA
performed. The strong correlation of these water quality parameters was consistent with
the known chemical relationships and the chemical composition that has been shown in
other studies of CS water such as high bicarbonate, high sodium, low calcium, low magnesium
and very low sulfate concentrations [1, 5, 38, 42].
The properties of clay minerals may contribute to iron, manganese and aluminium being
associated in a group for all of the PCA that were performed showing very strong correlations
between these elements. Considering that the Surat Basin coals show a high concentration
of clay over other common minerals and they can easily be stripped and dissolved into the
associated aquifers, it is believed that clays are responsible for the iron, manganese and
aluminium group in the PCA [28]. Chemical composition data described for coal has shown
that the common minerals are clay, carbonates, sulfide ores, oxide ores, quartz and
phosphates [28, 31]. However, mineral matter in coals can differ greatly even on a regional
scale, and it has been shown that the Surat Basin Jurassic coals are characterised by clay; with
pyrite, quartz and siderite (carbonate) found to be of low concentration [28, 31]. It has been
shown in the Surat Basin coals that this is common for the dominant clay minerals such as
illite, kaolinite, and montmorillonite [28, 31]. Chaffee et al. described the structural
characterisation of high volatile bituminous coals from the Walloon Coal Measures as being
dominated by kaolinite [Al2Si2O5(OH4)], which is a clay mineral [113]. Kaolinite is a Kaolin-
serpentine series clay mineral in which the Mg2+ in serpentine [Mg3Si2O5(OH)] can be
substituted with Fe3+ [131]. Salehy has also identified that common minerals of the Jurassic
coals from the Eastern Surat Basin are clay minerals [31].
Sulphate and TOC were two parameters that were not as closely correlated to the other
parameters of group 3 which included pH, SAR, CaCO3, boron, fluoride and silica. Sulphate
has been used to describe the chemical composition of CS water by a number of different
studies, however it has been shown to have a low content in Surat Basin coals and this could
Chapter 5: Results & Analysis – Principal Component Analysis
© 2016 Page 71
contribute to the low correlation to both PC1 and PC2 during this study for fields A, B and C
[1, 5, 38, 42, 44]. The low sulfate content of the Surat Basin coals could be a result of the lack
of sulfide minerals such as pyrite [28, 31]. Closely associated were the parameters pH, SAR,
CaCO3, boron, fluoride and silica. The association of pH, SAR and CaCO3 although not
predicted have all shown an inverse relationship with EC and this could be the reason for
these parameters being shown as being not related to the group containing EC in the PCA.
The 3 groups described by PCA on the Surat Basin CS water can potentially be described by
the mineral content from the associated coal seams, however further multivatiate analysis
should be conducted in future work, particularly if comparisons between much larger data
sets are obtained from other locations across the Surat Basin. Although the CS water can be
explained partially by the mineral content, the PCA did not show any groups by geographical
location or depth of the well sites.
Chapter 6: Results & Analysis – Surrogate Indicators
© 2016 Page 72
5Chapter 6: Results & Analysis – Surrogate
Indicators
In this study we have investigated two significant parameters, namely SAR and TDS for prediction
using a surrogate indicator. EC of the CS water can be easily tested at the well head or
management dam, and is shown to be sufficiently accurate to be practically useful for assessing
water quality. This investigation concerned the analysis of the 150 water samples for the CSG
production wells in the Surat Basin.
The literature shows that there is a strong relationship identified between EC and both SAR and
TDS [77, 78, 132-134]. EC is a measure of salinity and is specifically related to the ability of water
to pass an electrical current [77]. The magnitude of the water electrical conductivity is affected
by ions that carry a negative or positive charge, mainly inorganic species [77]. Other factors that
can impact the EC value include the solution temperature (higher temperatures result in a higher
EC value) and the geology surrounding the aquifer from which the water is sourced [77, 78]. TDS
relates to EC as it is also a measure of salinity, more specifically the inorganic and organic
compounds in water (we note the precise correlation is site specific) [132]. TDS is calculated by
evaporating a solution until only dry matter remains. Since water has little to no electrical charge
the relationship between EC and TDS is normally positively correlated [132]. SAR is a measure of
the equivalents of exchangeable Na+, Ca2+ and Mg2+ ions in solution. A high SAR value and low
solution electrical conductivity may result in a greater detrimental effect on soils [135].
Water quality parameters tested in this investigation included EC, SAR and TDS. There was found
to be a negative correlation shown between EC and SAR (r=[-0.583] P=<0.005). Figure 15 shows
the relationship between measured and calculated SAR values for CS water.
Chapter 6: Results & Analysis – Surrogate Indicators
© 2016 Page 73
Figure 15: Measured SAR vs. Calculated SAR as a function of well analyzed
The model used to calculate the SAR in CS water has shown that only 20 of the 150 water
samples were either 20 % greater or less than the actual value that was measured, this being
13 % of all the data. Only 7 of the 150 water samples were either 30 % greater or less, this
being 4.6 % of all the data.
As mentioned by Walton, EC values (μS/cm) are normally multiplied by 0.7 to estimate TDS
content (mg/L), which equates to a ratio of EC/TDS of 1.43 [118]. Calculation of the EC/TDS
ratio for the coal seam gas water samples from this study indicate that the average ratio was
1.66 (Figure 16). However, it was evident that there was considerable scatter in the data,
which is consistent with studies by Ali et al. who found that depending on water composition
the EC/TDS ratio for reclaimed industrial water ranged from 1.49 to 1.72 [134].
Statistical analysis showed a positive correlation between EC and TDS< (r=0.812, P=<0.005).
Figure 17 illustrates the relationship between measured and calculated TDS. The predictive
model used to calculate the TDS in CS water has shown only 6 of the 150 water samples were
either 20 % greater or less than the actual value that was measure, this being 4 % of all the
data.
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1 26 51 76 101 126
Sod
ium
Ad
sorp
tio
n R
atio
(SA
R)
Well Number
Measured SAR Calculated SAR
Chapter 6: Results & Analysis – Surrogate Indicators
© 2016 Page 74
Figure 16: Relationship between EC and Measured TDS as a function of well analyzed
Figure 17: Measured TDS vs. Calculated TDS as a function of well analyzed
The predictive models for EC-SAR and EC-TDS have been determined to be:
SAR = 157.944 + (-0.005) EC (μS/cm)
TDS (mg/L) = 416.60 + 0.548 EC (μS/cm)
Previous work in the area of surrogate indicators for water quality parameters such as these
is limited. For example, Settle et al. developed a predictive model for TDS using the surrogate
indicator EC in urban storm water [108]. In relation to correlating EC and SAR, Seilsepour and
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
1 26 51 76 101 126
Rat
io E
C/T
DS
Well Number
Measured Data Average Value
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
1 26 51 76 101 126
Tota
l Dis
solv
ed S
olid
s (m
g/L)
Well Number
Measured TDS Calculated TDS
Chapter 6: Results & Analysis – Surrogate Indicators
© 2016 Page 75
Rashidi used linear regression models to predict soil SAR from EC [77, 78]. It has been
identified that two parameters were responsible for the prediction of soil salinity, that being
EC and SAR [78]. Soil salinity in Australia is of great significance due to its impact on plant
root growth and soil structure [53]. Soil salinity and sodicity affects plants by inhibiting water
uptake at the root zone and by toxicity or metabolic disruption by Na or Cl ions [53].
Seilsepour and Rashidi found that the soil SAR predicted by the linear regression model was
not significantly different from the SAR that was tested and recorded in the laboratory [78].
The research also suggested that dominant clay minerals, soil chemistry and pH can impact
on the relationship between EC and SAR and therefore the linear regression model should be
directly determined by the soil of interest [53, 78]. It is suggested that this may be due to
the high SAR concentration being associated with the increase in sodium at the expense of
calcium and magnesium due to cation exchange complex of clay particles [53]. Settle et al.
outlined that some water quality parameters such as TDS can be either specific to the water
catchment area due to the similarity of geological origin and form or generic across multiple
catchments [108].
The linear regression and predictive model for evaluating SAR and TDS from calculated EC
has been applied to data presented in various studies conducted in the US and Australia.
Studies assessed include: a study conducted on a CSG exploration well over 30 individual
sampling occasions, in Maramarua, New Zealand; a study conducted in the Bowen Basin,
Australia on the upper and lower seam north and south of a fault using mean values for CSG
production wells [3, 19, 38, 41, 43]. This analysis was undertaken to identify the practical
implications of a specific predictive model related to data from varied location.
