Galilee Energy Limited
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
28 July 2020 - RevD
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 0 3 February 2020 - RevA www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan
- Hutton Sandstone
Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...... 2 2. Regulatory Context ...... 3 2.1. Petroleum & Gas (Production & Safety) Act 2004 ...... 3 2.2. Environmental Protection Act 1994 ...... 3 2.3. CSG Water Management Policy ...... 4 2.4. Water Act 2000 ...... 4 2.5. Water (Great Artesian Basin and Other Regional Aquifers) Plan ...... 5 2.6. Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 ...... 5 2.7. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) ...... 6 2.8. Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative ...... 7 2.9. GAB Springs Recovery Plan ...... 7 3. Site location and description ...... 9 4. Hydrogeological conditions ...... 13 4.1. Geology and hydrostratigraphy ...... 13 4.2. Hydraulic properties ...... 19 4.3. Fracture pressure ...... 22 4.4. Groundwater levels and flow directions ...... 22 4.4.1. Hutton Sandstone - temporal water level changes...... 22 4.4.2. Hutton Sandstone - flow directions ...... 22 4.5. Groundwater quality ...... 25 4.6. Groundwater users ...... 29 4.6.1. Bores ...... 29 4.6.2. Groundwater dependent ecosystems ...... 32 5. Environmental values ...... 36 6. Produced water ...... 38 7. Injection system ...... 41 7.1. Injection bores ...... 41 7.2. Injectant treatment system ...... 42 7.3. Trial Operation ...... 45 7.3.1. Emergency Planning and Response ...... 45 7.3.2. Non-compliance response ...... 46 8. Potential impacts ...... 47
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 i 23 April 2020 - RevB www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
8.1. Hydraulic impacts ...... 48 8.1.1. Method ...... 48 8.1.2. Predicted extent of the hydraulic impact zone ...... 48 8.1.3. Predicted hydraulic impacts ...... 49 8.2. Water quality impacts ...... 52 8.2.1. Method ...... 52 8.2.2. Predicted extent of the water quality impact zone ...... 52 8.2.3. Predicted water quality impacts ...... 53 8.2.4. Geochemical compatibility ...... 55 9. Monitoring ...... 57 9.1. Locations ...... 57 9.2. Flow and pressure monitoring ...... 57 9.2.1. Injection system ...... 57 9.2.2. Monitoring bores ...... 57 9.3. Water quality monitoring ...... 58 9.3.1. Injectant ...... 58 9.3.2. Injection bores ...... 58 9.3.3. Monitoring bores ...... 58 9.3.4. Analytical parameters ...... 59 9.4. Reporting ...... 60 9.4.1. Flow and pressure ...... 60 9.4.2. Water quality ...... 60 9.4.3. Technical feasibility assessment ...... 61 10. Public consultation ...... 62 11. Risk assessment ...... 63 12. References ...... 74 Appendix 1 – Detailed site-specific Hutton Sandstone water quality data ...... 76 Appendix 2 – Detailed produced water quality data ...... 77
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 ii 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Tables Table 1 Geological and hydrogeological summary for the Glenaras injection site (after Galilee, 2016) ...... 15 Table 2 Hydraulic properties of the Hutton Sandstone from GLL water bore monitoring flow tests ...... 20 Table 3 Porosity of the Hutton Sandstone at the site ...... 20 Table 4 Site specific target aquifer groundwater quality ...... 27 Table 5 Environmental values and water quality objectives ...... 36 Table 6 Produced water quality ...... 39 Table 7 Trial injection bores ...... 42 Table 8 Injection bore construction ...... 42 Table 9 Treatment plant set points and compliance limits ...... 43 Table 10 Monitoring locations and summary of scope ...... 57 Table 11 Schedule of bore sampling and analysis ...... 58 Table 12 Measures of likelihood and consequence for risk assessment ...... 64 Table 13 Risk matrix based on the categories in Table 12 ...... 64 Table 14 Environmental risk assessment ...... 65
Figures Figure 1 Site location ...... 10 Figure 2 Site layout ...... 11 Figure 3 Topography and drainage ...... 12 Figure 4 Hydrostratigraphic outcrop and regional geological structure ...... 16 Figure 5 Structured contour - top of the Hutton Sandstone (Smerdon et al, 2012) ...... 17 Figure 6 Wireline log response cross section ...... 18 Figure 7 Seismic line through trial site ...... 19 Figure 8 Flow test analysis data distribution ...... 20 Figure 9 Spatial distribution of transmissivities calculated from GWBD flow tests ...... 21 Figure 10 Hutton Sandstone - temporal water levels ...... 23 Figure 11 Hutton Sandstone potentiometric surface ...... 24 Figure 12 Regional groundwater salinity and major ion chemistry ...... 26 Figure 13 Registered groundwater bores ...... 30 Figure 14 Water license allocations ...... 31 Figure 15 Springs in the vicinity of the site (State of Queensland, 2020) ...... 34 Figure 16 Schematic representation of recharge and discharge springs ...... 35 Figure 17 Process flow diagram ...... 44 Figure 18 Conceptual diagram of the scale potential impacts associated with aquifer injection .. 47 Figure 19 Predicted extent of hydraulic impact ...... 49 Figure 20 Maximum estimated pressure increases ...... 49 Figure 21 Predicted hydraulic impact zone and Hutton Sandstone water bores - 2 ML/day continuous for 365 days ...... 51 Figure 22 Radius of influence from continuous injection at 2 ML/day...... 53 Figure 23 Predicted long-term fate of the injectant ...... 54
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 iii 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Document Revision History
Date Version Author Reviewer Comment 23 March 2020 Revision A Ryan Morris Gerard Ryan Issued for GLL review Trent Williams Tony Papinczak Jamie Doyle 24 April 2020 Revision B Ryan Morris Trent Williams Issued for team risk Tony Papinczak assessment Gerard Ryan 28 April 2020 Revision C Ryan Morris DES Issued for EA amendment pre- lodgement 28 July 2020 Revision D Ryan Morris Trent Williams Updated following DES RFI
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 iv 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
1. Introduction
The Glenaras Gas Project is contained within ATP 2019 in the western portion of the Galilee Basin in central Queensland (Figure 1). The tenure is held by Capricorn Energy Pty Ltd and Beaconsfield Energy Development Pty Ltd both subsidiaries of Galilee Energy Limited (GLL) as the Operator and 100% owner of the Glenaras Gas Project.
