acquisition of hydrogeological and related petroleum ... · 3.2.1 introduction data security and...
TRANSCRIPT
11
3.0 Acquisition of hydrogeological and related petroleum engineering data
12
3.0 The acquisition of hydrogeological and related petroleum engineering data
# Department Condition Description Completion date Status
Pre-Dec 2012 Post-Dec 2012
1 52c i 53B dCompletion of Stage 2 Monitoring Bore and VWP conversion programs (as outlined in this Plan)
March 2014
2 52c iIncorporation of potential additional UWIR groundwater monitoring requirements into Stage 2 Bore Construction Program
February 2013
3 52c i 53B d Construction of additional UWIR monitoring bores March 2014
4 52c iv 53B d Completion of bore baseline assessments and data analysis October 2013
13 52c 53B d Completion of interim Groundwater Monitoring Plan. April 2013
14 62f Collation and reporting of groundwater monitoring resultsApril 2014 and annually thereafter
15 52ciCollection and analysis of six-monthly groundwater quality samples
Biannually
16 52ciImplementation of the telemetry system for continuous groundwater level monitoring
April 2014
3249c and d, 52di I and II; 52d ii
53B d, 53B EConfirmation of early warning and threshold monitoring bore construction
October 2014
52 52c iImplementation of landholder bore monitoring – land access negotiations
October 2013
53 62f Commencement of monitoring of Landholder bores April 2014
Commitments completed Evergreen Commitments
Commitments work in progress Firm deliverables for that month
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The integrity of a water management strategy rests primarily on assembling quality data and on taking a long-
term view in establishing an effective monitoring network. QGC has initiated a number of hydrogeological data
collection programs augmented by the application of petroleum-related data to hydrogeological workflows. The
result is a growing body of information as the foundation for improving our understanding of the Surat Basin.
Accurate and robust data are central to the understanding of the Surat Basin, monitoring changes and managing
groundwater and QGC utilises a number of data streams as part of its hydrogeological conceptualisation. These
streams include a range of background and pre-existing information as well as project specific data acquisition.
The objectives of the data acquisition process can be summarised as:
• To provide the geological and hydrogeological data to characterise the groundwater system, and to enable
ongoing hydrogeological data collection;
• To generate ongoing data streams for analysis of any groundwater level and chemistry changes due to
naturally occurring processes (e.g. rainfall recharge, barometric and earth tide fluctuations), CSG activities
and/or other groundwater usage;
• To define the baseline and establish ongoing groundwater level and quality monitoring;
• To monitor any potential impacts from CSG activities on aquifers and MNES;
• To provide timely early warning on potential impacts to MNES and water users so that an appropriate
response plan can be initiated;
13
• To provide targeted monitoring at planned CSG appraisal pilot trials, (CSG water pumping tests) in support of
aquifer connectivity studies prior, during and after testing in order to identify possible hydraulic connection
between adjacent formations;
• To monitor aquifer injection trials (near-field and far-field monitoring of potential response);
• To support reservoir development activities; and
• To inform other programs and research as required.
A key innovation in the ongoing interpretation of the Surat Basin is integration of petroleum and hydrogeological
data and workflows. This Chapter describes the ongoing data acquisition streams that are bridging the
boundaries between petroleum engineering and hydrogeology, including:
• Downhole pressure and temperature monitoring through wireline tools such as MFT;
• Drill string conveyed testing such as drill stem tests (DSTs) and DFITs;
• Advanced geological and hydrogeological unit characterisation through seismic interpretation and wireline
logging;
• Petrophysical characterisation of aquifers from:
• Detailed sedimentological logging, petrography and flow analysis of cores from complete sections of
Surat Basin sediments; and
• Petroleum industry standard petrophysical logging.
3.2 DATA MANAGEMENT
3.2.1 INTRODUCTION
Data security and access are fundamental to successful analysis and interpretation of QGC’s groundwater
information. Very large volumes of baseline and time-series data are being collected as part of the groundwater
management and monitoring strategy. These data will be securely stored and provide efficient access for internal
and external users. An appropriate data security model is used, derived from the BG Group corporate data
management system.
Due to the specialised data types, it is not practical to store all the data using one database solution. The
QGC data management strategy consists, therefore, of a number of fit-for-purpose solutions with database
communications interfaces and an appropriate data access security model. Selected data streams are required to
deliver information to the regulatory bodies for compliance and to make information available to the community
via a web-based user portal.
The data is regularly and routinely updated into the relevant databases immediately following collection and
QA/QC. The systems are designed to allow users to interrogate data in a variety of ways to suit their needs
(i.e. by aquifer, by locality and field). The system is also intended to provide for reporting to OGIA and the
Department as required to demonstrate compliance with relevant approval conditions.
Figure 3-1 illustrates the data management process, the various data stores and the route by which data are
validated and published externally. The system is described in the following sections.
3.2.2 INTEGRATED CORPORATE DATA MANAGEMENT – KEYSTONE
The Keystone solution was conceived by BG Group to provide subsurface professionals a complete set of quality
assured, approved reference and interpretive data through a single point of access. Roll out of the solution
commenced in 2010 and was completed in 2012. The ultimate objective of the Keystone platform is to provide the
BG Group with a global subsurface data management and access tool. All data stored within Keystone conforms
to specified quality standards and is accessed through a single interface.
14
*Note – Production Delivery Management System (PDMS)
Figure 3-1 – Data management and storage process
3.2.3 GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL DATA – PETREL MASTER DATABASE
The Petrel master database is an integral component of the Keystone solution. The Schlumberger Software
Petrel models form the basis of both the CSG field development plan and the GEN3 groundwater model. The
geophysical, petrophysical and geological data stored within Keystone are linked to the Petrel master database,
which is itself interrogated to produce static geological models at various scales. New geological, petrophysical
and geophysical data is continuously added to the Keystone data store as exploration and appraisal drilling
takes place. This new data is interpreted and used periodically to update the Petrel static models. Both the static
geological model foundation and the dynamic groundwater model datasets are stored and managed within the
Keystone architecture. This provides a robust data management solution for reference and future enhancement
when further data becomes available. Additional data required for model calibration is stored within a range of
software tools in secure corporate network locations.
Water level time series data
Groundwater monitoring wells
PI historian
Data analysis spreadsheets
Hydrograph interpretation
Understanding of basin groundwater dynamics
Trend analysis
Data loggers
Well construction details
Telemetry
Manual measurements
Well construction performance analysis
SharePoint internal data distribution
Geochemist’s Workbench
Geochemical modelling
Envirosys environmental
database
Data analysis spreadsheets
GIS
Spatial analysis
Legacy spreadsheets
Data QA/QCPDMS
Keystone
Web portal – public access (Data and
published reports/research findings)
Existing processes/architecture
Corporate database
Planned upgrade/automation
WellviewBaseline assessments
Subsurface data
15
3.2.4 INTERNAL DATA DISTRIBUTION – SHAREPOINT
The SharePoint database provides the secure platform for the QGC intranet document storage and distribution
system. The software also includes proficient scheduling functionality and, on this basis, it was selected to store
information gathered from the groundwater bore baseline program conducted for the QCLNG project area.
3.2.5 SPATIAL DATA – GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS
All spatial data is stored and managed centrally. The GIS system is linked into a number of databases and is used
to combine spatial datasets for: comparative analysis, land access planning, risk analysis, site location planning,
infrastructure planning and management and spatial visualisation. The wells management database is a key
element of the business control and development process and the relevant spatial datasets are updated daily.
This data store has recently been upgraded to include a daily update of the proposed wells schedule in addition
to the drilled wells inventory.
Groundwater monitoring bores are incorporated within the same spatial datasets as the CSG wells and drilling
progress can be tracked on a daily basis.
3.2.6 WELL PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION – WELLVIEW
The Wellview system is used to manage well drilling implementation and has the capacity to store information
from the planning to abandonment stages of the well lifecycle. The system also includes a number of tools to
track drilling, development and completion progress. Wellview has historically been used as a component of the
CSG well drilling management process and has been adapted to accommodate the different requirements for
groundwater monitoring bore drilling.
3.2.7 PRODUCTION DELIVERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (PDMS)
The PDMS is the global BG Group standard for managing operations. Data is captured and delivered to PDMS
from data historian tools such as PI. PI forms one of the two main components of PDMS, the other being the
production database. The PI package is used to capture and store information on asset operation, wells and
facilities, which is used to provide input for validation, calculations and processes and subsequent reporting
and outputs from the production database. The PDMS outputs inform the business with regard to production
performance for the purposes of optimisation and commercial management.
3.2.8 FORMATION PRESSURE TIME-SERIES DATA – THE PI SYSTEM
The PI system forms the historian component of the PDMS and provides a scalable interface for real time
infrastructure management. The software has the capacity to interface with a number of front end products that
capture a range of data types (e.g. real-time operations data such as temperature, pressure and flow rates from
production wells). Data from the PI system is accessed through both a proprietary interface (the PI Process Book)
and by using a Microsoft Excel add-in tool.
The system provides functionality for the storage of large time series datasets collected using telemetry systems
(e.g. formation pressure time series datasets from groundwater bores). However, data storage and retrieval are
the only functions applied to the groundwater bores. The PI system has the capacity for real time monitoring
and remote systems management. It is intended that various tools will be used to provide notification of gauge
system failure and formation pressure perturbations indicative of specified trigger levels to monitor potential
production drawdown impacts.