CS water analysed in this study from different locations was variable in composition in terms
of EC, SAR and TDS. For example, the Australian and New Zealand CS water SAR value was
higher (approximately >100 to 200) than that of the US water (approximately 10 to 50). In
addition, the EC values for New Zealand water were 1,000 μS/cm, whereas in Australia the
CS water was up to 10, 000 μS/cm and in contrast the US water was considerably higher as
shown by conductivities up >100,000 μS/cm [3, 19, 38, 41, 43].
A linear regression using the Pearson Correlation Coefficient was performed on the data from
New Zealand, the US and the Bowen Basin in Australia. Data from Taulis and Milke (2012)
showed the New Zealand data neither exhibited a strong correlation between EC and TDS
(r=0.478 P=0.007) nor shows a correlation between EC and SAR (r=1.00 P=<0.572) [38].
Chapter 6: Results & Analysis – Surrogate Indicators
© 2016 Page 76
Results from McBeth and Reddy (2003) showed a strong positive correlation between EC and
TDS (r=1.00 P=<0.0005) and EC and SAR (r=0.648 P=<0.0005). Figure 18 shows the
relationship between the calculated TDS and the measured TDS using the predictive model
for EC-TDS which has been determined as:
TDS (mg/L) = 0.323 + 639.722 EC (dS/cm)
Figure 19 shows the relationship between the calculated SAR and the measured SAR using
the predictive model for EC-SAR which has been determined as:
SAR = 5.714 + 3.872 EC (dS/cm)
Figure 18: Measured TDS vs. Calculated TDS Wyoming USA [41] as a function of well
analyzed
0
500
1000
1500
2000
1 6 11 16 21 26
Tota
l Dis
solv
ed S
olid
s (m
g/L)
Well Number
Measured TDS Calculated TDS
Chapter 6: Results & Analysis – Surrogate Indicators
© 2016 Page 77
Figure 19: Measured SAR vs. Calculated SAR Wyoming USA [41] as a function of well
analyzed
A study by Rice (2003) analysed data from a coal bed methane field in Utah at 28 individual
well sites which were sampled on three occasions between June 1996 and March 1999 [19].
A linear regression was performed on the EC and TDS data from this study and it showed a
positive correlation (r=0.994 P=0.00). Figure 20 shows the relationship between the
calculated TDS and the measured TDS using the predictive model for EC-TDS, which was
determined as:
TDS (mg/L) = 0.382 + 770.701 EC (mS/cm)
The water from this study was derived from the Ferron Sandstone Member of the Mancos
Shale [19]. Dominant formations included sedimentary deposits in the delta from the
Cretaceous Period [19]. Kinnon et al. presented data from the Bowen Basin in Australia which
was taken from 24 CSG production wells from: the upper seam at approximately 200 – 300
m depth; and the lower seam at approximately 250 – 400 m depth [3]. The data used for this
communication included 4 mean values, 2 for the upper seam and 2 for the lower seam.
Figure 21 shows the relationship between the calculated TDS and the measured TDS using
the predictive model for EC-TDS which was determined as:
TDS (mg/L) = 1046.54 + 0.439 EC (dS/cm)
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 6 11 16 21 26
Sod
ium
Ad
sorp
tio
n R
atio
Well Number
Calculated SAR Measured SAR
Chapter 6: Results & Analysis – Surrogate Indicators
© 2016 Page 78
Figure 20: Measured TDS vs. Calculated TDS Utah USA [13] as a function of well analyzed
Figure 21: Measured TDS vs. Calculated TDS Bowen Basin Australia [3] as a function of well
analyzed
The results presented in this study are of significance for the global CSG industry and in
particular for Queensland, as water quality parameters such as SAR and TDS are required to
be reported prior to use or disposal of CS water. However, these latter parameters are
normally determined by laboratory testing. The large and relatively remote geographical
area in which the Surat Basin CSG industry operates, can make the time between water
quality sampling and receiving laboratory tests lengthy. As a consequence, this delay may
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
1 11 21 31 41
Tota
l Dis
solv
ed S
olid
s (
mg/
L)
Well Number
Calculated TDS Measured TDS
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
1 2 3 4
Tota
l Dis
solv
ed S
olid
s (
mg/
L)
Well Number
Calculated TDS Measured TDS
Chapter 6: Results & Analysis – Surrogate Indicators
© 2016 Page 79
result in ineffective management of CS water. The application of a linear regression model
to form a predictive equation should be developed based on site water quality monitoring
data to ensure that any regional variations are taken into consideration [78, 108].
The early identification of the water quality parameters through the use of a predictive tool,
such as that described in this study may be helpful in the identification of the potential use
or disposal methods prior to the laboratory test results being available. This outcome can
result in reduced financial cost and prediction of the most effective treatment method and
use for specific CS water.
Chapter 7: Results & Analysis – Scaling Potential & Reverse Osmosis Design
© 2016 Page 80
6Chapter 7: Results & Analysis – Scaling
Potential & Reverse Osmosis Design
SCALING POTENTIAL
The scaling potential in ROSA and IMS Design can be determined in relation to barium
sulphate, calcium sulphate, strontium sulphate, calcium fluoride, silica dioxide, and
magnesium hydroxide as a percentage saturation, with greater than 100 % saturation
suggesting that there is a scaling potential for the RO membranes.
The CS water was initially simulated using ROSA and scaling potentials are displayed in
Figures 22 to 24. For all fields examined at all water compositions evaluated there was no
evidence to suggest that calcium sulphate or magnesium hydroxide exhibited any scaling
potential. Strontium sulphate had zero potential for scaling for all three fields for the average
and minimum CS water compositions, but did have a very small percentage (< 5 %) scaling
potential for the maximum CS water compositions in fields A and B. In contrast, barium
sulphate, calcium fluoride and silica were all predicted to present a higher risk of scaling
behaviour. In terms of barium sulphate, the minimum CS water composition was
characterized by a relatively moderate scaling potential for all three fields (<15 %). However,
the maximum CS water composition was more problematic for all three fields with high
scaling potentials predicted (100 % for Fields A, B & C). With the average CS water
composition the scaling potential was also moderate for all three fields (26, 29, 31 %
respectively). This result shows that the higher concentration levels in the feed water do
have an impact on the potential for scaling for RO membranes. The concentration of barium
in the feed water was highest in the C field (0.622 – 9.38 mg/L) whereas the A and B field
maximum values were 4.39 and 2.32 mg/L respectively. Barium sulphate has been shown to
be the most insoluble of all alkaline earth sulphates [91]. In brackish water the critical feed
concentration level of barium can be as low as <5 μg/L [91].
Calcium fluoride was identified as a possible major problem in relation to reverse osmosis
treatment of the CS water. The scaling potentials were universally estimated to be high
enough to result in scale formation (75, 28 and 100 % for Fields A, B & C, respectively) for the
maximum CS water composition. However, for the average and minimum CS water
compositions the scaling potential was drastically reduced to significantly safer levels (<10
Chapter 7: Results & Analysis – Scaling Potential & Reverse Osmosis Design
© 2016 Page 81
%). These results were consistent with the results for the scaling potential for barium
sulphate for Fields A, B and C. If the calcium concentration is high in the feed water then
fluoride can cause scaling at concentration levels of 0.1 mg/L or higher [91]. The
concentration of fluoride in the feed water from this study was highest in the B field (3.3
mg/L) however all fields showed a relatively similar range. The calcium concentrations in
fields A, B and C had a large range with maximum values being highest in the A and C field
(55 and 137 mg/L respectively).
The potential for scale formation by silica species was notably more consistent across the
three CSG fields and for the range of water compositions of interest [Figures 22 to 24]. At no
instance did the scaling potential reach a value of 15 % and the variation in scaling potential
was typically less than 10 % across the water types examined. Silica has a solubility of 117
mg/L in water at a pH of 7 and temperature of 25°C [90]. It precipitates due to polymerization
in solution and therefore causes scaling of RO membranes [90, 129]. Silica is one of the most
complex species in water purification due to it complex structure [90, 92]. In this study the
feed water has a range of approximately 13 to 23 mg/L for fields A, B and C; however, it can
be shown that concentrations of silica in groundwater can be range from 40 to 100 mg/L [90,
129]. Cob et al. showed that fouling of RO membranes can be impacted as a function of
increased recovery rate with for example a recovery rate of 98 % as compared with 96 %
showing twice the thickness of a silica based deposit [90]. Milne et al. have shown that silica
fouling can be reduced by the following techniques: operating at a high pH with hardness
reduction, operating at a low pH, and use of pre-treatment techniques to reduce silica in the
feed water [92]. Pre-treatment techniques include chemical dosing with lime or aluminium
or iron salts, electrocoagulation, adsorption, or ion exchange [92].