The permit was identified very early as the sweet spot for coal seam gas (CSG) within the Basin and has seen considerable exploration activity over the last 15 years. Over $90 million has been spent to date including over 700km of seismic, over 20 exploration core holes and three multi-well pilots. The Glenaras Gas Project has one of the largest remaining uncontracted gas resources on the east coast of Australia with an independently derived and certified Contingent Resource within the Betts Creek coals with a 1C of 308 PJ, a 2C of 2508 PJ and a 3C of 5314 PJ. The current activity at the Glenaras Gas Project is the enhanced 5-well multi-lateral pilot at Glenaras which is designed to drawdown the coal below critical desorption pressure and commence production of commercial gas flow rates. This will allow the conversion of the Contingent Resources to Reserves and ultimately development of a commercial producing gas field.
GLL personnel have significant CSG exploration, appraisal and operational experience and are acutely aware of the importance of appropriate water management planning in project development. GLL has embarked on a program of water management trials including:
An irrigation trial of approximately 50 hectares of species such as sorghum, Rhodes grass and oats; and An aquifer injection trial targeting the Hutton Sandstone
These trials will be undertaken in parallel to the pilot production from the five multi-lateral wells and will utilise the water produced during the pilot.
The advantages of injection in the Hutton Sandstone include:
Meeting the stated outcomes of Great Artesian Basin and Other Regional Aquifers (GABORA) Plan (See Section 2.5) Providing additional pressure recovery following the cessation of primary funding for bore capping and piping through the Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative (GABSI) (see Section 2.7) Assist with meeting the objectives of the Great Artesian Basin Springs Recovery Plan (GABSRP) (See Section 2.9) Subject to regulatory approval, use of the aquifer as a virtual transfer pipeline between GLL and potential users of the treated water.
The primary objectives of the injection trial are to assess:
The hydraulic performance of the Hutton Sandstone, a major Great Artesian Basin (GAB), aquifer The geochemical compatibility of the injectant and the formation waters The technical requirements for an operational scale scheme The feasibility and constraints of injection into the Hutton Sandstone as a possible mitigation option for potential impacts on users of the Hutton Sandstone resulting from CSG production in ATP2019.
This document constitutes the management plan to support the injection trials.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 2 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
2. Regulatory Context 2.1. Petroleum & Gas (Production & Safety) Act 2004
The Petroleum & Gas (Production & Safety) Act 2004 (PAG) allows a petroleum tenure holder to take underground water if it is associated with an authorised activity for the tenure. There is no limit to the amount of water that may be extracted and it may be used for any purpose within or outside the area of the CSG tenure, subject to the provisions in the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act). The tenure holder must also comply with the underground water obligations under Chapter 3 of the Water Act 2000.
2.2. Environmental Protection Act 1994
The right of a petroleum tenure holder to extract gas and associated water is vested in the PAG (or the Petroleum Act 1923). The management of potential environmental impacts, including the management of produced water, is managed through the EP Act. The EP Act (Section 126) defines the requirements for site-specific Environmental Authority (EA) applications, which includes the following requirements:
A site-specific application for a CSG activity must state the following: o The quantity of CSG water the applicant reasonably expects will be generated in connection with carrying out each relevant CSG activity o The flow rate at which the applicant reasonably expects the water will be generated o The quality of the water, including changes in the water quality the application reasonably expects will happed while each relevant CSG activity is carried out o The proposed management of the water including, for example, the use, treatment, storage or disposal of the water o The measurable criteria (the management criteria) against which the applicant will monitor and assess the effectiveness of the management of the water, including, for example, criteria for each of the following: o The quantity and quality of the water used, treated, stored or disposed of o Protection of the environmental values affected by each relevant CSG activity o The disposal of waste, including, for example, salt, generated from the management of the water The proposed management of the water cannot provide for using a CSG evaporation dam in connection with carrying out a relevant CSG activity unless the application includes an evaluation of the following: o Best practice environmental management for managing the CSG water; and o Alternative ways for managing the water; and o The evaluation shows there is no feasible alternative to a CSG evaporation dam for managing the water.
This injection trial will validate the design and operational parameters required by GLL in order to develop their site-specific EA application for water management under a commercial development.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 3 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
2.3. CSG Water Management Policy
The Queensland CSG Water Management Policy (DEHP, 2012) is intended to guide CSG operators in managing CSG water in accordance with the Queensland government’s position on its management and use. The stated objective of the policy is to encourage the beneficial use of CSG water in a way that protects the environment and maximises it productive use as a valuable resource.
A management hierarchy is defined to facilitate compliance with the objective of the policy and its management under the EP Act. The hierarchy is as follows:
Priority 1 – CSG water is used for a purpose that is beneficial to one or more of the following: the environment, existing or new water users, and existing or new water-dependent industries. This could be achieved through: o Injection into depleted aquifers for recharge purposes o Substitution for an existing water entitlement o Supplementary water for existing irrigation schemes o New irrigation use, with a focus on sustainable irrigation projects o Livestock watering o Urban and industrial water supplies o Coal washing and dust suppression o Release to the environment in a manner that improves local environmental values
Priority 2 – after feasible beneficial use options have been considered, treating and disposing CSG water in a way that firstly avoids, and then minimises and mitigates, impacts on environmental values. Disposal to watercourses will only be approved for residual water where there is no feasible beneficial use, and disposal options will not adversely affect environmental values Disposal of CSG water to evaporation dams will only be approved under exceptional circumstances.