16
3.2.9 GEOCHEMICAL DATA – ENVIROSYS
QGC’s groundwater group uses analyses of samples collected from both CSG production and pilot wells and
groundwater monitoring and private landholder bores. This covers the range of processes for associated water
produced as a consequence of CSG production, naturally occurring surface water accumulations (e.g. springs
discharge) and groundwater. The Envirosys database solution is used to capture and store the water analysis
results and also provides some rudimentary data interpretation tools. The interface allows for multiple criteria
interrogation of the database and has a data export facility. All water analysis data is stored in Envirosys to
provide a central data store.
The Production Chemistry group within QGC manages the data flow into Envirosys and conducts preliminary
quality assurance and quality control prior to releasing the data for general access. The data is exported from
Envirosys, subjected to a second phase of QA/QC and used for geochemical modelling and interpretation.
3.2.10 PUBLIC ACCESS
QGC has commenced development of an interactive web-based GIS system that will enable information on water
production, aquifer and bore status conditions to be accessed by the community, including landholders on QGC
tenements (via a secure web interface).
This transparent approach provides greater clarity on groundwater levels within aquifers, including seasonal
trends and changes to groundwater levels as influenced by existing water users and CSG operations. This project
is scheduled for completion by mid-2014.
It is intended that both water level and water chemistry data from designated monitoring bores be made
available via technical reports (such as bore completion reports) and other reporting media as required.
This same data form an integral part of annual aquifer reporting requirements to Australian and Queensland
government agencies. Annual reporting of all groundwater level and quality data commenced from April 2013. It
is planned that raw data will be provided in annual reports, along with relevant interpretive graphs, diagrams and
figures.
3.3 BORE BASELINE ASSESSMENTS
3.3.1 INTRODUCTION
The assessment of landholder bores in the QCLNG project area was completed in accordance with the
requirements of the Department of Environment and Resource Management (DEHP) (now Department of
Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP)) Baseline Assessment Guidelines (May 2011) and the Bore Baseline
Assessment Plan for QGC’s Northern, Central and Southern Development Areas, Surat Basin (the Plan), which was
approved by DEHP in August 2011. The program was completed seven months ahead of the Plan's schedule.
First field assessments commenced in May 2011 and the last assessment was completed in November 2012.
During the program, a total of 388 bore assessments were completed at 250 properties. The data collection phase
of the program is now complete and data evaluation is ongoing.
17
Figure 3-2 – Bore baseline flowchart
Scheduling
Contractor site visits
Data review of field forms and associated documents
Upload data
Submission of WQ samples and field parameter measurements to labs
by contractors
Receipt of lab results
Submission to landowners and QWC
Upload data
Prioritise monitoring locations and implement
QGC review of lab results
Well integrity assessment
Data interpretation – levels and hydrochemistry
Bore inventory field work scheduling
Reporting
Well and data evaluation
Field work and quality assurance
Laboratory analysis and quality assurance
Overall, a total of 2,659 private properties were approached as part of the bore baseline assessment with:
• 1,015 properties offering 'no response'; and
• 1,272 properties found to have no bore.
Figure 3-2 illustrates the process from initial landholder communications through to final data assessment.
Appendix C contains details of the assessments and results.
18
3.3.2 COMMUNICATIONS PROCESS
The landowner communication process identified in the Plan was as follows:
• Landowners were contacted by mail and phone according to the bore baseline priority schedule identified in
the Plan, to identify if bore(s) exist on the property. At least one letter and one phone call attempt was made
for each landholder (with the exception of 'do not call' landholders). If no contact was established after the
initial attempts, one to two letters would have been sent in total and up to three phone calls;
• If bore(s) exist, a site visit was scheduled based on the availability of landowners or other interviewees;
• Site access rules were reviewed and field schedules created for assessment contractors;
• A 10-day notification letter was sent for site access and a courtesy call was made to the landholder
48 to 74 hours prior to site assessment; and
• Following the receipt and review of contractor assessment forms and documentation and any laboratory
results, a report was sent to the landowner incorporating the baseline assessment results.
Assessments were completed in approximately six field phases between May 2011 and October 2012, allowing
efficient management of scheduling, field work and data review, processing and reporting based on available
resources.
Landowners who did not respond to an initial letter or repeated subsequent attempts to contact them by
telephone were sent a close-out letter advising that QGC had made numerous attempts at contact and
requesting they advise of any water bores. No responses were received. A final letter was mailed to all landholders
who had indicated there were no bores on their property, confirming this status and requesting that they contact
QGC if this information was incorrectly recorded. No responses were received.
3.3.3 LANDOWNER REPORTS
On receipt and review of laboratory results and field forms, documents were collated for mailing to landowners.
The bound results packet included:
• The final field form (early in the program DEHP indicated that field forms had to be signed by landowners and
so both an original signed and revised form were provided. When this requirement changed, only a revised
form was provided);
• Laboratory certificates where a water sample was collected;
• Copies of scanned documents provided by interviewees; and
• Copies of all photographs collected during the site visit.
The date that results were mailed to the landowner was recorded in QGC’s communications database.
3.3.4 LANDOWNER CONTACT RESPONSE AND BORE ASSESSMENT COMPLETIONS
Multiple attempts were made to contact landowners for more than 2,500 properties within the QCLNG project
area. No response was received from 1,015 of these properties. A total of 1,272 properties were identified as
not having bores, either through communication with the landowner or assessment team site visits to other
properties owned by the same landowner.
A total of 388 bores were assessed in this baseline program. Figure 3-3 shows the contact status of each property
within the project area and a list of completed bores is provided in Appendix C. There were 82 bores assessed
outside QGC tenements and the project area. In summary:
• 48% of properties were identified as not having bores;
• 10% of properties had completed assessments; and
• 38% of properties had no contact response.
19
50
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TARA
DALBY
MILES
YULEBA
DULACCA
WANDOAN
JANDOWAE
CHINCHILLA
CECIL PLAINS
Bore Baseline AssessmentContact Status by Property
±0 10 20 30 40 50
Kilometers
DATA SOURCE: Towns - GARoads - StreetProDCDB - DNRM
Map Projection: GDA 94 SCALE: 1:700,000 (A3)
"Based on or contains data provided by the State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Resource Management) 2013. In consideration of the State permitting use of this data you acknowledge and
agree that the State gives no warranty in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability,completeness, currency or suitability) and accepts no liability (including without limitation,
liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating toany use of the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of the privacy laws."
Note: Every effort has been made to ensure this information is spatially accurate. The location ofthis information should not be relied on as the exact field location.
8/07/2013C
DATE:CREATED BY:
MAP NO:REV NO:MAP TYPE: Other
PLAN REF:CHECKED BY: JG
M_25640_01TM
v4
X Town/City
Principal Road
Property Boundary
QGC Owned Land
QCLNG Project Area
Assessment StatusAccess Denied
Completed
No Bores
No Contact Details
No Response - Closed
0
Kilometres
Bore baseline assessment contact status by property
10 20 30 40
Access DeniedCompletedNo BoresNo Contact DetailsNo Response – Closed
Assessment Status
Town / City
Principal Road
Property Boundary
QGC Owned Land
Northern Development AreaCentral Development AreaSouthern Development Area
Figure 3-3 – Bore baseline contact status by property
3.3.5 FIELD SURVEYING
The field component of the program involved 356 field days for the assessment teams. The bore assessments
involved an interview with the landowner or property contact, if available, to obtain information and any
available documentation about bore construction and maintenance, capacity and use, and previous water
samples and water level measurements. An interviewee was present for 87% of the assessments. If there
was access to the bore and the water level tape was unlikely to become entangled with downhole pumping
equipment, assessors obtained a total depth and water level measurement. Water level measurements were
obtained for 42% of the bores assessed. If a bore had an operational pump, it was purged and field and laboratory
water quality samples were collected. A water quality sample was obtained for 46% of the bores assessed. In
order to avoid possible damage to the bore or pumping equipment, the field team as a rule did not undertake
any manipulation of the bore headworks. If access into the bore casing to obtain water level and gas readings
was restricted, the landowner was asked to assist if simple manipulation was required. Where a lengthy effort,
excessive or potentially damaging modification was required, access was typically not obtained.
20
Figure 3-5 – Assessment data evaluation
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
JenWill
AlexCam
Kate
Sean
Ross Carla
Harry
Owen
David
Codie
Acrux
Teviot
Myrtle
Peebs
Kenya
Clunie
Poppy
Argyle
Cassio
Lauren
Jordan
Polaris
Barney
Lawton
Marcus
Connor
Celeste RubyJo Isabella
Mamdal
Jammat
McNulty
Cougals
Michelle
Bellevue
Kathleen
Margaret
Aberdeen
Pinelands
Maire Rae
Glendower
Ridgewood
Kenya East
Broadwater
Berwyndale
Avon Downs
Matilda-John
WoleebeeCreek
ParadiseDowns
BerwyndaleSouth
KOGAN
CONDAMINE
TARA
MILESDULACCA
WANDOAN
CHINCHILLAJANDOWAE
ATP 648
ATP 621
ATP 651
ATP 574
ATP 620
ATP 676
ATP 632
ATP 676
ATP 632
ATP 648
ATP 676
PL 275
PL 273
PL 276
PL 278
PL 279
PLA 262
PLA 261
PL 171
PL 277
PL 228
PL 442
PL 474
PL 180
PL 398
PL 466
PL 263
PL 247
PL 211
PL 201
PLA 458
PL 179
PLA 472
PLA 393
PLA 399
PL 229
PL 212
PLA 392
PL 274
PLA 461
PLA 443
PLA 459
PL 257
151°E
151°E
150°E
150°E
26°S 26°S
27°S 27°S
Environmental Authority Applications
Map Projection: GDA 94
DATA SOURCE: Towns, Railways, Roads - GATenements - DME "Based on or contains data provided by the State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Resource Management) 2012. In consideration of the State
permitting use of this data you acknowledge and agree that the State gives no warranty in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability,completeness, currency or suitability) and accepts no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs(including consequential damage) relating to any use of the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of the privacy laws."