Chapter 7: Results & Analysis – Scaling Potential & Reverse Osmosis Design
© 2016 Page 82
Figure 22: Field A Scaling Potential ROSA Data
Figure 23: Field B Scaling Potential ROSA Data
Figure 24: Field C Scaling Potential ROSA data
The CS water was also simulated using IMS Design and the results are shown in Figures 25 to
27. In accord with the ROSA data, for each field and water composition there was minimal
suggestion of any scaling potential for calcium sulphate (< 5 %). With regards to silica species
IMS Design did not indicate any discernible scaling potential whereas ROSA suggested that
the scaling potential was ca. 10 % for all samples. Strontium sulphate had zero potential for
scaling for all three fields for the average CS water compositions, but did have a discernible
scaling potential for the minimum CS water compositions in fields A and C (26 and 30 %,
respectively). This result was inconsistent with the ROSA simulation which showed a
comparably small scaling potential for strontium sulphate (< 5 % for fields A, B and C).
Chapter 7: Results & Analysis – Scaling Potential & Reverse Osmosis Design
© 2016 Page 83
Barium exhibited a high scaling potential in field A for the average, minimum and maximum
CS water compositions (91, 100, and 100 %, respectively) and field C for all compositions (100
%). However, the B field only showed 100 % scaling potential for the average and maximum
CS water concentration levels and a lower scaling percentage for the minimum CS water
composition (30 %). This result was not consistent with that of the ROSA simulation which
only showed a scaling potential for the maximum CS water composition. The prediction of
scaling for the maximum CS water composition is in accord with the relatively high
concentrations of both barium (2.32 to 9.38 mg/L) and sulphate present (5 to 48 mg/L). One
reason for the discrepancy in relation to the other water compositions may relate to the
possibility that the barium scaling potential can be overestimated depending on the method
used to calculate the supersaturation level [136].
Chapter 7: Results & Analysis – Scaling Potential & Reverse Osmosis Design
© 2016 Page 84
Figure 25: Field A Scaling Potential IMS Design Data
Figure 26: Field B Scaling Potential IMS Design Data
Figure 27: Field C Scaling Potential IMS Design Data
Chapter 7: Results & Analysis – Scaling Potential & Reverse Osmosis Design
© 2016 Page 85
Calcium fluoride has been identified as a source for scaling potential in the IMS design
simulation for the average and maximum values for the A, B and C fields. The maximum CS
water sample universally showed a high scaling potential with 100 % for fields A, B and C. The
scaling potential for the average CS water composition was slightly lower for all 3 fields (67,
46, and 92 % for field A, B and C, respectively). Inspection of the ROSA data revealed that for
the minimum CS water compositions for each field the predicted degree of scaling potential
for calcium fluoride was in agreement with the IMS Design data; namely less than 10 % in
every case. In contrast, the discrepancy between simulations was apparent when examining
the scaling potential values for the average CS water composition in each field. IMS Design
predicted that the scaling potential ranged from 46 % (Field B) to 92 % for Field C, which were
considerably higher values compared to those resultant from application of ROSA (3.74 and
8.91 %, respectively). Magnesium hydroxide scaling potential was not calculated in the
simulation using IMS design as this calculation is not produced in this program.
The LSI for the simulations with both ROSA and IMS Design was found to be positive and
therefore there is the potential for scaling to occur. The higher the pH value the higher the
calcium and alkalinity concentrations and therefore the higher potential for calcium
carbonate scaling [109]. This latter situation is common in natural waters and the feed water
would need to be treated prior to treatment using RO, which was performed in both
simulations, ROSA and IMS design [91]. This was undertaken using acid addition which is one
way in which the LSI can be reduced [91]. As many variables change with acid addition it is
important to include this step prior to assessing the potential for scaling potential for other
compounds [91].
The simulations using two different commercially available software programs showed
slightly different results, with IMS design identifying a scaling potential for barium sulphate
for all the CS water types and a scaling potential for calcium fluoride for the maximum values
from each field. ROSA predicted that the average CS water compositions from each field
showed a scaling potential for calcium fluoride and the average and maximum for the C field
showed a scaling potential for barium sulphate. All the CS water in which a simulation was
undertaken with ROSA and IMS Design showed a scaling potential for calcium carbonate and
therefore the requirement for acid addition was clearly supported.
It has been found in the CSG industry that scaling of the RO membranes occurs from
compounds such as calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate, magnesium hydroxide, and
calcium sulphate [62, 86]. Pre-treatment technologies such as ion exchange softening can
Chapter 7: Results & Analysis – Scaling Potential & Reverse Osmosis Design
© 2016 Page 86
be used to reduce these compounds and therefore the potential for scaling of the
membranes [62, 86]. In this study the simulations showed a potential for calcium carbonate
scaling and this potential was adjusted with acid addition to lower the pH.
PRE-TREATMENT SELECTION
Barium sulphate and calcium fluoride have been shown to have a significant scaling potential
as evidenced by the simulations for the CS water in this study. Consequently, the application
of a suitable anti-scalant may be recommended [91, 109]. The anti-scalant used should be
carefully investigated as further problems can arise such as biofouling [136, 137]. A study by
Boerlage et al. based on the Amsterdam Water Supply RO Pilot Plant showed that in a
comparison between 2 different anti-scalants to mitigate barium sulphate, multiple factors
had to be taken into consideration including temperature, organic matter, recovery rate and
acid addition [136, 137]. The barium concentration of the feed water in this study was
significantly higher than that of the study conducted by Boerlage et al. (<10 and <0.09 mg./L,
respectively). Similar contrasts were shown in the sulphate concentration of the feed water
in the Boerlage et al. study which, was significantly higher than that in this study (<20 and
<80 mg/L, respectively).
Alternative options include effective cleaners for scale which remove mineral scaling,
colloidal particles or bio-foulants [62]. Solutions used are usually a combination of acidic
and/or basic chemicals and the technique is undertaken periodically when the permeate flow
decreases by >10 %, feed channel pressure loss increases by >15 % or normalised salt
rejection increases by 10 % [62]. Cleaning of the membranes increases overall performance
and recovery, however it can be an expensive technique and is not specific to a particular
compound as is the case with anti-scalants [62]. Due to economic pressure anti-scalants have
often been shown to be the preferred treatment method to assist in the performance of RO
plants [91, 109]. Chemical companies who manufacture RO membranes provide
assessments of each scalant or foulant that they produce and the options for pre-treatment.
An example from Filmtec is that for barium sulphate and calcium fluoride, where scale
inhibitor anti-foulant and softening with ion exchange are very effective; and dealkalization
with ion exchange and lime softening are possibly effective [91]. Ion exchange is well known
for its ability to soften water prior to an RO stage [74]. Either strong acid cation or weak acid
cation resins exchanged with sodium ions are employed to remove species such as calcium,
barium, magnesium, and strontium to acceptably low levels [30, 73, 75]. Lime softening can
also be employed to soften water prior to an RO stage, however, concerns have been raised
Chapter 7: Results & Analysis – Scaling Potential & Reverse Osmosis Design
© 2016 Page 87
in terms of the issue of dealing with the produced lime sludge. Blaisi et al. [138] expressed
the caveat that care must be taken to ensure that lime sludge does not leach metals into the
environment. Cheng et al. [139] also cited issues in regards to the relatively large volume of
the lime sludge and also the fact that it is not readily dehydrated. As a consequence, they
added fly ash to the water in order to favourably modify the sludge properties.
Electrocoagulation has been demonstrated to exhibit effectiveness for removal of dissolved
alkaline earth ions from CS water [16]. Nevertheless, this technology has not been scaled up
to commercial levels as yet for this particular application and there are concerns relating to
the excessive consumption of electrode materials in the process due to non-Faradaic
processes such as corrosion by dissolved salts [16].
COMPARISON OF PERMEATE TO DRINKING WATER, IRRIGATION WATER
AND STOCK WATER TRIGGER VALUES
The following tables compare the values for the permeate water resulting from RO treatment
of CS water with trigger values for irrigation water and drinking water where the trigger is
that in which the water could no longer be used for the particular application.