The policy identifies the following priorities for managing brine and/or salt generated from the desalination of the CSG water if required to maintain the environmental values during the CSG water management:
Priority 1 – Brine or salt residues are treated to create useable products wherever feasible. Priority 2 – After assessing the feasibility of treating the brine or solid salt residues to create useable and saleable products, disposing of the brine and salt residues in accordance with strict standards that protect the environment. These may include: o Injecting brine underground o Disposing to a regulated waste facility 2.4. Water Act 2000
The main purpose of the Water Act 2000 is to provide a framework for the sustainable management of Queensland’s water resources, including the management of impacts on groundwater caused by the exercise of underground water rights by the resource sector. The Water Act 2000 is intended to:
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 4 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Sustain the health of ecosystems, water quality, water-dependent ecosystems and biological diversity associated with watercourses, lakes, springs, aquifers and other natural water systems, including where practicable, reversing degradation that has occurred Recognise the interests of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders Enable fair access to water resources in support of economic development; and Promote the efficient use of water, including consideration of the volume and quality of water required for particular circumstances, including release into the environment
The sustainable use of water is managed through the preparation and implementation of water plans and water use plans, with processes for releasing unallocated water identified in a water management protocol.
Chapter 3 of the Water Act 2000 pertains to the extraction of water. With the exception of inclusion of injection in an Underground Water Impact Report (UWIR) providing injection volumes, Chapter 3 does not contemplate aquifer injection. The only specific water quality provisions of the Water Act 2000 are in Chapter 3 of the Water Act – make good is required if there is material impact to a water supply such that it can’t be used for its intended purpose because of a degradation in water quality through the exercise of a petroleum tenure holder’s underground water rights.
2.5. Water (Great Artesian Basin and Other Regional Aquifers) Plan
The Water Plan (Great Artesian Basin and Other Regional Aquifers) 2017 (GABORA) defines the availability of water in the plan area and provides a framework for its sustainable management while identifying priorities for future water requirements and providing a framework for the reversal of the degradation of groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs). The Plan applies to underground water and water associated with springs.
The intention of GABORA is to achieve a sustainable balance between the following outcomes:
The protection of flow to GDEs that support significant cultural or environmental values The protection of existing water take authorisations Maintenance, or increase, of water pressures in aquifers Make water available for future development Encourage the efficient use of water; and Facilitate opportunities for the trade of water.
The injection target formation is in the Eromanga Hutton groundwater unit. The Eromanga Hutton groundwater sub-area is identified to have 3,000 megalitres (ML) of unallocated water in the General reserve. Unallocated water in the general reserve may be granted for any purpose.
GABORA does not contemplate or is silent on aquifer injection.
2.6. Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009
The purpose of the Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 (EPP (Water)) is to determine the environmental values and associated water quality objectives for Queensland waters.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 5 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
There are currently no published environmental values under the EPP (Water) for the Gulf Catchment (DES 2015). However, the EPP (Water) states that environmental values can be determined through an assessment of the value, condition, suitability and uses of the relevant waters. The factors to be assessed for waters surrounding and within the Project area include:
Biological integrity of aquatic ecosystems for a defined category of waters:
High ecological value Slightly disturbed waters Moderately disturbed waters; and Highly disturbed waters. Production of aquatic foods for human consumption Aquaculture Agricultural purposes Recreation or aesthetic purposes (including primary, secondary and visual use) Drinking water Industrial purposes; and Cultural and spiritual value.
Water Quality Objectives for the Cooper Creek drainage basin are yet to be derived and scheduled under the EPP (Water).
2.7. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999)
The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) (EPBC Act) provides for the protection of the environment, especially matters of national environmental significance (MNES). The EPBC Act identifies nine MNES:
world heritage properties national heritage places wetlands of international importance (often called 'Ramsar' wetlands after the international treaty under which such wetlands are listed) nationally threatened species and ecological communities migratory species Commonwealth marine areas the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park nuclear actions (including uranium mining) a water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development.
The fourth and last listed MNES are relevant to the GLL injection trial.
Nationally threatened species and communities include species endemic to GAB springs and to the community of species dependent on the discharge from the Great Artesian Basin. Injection has the potential to impact on springs by changing the flow of hydraulically connected springs and therefore influencing the water availability to species and/or communities. The GAB springs recovery Plan (see
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 6 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Section 2.9) identifies that springs have been negatively impacted by historical water extraction (see Section 2.8).
The definitions of ‘CSG development’ relate to impacts on a water resource of activities that form part of the process of extracting coal or CSG, and includes the management of water generated during the extraction of CSG. Since the injection trial will utilise water extracted during CSG pilot production, the injection trial has the potential to impact on MNES. The Significant Impact Guidelines 1.3 (Commonwealth of Australia, 2013), identifies that the significance of impact is assessed against the utility of the water resource for all third party uses, including environmental and public use. The assessments undertaken herein identify that the GLL injection trial will not have a significant impact on the users of the Hutton Sandstone (i.e. water bores, springs, terrestrial GDEs or stygofauna).
2.8. Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative
The first artesian groundwater bore was drilled into the Great Artesian Basin (GAB) in 1878. By the early 1900s a reduction in water pressure and flow was observed due to the increasing amount of uncontrolled water production into open drains and creeks for distribution (GABCC, 2000). It was only in in the 1950s that regulation began that required that all new bores be fitted with headworks to control flows, and each of the states started programs to upgrade and control bores and convert drains to piped delivery systems. By the late 1990s more than 1,500 artesian bores continued to flow into more than 34,000km of open bore drains as a result of inadequate technology (DAWE, 2020).
Prior to 1999 a number of programs were commissioned to address the uncontrolled flow of water from artesian bores. A basin-wide coordinated approach to bore rehabilitation was proposed as part of the Great Artesian Basin Strategic Management Plan 2000 (GABCC, 2000), and resulted in the development of the GABSI. GABSI was delivered in partnership by Commonwealth and GAB State governments which provided funding support to repair uncontrolled bores.