Note: Every effort has been made to ensure this information is spatially accurate.The location of this information should not be relied on as the exact field location.
SCALE: (A3)
DATE:
CREATED BY:
MAP NO:
REV NO:
M_11152_0118/09/2012
TM F
ÖÖ
ÖÖ
ÖÖ
ÖÖ
ÖÖ
ÖÖ ÖÖ
ÖÖ
ROMA
MACKAY
CAIRNS
BRISBANE
CLERMONT
GLADSTONE
CHINCHILLA
TOWNSVILLE
!. Town
Major Roads
Railway
QCLNG Project Area
QGC Fields in QCLNG Project Area
Environmental Authority Areas
Avon Downs and McNulty EA
Berwyndale South EA
Bellevue EA
Jordan EA
Kenya EA
Ruby EA
Wolleebee Creek EA
QGC Development Areas
Central Gas Fields
Northern Gas Fields
Southern Gas Fields1:600,000
0 9 18 27 364.5
Kilometers
±
Facility type Facility purpose Presence of gas Potential for contamination Other
Artesian ceased flow: <1% Artesian condition unknown: <1% Artesian controlled flow: 2%
Artesian uncontrolled flow: <1%
Sub-Artesian: 6%
Agriculture: 5%
Irrigation: <1%
Stock intensive: 1%
Stock: 32%
Stock and domestic: 16%
Domestic: 4%
Town water supply: <1%
Other (mostly unused): 40%
No gas according to interviewee: 49%
No gas during assessment: 2%
Unknown/interviewee not present: 26%
Gas present according to interviewee: 16%
Gas present during assessment: 7%
Fuel staining or fuel source nearby: 2%
Interaquifer connectivity likely due to corrosion or ingress of surface water: 55%
Both of above: 3%
No or minimal potential: 36%
Not specified: 4%
Interviewee present: 87%
Bore construction details provided: 22%
Bores matched with DNRM RN: 57%
Water quality sample collected: 46%
Abandoned and destroyed: 6% Abandoned and usable: 23% Pump Installed: 59% Pump not installed: 12%
Status
Static water level confidence Bore integrity
Suitability for water level monitoring
Suitability for water quality
monitoring
Water level measurement obtained: 42%
No water level measurement obtained: 58%
Water level obtained not considered static: 11%
Possibly static: 5%
Likely static: 11%Considered static: 19%
High bore integrity: 17%
Likelihood of corrosion/failure unknown: 13%
Corrosion/failure possible: 19%
Corrosion/failure likely: 51%
Not recommended: 63%
Unknown: 2%
Possibly suitable: 31%
Likely suitable: 4%
Not recommended: 64%
Unknown: 2%
Possibly suitable: 29%
Likely suitable: 5%
Formations identified agree with QGC geological model: 70%
No aquifer information provided: 46%
Anecdotal information only provided: 13%
Documentation provided: 41%
Aquifer confidence
Figure 3-4 – Bore assessment data summary
21
Laboratory samples, including duplicates, triplicates and field blanks, along with laboratory method blanks,
spikes, duplicates and surrogates were scrutinised by QGC’s production chemists to assess the traceability
and confidence in the precision, accuracy and representativeness of reported results. On receipt and review of
laboratory results and field forms, documents were printed and bound for mailing to landowners. The bound
results included the final assessment field form, laboratory certificates where a water sample was collected,
copies of scanned documents provided by the interviewee and copies of photographs collected during the field
visit. Results have been reported according to OGIA (and its predecessor QWC) requirements.
3.3.6 BORE ASSESSMENTS DATA SUMMARY
Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5 summarise the information obtained from assessment field forms. More detailed
information is provided in Appendix C.
A key outcome from the bore baseline exercise was to identify bores which QGC can monitor to enhance its
understanding of the hydrogeological and hydrochemistry of the Surat Basin and patterns of water use. An
evaluation is underway into bore integrity so that only bores where QGC has confidence in the data are included
in the network. Identified high quality bores will be equipped with pressure transducers and loggers and sampled
for water quality.
3.4 THE GROUNDWATER MONITORING BORE PROGRAM
3.4.1 INTRODUCTION
The foundation of the hydrogeological conceptualisation is the construction of the groundwater monitoring bore
network. As of July 2013, the network is approximately 80% complete. The aim is to complete the network by the
end of 2013, ahead of major depressurisation of the Walloon Coal Measures associated with LNG production.
The objectives of the monitoring bore network are:
• To provide geological and hydrogeological data to characterise the groundwater system, provide a baseline
dataset and enable ongoing hydrogeological data collection;
• To generate ongoing data streams for analysis of any groundwater level and chemistry changes due to
naturally occurring or anthropogenic processes (e.g. rainfall recharge, barometric and earth tide fluctuations),
CSG activities and/or other groundwater usage;
• To define the baseline and ongoing groundwater level and quality monitoring;
• To monitor any potential impacts from CSG activities on aquifers, EPBC listed springs and private landholder
bores;
• To provide timely early warning or potential impacts to MNES and water users for the appropriate response
plan to be initiated;
• To provide targeted monitoring at planned appraisal pilot trials (CSG water pumping tests) in support of
aquifer connectivity studies prior, during and after testing in order to identify possible hydraulic connection
between adjacent formations;
• To monitor aquifer injection trials (near and far-field monitoring of potential response);
• To ensure this network has been designed to comply fully with federal and Queensland state regulatory
requirements (in particular, OGIA and Queensland environmental authorities);
• To support reservoir development activities; and
• To inform other programs and research as required.
Appendix D has a full description of the network along with monitoring procedures.
22
A formal review of the adequacy of the groundwater monitoring network will be implemented in 2015. This
exercise will be informed by the first two years of operational data and the results of the GEN3 modelling,
which will provide groundwater drawdown results. Also, at this time, the second UWIR will be implemented.
The results of this will be incorporated along with the review and agreement of the monitoring network
implementation reports. Included in that review will be EPBC requirements and the adequacy of the network to
address monitoring of MNES. Once there is confidence that good quality groundwater drawdown projections
are available, an evaluation of the use of statistical methods will be considered as part of the ongoing network
review.
3.4.2 TECHNICAL GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
A number of key guidelines and standards provide the framework around the network design and
implementation including drilling, monitoring, sampling and water quality. Table 3-1 shows the relevant
guidelines and standards.
Area Description
Legislation • Australian Government – EPBC Act
• Queensland Government – Water Act (2000)
• Queensland Government – Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act (2004)
• Queensland Government – Environmental Protection Act (1994) (including amendments)
Guidelines and policies • Queensland Government – CSG Water Management Policy (2012)
• Queensland Government – Baseline Assessment Guideline (2011)
• Queensland Government – Queensland Water Quality Guidelines (2009)
• Queensland Government – Monitoring and Sampling Manual 2009 Environmental Protection (Water)
Policy 2009, V2 (2010)
Standards • National Uniform Drillers Licensing Committee: 2012 – ‘Minimum Construction Requirements for Water
Bores in Australia’ Edition 3
• Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management: 2010 – ‘Minimum Standards for
the Construction and Reconditioning of Water Bores that intersect the Sediments of the Artesian Basin
in Queensland’, State of Queensland
• Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 5667.11:1998 ISO 5667-11:1993 – Water Quality – Sampling Part
11: Guidance on sampling of groundwaters
• US EPA: 1996 – ‘Low-Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Groundwater Sampling Procedures’
• US EPA Region 1: 2010 – ‘Low-Stress (Low Flow) Purging and Sampling Procedure for the Collection of
Groundwater Samples from Monitoring Wells’.
• American Public Health Association – Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
Reports • Queensland Government – Underground Water Impact Report for the Surat Cumulative Management
Area 2012
Table 3-1 – Applicable legislative and regulatory guidance
23
Figure 3-6 – Groundwater monitoring bore locations
XX
X
X
X
X
X
)!
)!
)!
)!
)!
)!)!
)!
)!
)!
)!)!
)!)!
)!
)!
)!
)!
)!
)!
)!
)!
!)!)
!)
!)!)
!)
!)
!)!)
!)
!)
!)!)
!)
!)
!)!)!)!)!)
!)!)!)
!)
!)!)!)
!)!)!)!)
!)
!) !)
!)!)!)
!)!)
!)!)
!)
!)!)
!)!)
!)
!)
!)!)
!)!)!)
!)
!)