Chapter 7: Results & Analysis – Scaling Potential & Reverse Osmosis Design
© 2016 Page 88
Table 14: Drinking Water and Irrigation Water Compared with Field A Permeate
Parameter Trigger
Value
Drinking
Water
Trigger
Value
Irrigation
Water
Permeate
Value
Average
Permeate
Value
Minimum
Permeate
Value
Maximum
Ammonium - - 0.057 0.021 0.245
Potassium - - 0.374 0.107 1.809
Sodium * 200 - 67.577 19.532 281.239
Magnesium - - 0.035 0.004 0.356
Calcium - - 0.83 0.009 16.697
Strontium - - 0.021 0.003 0.201
Barium 0.7 - 0.013 0.002 0.098
Carbonate - -
Bicarbonate - - 78.062 15.603 219.298
Nitrate 50 -
Chloride * 250 - 59.038 14.905 336.222
Fluoride 1.5 2 0.159 0.050 0.479
Sulphate - - 0.015 8.395 0.351
Silica - -
Boron ** 0.5 0.5 – 15 0.308 0.218 0.342
pH 6.5 – 8.2 6 – 8.5 7.4 6.7 8.1
Total
Dissolved
Solids
80 - 205.85 58.85 859.35
* Based on taste
** Depending on crop type
- No health impact or restriction level at maximum concentration level
Chapter 7: Results & Analysis – Scaling Potential & Reverse Osmosis Design
© 2016 Page 89
Table 15: Drinking Water and Irrigation Water Compared with Field B Permeate
Parameter Trigger
Value
Drinking
Water
Trigger
Value
Irrigation
Water
Permeate
Value
Average
Permeate
Value
Minimum
Permeate
Value
Maximum
Ammonium - - 0.062 0.021 0.182
Potassium - - 0.3 0.086 1.007
Sodium * 200 - 57.559 18.005 162.036
Magnesium - - 0.026 0.005 5.037
Calcium - - 0.058 0.014 0.327
Strontium - - 0.018 0.003 0.077
Barium 0.7 - 0.010 0.002 0.040
Carbonate - -
Bicarbonate - - 59.158 17.170 160.669
Nitrate 50 -
Chloride * 250 - 54.522 17.845 172.159
Fluoride 1.5 2 0.137 0.041 0.381
Sulphate - - 0.017 0.005 0.714
Silica - -
Boron ** 0.5 0.5 – 15 0.378 0.238 0.517
pH 6.5 – 8.2 6 – 8.5 7.3 6.6 7.9
Total Dissolved
Solids
80 - 172.32 53.44 504.71
* based on taste
** depending on crop type
- no health impact or restriction level at maximum concentration level
Chapter 7: Results & Analysis – Scaling Potential & Reverse Osmosis Design
© 2016 Page 90
Table 16: Drinking Water and Irrigation Water Compared with Field C Permeate
Parameter Trigger
Value
Drinking
Water
Trigger
Value
Irrigation
Water
Permeate
Value
Average
Permeate
Value
Minimum
Permeate
Value
Maximum
Ammonium - - 0.095 0.026 0.343
Potassium - - 0.768 0.158 2.539
Sodium * 200 - 121.808 28.539 378.689
Magnesium - - 0.108 0.005 0.743
Calcium - - 0.321 0.016 11.901
Strontium - - 0.068 0.005 0.441
Barium 0.7 - 0.033 0.003 0.205
Carbonate - -
Bicarbonate - - 65.342 10.966 198.713
Nitrate 50 -
Chloride * 250 - 151.190 30.104 493.077
Fluoride 1.5 2 0.162 0.029 0.439
Sulphate - - 0.018 10.418 0.106
Silica - -
Boron ** 0.5 0.5 – 15 0.278 0.168 0.422
pH 6.5 – 8.2 6 – 8.5 7.3 6.7 7.9
Total Dissolved
Solids
80 - 340.28 80.44 1088.78
* based on taste
** depending on crop type
- no health impact or restriction level at maximum concentration level
The simulations suggested that boron, total dissolved solids and sodium did not always
comply with the regulations for drinking water and/or irrigation water. It has been shown in
the treatment of brackish water that boron can be difficult to remove [86, 126, 128]. The
comparison of the permeate quality of the CS water in this study to that of drinking water
compliance with World Health Organisation guidelines shows that the maximum values for
the permeate for the B and C fields do not satisfy regulations (<0.5 mg/L) [125]. The boron
concentrations in this study varied as shown in Figure 28, and the permeate concentrations
Chapter 7: Results & Analysis – Scaling Potential & Reverse Osmosis Design
© 2016 Page 91
were similar to that of the feed water (concentration decrease ranging from 0.002 to
0.198mg/L).
Figure 28: Boron Concentration A, B and C Field
Therefore, it may also be necessary to employ a methodology to control boron levels in the
permeate [140, 141]. A commonly reported technical solution to this latter problem is the
application of selective resins [142-144]. Darwish et al. [145] demonstrated that the
presence of common competing ions in solution such as sodium, magnesium, chloride and
sulphate did not inhibit uptake of boron by the N-methyl-d-glucamine functional groups on
synthetic resin. The degree of boron removal from solution was relatively high (>80 % in
most instances) and was promoted by decreasing resin particle size, increasing contact time,
higher resin dose, higher temperature and an optimum pH of 8; in contrast, greater
concentrations of boron were more difficult to remediate. Korkmaz et al. [146] similarly
found that boron removal was not as efficient when boron concentrations were relatively
high (up to 1000 mg/L) and in this instance a pH of 8.5 was stated to be optimal. Nadav and
Koutsakos [147] described the integration of a boron selective ion exchange resin treatment
stage to purify the RO permeate resulting from desalination of 40,000 m3/day water in
Limassol, Cyprus.
The total dissolved solids in CS water can be highly variable as shown in this study with
concentrations ranging from ca. 2,000 to 10,000 mg/L [Figure 29]. It has been identified that
TDS can vary not only between CS water within the same seam but also between coal seams
[6, 65]. A pilot study undertaken by Nghiem et al. on CS water on from the Gloucester Basin
Chapter 7: Results & Analysis – Scaling Potential & Reverse Osmosis Design
© 2016 Page 92
in New South Wales Australia, showed that the pre-treatment method using ultrafiltration
had no impact on the reduction TDS concentration and this was only reduced by RO and
multi-effect distillation (MED) [65]. Similarly the same study showed that no impact was
made on the conductivity of the CS water and this was only reduced again by the RO and
MED process [65]. The advantage of RO for use as a desalination technique is the lower
energy required as compared with thermal processes such as MED [98, 99]. The TDS
concentration of the permeate after simulation by IMS Design showed that it was still
significantly high when compared with Australian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines [117].
Figure 29: TDS Concentration A, B and C Field
The sodium concentration in permeate from this study has also been found to be above the
level required for Australian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines in A field and C field for
maximum concentration levels. Figure 30 shows the concentration of sodium for the CS
water from this study and it is shown that is considerably higher than that required for
drinking water (<200mg/L) prior to any treatment. This analysis has shown due to the large
concentration range not all of the sodium has been removed by the treatment of RO and is
present in the permeate above levels that can be used as set out in the Australian Drinking
Water Guidelines for the maximum concentration levels for field A, B and C (281, 162, and
378 mg/L, respectively) [117].
Chapter 7: Results & Analysis – Scaling Potential & Reverse Osmosis Design
© 2016 Page 93
Figure 30: Sodium Concentration A, B and C Field
The treatment of brackish water by the process of RO and the pre-treatments such as
ultrafiltration, nanofiltration and ion exchange have seen an increase in CSG industry in
Australia which have been required due to the chemical composition of CS water [86, 148].
As a result, and the evaluation of the pre-treatment as well as the recovery, maintenance
and cost of the process of RO has been significant. Factors influencing the recovery of the
permeate can include feed composition and temperature, pre-treatment technologies,
chemical cleaning procedures, feed pressure, membrane type, and system configuration [62,
86, 148].
It appears that drinking water supply may not be the primary beneficial reuse option for CS
water due to the aforementioned difficulties with ensuring water quality always satisfies
guidelines. However, if we compare to standards for irrigation or stock watering for example
[Figures 31 & 32] it is evident that the permeate water quality is always compliant with these
less demanding applications.
Chapter 7: Results & Analysis – Scaling Potential & Reverse Osmosis Design
© 2016 Page 94
Figure 31: Irrigation Water Drinking Water and Stock Water Trigger Level Sodium, Nitrate,
Chloride and TDS
Figure 32: Irrigation Water Drinking Water and Stock Water Trigger Level Barium and Boron
Chapter 8: Conclusions
© 2016 Page 95
7Chapter 8: Conclusions
It has been shown that the water chemistry of CSG water can be highly variable from well to
well and from field to field. Nevertheless, the general chemical composition and physical
properties (high pH, bicarbonate alkalinity (as CaCO3), Na+, Cl- and low Ca2+, Mg2+and SO42-)
were in accord with other CSG fields in Australia and the world. However, the depth of
information in this study provided new insights into the quality of CSG associated water, the
relationships between species present and the range by which key components can vary.
