DOCSLIB.ORG

Background Review: Aquifer Connectivity Within the Great Artesian Basin, and the Surat, Bowen and Galilee Basins

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Background Review: Aquifer Connectivity Within the Great Artesian Basin, and the Surat, Bowen and Galilee Basins Background review Aquifer connectivity within the Great Artesian Basin, and the Surat, Bowen and Galilee Basins This background review was commissioned by the Department of the Environment on the advice of the Interim Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Coal Mining. The review was prepared by the CSIRO and revised by the Department of the Environment following peer review. June 2014 Background review: aquifer connectivity within the Great Artesian Basin, and Surat, Bowen and Galilee Basins Copyright © Copyright Commonwealth of Australia, 2014. Aquifer connectivity within the Great Artesian Basin, and the Surat, Bowen and Galilee Basins, Background review is licensed by the Commonwealth of Australia for use under a Creative Commons By Attribution 3.0 Australia licence with the exception of the Coat of Arms of the Commonwealth of Australia, the logo of the agency responsible for publishing the report, content supplied by third parties, and any images depicting people. For licence conditions see: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/ This report should be attributed as ‘Aquifer connectivity within the Great Artesian Basin, and the Surat, Bowen and Galilee Basins, Background review, Commonwealth of Australia 2014’. The Commonwealth of Australia has made all reasonable efforts to identify content supplied by third parties using the following format ‘© Copyright, [name of third party] ’. Enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to: Department of the Environment, Public Affairs GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Or by email to: [email protected] This publication can be accessed at: www.iesc.environment.gov.au Acknowledgements This background review was commissioned by the Department of the Environment on the advice of the Interim Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Coal Mining. The review was prepared by CSIRO, with input from Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd, Queensland University of Technology and National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training. It was revised by the Department of the Environment following peer review by Mr Doug Anderson and Dr William Glamore (University of NSW Water Research Laboratory) and relevant Queensland, New South Wales and South Australian Government departments. Disclaimer The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Australian Government or the Minister for the Environment or the Interim Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Coal Mining or the statutory Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development (IESC). While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct, the Commonwealth and IESC do not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents, and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication. Addendum Changes to state government departments have occurred since the finalisation of this report by the authors. The Queensland, New South Wales and South Australian Government agencies were contacted and updated information provided in September 2013; however, no guarantees can be made as to the completeness of these updates. Up-to-date information should be sourced from the relevant department. page 2 of 209 Background review: aquifer connectivity within the Great Artesian Basin, and Surat, Bowen and Galilee Basins On 1 January 2013, the Queensland Water Commission (QWC) ceased operations. The Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment (OGIA) retains the same powers as the former QWC under Chapter 3 of the Water Act 2000 (Qld). Contributors The following list acknowledges the primary authors and contributors for each section of this report: Executive Summary – Glenn HarringtonA Chapter 1 – Glenn HarringtonA Chapter 2 – Luk PeetersA, Glenn HarringtonA, Rick EvansB Chapter 3 – Stephanie VilleneuveC, Glenn HarringtonA, Karsten MichaelA, Rick EvansB Chapter 4 – John KozuskanichC, Rick EvansB, Karsten MichaelA Chapter 5 – Chris TurnadgeA, Luk PeetersA, Brian SmerdonA Chapter 6 – Chris TurnadgeA, Luk PeetersA, Brian SmerdonA Chapter 7 – Tim EzzyB, Rick EvansB, Karsten MichaelA, Malcolm CoxD Chapter 8 – Stephen ParsonsB, Rick EvansB, Malcolm CoxD Chapter 9 – Glenn HarringtonA Chapter 10 – Glenn HarringtonA The authors would also like to thank Brian SmerdonA for useful peer review comments on a preliminary draft of this report. A CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship B Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd (now Jacobs SKM) C National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training D Queensland University of Technology page 3 of 209 Background review: aquifer connectivity within the Great Artesian Basin, and Surat, Bowen and Galilee Basins Contents Copyright ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 2 Disclaimer ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Addendum ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Contributors ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................... 11 Glossary................................................................................................................................................. 18 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 26 1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 26 1.2 Definition and relevance ....................................................................................................... 26 1.3 Objectives and scope ........................................................................................................... 28 1.4 Outline .................................................................................................................................. 28 2 Aquifer connectivity ....................................................................................................................... 30 2.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 30 2.2 Types of aquifer connectivity................................................................................................ 30 2.3 Groundwater flow ................................................................................................................. 36 2.4 Transport of solutes ............................................................................................................. 39 2.5 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 42 3 Measurement and modelling of aquifer connectivity .................................................................... 43 3.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 43 3.2 Measurement ....................................................................................................................... 