Lila
Jen
Will
Elly
AlexCam
Kate
Sean
Ross
Dunk
Carla
Harry
Owen
David
Codie
Acrux
Teviot
Justin
Myrtle
Peebs
Phillip
Kenya
Arthur
Clunie
Poppy
Utopia
Mekah
Argyle
Cassio
Lauren
Jordan
Polaris
Massie
Botany
Charlie
Barney
Lawton
Marcus
Connor
Celeste
Shanus
Andrew
RubyJo Isabella
Mamdal
Jammat
McNulty
Cougals
Michelle
Penrhyn
Acheron
Pleiades
Orpheus
Bellevue
Murdock
Fantome
Kathleen
Margaret
Fishburn
Cameron
Charlotte
Overston
Thackery
Arlington
Aberdeen
Tanna
Bickley
Merryfull
Owlman
Sophie
Kinkabilla
Pinelands
Maire Rae
Havannah
Daydream
Friendship
Frizzle
Bambi
Hinchinbrook
Bookers
Anesbury
Langer
KimberliteParker
Suomi
Pemberton
Leghorn
Copper
Chalk
Molle
Coochiemudlo
BathurstLion
Kanowna
Quartz
Dora
Glendower
Ridgewood
Kenya East
Borrowdale
Broadwater
Bloodworth
Portsmouth
Berwyndale
AvonDowns
Matilda-John
Scarborough
GoldenGrove
CHAR2729
WoleebeeCreek
ParadiseDowns
BerwyndaleSouth
Spofforth
BRIS1226
Bannerman
CHAR1290 CHAR1291 CHAR1294 CHAR1295
Boyle
Serenity
Sandstone Jasperoid
Tardrum Croker GullyCoconut
Will GW1
Kenya GW2
Poppy GW1
Poppy GW2
Lauren GW4
Lauren GW1
Lauren GW2
Peebs GW16, GW17, GW18
Cassio GW1
Teviot GW4
Teviot GW1
Charlie GW1Charlie GW2
Bellevue GW2
Polaris GW23
Cougals GW13
Charlotte GW2Charlotte GW1
Broadwater GW1, GW4,GW11, GW15
Kenya East GW1 - GW2
Coochiemudlo GW2
Coochiemudlo GW1
Woleebee Creek GW10
Berwyndale South GW1Berwyndale South GW2
RubyJo GW2, GW3, GW4, GW5
Kenya East GW32
Broadwater GW7
Woleebee Creek GW1 - GW4,Woleebee Creek GW7 - GW9
Kenya East GW7
Cassio GW2
Woleebee Creek GW11
Kenya East GW3, GW4,GW5, GW6, GW8
TARA
MILES
TAROOM
WANDOAN
DULACCA
CONDAMINE
CHINCHILLA
Sean 15M
Argyle 6
Celeste 6
Bellevue 1M
Woleebee Creek 17M
Jen 1RubyJo 1
Sean 19M
Sean 17M
Kenya East 1
Broadwater 14M
Lawton 9M
Cassio 6M
Charlie 1
Polaris 22
Thackery 6M
Harry 6
David 6
Poppy 13M
151°E
151°E
150°E
150°E
26°S 26°S
27°S 27°S
Existing/Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Wells & Converted Pressure Monitoring Wells
Map Projection: GDA 94
DATA SOURCE: Tenements - DME, Roads, Towns - StreetPro"Based on or contains data provided by the State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) 2013. In consideration of the Statepermitting use of this data you acknowledge and agree that the State gives no warranty in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability,completeness, currency or suitability) and accepts no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs(including consequential damage) relating to any use of the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of the privacy laws."
Note: Every effort has been made to ensure this information is spatially accurate.The location of this information should not be relied on as the exact field location.
SCALE: (A3)
DATE:
CREATED BY:
MAP NO:
REV NO:
M_33551_014/11/2013
TM B
!) Existing Groundwater Monitoring Well
!) Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Well
)! Existing Walloon Coal Measures Pressure Monitoring Well
)! Proposed Walloon Coal Measures Pressure Monitoring Well1:650,000
0 10 20 30 40
Kilometers
±
ÖÖ
ÖÖ
ÖÖ
ÖÖ
ÖÖ
ÖÖ ÖÖ
ÖÖ
ROMA
MACKAY
CAIRNS
BRISBANE
CLERMONT
GLADSTONE
CHINCHILLA
TOWNSVILLE
Bowen Basin
Surat Basin
Queensland
New South Wales
South Australia
MAP TYPE: Otherv4PLAN REF: Preliminary Map
X Town / CityPrincipal RoadQGC Block
Existing and proposed groundwater monitoring wells and converted pressure monitoring wells
Kilometres
0 10 20 30 40
Town / City
Principal Road
QGC Field
XX
X
X
X
X
X
)!
)!
)!
)!
)!
)!
)!
)!
)!
)!)!
)!)!
)!
)!
)!)!
)!
)!
)!
)!
!)!)
!)
!)!)!)
!)!)
!)
!)
!)!)
!)
!)
!)!)
!)
!)
!)!)!)!)!)
!)!)!)
!)
!)!)!)
!)!)!)!)
!)
!) !)
!)!)!)!)!)
!)!)
!)!)
!)
!)
!)!)
!)!)
!)
!)
Lila
Jen
Will
Elly
AlexCam
Kate
Sean
Ross
Dunk
Carla
Harry
Owen
David
Codie
Acrux
Teviot
Justin
Myrtle
Peebs
Phillip
Kenya
Arthur
Clunie
Poppy
Utopia
Mekah
Argyle
Cassio
Lauren
Jordan
Polaris
Massie
Botany
Charlie
Barney
Lawton
Marcus
Connor
Celeste
Shanus
Andrew
RubyJo Isabella
Mamdal
Jammat
McNulty
Cougals
Michelle
Penrhyn
Acheron
Pleiades
Orpheus
Bellevue
Murdock
Fantome
Kathleen
Margaret
Fishburn
Cameron
Charlotte
Overston
Thackery
Arlington
Aberdeen
Tanna
Bickley
Merryfull
Owlman
Sophie
Kinkabilla
Pinelands
Maire Rae
Havannah
Daydream
Friendship
Frizzle
Bambi
Hinchinbrook
Bookers
Anesbury
Langer
KimberliteParker
Suomi
Pemberton
Leghorn
Copper
Chalk
Molle
Coochiemudlo
BathurstLion
Kanowna
Quartz
Dora
Glendower
Ridgewood
Kenya East
Borrowdale
Broadwater
Bloodworth
Portsmouth
Berwyndale
AvonDowns
Matilda-John
Scarborough
GoldenGrove
CHAR2729
WoleebeeCreek
ParadiseDowns
BerwyndaleSouth
Spofforth
BRIS1226
Bannerman
CHAR1290 CHAR1291 CHAR1294 CHAR1295
Boyle
Serenity
Sandstone Jasperoid
Tardrum Croker GullyCoconut
Will GW1
Kenya GW2
Poppy GW1
Poppy GW2
Lauren GW4
Lauren GW1
Lauren GW2
Peebs GW16, GW17, GW18
Cassio GW1
Teviot GW4
Teviot GW1
Charlie GW1Charlie GW2
Bellevue GW2
Polaris GW23
Cougals GW13
Charlotte GW2Charlotte GW1
Broadwater GW1, GW4,GW11, GW15
Kenya East GW1 - GW2
Coochiemudlo GW2
Coochiemudlo GW1
Woleebee Creek GW10, GW11
Berwyndale South GW1Berwyndale South GW2
RubyJo GW2, GW3, GW4, GW5
Kenya East GW3, GW4,GW5, GW6, GW8, GW32
Broadwater GW7
Woleebee Creek GW1 - GW4,Woleebee Creek GW7 - GW9
Kenya East GW7
Cassio GW2
TARA
MILES
TAROOM
WANDOAN
DULACCA
CONDAMINE
CHINCHILLA
Sean 15M
Argyle 6
Celeste 6
Bellevue 1M
Woleebee Creek 17M
Jen 1RubyJo 1
Sean 19M
Sean 17M
Kenya East 1
Broadwater 14M
Lawton 9M
Cassio 6M
Charlie 1
Polaris 22
Thackery 6M
Harry 6
David 6
Poppy 13M
151°E
151°E
150°E
150°E
26°S 26°S
27°S 27°S
Existing/Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Wells & Converted Pressure Monitoring Wells
Map Projection: GDA 94
DATA SOURCE: Tenements - DME, Roads, Towns - StreetPro"Based on or contains data provided by the State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) 2013. In consideration of the Statepermitting use of this data you acknowledge and agree that the State gives no warranty in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability,completeness, currency or suitability) and accepts no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs(including consequential damage) relating to any use of the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of the privacy laws."
Note: Every effort has been made to ensure this information is spatially accurate.The location of this information should not be relied on as the exact field location.
SCALE: (A3)
DATE:
CREATED BY:
MAP NO:
REV NO:
M_33551_0115/10/2013
TM A
!) Existing Groundwater Monitoring Well
!) Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Well
)! Existing Walloon Coal Measures Pressure Monitoring Well
)! Proposed Walloon Coal Measures Pressure Monitoring Well1:650,000
0 10 20 30 40
Kilometers
±
ÖÖ
ÖÖ
ÖÖ
ÖÖ
ÖÖ
ÖÖ ÖÖ
ÖÖ
ROMA
MACKAY
CAIRNS
BRISBANE
CLERMONT
GLADSTONE
CHINCHILLA
TOWNSVILLE
Bowen Basin
Surat Basin
Queensland
New South Wales
South Australia
MAP TYPE: Otherv4PLAN REF: Preliminary Map
X Town / CityPrincipal RoadQGC Field
Existing Groundwater Monitoring Well
Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Well
Existing Walloon Coal Measures Pressure Monitoring Well
Proposed Walloon Coal Measures Pressure Monitoring Well
24
3.4.3 LOCATION OF GROUNDWATER MONITORING POINTS
Figure 3-6 illustrates the extent of the groundwater monitoring network across the QCLNG development area.
In realising the monitoring bore network, meeting the key objectives involved considering a range of technical
elements namely:
• Element 1 – Aquifer Connection to Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES)/Sensitive
Receptors/Current Use;
• Element 2 – Development of Baseline Datasets, Establishing Trends;
• Element 3 – Ongoing Monitoring, Assessing Impacts;
• Element 4 – Supporting Connectivity Studies;
• Element 5 – Field Development and Tenement Coverage;
• Element 6 – Bore Located to Verify and Validate Groundwater Conceptual and Numerical Models; and
• Element 7 – Geological and Hydrogeological Data Acquisition to assist in conceptual and numerical model
reconciliation across a number of disciplines.
Statistically-based methods for the design of groundwater monitoring networks have been considered. Examples
discussed in Merrick, 1998, and Theodossiou and Latinopoulos, 2006 were evaluated. However, in this context
these are of limited applicability as there are many different factors (as discussed below in detail) which
determine monitoring bore locations.