Although precise connections between the location of the well and water quality could not
be related to local geology, in general the water composition was consistent with the mineral
matter in the Surat Basin.
It was demonstrated that analysis and interpretation of large data sets using multivariate
analysis for water quality monitoring may be required by future monitoring programs. This
approach will be of benefit not only for legislators but also the CSG operating companies. It
was also demonstrated that a predictive tool using surrogate indicators can determine two
parameters of significance (SAR and TDS) in relation to beneficial reuse of CS water. The
predictive model developed was used not only to evaluate 150 CS water samples from the
Surat Basin but also previous studies from New Zealand, the US and the Bowen Basin in
Australia.
In light of the range of CSG water compositions identified it was pertinent to examine the
impact on the central desalination technology of reverse osmosis. It was found that the
outcomes of two commercial software packages for evaluating reverse osmosis technology
(ROSA and IMS Design) surprisingly did not always give comparable predictions. Hence, it is
recommended that both software packages are used to evaluate scaling potential of brackish
water and that the most “pessimistic” values be considered for each water type analysed. By
this latter approach, the safest treatment strategy can be selected.
Analysis of the various CS water compositions from the 3 CSG fields of interest revealed that
it may be necessary to soften the CS water prior to the RO stage as both calcium fluoride and
barium sulphate represented sources of concern with respect to potential scaling of
Chapter 8: Conclusions
© 2016 Page 96
membranes and equipment. Consequently, the use of anti-scalant chemicals or an ion
exchange unit comprising of appropriate sodium exchanged synthetic resins was advised.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
The CSG industry although operating for 15 years in Australia still has a requirement to better
understand CS water characteristics and in turn select the optimal treatment process. The
comprehensive understanding of the variability of CSG associated water quality and the
relationship between these water quality parameters was therefore valuable. Significantly,
this study discovered that the water chemistry even changed depending upon the depth and
location of individual wells within a field. Hence, it is challenging to predict a relationship
between water quality and geological formation.
In turn, selection of appropriate treatment technologies for CS water needs to take into
account the wide range of values for dissolved species and physical properties such as
turbidity and pH. For example, high values of silicates in the CS water may demand additional
strategies such as use of anti-scalants to minimise fouling of equipment and downstream
membranes. As boron in CS water is difficult to remove by reverse osmosis, then selective
resins may also need to be employed.
The linear regression modelling that has been developed and presented is of significance for
the Queensland CSG industry as water quality parameters, such as SAR and TDS are required
to be reported prior to use or disposal of CS water. However, these parameters can only be
determined by laboratory testing. The large and relatively remote geographical area in which
the Surat Basin CSG industry operates, makes the time between water quality sampling and
receiving laboratory test results lengthy. As a consequence, this delay may result in
ineffective management of CS water, such as transferring it to holding dams rather than for
beneficial use. The application of a linear regression model to form a predictive equation
based on site water quality monitoring data should be taken into consideration prior to the
selection of the treatment option [78, 108]. This outcome can result in reduced financial cost
and prediction of the most effective treatment method and use for specific CS water.
FUTURE WORK
This work has identified that there is a need for large-scale water quality monitoring and
analysis of CS water in the Surat Basin in order to understand regional differences and ensure
Chapter 8: Conclusions
© 2016 Page 97
that the most effective and efficient treatment technologies are being utilised. Multivariate
analysis could be used in future work, particularly if comparisons were required to be made
using large data sets. Large-scale water quality monitoring and analysis will aid in the
knowledge of chemical composition of the CS water from various areas within the Surat Basin
which will ensure that current legislative requirements and treatment technologies are
specific to the CS water that is being treated, and to the industry in which it is being re-used.
Future work would include the development of specific predictive models such as that
presented in this study for other basins in which the CSG industry operates. Future work
should also be directed towards laboratory studies of CS water desalination using reverse
osmosis membranes to confirm the predictions from this study.
References Page 98
© 2015 Page 98
References
1. Van Voast, W.A., Geochemical signature of formation waters associated with coalbed
methane. Aapg Bulletin, 2003. 87(4): p. 667-676.
2. Baker, G. and S. Slater. The increasing significance of coal seam gas in eastern
Australia. in Proceedings of the PESA Eastern Australasian Basins Symposium III,
Brisbane. 2008.
3. Kinnon, E., S. Golding, C. Boreham, K. Baublys, and J. Esterle, Stable isotope and
water quality analysis of coal bed methane production waters and gases from the
Bowen Basin, Australia. International Journal of Coal Geology, 2010. 82(3): p. 219-
231.
4. Jackson, R.E. and K.J. Reddy, Geochemistry of coalbed natural gas (CBNG)
produced water in powder river basin, wyoming: Salinity and sodicity. Water Air and
Soil Pollution, 2007. 184(1-4): p. 49-61.
5. Taulis, M. and M. Milke, Coal seam gas water from Maramarua, New Zealand:
characterisation and comparison to United States analogues. Journal of Hydrology
(New Zealand), 2007. 46(1): p. 1.
6. Nghiem, L.D., T. Ren, N. Aziz, I. Porter, and G. Regmi, Treatment of coal seam gas
produced water for beneficial use in Australia: A review of best practices.
Desalination and Water Treatment, 2011. 32(1-3): p. 316-323.
7. Hamawand, I., T. Yusaf, and S.G. Hamawand, Coal seam gas and associated water:
A review paper. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2013. 22: p. 550-560.
8. Oil and Gas Explained / Science and Technology Facts. 2012 [cited 2015 03 May];
Available from: http://www.appea.com.au/.
9. Queensland's Petroleum Exploration, development and potential 2011 - 2012. 2013
[cited 2014 20 December]; Available from: http://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/.
10. Papendick, S.L., K.R. Downs, K.D. Vo, S.K. Hamilton, G.K. Dawson, S.D. Golding,
and P.C. Gilcrease, Biogenic methane potential for Surat Basin, Queensland coal
seams. International Journal of Coal Geology, 2011.
11. Brakel, A., J. Totterdell, A. Wells, and M. Nicoll, Sequence stratigraphy and fill
history of the Bowen Basin, Queensland. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 2009.
56(3): p. 401-432.
12. Scott, S., B. Anderson, P. Crosdale, J. Dingwall, and G. Leblang, Coal petrology and
coal seam gas contents of the walloon subgroup - Surat Basin, Queensland, Australia.
International Journal of Coal Geology, 2007. 70(1-3): p. 209-222.
References Page 99
© 2015 Page 99
13. Rice, D.D. and G.E. Claypool, Generation, accumulation, and resource potential of
biogenic gas Aapg Bulletin-American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 1981.
65(1): p. 5-25.
14. Wilkinson, R., Eastern Australian coalbed methane supply rivals western offshore
conventional resource. Oil & gas journal, 2011. 109(12).
15. Wolfe, E., Country Pasture Forage Resource Profiles Australia. 2009, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FOA).
16. Millar, G.J., J. Lin, A. Arshad, and S.J. Couperthwaite, Evaluation of
electrocoagulation for the pre-treatment of coal seam water. Journal of Water Process
Engineering, 2014. 4: p. 166-178.
17. Surat Gas Project Environmental Impact Statement Groundwater Impact Assessment,
J. Van-Dillewijn, Editor. 2012.
18. Dahm, K., K. Guerra, P. Xu, and J. Drewes, Composite geochemical database for
coalbed methane produced water quality in the Rocky Mountain region.
Environmental science & technology, 2011. 45(18): p. 7655-7663.
19. Rice, C.A., Production waters associated with the Ferron coalbed methane fields,
central Utah: chemical and isotopic composition and volumes. International journal
of coal geology, 2003. 56(1): p. 141-169.
20. Pashin, J.C., M.R. McIntyre-Redden, S.D. Mann, D.C. Kopaska-Merkel, M. Varonka,
and W. Orem, Relationships between water and gas chemistry in mature coalbed
methane reservoirs of the Black Warrior Basin. International Journal of Coal Geology,
2014. 126: p. 92-105.
21. Plumlee, M.H., J.-F. Debroux, D. Taffler, J.W. Graydon, X. Mayer, K.G. Dahm, N.T.
Hancock, K.L. Guerra, P. Xu, and J.E. Drewes, Coalbed methane produced water
screening tool for treatment technology and beneficial use. Journal of Unconventional
Oil and Gas Resources, 2014. 5: p. 22-34.
22. Sherval, M. and K. Hardiman, Competing perceptions of the rural idyll: responses to
threats from coal seam gas development in Gloucester, NSW, Australia. Australian
Geographer, 2014. 45(2): p. 185-203.