GABSI has been fundamental in the restoration and repair of the uncontrolled bores and bore drains since 1999 and has made a successful contribution toward the improvement in pressure within GAB springs and the sustainable management of water resources within the Basin. GABSI came to an end on 30 June 2017, and within Queensland, GABSI and previous water efficiency programs had resulted in (DAWE, 2020):
An estimated annual water saving of 207,205 ML The rehabilitation of 700 flowing artesian bores 14,318 km of bore drains replaced with controlled water distribution systems
GABSI was replaced by the Interim Great Artesian Basin Infrastructure Investment Program (IGABIIP), for which $8M was made available by the Commonwealth government up until 30 June 2019 (DAWE, 2020).
Aquifer injection has the potential to achieve a similar outcome to GABSI/IGABIIP through the resultant increase in storage volume and aquifer pressure recovery.
2.9. GAB Springs Recovery Plan
The community of native species dependent on natural discharge of groundwater from the GAB (hereafter GAB discharge spring wetlands) is listed as ‘Endangered’ under the EPBC Act.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 7 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
The overall objective of the recovery plan is to maintain or enhance groundwater supplies to GAB discharge spring wetlands, maintain or increase habitat area and health, and increase all populations of endemic organisms (Fensham et al., 2010). Aquifer injection has the potential to maintain or enhance groundwater supplies to GAB discharge springs through the increase in aquifer pressure.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 8 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
3. Site location and description
The injection trial is located at the former five well Glenaras CSG pilot in ATP2019. For the purposes of this Injection Management Plan (IMP), the injection site includes a 5km radius around the Glenaras 4 well (the central well in the 5-well pilot). The site is approximately 55km south-southeast of Muttaburra, 75km northwest of Barcaldine and 65km northeast of Longreach in Central Queensland (Figure 1).
The site comprises (Figure 2): Glenaras gas wells 2, 3, 4, 5L, 6. Glenaras 2, 4 and 6 may be converted to water injection bores. Rodney Creek 1 – 8 CSG exploration and pilot production wells targeting the Betts Creek Beds (not shown on Figure 2) Glenaras 10L, 12L, 14L, 15L and 16L CSG pilot production wells targeting the Betts Creek Beds RN146279 (Gowing 1), a groundwater monitoring bore in the Hutton Sandstone A 357ML produced water holding pond (Glenaras Pond), constructed in 2009 RN11369 (Glenaras Bore), a landholder groundwater supply bore extracting from the Hutton Sandstone (not shown on Figure 2)
The site is at an elevation of approximately 222 mAHD and is relatively flat. It is located immediately to the west of Rodney Creek and is bound to the north by Beaconsfield Creek. Site drainage is toward Rodney Creek. The confluence between Rodney Creek and Aramac Creek is approximately 14km northeast of the 5-well pilot. Aramac Creek is a tributary to the Thomson River. The Thomson River is a sub-basin of the Cooper Creek drainage basin.
Surrounding land use is agricultural, specifically farming of sheep and beef cattle.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 9 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Figure 1 Site location
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 10 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Figure 2 Site layout
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 11 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Figure 3 Topography and drainage
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 12 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
4. Hydrogeological conditions 4.1. Geology and hydrostratigraphy
The Glenaras Project is positioned within an area of overlap between the shallower, Cretaceous-Jurassic Eromanga Basin and the deeper, Triassic to Carboniferous Galilee Basin. The GAB in this area of the Eromanga Basin comprises the full section from the Hutton Sandstone at the base, through to the Winton Formation effectively at outcrop. There is a thin veneer of Quaternary/Tertiary sediments over the GAB sediments. The primary coal seam gas producing units are the Late Permian Betts Creek Beds and the Early Permian Aramac Coal Measures. Table 1 summarises the geology and hydrostratigraphy at the site (Galilee Energy, 2016) and a simplified hydrostratigraphic unit outcrop map is provided as Figure 4.
The target formation for the injection trial is the Hutton Sandstone. It is approximately 85m thick at the site and is encountered at approximately 760m below ground. It is regionally extensive, extending into South Australia and the Surat Basin (Figure 5). It is deepest approximately 250km to the southeast of the site where it reaches depths in excess of 2,500m (Smerdon et al., 2012).
The Hutton Sandstone is overlain by the Birkhead Formation, Adori Sandstone and Westbourne Formation, which are all considered aquitards and are approximately 110m thick in total. The Cadna-owie-Hooray aquifer is a major aquifer of the GAB and overlies the aquitards. Underlying the Hutton Sandstone is the Rewan Formation which is up to 16m thick at the site and separates the Hutton Sandstone from the deeper coal seam gas units in the Betts Creek Beds. The potential for hydraulic connection between the Hutton Sandstone and the overlying aquifers and underlying coal seam gas units is limited by the presence of these aquitards.
The outcrop geology at the site is the Winton Formation, with the unconsolidated Quaternary/Tertiary sediments present within the drainage lines. The Rolling Downs Group (comprising the Allaru Mudstone, Toolebuc Formation and Wallumbilla Formation) aquitard outcrops in the east of ATP2019 and extends in subcrop, beneath a thin veneer of Tertiary material, to the GAB boundary approximately 120km to the east of the site. The Hutton Sandstone outcrops in a small, discontinuous northwest-southeast oriented swathe approximately 120km to the southeast of the site. The Cadna-owie-Hooray aquifer does not outcrop within 150 km of the site.
The Hutton Sandstone comprises sandstones of mixed grainsize from fine-grained to pebbles, is predominantly quartzitic, but with minor carbonaceous siltstone, mudstone and coal. At the intraformational level, natural gamma logs for the Hutton Sandstone from the site (Figure 6) show a relatively consistent low response, with some small increases in gamma count that cannot be correlated between wells. This suggests that potential for vertical compartmentalisation within the Hutton Sandstone is low and the formation will act as a single aquifer unit. Separation of the resistivity logs suggests good permeability of the formation.