A review of the adequacy of the groundwater monitoring network is proposed once the (UWIR) requirements are
finalised and the results of the GEN3 modelling are providing ‘history matched’ groundwater drawdown results.
OGIA requirements call for a second phase of monitoring wells in 2016, the locations of which will be optimised
following the second UWIR (due in 2015) and the first two years of operational data. Once there is confidence that
good quality groundwater drawdown projections are available, an evaluation of the use of statistical methods
will be considered as part of the ongoing network review.
3.4.4 RELATION TO OGIA UWIR REQUIREMENTS
The OGIA’s 2012 Underground Water Impact Report (UWIR) provided details of the Water Monitoring Strategy
(WMS) for the Surat Cumulative Management Area (CMA). In response to this strategy, a Monitoring Network
Implementation Plan (MNIP) (QGC 2013) was prepared to meet the WMS obligations (submitted to the
Department as Commitment 2) which incorporates the Stage 2 outline. Considering these objectives, the MNIP
document presents:
• Bore design and construction guidelines and design and drilling procedures for the current and proposed
network;
• Existing network details, including relevant location data;
• Installation details to meet OGIA requirements;
• Installation details additional to OGIA requirements in support of the network rationale defined above; and
• Spring monitoring information.
Appendix E presents the plans prepared to meet OGIA requirements.
As of October 2013, there are 51 monitoring bores required in the UWIR monitoring network, out of a total QGC
monitoring program of 64 bores. 49 Monitoring Bores have been endorsed by OGIA. The two outstanding
non-endorsements relate to timing of access to existing landholder bores. Of these, one location has now been
visited to assess suitability for monitoring. Access has been refused by the second landholder and DNRM is
facilitating negotiations.
25
Figure 3-7 – Schematic of monitoring bore types
3.4.5 MONITORING BORE TYPES
There are a range of different monitoring bore types, as illustrated in Figure 3-7.
The network has been implemented in two phases, namely:
• Phase 1: 2011 – Shallower bores to the Gubberamunda and Springbok aquifers; and
• Phase 2: 2012-2013 – Bores to deep and shallow aquifers and aquitards above and below the Walloon Group.
The Phase 1 monitoring bore network consists of open standpipe type bores. Open standpipe simply means
the bore is constructed to tap one formation only with cemented steel casing open to the atmosphere. It is
completed with some form of fitted cap (typically lockable) that is easily opened or lifted off by hand. These open
standpipe bores may be constructed in a wide variety of diameters depending on intended use (50 to 150 mm)
and are used for both water level measurements and hydrochemical sampling.
Gubberamunda Formation
Shallow
Westbourne Formation
Springbok Sandstone
Walloon Subgroup
Eurombah Formation
Reservoirperformance
pressure
WCM Flows and Hydrochemistry
Pressures WCM
Cored wells converted into monitoring wells
(WCM MandV)
Multiple pressures
Cored wells converted into monitoring wells(WCM and Springbok
MandV)
Water level / quality
Private bores converted into monitoring bores
(after baseline assessment)
Reservoir and aquifer
pressure monitoring
Aquifer monitoring pressure and water quality
Shallow aquifer monitoring pressure and water quality
Aquifer / aquitard pressure monitoring
Hutton Sandstone
Evergreen Formation
Precipice Sandstone
Permo-triassic or basement
PDHG PDHG
PDHG VWP
VWP
VWP
VWP
VWP
VWP
VWP
Precipice water monitoring
Hutton water monitoring
Eurombah water monitoring
Springbok water monitoring
Westbourne water monitoring
Gubberamunda water monitoring
Data loggers
Water levelWater level
Multiple pressures NEW
VWP Monitoring wells (Top WCM to surface)
Multiple pressures NEW
VWP Monitoring wells (Eurombah to Precipice)
Water level / qualityNEW nested monitoring bores
Deep nested bores Shallow nested bores
Aquifer / aquitard pressure monitoring
26
Figure 3-8 – Groundwater monitoring bore site – various formations (Kenya East)
The Phase 2 monitoring bore drilling program is currently underway. Some bores penetrate the reservoir and
are designed to manage a potential gas kick of up to 3,000 psi. The bores are also designed to comply with the
‘two barrier’ industry standard (i.e. P&G Act monitoring wells), where the first barrier to gas migration is the
cemented casing and the second barrier is the wellhead. These bores are also used to collect water levels and
hydrochemistry samples. QGC is liaising with DNRM to amend the Code of Practice for water bores to enhance
safety.
Where pressure data must be collected from a number of formations a multi-level cemented pressure gauge
well design is used. This technique involves installation of six to eight pressure gauges at a range of depths. Once
the string of gauges has been lowered into their positions, cement is pumped and allowed to fill back to surface,
effectively plugging the well. The gauges are then connected to a telemetry system and data is transmitted to
central databases to be analysed regularly.
A percentage of the bores in the long-term groundwater monitoring program will be bores owned and operated
by third parties, particularly farm water supply bores. These bores are completed in a wide variety of styles
depending on functional requirements. Some are equipped with windmills, others with electric submersible
pumps and some will be artesian.
27
A number of sites have monitoring bores targeting multiple levels within the stratigraphic sequence and include
the Walloon Subgroup. These nested sites are typically targeted at the location of CSG appraisal pilots where
there is trial pumping from the Walloon Subgroup to determine porosity, permeability, etc. Monitoring aquifers
and aquitards during pumping is a powerful tool in establishing the degree of aquifer connectivity (see Chapter
7). Table 3-2 summarises the boreholes and monitoring points that have been drilled and/or planned. There
may be multiple monitoring points within one borehole, hence the apparent discrepancy in numbers between
boreholes and monitoring points.
Boreholes
Standpipe (hydrochemistry and pressure) Pressure only Conversions (Walloons only)
39 12 18
69 Boreholes
Monitoring Points
Formation StandpipeMonitoring points
pressure only
Condamine Alluvium 2 –
Gubberamunda 6 7
Westbourne 2 2
Springbok 12 17
Walloons 0 78
Eurombah 2 3
Hutton 8 6
Evergreen – 4
Precipice 7 6
Total 39 123
162 separate aquifer / aquitard pressure monitoring points, 39 water quality monitoring points
Table 3-2 – Summary of monitoring network
In addition to the aquifer and aquitard monitoring network, there will be approximately 78 pressure monitoring
points in the Walloon Subgroup to measure the groundwater pressure response of the reservoir to CSG water and
gas extraction.
28
3.4.6 ESTABLISHING BASELINE CONDITIONS
It is critical that a valid baseline be derived prior to active large-scale depressurisation activities, and this has
driven the monitoring network implementation schedule. The drilling program has been structured so that bores
are drilled ahead of field development to allow for baseline conditions (including any seasonal variability) to be
defined. Baseline periods for each monitoring site are defined in Chapter 4.
Once the bores are completed water level data is collected prior to CSG production – this constitutes the
’baseline‘ water level program. QGC calibrates its gauges by checking against manual dips every six months as
part of its sampling regime. Representative baselines will be defined for each monitoring site and may include
trend analysis. A trend analysis methodology has been prepared. It is included in Chapter 4.
Considering the program plan as defined by the Monitoring Network Implementation Plan submitted to OGIA
and the current field development plan, the baseline data availability are defined for each development area, as
shown in Figure 3-9.
3.4.7 GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM REVIEW
Groundwater level and hydrochemistry monitoring will be reviewed and optimised as more information becomes
available and field development priorities change. The next review will be undertaken once the updated UWIR is
published in 2015.
Such evaluations may assess the optimal frequency of monitoring and spatial distribution of the monitoring
locations. Additional factors include the monitoring criteria required in areas where cumulative impacts from
neighbouring CSG operators could be observed. Also, a deviation in the monitoring results (from the predictions
derived from modelling efforts) may trigger alternative monitoring requirements.
In instances where monitoring frequencies are proposed to be altered, the alterations will be documented
and administered through a formal change management process, including consultation with internal and
external stakeholders prior to implementation. Typically changes to the monitoring program will be flagged and
documented as part of the annual GWMP update. Similarly the commissioning of new operational areas will
require an update to the current Groundwater Monitoring Plan.
3.5 PETROLEUM WELL DATA
A key enhancement to the current groundwater investigation in the Surat Basin is access to petroleum industry
data and interpretive techniques. The relevance of key data types to the hydrogeological conceptualisation is
outlined in the following sections.
3.5.1 GEOLOGY AND STRATIGRAPHY
Seismic surveys form the initial component of hydrocarbon exploration work in central and southern Queensland.
For example, Figure 3-10 shows a seismic line interpretation from west to east across the Basin. In parts, the Surat
Basin overlies the Bowen Basin. However, on the flanks, the Surat Basin overlies crystalline basement rock. Also
note the laterally continuous seismic-stratigraphic packages in the Surat Basin section (from Ryan et al., 2012).
The relevance of this work is the provision of large scale, regional geological models which can be verified later
by drilling results. Figure 3-11 illustrates the petroleum wells which have been used to verify the stratigraphy of
the basin. The regional formation positions and layers are the basis of the geological model used in numerical
modelling of groundwater flow in the basin.