23. Tan, P., D. George, and M. Comino, Cumulative risk management, coal seam gas,
sustainable water, and agriculture in Australia. International Journal of Water
Resources Development, 2015(ahead-of-print): p. 1-19.
24. Vink, S. Coal seam gas and water issues. 2014. Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy.
25. Vance, G. and G. Ganjegunte, Coalbed natural gas (CBNG) water: Issues,
implications, and management. Coalbed natural gas: Energy and environment. Nova
Science Publishers, Hauppauge, NY, 2010: p. 303-336.
References Page 100
© 2015 Page 100
26. Exon, N.F., Geology of the Surat Basin in Queensland. 1976: Australian Government
Pub. Service.
27. Bekesi, G., M. Tyler, and J. Waterhouse, Lessons from the Use of an Active Production
Well for Compliance Monitoring in the Great Artesian Basin, Australia. Mine Water
and the Environment, 2012. 31(3): p. 225-232.
28. Speight, J.G., The chemistry and technology of coal. 2013, Boca Raton: CRC Press.
29. Merrick, D., Coal combustion and gasification L. D. Smoot and P. J. Smith Plenum
Press, New York, 1985, 480 pp. Fuel, 1985. 64(8): p. 1181.
30. Hoffmann, K., J. Totterdell, O. Dixon, G. Simpson, A. Brakel, A. Wells, and J.
McKellar, Sequence stratigraphy of Jurassic strata in the lower Surat Basin
succession, Queensland. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 2009. 56(3): p. 461-
476.
31. Salehy, M.R., Determination of rank and petrographic composition of Jurassic coals
from eastern Surat Basin, Australia. International Journal of Coal Geology, 1986.
6(2): p. 149-162.
32. Thoms, M.C. and M. Parsons, Identifying spatial and temporal patterns in the
hydrological character of the Condamine–Balonne River, Australia, using
multivariate statistics. River Research and Applications, 2003. 19(5‐ 6): p. 443-457.
33. Tan, P., C. Baldwin, I. White, and K. Burry, Water planning in the Condamine
Alluvium, Queensland: Sharing information and eliciting views in a context of
overallocation. Journal of Hydrology, 2012.
34. Moran, C. and S. Vink, Assessment of impacts of the proposed coal seam gas
operations on surface and groundwater systems in the Murray–Darling Basin.
University of Queensland, Brisbane, 2010.
35. Green, P., The Surat and Bowen Basin, South-East Queensland. 2009: Queensland
Department of Mines and Energy.
36. Dobróka, M., Á. Gyulai, T. Ormos, J. Csókás, and L. Dresen, Joint inversion of
seismic and geoelectric data recorded in an underground coal mine. Geophysical
Prospecting, 1991. 39(5): p. 643-665.
37. Dresen, L. and H. Rüter, Seismic Coal Exploration: In-seam seismics. 2013: Elsevier.
38. Taulis, M. and M. Milke, Chemical variability of groundwater samples collected from
a Coal Seam Gas exploration well, Maramarua, New Zealand. Water research, 2012.
39. McBeth, I., K.J. Reddy, and Q.D. Skinner, Chemistry of trace elements in coalbed
methane product water. Water Research, 2003. 37(4): p. 884-890.
40. Averina, A., M. Rasul, and S. Begum. Management of Coal Seam Gas (CSG) By-
Product Water: A Case Study on Spring Gully Mine Site in Queensland, Australia. in
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Waste Management: Waste
References Page 101
© 2015 Page 101
Management, Water Pollution, Air Pollution, Indoor Climate (WWAI’08), Corfu,
Greece, 26th-28th October. 2008.
41. McBeth, I.H., K.J. Reddy, and Q.D. Skinner, Coalbed methane product water
chemistry in three Wyoming watersheds JAWRA Journal of the American Water
Resources Association, 2003. 39(3): p. 575-585.
42. Taulis, M., D. Trumm, M. Milke, D. Nobes, D. Manhire, and A. O'Sullivan.
Characterisation of coal seam gas waters in New Zealand. in Realising New Zealand's
Mineral Potential-Proceedings of the 2005 New Zealand Minerals Conference. 2005.
43. Patz, M.J., K.J. Ready, and Q.D. Skinner, Chemistry of coalbed methane discharge
water interacting with semi-arid ephemeral stream channels. JAWRA Journal of the
American Water Resources Association, 2004. 40(5): p. 1247-1255.
44. Wang, X.Y., O. Ozdemir, M.A. Hampton, A.V. Nguyen, and D.D. Do, The effect of
zeolite treatment by acids on sodium adsorption ratio of coal seam gas water. Water
Research, 2012. 46(16): p. 5247-5254.
45. Johnston, C.R., G.F. Vance, and G.K. Ganjegunte, Irrigation with coalbed natural gas
co-produced water. Agricultural Water Management, 2008. 95(11): p. 1243-1252.
46. Navi, M., C. Skelly, M. Taulis, and S. Nasiri, Coal seam gas water: potential hazards
and exposure pathways in Queensland. International journal of environmental health
research, 2015. 25(2): p. 162-183.
47. Environmental Authorities. 2015 [cited 2015 30 May]; Available from:
http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/management/non-mining/environmental-
authority.html.
48. Beneficial Use Approvals. Irrigation of Associated Water (including coal seam gas
water) 2014 [cited 2015 30 May]; Available from:
http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/waste/beneficial-use-approvals.html.
49. Mining and Resources. 2015 [cited 2015 16 June]; Available from:
http://www.business.qld.gov.au.
50. Oldridge, S. and L. Whatman, Beneficial use of coal seam gas water. Water
(Melbourne), 2009. 36(4): p. 76.
51. Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality, in
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture
and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Canberra. 2000,
Anzecc, Armcanz. p. 1-103.
52. Sunwater Schemes. 2015 [cited 2015 01 June]; Available from:
http://www.sunwater.com.au/.
References Page 102
© 2015 Page 102
53. Dale, G., Considerations and challenges in sustainable use of coal seam gas water for
irrigated agriculture. 2015.
54. Protecting our Water Resources. Our Approach 2015 [cited 2015 01 June]; Available
from: http://www.originenergy.com.au/content/dam/origin/about/our-
approach/docs/sustainability-protecting-water-resources.pdf.
55. Barbot, E., N.S. Vidic, K.B. Gregory, and R.D. Vidic, Spatial and temporal
correlation of water quality parameters of produced waters from devonian-age shale
following hydraulic fracturing. Environmental science & technology, 2013. 47(6): p.
2562-2569.
56. Pipeline Construction Pipeline Safety. 2015 [cited 2015 15 May]; Available from:
http://www.qgc.com.au.
57. Australian Standard 2885 The Australian Pipeline Standard. 2007, Australian
Government.
58. Maliva, R., Economics of Managed Aquifer Recharge. Water, 2014. 6(5): p. 1257-
1279.
59. Maliva, R.G., R. Herrmann, K. Coulibaly, and W. Guo, Advanced aquifer
characterization for optimization of managed aquifer recharge. Environmental Earth
Sciences, 2015. 73(12): p. 7759-7767.
60. Aquifer Injection Feasibility Studies, APLNG, Editor. 2012.
61. Stage 1 CSG Water Monitoring and Management Plan, APLNG, Editor. 2012.
62. Fritzmann, C., J. Löwenberg, T. Wintgens, and T. Melin, State of the art of reverse
osmosis desalination. Desalination, 2007. 216(1): p. 1-76.
63. Chalmers, S., A. Kowse, P. Stark, L. Facer, and N. Smith, Treatment of coal seam gas
water. Water—Journal of Australian Water Association, 2010. 37: p. 28-33.
64. Porter, I., L.D. Nghiem, T. Ren, N. Aziz, and G. Regmi, Treatment of coal seam gas
produced water for beneficial use in Australia: A review of best practices.
Desalination and Water Treatment, 2011. 32(1): p. 316.
65. Nghiem, L.D., C. Elters, A. Simon, T. Tatsuya, and W. Price, Coal seam gas produced
water treatment by ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis and multi-effect distillation: A pilot
study. Separation and Purification Technology, 2015. 146: p. 94-100.
66. Zaman, M., G. Birkett, C. Pratt, B. Stuart, and S. Pratt, Downstream processing of
reverse osmosis brine: Characterisation of potential scaling compounds. Water
research, 2015. 80: p. 227-234.
67. Crisp, G., K. Athanasiadis, and C. Hertle, Desalination for industry and resources:
Australia's success story for world application. Water: Journal of the Australian Water
Association, 2015. 42(2): p. 130-134.