43 3.3 Modelling .............................................................................................................................. 59 3.4 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 66 4 Changes in aquifer connectivity .................................................................................................... 68 4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 68 4.2 Mechanical deformation ....................................................................................................... 68 4.3 Hydraulic fracturing and coal seam gas operations ............................................................. 72 4.4 Induced seismicity and the reactivation of faults.................................................................. 75 4.5 Boreholes ............................................................................................................................. 77 4.6 Discussion and conclusions ................................................................................................. 79 page 4 of 209 Background review: aquifer connectivity within the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report to Office of Water Science, Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation, Brisbane
    Lake Eyre Basin Springs Assessment Project Hydrogeology, cultural history and biological values of springs in the Barcaldine, Springvale and Flinders River supergroups, Galilee Basin and Tertiary springs of western Queensland 2016 Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation Prepared by R.J. Fensham, J.L. Silcock, B. Laffineur, H.J. MacDermott Queensland Herbarium Science Delivery Division Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation PO Box 5078 Brisbane QLD 4001 © The Commonwealth of Australia 2016 The Queensland Government supports and encourages the dissemination and exchange of its information. The copyright in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC BY) licence Under this licence you are free, without having to seek permission from DSITI or the Commonwealth, to use this publication in accordance with the licence terms. You must keep intact the copyright notice and attribute the source of the publication. For more information on this licence visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en Disclaimer This document has been prepared with all due diligence and care, based on the best available information at the time of publication. The department holds no responsibility for any errors or omissions within this document. Any decisions made by other parties based on this document are solely the responsibility of those parties. Information contained in this document is from a number of sources and, as such, does not necessarily represent government or departmental policy. If you need to access this document in a language other than English, please call the Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS National) on 131 450 and ask them to telephone Library Services on +61 7 3170 5725 Citation Fensham, R.J., Silcock, J.L., Laffineur, B., MacDermott, H.J.
    [Show full text]
  • Porosity and Permeability Lab
    Mrs. Keadle JH Science Porosity and Permeability Lab The terms porosity and permeability are related. porosity – the amount of empty space in a rock or other earth substance; this empty space is known as pore space. Porosity is how much water a substance can hold. Porosity is usually stated as a percentage of the material’s total volume. permeability – is how well water flows through rock or other earth substance. Factors that affect permeability are how large the pores in the substance are and how well the particles fit together. Water flows between the spaces in the material. If the spaces are close together such as in clay based soils, the water will tend to cling to the material and not pass through it easily or quickly. If the spaces are large, such as in the gravel, the water passes through quickly. There are two other terms that are used with water: percolation and infiltration. percolation – the downward movement of water from the land surface into soil or porous rock. infiltration – when the water enters the soil surface after falling from the atmosphere. In this lab, we will test the permeability and porosity of sand, gravel, and soil. Hypothesis Which material do you think will have the highest permeability (fastest time)? ______________ Which material do you think will have the lowest permeability (slowest time)? _____________ Which material do you think will have the highest porosity (largest spaces)? _______________ Which material do you think will have the lowest porosity (smallest spaces)? _______________ 1 Porosity and Permeability Lab Mrs. Keadle JH Science Materials 2 large cups (one with hole in bottom) water marker pea gravel timer yard soil (not potting soil) calculator sand spoon or scraper Procedure for measuring porosity 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrochemical Zoning and Chemical Evolution of the Deep Upper Jurassic Thermal Groundwater Reservoir Using Water Chemical and Environmental Isotope Data
    water Article Hydrochemical Zoning and Chemical Evolution of the Deep Upper Jurassic Thermal Groundwater Reservoir Using Water Chemical and Environmental Isotope Data Florian Heine * , Kai Zosseder and Florian Einsiedl * Chair of Hydrogeology, Department of Civil, Geo and Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Munich, Arcisstr. 21, 80333 Munich, Germany; [email protected] * Correspondence: fl[email protected] (F.H.); [email protected] (F.E.); Tel.: +49-(89)-289-25833 (F.E.) Abstract: A comprehensive hydrogeological understanding of the deep Upper Jurassic carbonate aquifer, which represents an important geothermal reservoir in the South German Molasse Basin (SGMB), is crucial for improved and sustainable groundwater resource management. Water chemical data and environmental isotope analyses of δD, δ18O and 87Sr/86Sr were obtained from groundwater of 24 deep Upper Jurassic geothermal wells and coupled with a few analyses of noble gases (3He/4He, 40Ar/36Ar) and noble gas infiltration temperatures. Hierarchical cluster analysis revealed three major water types and allowed a hydrochemical zoning of the SGMB, while exploratory factor analyses identified the hydrogeological processes affecting the water chemical composition of the thermal water. Water types 1 and 2 are of Na-[Ca]-HCO3-Cl type, lowly mineralised and have been recharged 87 86 under meteoric cold climate conditions. Both water types show Sr/ Sr signatures, stable water isotopes values and calculated apparent mean residence times, which suggest minor water-rock Citation: Heine, F.; Zosseder, K.; interaction within a hydraulically active flow system of the Northeastern and Southeastern Central Einsiedl, F. Hydrochemical Zoning Molasse Basin. This thermal groundwater have been most likely subglacially recharged in the south and Chemical Evolution of the Deep of the SGMB in close proximity to the Bavarian Alps with a delineated northwards flow direction.