29
Figure 3-9 – QCLNG Project area stage 1 monitoring bore data availability
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
TARA
DALBY
MILES
YULEBADULACCA
WANDOAN
JANDOWAE
CHINCHILLA
CECIL PLAINS
KOGAN
TAROOM
CONDAMINE
CONDAMINE RIVER
MOONIE RIVER
AUBURN RIVER
DAWSON RIVER
CONDAMINE RIVERWill (P)
Poppy (S)RubyJo (S, H, P)
Lauren (G, S)
Teviot (P)
Lauren (P)
Bellevue (S)
Kenya East (G, S, E, H, W)
Broadwater (A)
Broadwater (A, S, P, H)
Kenya East (G, S)
Berwyndale South (G, S)
Kenya East (P)
Peebs (G, W, S)
Teviot (S, P)
Cougals (G)
Polaris (P)
Jen 1RubyJo 1
Argyle 6
Sean 17David 7
Celeste 6
Bellevue 2Bellevue 1
Isabella 7
Isabella 6
Berwyndale 4
Kenya East 1
Berwyndale 1
Berwyndale 20Berwyndale 19
Matilda-John 1
Sean 19
Kenya 2 (S)
Coochiemudlo (H, P)
Cassio (H, P)
Charlotte (H, P)
Charlie (H, P)
Kathleen 18
Ross 6
Woleebee Creek (P)
Woleebee Creek 8Woleebee Creek (G, W, S, E, H, P)
Peebs (P)
Broadwater (P)
151°E
151°E
150°30'E
150°30'E
150°E
150°E
26°S 26°S
26°30'S 26°30'S
27°S 27°S
27°30'S 27°30'S
QCLNG Project Area Stage 1 Monitoring Bore Data Availability
Map Projection: GDA 94
DATA SOURCE: Towns, Major Rivers - GAMajor Roads - StreetProTenements - DME
"Based on or contains data provided by the State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) 2013. In consideration of the Statepermitting use of this data you acknowledge and agree that the State gives no warranty in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability,completeness, currency or suitability) and accepts no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs(including consequential damage) relating to any use of the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of the privacy laws."
Note: Every effort has been made to ensure this information is spatially accurate.The location of this information should not be relied on as the exact field location.
SCALE: (A3)
DATE:
CREATED BY:
MAP NO:
REV NO:
M_30008_0118/07/2013
TM A
Legend!. Town
Major Road
Major River
Current Production Blocks
QCLNG Project Area
Monitoring Bores!( Existing, More than 1 year of data before QCLNG Production Starts
!( Proposed, More than 1 year of data before QCLNG Production Starts
!( Proposed, Less than 1 year of data before QCLNG Production Starts
Vibrating Wire Piezometers#* Existing, More than 1 year of data before QCLNG Production Starts
#* Proposed, More than 1 year of data before QCLNG Production Starts
Data Availability by QGC BlockMore than 1 year of data before QCLNG Production Starts
Less than 1 year of data before QCLNG Production Starts
Other QGC Blocks
Formation to be MonitoredA Alluvium
G Gubberamunda
W Westbourne Formation
S Springbok Sandstone
E Eurombah Sandstone
H Hutton Sandstone
P Precipice Sandstone
0 10 20 30 405Kilometers
±1:600,000
!!
QCLNG CentralGas Field production
commences in October2014
!!
Depressurationcommenced in 2005 fordomestic gas production
!!
QCLNG SouthernGas Field production
commences in October2014
!!
QCLNG NorthernGas Field production
commences in October2014
!!
Woleebee CreekP1 Pilot Test Area
!!
Kenya EastP3 Pilot Test Area
!!
Ruby JoP2 Pilot
QCLNG Project area stage 1 monitoring bore data availability
0
Kilometres
9 18 27 36
30
Figure 3-11 – Location of wells used in the stratigraphic interpretation
Figure 3-10 – Seismic line BMR84-14 highlighting the structure of the Surat and Bowen Basins
440,000 480,000 520,000 560,000 600,000
400
1,200
2,000
2,800
800
1,600
2,400
3,200
Two
Way
Tim
e (m
s)
W
E
Top WalloonBase Walloon
Base Jurassic
Top Permian
Surat Basin
Bowen Basin
Basement
0 10 20 30
Kilometres
ChinchillaRoma
147°0’E 148°0’E 149°0’E 150°0’E 151°0’E 152°0’E
28°0’S
27°0’S
26°0’S
25°0’S
Kilometres
0 40 80 120
GEN3 Stratigraphy Wells
Cities and Towns
QCLNG Project Area
GEN3 Model Boundary
Surat and Clarence-Moreton Basins
31
3.5.2 THE APPLICATION OF PETROPHYSICS TO THE SUBSURFACE UNDERSTANDING OF
GROUNDWATER SYSTEMS
Petrophysical interpretation of wireline log data has been used for several decades in the oil and gas industry
to characterise the subsurface. The requirements for aquifer characterisation are not dissimilar to those
necessary for establishing a hydrocarbon play concept. Advanced petrophysical techniques and the associated
interpretations are now readily available to hydrogeologists working within the coal seam gas (CSG) industry.
After a section of a bore or well has been drilled, geophysical logging tools are lowered into the uncased hole
section to measure various properties of the formation as function of depth. Physical properties are measured
from the rock and recorded at the surface in a process called wireline logging. In petrophysical log evaluation,
the measured properties can be interpreted for lithology, porosity, fluid type and saturation, fluid volume and
saturation, fracture presence, and permeability. The logs that are acquired from the groundwater bores are
temperature, calliper, gamma ray, bulk density, neutron density, photoelectric factor, resistivity, compressional
and shear sonic, and spontaneous potential. This information provides the basis for modelling rock property
distributions in static geological models that are the foundation of dynamic fluid flow simulations.
Multiple log response interpretations require calibration with drill core analysis data to ensure that the log
output reflects the physical properties of the rock. For example, as a similar gamma ray response may be
generated by both clay minerals and certain clastic components of the sandstone framework, it is important that
the gamma log response is calibrated and interpreted correctly to identify low and high clay content zones.
Once suitable calibration has been completed wireline log data from multiple wells can be interpreted with a
high level of confidence without the need to acquire additional drill core. This equates to a significant cost saving
and additionally facilitates a very rapid method of characterising subsurface geological properties. Specialist
software packages have been developed to rapidly import, interpret and correlate geological properties spatially.
Petrophysical flags of formation characteristics have been developed by QGC to provide an efficient and economic
suite of tools that could be used to identify aquifers and aquitards and interpret their thickness and spatial
distribution. The methods of calibration traditionally employed by the petroleum industry are being modified to
facilitate the identification of hydrostratigraphic units. These informal subsurface units contribute to a scheme
that forms the foundation of understanding the influence of heterogeneity and anisotropy on the bulk hydraulic
properties of geological units at various scales. The distribution of porosity and permeability provide the starting
point for understanding groundwater hydraulics. It is intended that a form of ‘rock-typing’ will be developed
whereby combinations of wireline log signatures can effectively be used for aquifer characterisation.
Intrinsic permeability is an integral component of hydraulic conductivity (a value incorporating both the pore
space distribution in the rock mass and the properties of the hosted fluids). Wireline log interpretations of
intrinsic permeability distributions can be used as inputs in combination with other data to calculate the spatial
distribution of hydraulic conductivity within a hydrostratigraphic unit.
The availability of large, calibrated wireline log datasets will provide much tighter constraints for conceptual
hydrogeological models. The appropriately interpreted signatures allow for more accurate interpretations of the
geometry and spatial extent of hydrostratigraphic units and the internal distribution of hydraulic properties.
Developing a reliable ‘aquifer characterisation methodology using wireline log data will potentially provide a
very rapid mechanism by which conceptual hydrogeological models can be formulated. Once identified the
representative hydraulic properties can be assigned to aquifers and aquitards and an interpolation of the bulk
property distributions between data points can be attempted. It is considered that this type of approach will
provide a higher level of confidence in the interpretations used to understand groundwater behaviour as a
consequence of coal seam gas production activities.
32
Tool Name Measurement Units and range Measuring Qualitative use Quantitative use
Caliper CALI Bore hole radius Inches Radius • Observing washout
and under gauge
borehole
Gamma ray GR Gamma radiation
from the formation
API
0 to 150
Gamma
radiation
• Shale versus non-
shale
• correlation
• Depth control
• Shale content
Bulk density DENS Impact of Gamma
Rays on electrons in
the formation
g/cc
1.95 to 2.95
Total formation
density
• Nature of fluid
in pores
• Gas detection
• Porosity
• Density
• Seismic velocity
Photoelectric
factor
PEF Impact of gamma
rays on electrons in
the formation
PE B/E
1 to 4
Barns per
electron
• Lithology
Neutron
density
NEUT Impact of neutrons on
hydrogen atoms
NEUT PERC
45 to -15
Fluid filled
porosity
• Lithology
• Gas detection
• Porosity
Resistivity DEPRES
MEDRES
FERES
Electrical resistivity of
the formation
ohmm
0 to 2000
Electrical
resistivity
• Observing
• Permeable zones
• Determine water
saturation
Sonic DTCO Propagation of sound
through formation
Us/ft
140 to 20
slowness • Lithology
• Identifying
fractures
• Porosity
• Seismic velocity
Spontaneous
Potential
SP Electrical charge of
well bore
mV
170-230
Electrical
charge
• Detection of
permeable zones
• Formation water
salinity
• Bed thickness
determination
Table 3-3 – Wireline log types and derived petrophysical rock properties
3.5.3 FORMATION TESTING
Formation testing is a process of isolating and measuring the pressure and temperature, under dynamic
conditions, of intervals within geological formations. Formation tests are typically local-scale tests but the large
number of data points can reveal patterns in permeability and porosity. There are several testing options available
depending on the formation's properties. The most appropriate testing method is chosen and planned based on
geological assumptions and the required data acquisition:
• With pressure testing, drill pipe conveyed tools, DST (drill stem test) is considered to be the best option for
high permeability (~>300 mD) formations due to high inflow capacity;
• Wireline conveyed tools with in-built pumps, FRT (Flow Rate Tester) and MDT (Modular Formation Dynamic
Tester) are more appropriate for low permeability formations. The MFT (M-Series Formation tester) is a
wireline tool that pushes out a finger sized probe onto the borehole wall for a range of permeabilities. These
methods provide pressure versus rate analysis data for calculating the zones productivity index (the ability of
the well to produce or flow). FRT and MDT wireline formation testing utilizes the dual packer interval isolation
concept. A small pump in the tool string draws fluid from the formation and gauges measure the rate and
pressure. The pump is stopped and the pressure build up is again monitored until it stabilises, thus giving the
productivity potential; and
33
Notes:
Track 1 – GR, Gamma Ray, measures the amount of radioactive elements; CALI, Caliper, measures the diameter of the borehole; SP, Spontaneous Potential,
measures the natural electrical potential difference
Track 2 – Resistivity logs, measures the formation fluid resistivity at various depths of investigation.