References Page 103
© 2015 Page 103
68. Chesters, S.P., Innovations in the inhibition and cleaning of reverse osmosis
membrane scaling and fouling. Desalination, 2009. 238(1): p. 22-29.
69. Jan De Baat, D., Electronic Water Treatment Reduces Fouling in Reverse Osmosis.
2014, BNP Media: Troy. p. 28.
70. Chiavola, A., E. D’Amato, and R. Baciocchi, Ion exchange treatment of groundwater
contaminated by arsenic in the presence of sulphate. Breakthrough experiments and
modeling. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 2012. 223(5): p. 2373-2386.
71. Civin, V., H. Gaál, and G. Sombor, Weak acidic cation exchange resins for treatment
of solutions of high salt concentration. Reactive Polymers, 1992. 17(1): p. 117.
72. Dennis, R., Ion exchange helps CBM producers handle water. Oil & gas journal, 2007.
105(2): p. 41-43.
73. Millar, G.J., S. Papworth, and S.J. Couperthwaite, Exploration of the fundamental
equilibrium behaviour of calcium exchange with weak acid cation resins.
Desalination, 2014. 351: p. 27-36.
74. Lipnizki, J., B. Adams, M. Okazaki, and A. Sharpe, Water treatment: combining
reverse osmosis and ion exchange. Filtration+ Separation, 2012. 49(5): p. 30-33.
75. Subramani, A., E. Cryer, L. Liu, S. Lehman, R.Y. Ning, and J.G. Jacangelo, Impact
of intermediate concentrate softening on feed water recovery of reverse osmosis
process during treatment of mining contaminated groundwater. Separation and
Purification Technology, 2012. 88: p. 138-145.
76. Coal Seam Gas Water 2015 [cited 2015 01 June]; Available from:
http://www.santos.com/coal-seam-gas/coal-seam-gas-water.aspx.
77. Robbins, C.W. and W.S. Meyer, Calculating pH from EC and SAR values in salinity
models and SAR from soil and bore water pH and EC data. Australian Journal of Soil
Research, 1990. 28(6): p. 1001-1011.
78. Seilsepour, M. and M. Rashidi, Modeling of soil sodium adsorption ratio based on
soil electrical conductivity. ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science,
2008. 3(5&6): p. 27-31.
79. Coal Seam Gas Water Management Plan. 2015.
80. Coal Seam Methane Water. News Archive 2008 [cited 2015 24 May]; Available from:
http://www.aquatecmaxcon.com.au.
81. Veolia Major Projects. 2015 [cited 2015 01 June]; Available from:
http://www.veolia.com.au/major-projects/projects/santos.
82. Actiflo Veolia 2015 [cited 2015 01 June]; Available from:
http://www.veolia.com.au/content/documents/brochures/Veolia-Water-
Corporate.pdf.
References Page 104
© 2015 Page 104
83. Facts About Talinga. 2015 [cited 2015 01 June]; Available from:
http://www.aplng.com.au/pdf/factsheets/Talinga_gas_field.pdf.
84. Upstream Fairview Project Area Environmental Management Plan, Santos, Editor.
85. Millar, G.J., S.J. Couperthwaite, and S. Papworth, Ion exchange of sodium chloride
and sodium bicarbonate solutions using strong acid cation resins in relation to coal
seam water treatment. Journal of Water Process Engineering, 2016. 11: p. 60-67.
86. Millar, G.J., S.J. Couperthwaite, and C.D. Moodliar, Strategies for the management
and treatment of coal seam gas associated water. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 2016. 57: p. 669-691.
87. Alzahrani, S. and A.W. Mohammad, Challenges and trends in membrane technology
implementation for produced water treatment: a review. Journal of Water Process
Engineering, 2014. 4: p. 107-133.
88. Miyoshi, T., M. Hayashi, K. Shimamura, and H. Matsuyama, Important fractions of
organic matter causing fouling of seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) membranes.
Desalination, 2016. 390: p. 72-80.
89. Oh, H.-J., Y.-K. Choung, S. Lee, J.-S. Choi, T.-M. Hwang, and J.H. Kim, Scale
formation in reverse osmosis desalination: model development. Desalination, 2009.
238(1): p. 333-346.
90. Cob, S.S., C. Beaupin, B. Hofs, M. Nederlof, D. Harmsen, E. Cornelissen, A.
Zwijnenburg, F.G. Güner, and G. Witkamp, Silica and silicate precipitation as
limiting factors in high-recovery reverse osmosis operations. Journal of membrane
science, 2012. 423: p. 1-10.
91. Water, D. and P. Solutions, FILMTEC™ Reverse Osmosis Membranes Technical
Manual. Available on: http://msdssearch. dow.
com/PublishedLiteratureDOWCOM/dh_08db/0901b803808db77d. pdf, 2011: p. 609-
00071.
92. Milne, N.A., T. O'Reilly, P. Sanciolo, E. Ostarcevic, M. Beighton, K. Taylor, M.
Mullett, A.J. Tarquin, and S.R. Gray, Chemistry of silica scale mitigation for RO
desalination with particular reference to remote operations. Water research, 2014. 65:
p. 107-133.
93. Rebello, C.A., S.J. Couperthwaite, G.J. Millar, and L.A. Dawes, Coal seam water
quality and the impact upon management strategies 2017. 150: p. 323–333.
94. Alhadidi, A., M. Kennedy, A. Diepeveen, H. Prummel, M. Boorsma, and J. Schippers,
Scaling potential calculations using different methods: Case study: Klazienaveen
UF/RO plant. Desalination and Water Treatment, 2009. 6(1-3): p. 138-143.
References Page 105
© 2015 Page 105
95. Poovanaesvaran, P., M. Alghoul, A. Fadhil, M. Abdul-Majeed, N. Assim, and K.
Sopian, Techno-economic evaluation of a small-scale PV-BWRO system at different
latitudes. Desalination and Water Treatment, 2014. 52(37-39): p. 7082-7091.
96. Aghdam, M.A., F. Zraick, J. Simon, J. Farrell, and S.A. Snyder, A novel brine
precipitation process for higher water recovery. Desalination, 2016. 385: p. 69-74.
97. Altaee, A., Theoretical study on feed water designs to reverse osmosis pressure vessel.
Desalination, 2013. 326: p. 1-9.
98. Alahmad, M., Prediction of performance of sea water reverse osmosis units.
Desalination, 2010. 261(1): p. 131-137.
99. Altaee, A., Computational model for estimating reverse osmosis system design and
performance: Part-one binary feed solution. Desalination, 2012. 291: p. 101-105.
100. Standards, A.S.N.Z., Water quality - Sampling. Part 11: Guidance on sampling of
groundwaters., in ISO 5667-11:2009. 1998, Standards Australia: New South Wales.
101. Protection, D.o.E.a.H., Monitoring and Sampling Manual 2009, Environmental
Protection (Water) Policy 2009, D.o.E.a.H. Protection, Editor. 2009, Queensland
Government.
102. Standards, A.S.N.Z., Selection of containers and preservation of water samples for
microbiological analysis, in AS/NZS 2031:2001. 2000, Standards Australia.
103. Services, A.L. Pysical and Chemical Analysis. 2014; Available from:
http://www.alsglobal.com/en/Our-Services/Life-
Sciences/Pharmaceutical/Capabilities/Australia/Physical-and-Chemical-Analysis.
104. Bhuiyan, M.A.H., M.A. Rakib, S.B. Dampare, S. Ganyaglo, and S. Suzuki, Surface
Water Quality Assessment in the Central Part of Bangladesh Using Multivariate
Analysis. Ksce Journal of Civil Engineering, 2011. 15(6): p. 995-1003.
105. Najar, I.A. and A.B. Khan, Assessment of water quality and identification of pollution
sources of three lakes in Kashmir, India, using multivariate analysis. Environmental
Earth Sciences, 2012. 66(8): p. 2367-2378.
106. Bhuiyan, M.A.H., N.I. Suruvi, S.B. Dampare, M.A. Islam, S.B. Quraishi, S. Ganyaglo,
and S. Suzuki, Investigation of the possible sources of heavy metal contamination in
lagoon and canal water in the tannery industrial area in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2011. 175(1-4): p. 633-649.
107. Lu, P., K. Mei, Y.J. Zhang, L.L. Liao, B.B. Long, R.A. Dahlgren, and M.H. Zhang,
Spatial and temporal variations of nitrogen pollution in Wen-Rui Tang River
watershed, Zhejiang, China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2011.
180(1-4): p. 501-520.