The Queensland surface geological mapping (State of Queensland, 2019) shows no regional-scale faulting within ATP2019. The closest mapped fault is more than 50km to the west of the site. Small scale faulting has been interpreted in seismic surveys across ATP2019, however these structures do not appear to be continuous over significant distances in either the horizontal or vertical sense from the target formation to any other aquifer.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 13 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
There has been no earthquake activity across ATP2019. The closest historical seismic event was a magnitude 3.2 earthquake roughly 100km southwest of Longreach in 2015 (Geoscience Australia, 2020).
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 14 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Table 1 Geological and hydrogeological summary for the Glenaras injection site (after Galilee, 2016)
Basin Age Formation/unit Lithology Approx. depth to top (m) Quaternary Alluvium 0 Tertiary Undifferentiated 0 Lithic and felspathic sandstone, mudstone, siltstone, minor Winton Formation 30 conglomerate, local coal, lignite and volcanic detritus Mackunda Formation Feldspathic sandstone, siltstone ‡ Primarily blue-grey mudstone (partly pyritic) and interbedded Allaru Mudstone calcareous siltstone, cone-in-cone limestone and lesser ‡ sandstone Toolebuc Formation Limestone, calcareous bituminous shale, coquinite 380 Wallumbilla Formation Mudstone and siltstone with calcareous concretions 387 Cretaceous Cretaceous Transitional, non-marine to marine sandstone, siltstone, Cadna-owie Formation 552 calcareous sandstone and pebbly sandstone Fluvial, pale coloured, medium- to coarse-grained, quartzose Hooray Sandstone 586 sandstone, commonly cross bedded and pebbly Fluvial-lacustrine sediments: fine-grained sandstone Westbourne Formation 649 interbedded with siltstone, claystone, minor coal Fine- to medium-grained clayey sandstone and minor pebbly Adori Sandstone 677
Eromanga Eromanga Basin sandstone and siltstone Fine-grained sandstone, siltstone and carbonaceous mudstone, Birkhead Formation 691 with some coal Poorly sorted, coarse to medium-grained, feldspathic sublabile
Jurassic Jurassic sandstone (at base) and fine-grained, well-sorted quartzose Hutton Sandstone sandstone (at top); minor carbonaceous siltstone, mudstone, 759 coal and rare pebble conglomerate (at top); minor carbonaceous siltstone, mudstone, coal and rare pebble conglomerate
Moolayember Formation Micaceous lithic sandstone, micaceous siltstone. Not present Medium to coarse-grained quartzose to sublabile, micaceous Clematis Sandstone sandstone, siltstone, mudstone and granule to pebble Not present conglomerate.
Triassic Triassic Lithic sandstone, pebbly lithic sandstone, green to reddish Rewan Formation brown mudstone and minor volcanolithic pebble conglomerate 847 (at base); deposited in a fluvial-lacustrine environment Lithic sandstone, kaolinitic lithic sandstone, micaceous siltstone, Betts Creek beds Permian conglomerate, mudstone, carbonaceous shale, coal, pebbly 863
mudstone, tuff, breccia Aramac Coal Measures Sandstone with coal and mudstone interbeds 1035 Galilee BasinGalilee Jochmus Formation Volcanic-lithic sandstones with interbedded silty tuff 1076 Early Permian Diamictite, conglomerate, and sandstone with interbedded Jericho Formation ‡ siltstone Late Lake Galilee Sandstone ‡ Carboniferous Early Metasediments ‡ Palaeozoic
Unconfined aquifer Confined aquifer Confined aquifer - Injection target Aquitard CSG target
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 15 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan
- Hutton Sandstone
Figure 4 Hydrostratigraphic outcrop and regional geological structure
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 16 28 April 2020 - RevC www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Figure 5 Structured contour - top of the Hutton Sandstone (Smerdon et al, 2012)
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 17 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Figure 6 Wireline log response cross section
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 18 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Figure 7 Seismic line through trial site
4.2. Hydraulic properties
GLL performs annual baseline assessments on landholder bores in the immediate vicinity of the site. Included in the assessments are flow and shut-in tests. The data from the 2019 tests on the Hutton Sandstone bores have been analysed and a summary of the derived hydraulic properties are provided in Table 2. Flow test data for Hutton Sandstone bores was also obtained from the GWBD and these data were analysed to obtain transmissivities. One hundred and nineteen (119) tests were analysed with the statistical distribution of the results shown on Figure 8, and the spatial distribution is plotted as Figure 9. The average transmissivity (3055m2/day) is like that of RN11369 (3,190m2/day), the closest bore to the site, although the median transmissivity is approximately half the average. Within 50km of the site, the average and median transmissivities are approximately 1,500m2/day greater than compared with the entire data set. Except for the area where there are no high transmissivities south of the Capricorn Highway, the lack of pattern and uniformity in the transmissivity distribution suggests that primary permeability (porous space) might be enhanced by fracturing (secondary permeability).
A monitoring bore is required to calculate a storage coefficient and all the flow tests available from the GWBD were single bore tests. In highly confined aquifers such as the Hutton Sandstone at the site, the storativity is primarily related to the specific storage/compressibility of water (x10-6) and the aquifer thickness. The compressibility of water is the same specific storage value used in the numerical model for the approved UWIR for ATP2019 (Galilee Energy, 2016). For the purposes of this plan, a storativity of 3x10-5 has been assumed, i.e. an aquifer 30m thick. For impact modelling purposes, this is conservative as it will result in a more rapid build-up of aquifer pressure compared with the thicker aquifer (~85m) that exists at the site.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 19 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Neutron porosity logs for the three Glenaras wells that will be utilised during the trial indicate that the porosity of the Hutton Sandstone is in the 12.5 – 47.3% range, with an average of 27.5% (Table 3). The very high maximum porosities indicate the potential for fracture development and a dual porosity system.