Track 3 – PEF, photoelectric factor, measures photoelectric absorption properties for determining mineralogy; DENS, density, measures the density; NEUT, neutron
porosity, measures the hydrogen index.
Track 4 – DTCO, compressional sonic log, measures the interval transit time.
Figure 3-12 – Example well section for Woleebee Creek
1
Woleebee Creek GW4 (MD)
Zones MD SP RESDEP PEF DTCO
1:675 -200 mV 200 0.2 ohm.m 2,000.0 0 4 200 us/ft 50
CALI RESMED DENS Colour fill
4 in 12 0.2 ohm.m 2,000.0 1.95 g/cm3 2.95
GR Colour fill NEUT
0 gAPI 150 0.45 ft3/ft3 -0.15
Hu
tton
San
dsto
ne
1,000
1,100
1,200
1,298
Hutton Sandstone
Evergreen Formation
34
• A DFIT (Diagnostic Formation Injection Testing) is conducted in very low permeability formations and when
mechanical properties of the formation are necessary. It is a small volume, low rate water injection procedure
followed by an extended shut-in period where pressure and temperature are measured for the entirety of
the test. This type of testing is used in conjunction with fracture stimulation operations to help engineers
determine both the dynamic and mechanical properties of the formation interval. The behaviour of the
reservoir during the ‘leak-off’ period enables pore pressure, permeability and any boundaries in the area
surrounding the wellbore to be assessed. Similar to DSTs the DFIT interval is isolated using packers, thus the
treatment area is constrained to a specific interval of interest.
To April 2013, a total of 32 formation tests have been performed on groundwater monitoring bores.
3.6 PUMPING TESTS AND TRIALS
In contrast to formation tests, pumping tests provide information over a wider volume of material and can help
characterise inter-formation relationships and the presence of hydraulic boundaries. A number of pumping tests
have been implemented for the project, not only to look at testing of one aquifer but also to measure multi-
formation responses.
Figure 3-13 – Woleebee Creek P1 pilot test monitoring bores
Bowen Basin
NW
4 5 6
7GW2 GW1
SEWoleebee Creek Bores800
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
m A
HD
GW7 GW9
GW8GW3GW10
GW11
GW4
Water productionWater production Precipice SandstoneInjection
Evergreen Formation
Hutton Sandstone
Eurombah Formation
Springbok Sandstone
Westbourne Formation
Walloon Subgroup
Gubberamunda Formation
Orallo Formation
Metres
0 100 200 300 400 500
4 WCK_WH0045 WCK_WH0056 WCK_WH0067 WCK_WH007
Existing Walloon Subgroup monitoring
Existing Walloon Subgroup monitoring
Production/injection well
Aquifer monitoring bore
GW1 WCK_GW001GW2 WCK_GW002GW3 WCK_GW003GW4 WCK_GW004
GW7 WCK_GW007GW8 WCK_GW008GW9 WCK_GW009GW10 WCK_GW010
Aquifer monitoring bore
35
3.6.1 PHASE 1 AQUIFER TESTS
A groundwater pumping test program was initiated for the Phase 1 monitoring bores. The pumping test program
had several purposes:
• To allow estimates of aquifer hydraulic properties (transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity) to be calculated, to
inform various groundwater studies both underway and being planned (e.g. GEN3 model);
• To assess aquifer response to pumping to gain a qualitative understanding of aquifer behaviour (e.g. identify
leakage or boundaries);
• To allow groundwater quality sampling to satisfy the sampling commitments of the GWMP; and
• To allow groundwater quality sampling for a range of parameters (including isotopes) to provide data for
various groundwater studies being undertaken.
The aquifer testing program involved:
• A multi-rate step test, typically three 30-minute steps, to assess well efficiency and identify a target rate for a
longer term constant rate test;
• A constant rate pumping test typically of eight hours duration, to allow estimates of aquifer hydraulic
properties to be calculated and to assess aquifer response to pumping to gain a qualitative understanding of
aquifer behaviour; and
• A monitored recovery test to 95% of the pre-pumping water level, to allow estimates of aquifer hydraulic
properties to be calculated to further gain a qualitative understanding of aquifer behaviour.
Table 3-4 presents a summary of the results which have been used in analysis and modelling.
Figure 3-14 – Observed groundwater level at WCK_GW004
255
245
235
260
250
240
230
Oct 2012
Gro
un
dwat
er e
leva
tion
(m A
HD
)
Nov 2012
Dec 2012
Jan 2013
Feb 2014
WCK_GW004_PIT_001
WCK_GW004_PIT_002
Downhole pressure gauges
36
FormationGeometric mean T
(m2/day)
Geometric mean Kh
(m/day)
Max Kh
(m/day)
Min Kh
(m/day)
Gubberamunda 8.1 0.5 8.3 0.02
Springbok (all tests) 0.34 0.03 0.10 0.003
Springbok (upper, 1 test) 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.01
Springbok (mid, 2 tests) 0.86 0.06 0.08 0.04
Springbok (lower, 5 tests) 0.30 0.02 0.10 0.003
Table 3-4 – Summary of permeability estimates from Phase 1 pumping tests
Key findings of the Stage 1 aquifer testing program are:
• In general, the Gubberamunda Sandstone aquifer is up to an order of magnitude more permeable than the
Springbok Sandstone;
• The middle Springbok Sandstone may be generally more permeable than the lower Springbok Sandstone;
• Most of the tests were subject to boundary conditions influencing the drawdown curves (either boundaries
or recharge). These boundaries may be related to faulting or facies changes; and
• No leakage was detected in the Gubberamunda tests. Four of the seven Springbok tests detected leakage,
which is likely to be derived from Springbok Formation strata immediately above or below the pumped sand
unit.
3.6.2 APPRAISAL PILOTS AND CONNECTIVITY
Three pilot production tests (shown in Figure 3-9) represent the core of the connectivity studies. These tests are
designed to provide definitive evidence of the possible pressure effects in the adjacent formations due to up to
six months of CSG development. The monitoring network is now in place and background data is being collected.
Progress to date has been limited due to pumping problems. Three pilots are underway at:
• Woleebee Creek – Northern Gas Fields;
• Kenya East – Central and Southern Gas Fields; and
• Ruby Jo – Southern Gas Fields.
The status of the three tests are summarised below, locations are depicted on Figure 3-9.
Woleebee Creek P1
A cross-section showing the Woleebee Creek P1 pilot test production wells and observation bores is shown in
Figure 3-13. Woleebee Creek P1 full dewatering commenced on 23 November 2012. The WCK pilot wells have all
recently been shut in due to safety issues around high water gathering pressures downstream from the CSG
wells. Testing is expected to restart in September 2013 with preliminary results available in April 2014. This will
still be done before major depressurisation in the Northern Gas Fields commences in October 2014.
Kenya East P3
Kenya East P3 began diagnostic testing on 12 March 2013. KEE#27 and KEE#28 were shut in as scheduled. It is
expected that the full dewatering is expected to commence in September 2013.
Ruby Jo P2
Ruby Jo P2 started testing 9 October 2012. Full dewatering commenced on 17 January 2013. Wells #8 and #9 are
flowing. RBY #10, #11 and #12 received work overs and are currently waiting on further work. It is expected that full
dewatering will recommence in September 2013.
37
Figure 3-15 – Combined water level plots at Woleebee Creek
BWS GW2 Springbok Sandstone
BWS GW1 Gubberamunda Sandstone
282
278
274
270
280
276
272
268
Sep 2011
Pote
nti
omet
ric
leve
l (m
AH
D)
Nov 2011
Jan 2012
Mar 2012
May 2012
Jul 2012
Sep 2012
Nov 2012
Jan 2013
284
286
288
Figure 3-16 – Combined water level plots at Berwyndale South
38
3.6.3 WCK_GW4 LONG-TERM PUMPING TEST
A long-term pumping test has been carried out on Woleebee Creek GW4 bore since 11 December 2012, see
Figure 3-14. This Precipice Sandstone bore will be pumped for a period of six months to determine transmissivity,
hydraulic conductivity and storativity of the Precipice Sandstone aquifer, as an input to injection studies.
Figure 3-15 illustrates the pumping well drawdown associated with this test. The monitoring bore GW10, which
is located 3.28 km from the production well at Woleebee Creek, monitors the changes in the Precipice Sandstone
pressure during the pumping test. The remaining aquifer monitoring bores will measure any changes due to
leakage from overlying formations.
3.7 GROUNDWATER LEVEL AND PRESSURE RESULTS
Groundwater level data is analysed as a series of time-series hydrographs that include the following:
• Hydrographs according to region or area of interest;
• Hydrographs according to formation(s) of interest across the tenement areas; and
• Hydrographs including rainfall and water abstraction (CSG abstraction and other use abstraction where
available).