    [Show full text]
  • Heritage of the Birdsville and Strzelecki Tracks
    Department for Environment and Heritage Heritage of the Birdsville and Strzelecki Tracks Part of the Far North & Far West Region (Region 13) Historical Research Pty Ltd Adelaide in association with Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd Lyn Leader-Elliott Iris Iwanicki December 2002 Frontispiece Woolshed, Cordillo Downs Station (SHP:009) The Birdsville & Strzelecki Tracks Heritage Survey was financed by the South Australian Government (through the State Heritage Fund) and the Commonwealth of Australia (through the Australian Heritage Commission). It was carried out by heritage consultants Historical Research Pty Ltd, in association with Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd, Lyn Leader-Elliott and Iris Iwanicki between April 2001 and December 2002. The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the South Australian Government or the Commonwealth of Australia and they do not accept responsibility for any advice or information in relation to this material. All recommendations are the opinions of the heritage consultants Historical Research Pty Ltd (or their subconsultants) and may not necessarily be acted upon by the State Heritage Authority or the Australian Heritage Commission. Information presented in this document may be copied for non-commercial purposes including for personal or educational uses. Reproduction for purposes other than those given above requires written permission from the South Australian Government or the Commonwealth of Australia. Requests and enquiries should be addressed to either the Manager, Heritage Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, GPO Box 1047, Adelaide, SA, 5001, or email [email protected], or the Manager, Copyright Services, Info Access, GPO Box 1920, Canberra, ACT, 2601, or email [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Storage Dynamics in the World's
    Interactive comment on “Groundwater storage dynamics in the world’s large aquifer systems from GRACE: uncertainty and role of extreme precipitation” by Mohammad Shamsudduha and Richard G. Taylor Marc Bierkens (Referee #1) [email protected] Received and published: 2 January 2020 Reviewer’s comments are italicised, and our responses (R) and revisions (REVISION) are provided in normal fonts. General comments The authors use the results of three different GRACE-based TWS methods and 4 Land surface models to generate an ensemble of groundwater storage anomalies. These are subsequently analyzed by a non-parametric statistical method to separate seasonal signals from non-linear trends and residuals. The main message of the paper is that trends in GWS anomalies (ΔGWS), if existing, are non-linear in the vast majority of main aquifer systems and that rainfall anomalies play an important role in explaining these non-linear trends. I enjoyed reading the paper. I find that it is a well-written with an important message that deserves publication. However, I have a few comments. Moderate comments: 1. I find the lack of reference to estimates based on global hydrological models (GHMS) remarkable. The first spatially distributed global assessment of depletion rates where based on such models and, albeit indirect, should be used in the discussion. They are the basis for the “narratives on global groundwater depletion” that are mentioned in the discussion and the abstract (See https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748- 9326/ab1a5f/meta for an overview of these studies). This is the more remarkable, given that the authors do use Land Surface Models (LSMs) to estimate ΔGWS from GRACE ΔTWS.