Table 2 Hydraulic properties of the Hutton Sandstone from GLL water bore monitoring flow tests
Bore ID Hutton Sandstone Average hydraulic Transmissivity (m2/day) thickness (m) conductivity! (m/day) Glenaras Bore (RN11369) 123 3,190 25.9 Stewarts Creek (RN146385) 135 2,350 17.4 ! 퐻푦푑푟푎푢푙푖푐 푐표푛푑푢푐푡푖푣푖푡푦 =
Figure 8 Flow test analysis data distribution
Table 3 Porosity of the Hutton Sandstone at the site
Measurement Glenaras 2 Glenaras 4 Glenaras 6 All Depth From (mbgl) 754.3 754.2 756.2 - Depth To (mbgl) 838.6 841.8 842.5 - Thickness (m) 84.3 87.6 86.3 86.1 (average) Minimum 13.1 12.5 14.1 12.5 Maximum 46.4 33.2 47.3 47.3 Porosity (%) Average 26.1 23.1 29.0 27.5 Standard deviation 4.1 2.9 3.3 4.1
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 20 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Figure 9 Spatial distribution of transmissivities calculated from GWBD flow tests
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 21 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
4.3. Fracture pressure
Fracture gradients were obtained from a Dynamic Fracture Injection Treatment (DFIT) on the Glenaras pilot wells during their completion and prior to pilot production. Results obtained from the DFITs were as follows:
Glenaras 2 - 0.76 psi/ft Glenaras 4 – 0.765 psi/ft
Based on the Glenaras 2 fracture gradient, the fracture pressure at the top of the Hutton Sandstone (759mbgl) is:
1892 psi (13,045 kPa) at formation depth 813 psi (5,605 kPa) at ground level (wellhead)
Assuming a maximum allowable fracture pressure of 90% of the fracture pressure (DES, 2018), the maximum allowable fracture pressure is 732 psi (5,047 kPa) measured at the wellhead. This value assumes no pressure losses related to the friction associated with water moving through the bore and into the formation immediately adjacent to the bore.
4.4. Groundwater levels and flow directions 4.4.1. Hutton Sandstone - temporal water level changes
RN11369 (Glenaras Bore) was installed in 1950. The measured pressure at the time of installation was approximately 15m above ground level (magl). The Queensland Government undertook reasonably regular monitoring of the bore between 1988 and 2015 and GLL has monitored the bore annually since 2010. This extensive monitoring record (Figure 10) shows that aquifer pressures remained relatively stable until about 2000, after which they started to increase, reaching a stable pressure in 2017. The total increased in pressure is approximately 10 mH2O. This period of increased pressure corresponded closely to the GABSI funding period (SKM, 2014). Figure 10 also shows a hydrograph for RN146385 (Stewarts Creek Bore) which indicates a similar magnitude of pressure increase, but over a shorter time period (2009-2018).
The increased pressures resulting from the improved sustainability of groundwater use through the capping and piping of artesian bores associated with GABSI indicates that the Hutton Sandstone pressure has previously been depleted.
4.4.2. Hutton Sandstone - flow directions
A potentiometric surface has been prepared for the Hutton Sandstone and is presented as Figure 11. The surface has been generated using those bores within 150km of the site attributed to the Hutton Sandstone based on the method used by KCB (2016). Where multiple water levels were available, the most recent data was utilised. To calculate the reduced water level, the measured standing water level relative to ground level was added (for artesian bores) to the ground level elevation obtained from the SRTM 1 second DEM. The point data was interpolated using the Kriging algorithm in Surfer® and was blanked to the extent of the GAB.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 22 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Based on the contours presented as Figure 11, the highest groundwater elevation corresponds to the area of Hutton Sandstone outcrop 120km to the southeast of the site, where the potentiometric surface elevation is approximately 400mAHD. The lowest groundwater elevations correspond to the area immediately to the northeast of ATP2019, where the reduced water level is between 240mAHD and 250mAHD. Based on the plotted contours, the groundwater flow direction is regionally towards the ATP2019. The groundwater elevation at the site is approximately 250mAHD and based on a surface elevation of 222mAHD, the Hutton Sandstone water level is 28m above ground.
The shape of the groundwater elevation contours suggests that there has been significant depletion of aquifer pressures in the vicinity of the site.
Figure 10 Hutton Sandstone - temporal water levels
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 23 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Figure 11 Hutton Sandstone potentiometric surface
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 24 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
4.5. Groundwater quality
Chemistry data has been extracted for Hutton Sandstone from the GWBD for those bores within 150km of the site attributed to the Hutton Sandstone based on the method used by KCB (2016). Where multiple sample dates were available, the most recent data was utilised. The major anion and cation data have been plotted on a piper trilinear diagram using the method described by Peeters (2014), and are presented with the associated bore’s salinity (as total dissolved solids - TDS) as Figure 12. Figure 12 shows that the majority of groundwater in the Hutton Sandstone is of sodium bicarbonate water type. Salinity generally increases to the west, which corresponds with the expected groundwater flow direction and provides evidence that the potentiometric low in the vicinity of ATP2019 (Figure 11) may be anthropogenically induced (i.e. not on the timescale of regional groundwater flow processes). Areas closer to outcrop and corresponding to higher potentiometric levels generally have greater relative divalent cation (Ca, Mg) and sulphate concentrations, indicating less geochemically mature waters.
A comprehensive suite of analytes has been tested from samples collected during GLL’s annual baseline assessments on landholder bores, resulting in a dataset of up to nine samples. The data from RN11369 (Glenaras Bore) and RN146279 (Gowing 1) have been compiled and statistics calculated. These are the closest Hutton Sandstone bores to the injection site. All the individual results are provided in Appendix A, with the statistical summary provided as Table 4 with comparison to Australian Drinking Water Guidelines and ANZECC (2000) livestock guidelines. Exceedances of the guideline values are highlighted in grey. The results indicate:
The ADWG aesthetic guideline value for salinity based on electrical conductivity at 25°C was exceeded by the maximum, median and 95%ile, however the aesthetic guideline value based on TDS was not exceeded All statistics for sodium exceeded the ADWG aesthetic guideline value Fluoride exceeded both the ADWG health and the ANZECC livestock guideline values for all statistics The maximum, median and 95%ile values for ammonia exceeded its ADWG health guideline value Beryllium was detected on one occasion and exceeded the ADWG health guideline value, resulting in the calculated statistics for beryllium exceeded the guideline value Petroleum hydrocarbons, including BTEX, were not detected.