On a routine basis, hydrographic data may be analysed to different levels of complexity. All hydrographs are
subject to regular assessment and preliminary interpretation, and the graphs and interpretive works are included
in the relevant reporting schedule. Bores at MNES monitoring locations and selected other bores are subject to
detailed trend analysis using the methods outlined in Chapter 4. Adjusted hydrographs (following trend analysis)
of MNES monitoring bores are then assessed against relevant threshold and trigger values, and any exceedances
are examined in more detail, according to the relevant Response Plan (Chapter 13).
Table 3-5 lists the types of water level data being collected and their frequency.
Items monitored Infrastructure Frequency Monitoring suite
Groundwater level/aquifer
pressure – manualNested wells Six-monthly Water level
Groundwater level/aquifer
pressure – continuous
(automated)
Nested wells
Daily transducer measurements
and semi-annually manual
measurements
Water level
Aquifer pressure continuous
(automated)Private bores* Six-monthly Water level
Aquifer pressureVWP (equipped with
datalogger)
Daily, six-monthly
downloadedWater level
*Planned to commence in 2014
Table 3-5 – Summary of water level and pressure monitoring
39
Figure 3-17 – Groundwater quality field measurement and sampling system
Appendix F presents the first annual monitoring report, with all data collected to date. Some examples are
presented below:
• Figure 3-15 illustrates the range of data being collected in aquifers, aquitards and the Walloon Subgroup at the
Woleebee Creek multi-level monitoring site prior to dewatering in 2014. A key feature of the plot is the slow
decline in the low permeability Westbourne and Eurombah Formation and Springbok Sandstone following a
standard variable head permeability test.
• Figure 3-16 shows the response in the Springbok Sandstone and Gubberamunda Sandstone aquifers over the
Berwyndale South gas field which has been operating since 2005. The data indicates that there has been no
downward trend in groundwater level in the Springbok Sandstone.
• The Berwyndale South plot also illustrates a common feature across the project area, which is the upward
gradient from the Springbok Sandstone to the Gubberamunda Sandstone.
3.8 HYDROCHEMISTRY DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Prior to a water sample being collected, the bore is developed to a standard where the water generated is
considered representative of the target aquifer, with very minimal sediment, drill cuttings or drilling mud present.
Processes to develop bores are varied, and depend on the type and age of the bore, along with construction
and completion design. Hydrochemistry samples, in the medium- to long-term, will be collected using low
flow techniques. Until then, samples are collected using a submersible pump to purge the bore and collect the
sample. Table 3-5 presents the schedule and suites for hydrochemical sampling. This program is in line with the
monitoring requirements for springs monitoring as per the Joint Industry Plan (see Chapter 8).
PRESSURE MANAGEMENT
VALVE
Water level
Pre filter and sample release valve
pH Eh EC T DO
DISPOSAL
Low flow
pump
Screen
Test Well
Reagent/blank phials
Field spectrophometer measurement of Fe2+/S2-/NO2- for
redox couples
Alkalinity titration
Dissolved cations syringe filter 0 .1µm preserve with 2% ultrapure HNO3
Total metals unfiltered preserve with 2% ultrapure
HNO3
Sample holding beaker
Fluid discharge Anions unfiltered
preserve on iceIsotopes unfiltered
no preservation required for
2D 18O and 13C
Measurement of goundwater physico-chemical parameters
Ground level
40
Item monitored Infrastructure Frequency Monitoring suite
Water quality Private bores* Six-monthly Field suite, GW suite**
Water quality Aquifer monitoring Six-monthly Field suite, GW suite**
Water quality CSG well Six-monthly CSG characterisation and CSG indicator suites*
** Private bore monitoring to commence in 2014
* Isotope suite to be applied as required.
Table 3-6 – Summary of hydrochemistry monitoring
Sampling is carried out in accordance with DEHP Monitoring and Sampling Manual 2009.
The low-flow continuous purging and sampling method uses a submerged air actuated bladder pump adjusted
to deliver groundwater to the surface at very low flow rates. The system significantly reduces water volumes to be
managed at surface and means that only water necessary for sampling is abstracted from the target aquifer.
The principle behind the technique is to ensure the flow rate exerted by the pump is set to equal or less than the
inflow from the target aquifer.
Figure 3-18 – Example of Piper and Durov plots
Groundwater Analyses - Lauren Field
Mg++
Na+ + K
+80%
50%
20%
Ca ++80%
50%
20%
SO4--
Cl –80%
50%
20%
HCO 3– +
CO 3--
80%
50%
20%
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
TDS (mg/l)
pH
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
M
M M M
M
I
I I I
I
I
I I I
I
J
J J J
J
J
J J J
J
J
J J J
J
O
O O O
O
O
O O O
O
O
O O O
O
O
O O O
O
O
O O O
O
O
O O O
O
O
O O O
O
20%
20%
20%
40%
40%
40%
60%
60%
60%
80%
80%
80%
Mg
++
Ca++
20%
20%
20%
40%
40%
40%
60%
60%
60%
80%
80%
80%
SO4 --
Cl–
SO4-- +
Cl–
Ca ++ + Mg ++
HCO 3– +
CO 3--
Na + + K +
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
20%
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
M M
M
I I
I
I I
I
JJ
J
J
J
J
JJ
J
OO
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O O
O
41
This results in the stratification of the water in the bore, with only fresh aquifer water flowing into the bore
at the low-flow pump inlet depth. Following this theory the stagnant water column within the bore remains
undisturbed, while the recovery of representative samples of the water in the target formation adjacent to the
bore screen occurs. The other key benefit is a reduction in water abstraction from potentially thousands of litres
per bore to tens of litres.
The water abstracted is continually monitored for a number of chemical and physical parameters using a flow
through cell and field instrumentation. Figure 3-17 illustrates how the sample is collected and managed at
surface.
Hydrochemistry data is reviewed and presented in the following formats:
• Piper Diagrams and Durov and expanded Durov plots for hydrochemical facies characterisation
(e.g. Figure 3-18);
• Major ion components and salinity are also plotted against depth to evaluate trends within each geological
unit and through the sedimentary pile;
• Mapping of spatial hydrochemical facies distributions;
• Two and three dimensional visualisations of hydrochemical facies distributions;
• Isotopic trends are plotted to evaluate groundwater fingerprinting applications and the potential for
determination of boundary fluxes between units spatially and with depth; and
• Evaluation of reversible and irreversible changes with time where temporal data are available.
• Durov plots of water analyses are used to establish hydrochemical facies types, visualise links between
aqueous geochemical character and physico-chemical parameters such as dissolved solids and pH and to
identify potential mixing trends in large data sets. When used in conjunction with spatial and sample depth
data Durov plots provide a powerful component for the construction of conceptual groundwater geochemical
models. The example shown was plotted using data from the Lauren CSG field in the QGC Central
Development Area. The samples are from bores within the boundaries of the field and show a narrow range
of compositions all plotting within the Na-HCO3 hydrochemical facies zone of the diagram.
Additionally the horizontal extension of the plot shows the relationship between compositional variation and
salinity. The vertical extension of the plot shows the range of pH values, which shows that all the samples are
alkaline. The multiple relationships displayed on a Durov plot can be used to identify systematic trends between
salinity, groundwater compositional character and pH. These inter-relationships can also be used as part of a
quality control exercise, e.g. pH values are intimately related to alkalinity, which is a function of bicarbonate and
carbonate activity, therefore; a pH value below 4.7 cannot be associated with a Na-HCO3 hydrochemical facies.
The plot results can be used to assist with well engineering applications to identify the potential for corrosive
subsurface conditions and the potential reactions with drilling fluids. This information also provides a basis for
estimating environmental impacts as a consequence of exploration and development activities.
Using these techniques, groundwater quality data are then applied to a hydrochemical model that aims to review
and establish potential inter aquifer relationships. From a hydrochemical perspective hydrochemical facies are
used to group the analyses. The facies groups are compared spatially and in relation to depth and geological unit.
Analysis and interpretation of both major and selected minor ion ratios is conducted using cross plots of the
relative molar concentrations. A preliminary hydrochemistry model is presented in Chapter 9.
42
3.9 DATA ACQUISITION – CONCLUSIONS
QGC has developed a robust data collection system to characterise the groundwater dynamics of the Surat Basin
and to monitor future changes. Petroleum and hydrogeological data acquisition and interpretation tools are
being integrated in innovative ways to inform further research and understanding.
The status of the Commitments relevant to data acquisition is as follows:
# Department Condition Description Completion date Status
Pre-Dec 2012 Post-Dec 2012
1 52c i 53B dCompletion of Stage 2 Monitoring Bore and VWP conversion programs (as outlined in this Plan)
March 2014
2 52c iIncorporation of potential additional UWIR groundwater monitoring requirements into Stage 2 Bore Construction Program
February 2013
4 52c iv 53B d Completion of bore baseline assessments and data analysis October 2013
13 52c 53B d Completion of interim Groundwater Monitoring Plan. April 2013
14 62f Collation and reporting of groundwater monitoring resultsApril 2014 and annually thereafter
15 52ciCollection and analysis of six-monthly groundwater quality samples
Biannually
16 52ciImplementation of the telemetry system for continuous groundwater level monitoring
April 2014
3249c and d, 52di I and II; 52d ii
53B d, 53B EConfirmation of early warning and threshold monitoring bore construction
October 2014
52 52c iImplementation of landholder bore monitoring – land access negotiations
October 2013
53 62f Commencement of monitoring of Landholder Bores April 2014
Commitments completed Evergreen Commitments
Commitments work in progress Firm deliverables for that month
Success depends on integrity, responsible environmental stewardship and the development of positive and enduring relationships.