    [Show full text]
  • Galilee Basin Thermal Coal Prohibition Bill Submission
    Galilee Basin Thermal Coal Prohibition Bill Submission This submission relates to the proposed Bill for an Act to prohibit the mining of thermal coal in the Galilee Basin. The Black-throated Finch Recovery Team is a community-based group whose mission is to secure the conservation of the Black-throated Finch (southern subspecies) Poephila cincta cincta which is listed as Endangered under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) as well as under Queensland and New South Wales state legislation. The proposed Bill is relevant to the conservation of the Black-throated Finch because of the vital importance of the Galilee Basin as a stronghold for the species. Portions of the Galilee Basin provide high quality habitat in narrow-leaf ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra) and other woodlands and these areas support the highest know densities and largest known surviving populations of the bird. The only other area known to support relatively large populations is the Townsville Coastal Plain where the species is threatened by urban expansion, intensive livestock grazing and vegetation change, including weed invasion. The species is rare, if not extinct, further south in Queensland and in New South Wales. Open-cut and underground coal mining present a major threat to the populations of Black- throated Finch in the Galilee Basin. These threats relate to mine footprints themselves, which can be substantial, especially in the case of open-cut mining, and to the direct and indirect effects of mining-related infrastructure. Offsets, as proposed for as part of the conditions for approval of developments, such as the Carmichael Mine, do not compensate for loss of habitat and populations of Black-throated Finch and there is the very real risk that there are inadequate areas suitable for offsets.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Do Coal Mines Need So Much Water? 13 April 2017, by Ellen Moon
    Why do coal mines need so much water? 13 April 2017, by Ellen Moon as a water-based slurry for further processing. Mines also need water for things like equipment maintenance, and for consumption by the mining communities themselves. In total, about 250 litres of freshwater are required per tonne of coal produced. This freshwater makes up around a quarter of the total water demand during coal production, the rest being "worked" (recycled) water. Coal mines, such as this one near Bowen, use water for What other industries use lots of water? everything from equipment cooling to dust management. Credit: CSIRO, CC BY The Great Artesian Basin is one of the largest underground water reservoirs in the world. It underlies 22% of Australia's land area, beneath the arid and semi-arid parts of Queensland, New South From accidental water spills into coastal wetlands, Wales, South Australia and the Northern Territory. to proposed taxpayer-funded loans, Adani's planned Carmichael coal mine and the associated Its aquifers supply water to around 200 towns or Abbot Point coal terminal can't keep out of the settlements, most of which are allowed to draw news at the moment. between 100 and 500 million litres (ML) per year. Last week, the granting of an unlimited 60-year water licence to the Carmichael mine, in Queensland's Galilee Basin, rattled environmentalists, farmers and community groups alike. In a region experiencing prolonged drought conditions, the provision of unlimited water for one of the largest mining operations in the Southern Hemisphere seems like a commitment at odds with current climate predictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Friends of Mound Springs
    Friends of Mound Springs I S S U E 2 , D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 6 A B N 9 6 5 8 3 7 6 0 2 6 6 D A T E S O F I N T E R E S T : · Next FOMS Presidents Message Meeting early Following the inaugural Meeting of the Friends of Mound Springs (FOMS) on 29 June this March 2007. year the group has since been established as a formal entity under the DEH Friends of Final Date, Parks network. I am particularly grateful for the efforts of Simon Lewis and Tony Latz, Sec- Venue & Time retary and Treasurer respectively, in shouldering the burden of this work. to be advised. A second meeting was held on 16 November and it was pleasing to be able to welcome to · Friends of the meeting Geoff Axford and Mike Hinsliff from DEH. Geoff and Mike have important re- Parks Group gional responsibilities for mound springs management both within and outside of the formal Forum 3-5 parks and reserves system of the Far North and it was most useful to hear from them about August 2007, some of their work. It was also instructive to hear from FOMS Vice President Travis Gotch Port Lincoln about his continuing work on springs. SA. Also discussed at the meeting was the need for more interpretative signage to better inform · GAB Consul- the large number of visitors to mound springs, particular in Wabma Kadarbu Mound Springs Conservation Park near Coward Springs. Signage which had been in place at the tative Com- Park faded and was removed some time ago, but has not been replaced and Mike indicated mittee Next that he would follow this up.