The presence of methane in the groundwater indicates that the aquifer environment is highly reducing.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 25 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Figure 12 Regional groundwater salinity and major ion chemistry
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 26 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan
- Hutton Sandstone
Table 4 Site specific target aquifer groundwater quality
Limit of ANZECC (2000) Parameter Group Parameter Units ADWG Count Minimum Maximum Average Median P95 Reporting Livestock
Electrical Conductivity (µS/cm) µS/cm <1000 @ 25°C - 6 859 2010 1676 1810 1999 pH pH 6.5 – 8.5 - 8 7.5 8.0 7.9 7.9 8.0 Units
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L - - 7 0.59 6.22 1.7 0.93 4.85 Field Redox) mV - - 7 -252 58 -133 -159 14 parameters Temperature °C - - 8 46 65.4 59.4 60.0 65.2 pH (laboratory) pH 6.5-8.5 - 5 8.28 8.34 8.31 8.31 8.34 Units Electrical Conductivity (µS/cm) @25°C µS/cm 1 1000 at 25°C - 5 767 1090 982 1035 1083
Lab TDS at 180°C 500 (aesthetic), else mg/L 10 5000 (cattle) 8 452 708 616 629 698 1200 parameters
physiochemical Total Suspended Solids mg/L 5 - - 1 <5 <5 NA NA NA Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 1 - - 8 21 455 366 439 453 Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 1 - - 8 11 449 252 342 448 Hydroxide Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 1 - - 8 <1 <1 NA NA NA Total Alkalinity mg/L 1 - - 8 2 466 365 438 465.4 Chloride mg/L 1 250 (aesthetic) 4000 8 48 84 73 77 83.4 Sulphate SO4 500 (health) 250 mg/L 1 1000 8 1 5 3 3 4.8 (aesthetic)
Calcium mg/L 1 200 (aesthetic) 1000 8 4 5 4 4 5 Magnesium mg/L 1 200 (aesthetic) 2000 8 <1 <1 NA NA NA Potassium mg/L 1 - - 8 3 4 4 4 4 Major/minorions Sodium mg/L 1 180 (aesthetic) 800 8 194 267 237 237 194 Fluoride mg/L 0.1 1.5 2 9 2.3 3.9 3 3.3 3.7 Bromine mg/L 0.1 - - 2 0.2 0.7 0 0.5 0.7 Silica 0.05 80 - 6 32.3 42.8 36 35.2 41.4 Ammonia mg/L 0.01 0.5 (aesthetic) - 7 0.33 0.62 0.49 0.56 0.61 Nitrite as N mg/L 0.01 3 30 7 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Nitrate as N mg/L 0.01 50 400 7 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Nitrite + Nitrate as N mg/L 0.01 - - 7 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 Nutrients Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.01 - - 6 0.04 0.6 0.41 0.6 0.6
Dissolved gas Methane µg/L 0.01 - - 6 928 3260 2137 2380 3170
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 27 28 April 2020 - RevC www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Limit of ANZECC (2000) Parameter Group Parameter Units ADWG Count Minimum Maximum Average Median P95 Reporting Livestock
Aluminium mg/L 0.01 0.2 (aesthetic) 5 9 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 Arsenic mg/L 0.001 0.007 0.5 9 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Barium mg/L 0.001 0.7 - 9 0.167 0.263 0.236 0.244 0.260 Beryllium mg/L 0.001 0.06 - 8 0.26 0.26 0.260 0.260 0.260 Boron mg/L 0.05 - - 8 0.24 0.35 0.32 0.33 0.35 Cadmium mg/L 0.0001 - - 4 <0.0001 <0.0001 NA NA NA Chromium mg/L 0.001 - - 3 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA Cobalt mg/L 0.001 1 0.011 8 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA Copper mg/L 0.001 2 1 (cattle) 9 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Iron mg/L 0.05 0.3 (aesthetic) - 9 0.05 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.11
Lead mg/L 0.001 0.01 0.1 7 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA Lithium mg/L 0.001 - - 2 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.5 (health) 0.1 Manganese mg/L 0.001 - 9 0.013 0.015 0.014 0.015 0.015 (aesthetic) Dissolved metals Mercury mg/L 0.0001 0.001 0.002 8 <0.0001 <0.0001 NA NA NA Molybdenum mg/L 0.001 - - 3 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA Nickel mg/L 0.001 0.02 1 8 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA Selenium mg/L 0.01 - - 2 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA NA Strontium mg/L 0.001 4 - 9 0.177 0.282 0.258 0.266 0.281 Uranium mg/L 0.001 - - 3 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA Vanadium mg/L 0.01 0.26 - 9 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA NA Zinc mg/L 0.005 3 (aesthetic) 20 8 <0.005 <0.005 NA NA NA
C6-C9 µg/L 20 - - 7 <20 <20 NA NA NA C10-C14 µg/L 50 1 0.011 7 <50 <50 NA NA NA
C15-C28 µg/L 100 2 1 (cattle) 7 <100 <100 NA NA NA Total C29-C36 µg/L 50 0.3 (aesthetic) - 7 <50 <50 NA NA NA Petroleum C10-C36 Hydrocarbons µg/L 50 0.01 0.1 7 <50 <50 NA NA NA Benzene 0.5 (health) 0.1 µg/L 1 - 7 <1 <1 NA NA NA (aesthetic) Toluene µg/L 2 0.001 0.002 7 <2 <2 NA NA NA Ethylbenzene µg/L 2 - - 7 <2 <2 NA NA NA
Xylene (m & p) µg/L 2 0.02 1 7 <2 <2 NA NA NA BTEX Xylene (o) µg/L 2 - - 7 <2 <2 NA NA NA Xylene Total µg/L 2 4 - 7 <2 <2 NA NA NA Napthalene µg/L 5 - - 3 <5 <5 NA NA NA
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 28 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan
- Hutton Sandstone
4.6. Groundwater users 4.6.1. Bores
Figure 13 shows the registered groundwater bores within 150km of the site and within the aerial extent of the site. The bore attribution is based on the method used by KCB (2016). In the vicinity of the site, the majority of bores access the Hutton Sandstone, with some use from the Hooray Sandstone and other aquifers.