References Page 106
© 2015 Page 106
108. Settle, S., A. Goonetilleke, and G.A. Ayoko, Determination of Surrogate Indicators
for Phosphorus and Solids in Urban Stormwater: Application of Multivariate Data
Analysis Techniques. Water, air, and soil pollution, 2007. 182(1): p. 149-161.
109. Company, H.N.G., IMS Design 2015 User Guide. 2015, Nitto Group Company:
California. p. 74.
110. Corona, F., M. Mulas, H. Haimi, L. Sundell, M. Heinonen, and R. Vahala, Monitoring
nitrate concentrations in the denitrifying post-filtration unit of a municipal wastewater
treatment plant. Journal of Process Control, 2013. 23(2): p. 158-170.
111. Gazzaz, N.M., M.K. Yusoff, M.F. Ramli, A.Z. Aris, and H. Juahir, Characterization
of spatial patterns in river water quality using chemometric pattern recognition
techniques. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2012. 64(4): p. 688-698.
112. Giridharan, L., T. Venugopal, and M. Jayaprakash, Assessment of Water Quality
Using Chemometric Tools: A Case Study of River Cooum, South India. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 2009. 56(4): p. 654-69.
113. Chaffee, A.L., G. Lay, M. Marshall, W.R. Jackson, Y. Fei, T.V. Verheyen, P.J.
Cassidy, and S.G. Scott, Structural characterisation of Middle Jurassic, high-volatile
bituminous Walloon Subgroup coals and correlation with the coal seam gas content.
Fuel, 2010. 89(11): p. 3241-3249.
114. Velasco-Molina, H.A., A.R. Swoboda, and C.L. Godfrey, Dispersion of soils of
different mineralogy in relation to sodium adsorption ratio and electrolytic
concentration. Soil Science, 1971. 111(5): p. 282-287.
115. Foy, C.D., Soil chemical factors limiting plant root growth, in Limitations to plant
root growth. 1992, Springer. p. 97-149.
116. Jones, J.B. and I. ebrary, Plant nutrition and soil fertility manual. 2012: CRC Press.
117. Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. 2013, Australian Government National Health
and Medical Research Council.
118. Warner, N.R., C.A. Christie, R.B. Jackson, and A. Vengosh, Impacts of shale gas
wastewater disposal on water quality in western Pennsylvania. Environmental science
& technology, 2013. 47(20): p. 11849.
119. Jackson, R.E. and K.J. Reddy, Trace element chemistry of coal bed natural gas
produced water in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Environmental Science &
Technology, 2007. 41(17): p. 5953-5959.
120. Salinity and Water Quality Fact Sheet. 2012 [cited 2015 01 March]; Available from:
http://www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/quality/factsheet-salinity-
and-water-quality.
References Page 107
© 2015 Page 107
121. Amor, Z., B. Bariou, N. Mameri, M. Taky, S. Nicolas, and A. Elmidaoui, Fluoride
removal from brackish water by electrodialysis. Desalination, 2001. 133(3): p. 215-
223.
122. Guidelines for drinking-water quality: First addendum to volume 1,
Recommendations. 2006, World Health Organization.
123. Zainol, Z. and M.J. Nicol, Ion-exchange equilibria of Ni 2+, Co 2+, Mn 2+ and Mg
2+ with iminodiacetic acid chelating resin Amberlite IRC 748. Hydrometallurgy,
2009. 99(3): p. 175-180.
124. Ge, F. and L. Zhu, Effects of coexisting anions on removal of bromide in drinking
water by coagulation. Journal of hazardous materials, 2008. 151(2): p. 676-681.
125. Boron in drinking-water: Background document for development of WHO Guidelines
for Drinking-water Quality. 2009, World Health Organization.
126. Glueckstern, P. and M. Priel, Boron removal in brackish water desalination systems.
Desalination, 2007. 205(1): p. 178-184.
127. Goodarzi, F. and D.J. Swaine, Behavior of boron in coal during natural and industrial
combustion processes Energy Sources, 1993. 15(4): p. 609-622.
128. Hou, D.Y., G.H. Dai, J. Wang, H. Fan, Z.K. Luan, and C.C. Fu, Boron removal and
desalination from seawater by PVDF flat-sheet membrane through direct contact
membrane distillation. Desalination, 2013. 326: p. 115-124.
129. Sheikholeslami, R. and S. Zhou, Performance of RO membranes in silica bearing
waters. Desalination, 2000. 132(1): p. 337-344.
130. Hamrouni, B. and M. Dhahbi, Analytical aspects of silica in saline water —
application to desalination of brackish waters. Desalination, 2001. 136(1): p. 225-
232.
131. Clay mineral cements in sandstones: IAS special symposium no. 34. 2003, US: Wiley-
Blackwell.
132. Atekwana, E.A., E.A. Atekwana, R.S. Rowe, D.D. Werkema, and F.D. Legall, The
relationship of total dissolved solids measurements to bulk electrical conductivity in
an aquifer contaminated with hydrocarbon. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 2004.
56(4): p. 281-294.
133. Walton, N., Electrical Conductivity and Total Dissolved Solids—What is Their
Precise Relationship? Desalination, 1989. 72(3): p. 275-292.
134. Ali, N.S., K. Mo, and M. Kim, A case study on the relationship between conductivity
and dissolved solids to evaluate the potential for reuse of reclaimed industrial
wastewater. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 2012. 16(5): p. 708-713.
References Page 108
© 2015 Page 108
135. Rahimi, H., E. Pazira, and F. Tajik, Effect of soil organic matter, electrical
conductivity and sodium adsorption ratio on tensile strength of aggregates. Soil and
Tillage Research, 2000. 54(3): p. 145-153.
136. Boerlage, S.F., M.D. Kennedy, I. Bremere, G.J. Witkamp, J.P. Van der Hoek, and J.C.
Schippers, The scaling potential of barium sulphate in reverse osmosis systems.
Journal of Membrane Science, 2002. 197(1): p. 251-268.
137. Boerlage, Ś.F., M.D. Kennedy, I. Bremere, G.J. Witkamp, J.P. van der Hoek, and J.C.
Schippers, Stable barium sulphate supersaturation in reverse osmosis. Journal of
Membrane Science, 2000. 179(1): p. 53-68.
138. Blaisi, N.I., J. Roessler, W. Cheng, T. Townsend, and S.R. Al-Abed, Evaluation of the
impact of lime softening waste disposal in natural environments. Waste Management,
2015. 43: p. 524-532.
139. Cheng, L., J. Sun, F. Ni, L. Li, C. Liu, and X. Bi, Improvement of lime softening
treatment of secondary effluent by the addition of fly ash. Desalination and Water
Treatment, 2014. 52(4-6): p. 1054-1061.
140. Ezechi, E.H., M.H. Isa, and S.R.B.M. Kutty, Boron in produced water: challenges
and improvements: a comprehensive review. Journal of Applied Sciences, 2012.
12(5): p. 402.
141. Wang, B., X. Guo, and P. Bai, Removal technology of boron dissolved in aqueous
solutions–a review. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering
Aspects, 2014. 444: p. 338-344.
142. Hilal, N., G. Kim, and C. Somerfield, Boron removal from saline water: a
comprehensive review. Desalination, 2011. 273(1): p. 23-35.
143. Kabay, N., S. Sarp, M. Yuksel, Ö. Arar, and M. Bryjak, Removal of boron from
seawater by selective ion exchange resins. Reactive and Functional Polymers, 2007.
67(12): p. 1643-1650.
144. Köse, T.E. and N. Öztürk, Boron removal from aqueous solutions by ion-exchange
resin: column sorption–elution studies. Journal of hazardous materials, 2008. 152(2):
p. 744-749.
145. Darwish, N.B., V. Kochkodan, and N. Hilal, Boron removal from water with
fractionized Amberlite IRA743 resin. Desalination, 2015. 370: p. 1-6.
146. Korkmaz, M., C. Özmetin, and B.A. Fil, Modelling of boron removal from solutions
using Purolite S 108 in a batch reactor. CLEAN–Soil, Air, Water, 2016.
147. Nadav, N. and E. Koutsakos, Innovative design of the UF and SWRO Limassol
desalination plant in Cyprus. Desalination and Water Treatment, 2013. 51(1-3): p. 95-
100.
References Page 109
© 2015 Page 109
148. Pérez-González, A., A. Urtiaga, R. Ibáñez, and I. Ortiz, State of the art and review on
the treatment technologies of water reverse osmosis concentrates. Water research,
2012. 46(2): p. 267-283.
Appendix A Page 110
© 2015 Page 110
Appendix A
Water Quality Database