An environmentally attractive source of energy Part three - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Natural Gas: An environmentally attractive source of energy Part three

Protection of aquifers

12 1/4” Hole 9 5/8” Casing ~150m 17 ½” Hole 13 3/8” Casing ~20m 8 1/2” Hole 7” Casing ~500m 6 1/8” Hole ~600m to 1500m

Alluvium & Volcanics Grafton Formation Kangaroo Creek Sandstone Maclean Sandstone Member Walloon Coal Measures

Tertiary to Recent

Cretaceous Late

Middle

• Well design (steel and cement isolation) is standard oil and gas industry technology – over

100 years old and used onshore Australia (Cooper Basin) for more than 50 years

Page 2

Independent hydrogeological assessment – Klohn Crippen Berger Existing Water Bores within 10km of Casino Depths (metres) Number Alluvium 0 to 20 179 Grafton Formation 20 to 100 272 Kangaroo Creek 100 to 450 8 Walloon Coal Measures 450 to 680 None Unknown 9 Total 468

• CSG activities are managed to avoid damage to water

resources

Aquifers will be protected

Page 3

Comments from key NSW Government officials during Parliamentary Inquiry into CSG, December 2011: The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps MLC Mr Harris, welcome to the Committee. As a water expert, presumably you keep abreast of matters in relation to aquifers not only in New South Wales but around Australia. Are you aware of any instance where coal seam gas water has cross- contaminated through drilling operations with groundwater aquifers? Mr Mark Harris (Acting Director for Water Policy, New South Wales Office of Water): ‘I am not aware of any instance in New South Wales.’

Source: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/b3a0f891 e72068d3ca2579650012e22a/$FILE/111212%20Sydney%20-%20Uncorrected.pdf

CSG activities have not damaged aquifers – NSW Parliamentary Inquiry

Page 4

The Hon. Rick Colless MLC You obviously would have heard all the concerns that have been expressed by a number of different organisations about the potential deleterious ramifications of the coal seam gas industry generally. Have any of those concerns that have been expressed manifested themselves in the Camden gas field? Mr Brad Mullard (Executive Director, Mineral Resources and Energy, DTIRIS): ‘I am not aware of any issue. The main issue generally stems around water and water contamination and then disposal of water. The experience in the Camden area is certainly the geology is such that the aquifers are isolated from the coal seam production and we have seen no cross-contamination of aquifers. In terms of water disposal, the water production out of the Camden gas field has been substantially less and is in volumes that are very easily manageable.’

Source: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/b3a0f891e72068d3ca2579650012e22a/$FILE/111212%20Sydney%20-%20Uncorrected.pdf

CSG activities have not damaged aquifers – NSW Parliamentary Inquiry (con’t)

The allegations made by the Alliance that coal seam gas mining presents a threat of serious or irreversible damage to groundwater or other water, are not only unsupported by any evidence, they are, moreover, formulated at such a high level of generality that they cannot found an assessment of the risks associated with the project. Barrington - Gloucester - Stroud Preservation Alliance Inc v Minister for Planning and Infrastructure [2012] NSW LEC 197 (Decision Date 27/08/2012) http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=160393

Page 5

CSG activities have not damaged aquifers – Namoi Catchment Study – July/August 2012

• Second major Australian study to show that CSG will

have only a minor impact on water

• Key points:
• No harmful impact in water from CSG development in

the Namoi Catchment

• Various scenarios show a very minor impact over the

next 90 years, within the range of normal seasonal variations

• Over last 30 years there has been a 8m drawdown of

water level (before CSG) – maximum impact forecast as a maximum of 0.5m and most likely scenario is 20 cm (ie; within normal seasonal variations )

Page 6

Extract from Media Release issued by the Queensland Minister for the Environment, 15 September 2011

The Hon Vicky Darling MP Minister for the Environment

CSG activities have not damaged aquifers – Queensland experience

Source: http://www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=76635 Page 7

‘Ms Darling also told today’s forum that monitoring of nearly 200 groundwater bores close to coal seam gas operations within Surat and Bowen Basins so far this year had revealed no evidence of water impacts from coal seam gas activities on surrounding aquifers.’

• To extract gas, water is removed from the coal
• seam. It is not toxic and its use is closely

regulated

• Produced water analysis shows that waste water is

1/10th salt content of sea water and close to drinking water standard

• Metgasco publicly released water data on 18 July

2012

Our wells produce low volumes of water in comparison to

• ther operations

Produced water is salty, not toxic

Page 8

How is produced water managed?

• Salty water is pumped from the coal seam to allow gas

to be produced. The volume of water declines over field life.

• Metgasco’s water rates are lower and water quality is

better than many other coal seam gas areas.

• Water is initially stored in holding ponds, before

treatment.

• Discharge of the water is approved and regulated by

government

• The goal is to establish a beneficial use for the water.
• There are a number of different technologies that can

be used to treat the water and disposal options, such as reverse osmosis. Metgasco has a study underway to determine the most economic approaches (all approaches will need to meet environmental standards)

Page 9

CSG water – fact v fiction

Page 10