    [Show full text]
  • Transmissivity, Hydraulic Conductivity, and Storativity of the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer in Texas
    Technical Report Transmissivity, Hydraulic Conductivity, and Storativity of the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer in Texas by Robert E. Mace Rebecca C. Smyth Liying Xu Jinhuo Liang Robert E. Mace Principal Investigator prepared for Texas Water Development Board under TWDB Contract No. 99-483-279, Part 1 Bureau of Economic Geology Scott W. Tinker, Director The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78713-8924 March 2000 Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2 Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 5 HYDROGEOLOGY....................................................................................................................... 5 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 13 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................... 14 DATA COMPILATION ...................................................................................................... 14 EVALUATION OF HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES FROM THE TEST DATA ................. 19 Estimating Transmissivity from Specific Capacity Data.......................................... 19 STATISTICAL DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 5.4 Galilee Basin Survey 2012 Report.Doc Occur in Proximity to Intact Woodlands.) Waterhole Watches Were Not Used (More Useful in the Dry Season)
    bulk email and a handout in Appendix 1 Notices. We were agreeably surprised at the positive response. Many landholders were concerned about the impact of mining on their properties, and made us very welcome. We were given the use of showers and toilets etc. in some delightful campsites. Paola Cassini at Bimblebox even provided us with great meals. One offer of hospitality came directly from the ABC Breakfast Session, and another as a response to the first bulk email in Appendix 1 Survey personnel Sixteen volunteers from BirdLife Southern Queensland (14) and BirdLife Townsville (2) took part. No members from the BTR Recovery Team, BirdLife Capricornia or BirdLife North Queensland were available. The volunteers worked as two independent groups. See Appendix 2 The Team Survey area Initially it had been planned to do three 500m surveys and twelve 2HA Atlas plus Habitat surveys each morning, and optional incidental searches in the afternoons. It soon became apparent that organisation time and distances between sites permitted less surveys – in many cases the 2HA and Habitat surveys were omitted. Survey Sites See list in Appendix 3 Survey Sites. In the Galilee Basin, BTFs had been found in grassy, open woodlands and forests of Regional Ecosystem 10.5.5 - Eucalyptus melanophloia (Silver-leafed Ironbark) open woodland on sand plains. When it became apparent that many of the property managers of the ten properties with this RE were happy to give permission for surveys, it was decided to concentrate on these. It was found that the Stock Routes in the area were all unfenced, and largely unused, so little attention was given to them, and there was no time for the rail corridors, National Parks or Nature Refuges.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeology of Flowing Artesian Wells in Northwest Ohio
    Hydrogeology of Flowing Artesian Wells in Northwest Ohio By Curtis J Coe, CPG and Jim Raab Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources June 2016 Bulletin 48 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Site Location and Setting .................................................................................................. 1 1.2 ODH Water Well Regulations for Flowing Artesian Wells ............................................. 3 1.3 Purpose and Scope of Work .............................................................................................. 3 2.0 Previous Work ....................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Bedrock Hydrogeology ..................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Glacial Hydrogeolgy ......................................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 Williams Complex Aquifer ....................................................................................... 8 2.2.2 Williams End Moraine Aquifer ................................................................................. 8 2.2.3 Buried Valley Aquifers ............................................................................................ 13 2.2.4 Lake Maumee Lacustrine Aquifer ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Geochemical Footprint of the Bulldog Shale, Eromanga Basin, Australia
    The geochemical footprint of the Bulldog Shale, Eromanga Basin, Australia Eline Baudet1, Caroline Forbes1, David Giles2, Steve Hill3 1. DET CRC; School of Earth Sciences, University of Adelaide 2. DET CRC; Future Industries Institute, UniSa 3. Geological Survey of South Australia GSSA Discovery Day, Adelaide, South Australia 1 December 2016 World metal demand The study area Modified from Geoscience Australia The aim To understand the processes responsible for variable geochemical and mineralogical signatures within the Bulldog Shale and how they relate to buried mineralisations The study area Bulldog Shale Cadna-owie Formation Background chemistry Maximum background Mo Zn Cu values in ppm Bulldog Shale 10 250 50 Cadna-Owie No Mo 280 28 Formation Oodnadatta 10 200 35 Formation Vertical geochemical variations EARLY CRETACEOUS EARLY Lateral geochemical variations Bulldog Shale Cadna-Owie Oodnadatta Chemical variations Mineralogical control? • Depth? Structural control? • Different recharge zones? • Variations within paleo- environment? • Different underlying basements (as shown on map) and basins? Modified from Radke et al., 2000 Modified from Geoscience Australia,Source: 2002 SARIG Conclusions • Anomalous metal content recognised in the sedimentary formations studied • Elements dispersed from both aquifers (the Cadna-owie Formation and the Coorikiana Sandstone) into the Oodnadatta Formation and the Bulldog Shale • The formations studied preserve interesting geochemically variations • Future work: • integrate HyLogger data with geochemistry dispersion processes • Integrated groundwater study chemical relationships to geology • Small scale study over Prominent Hill signatures over known mineralisation Thank you for your attention Acknowledgements Special acknowledgements to Georgina Gordon, Alan Mauger, Aaron Baensch, Nathan Reid and David Gray for assisting me with the data collection, processing and interpretation The work has been supported by the Deep Exploration Technologies CRC whose activities are funded by the Australian Government's CRC Programme.
    [Show full text]