There are 22 registered water bores within 20km of the site, of which five are identified as abandoned and destroyed, and one is an exploration well (RN22687 - LOL Rand 1) that the well completion report identified as abandoned with cement plugs (Warris, 1969). Eight of the existing bores are interpreted to access the Hutton Sandstone, four access the Hooray Sandstone and the remainder access other formations. The Gowing 1 monitoring bore (RN146279 - Hutton Sandstone) is included in these numbers. GLL has routinely undertaken monitoring of the three closest landholder bores (RN11369, RN146385 and RN146209) since 2011.
Licensed water entitlements are shown on Figure 14, which identifies that the majority of licensed water use in the region is for stock and domestic purposes. There are no intensive use allocations within ATP2019. The closest allocation licensed for extraction from the Hutton Sandstone is approximately 40km to the northeast of the site, and the authorised use is for stock, domestic and irrigation. Interrogation of aerial imagery elicited no evidence of irrigation activities on the authorised Lots and Plans. Muttaburra, Longreach and Ilfracombe utilise groundwater for town water supply.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 29 28 April 2020 - RevC www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Figure 13 Registered groundwater bores
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 30 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Figure 14 Water license allocations
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 31 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
4.6.2. Groundwater dependent ecosystems
Doody et al. (2019) define GDEs as natural ecosystems which require access to groundwater on a permanent or intermittent basis to meet all or some of their water requirements so as to maintain their communities of plants and animals, ecological processes and ecosystem services (Richardson et al., 2011). The broad types of GDEs are (Eamus et al., 2006a):
Ecosystems dependent of surface expression of groundwater - Springs Ecosystems dependent on sub-surface expression of groundwater – terrestrial GDEs Subterranean ecosystems - stygofauna
GDE’s can only be impacted by the injection trial when there is either a change in the physical or chemical characteristics of the aquifer that affects ecosystem function. Therefore, for the trial to impact on GDEs, they must be within the hydraulic impact zone (HIZ) or the water quality impact zone (WQIZ).
Springs
Figure 15 presents the location of springs in the vicinity of the trial site based on the Queensland Springs Database (State of Queensland, 2020). The closest identified Springs are more than 40 km of the injection site. The springs have been mapped into four categories, based on whether they are currently active or inactive (flowing or ceased to flow) and whether they are recharge or discharge springs. Recharge springs occur where the aquifer outcrops and rainfall infiltration is discharged again locally in a relatively short period of time and distance from the point of recharge, with necessarily reaching the regional water table. Discharge springs occur downdip from the outcrop areas and the rainfall recharge has entered the confined flow system, i.e. the aquifer is sealed above by an aquitard, and the aquifer is artesian, i.e. the potentiometric (pressure) surface is above ground level. Discharge springs also only occur where there is a geological conduit for groundwater flow to surface, such as a fault or where the aquitard is thin and possibly fractured. The differences between recharge and discharge springs are shown schematically on Figure 16. Since recharge springs are not connected to the regional hydrogeological system, there is negligible potential for them to be impacted during injection.
The Queensland Springs Database identifies the source aquifer for the discharge springs mapped to the east of the site as the Hooray Sandstone.
Terrestrial GDEs
Terrestrial GDEs comprise vegetation that utilise groundwater, and therefore the terrestrial GDE must be in the hydraulic or water quality impact zone of the injection. The water table must also be within the rooting depth of the vegetation, generally within 15m of the surface (Eamus et al., 2006b).
Figure 15 presents terrestrial GDE mapping from WetlandInfo (DES, 2020) and shows that there are no known terrestrial GDEs within more than 150km of the site. Within the immediate vicinity of the site, derived terrestrial GDEs of low confidence are associated with the Thompson River and its tributaries (including Rodney Creek and Aramac Creek). High confidence terrestrial GDEs are mapped along the Dividing Range, roughly 80km to the east of the site. WetlandInfo identifies these to be sandy plain aquifer with intermittent groundwater connectivity related to the intermittent flow in the Barcoo and Thompson rivers.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 32 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
The closest outcrop of the Hutton Sandstone to the trial site is greater than 120km to the southeast. Only small, disconnected areas of terrestrial GDEs are mapped within the outcrop of the Hutton Sandstone closest to the site (Figure 15). These include low, moderate and high confidence derived terrestrial GDEs associated with sandstone aquifer with fluctuating intermittent groundwater connectivity (DES, 2020). There are no Matters of State Environmental Signficance associated with the Hutton Sandstone outcrop closest to the site (Queensland Government, 2020).
The potentiometric surface presented as Figure 11 indicates that the water table depth in the vicinity of the Hutton Sandstone outcrop is approximately 25m below ground, thus the watertable depth is likely to be deeper than the rooting depth of the vegetation.
Stygofauna
Stygofauna may be found when there is suitable habitat: a source of food, and some level of dissolved oxygen. Based on this, it is considered highly improbable that stygofauna would be present in the water quality impact zone of the injection wells, because:
The depth and confined nature of the injection targets - stygofauna enter an aquifer where it was unconfined. To be present in the vicinity of the injection wells, the stygofauna would need to travel a minimum of 120 km away from the closest outcrop areas, along a depleting food source gradient. Further to this, the stygofauna would require macroporosity (a connected fracture network) to support their movement. Oligotrophic environment of the injection targets - the Hutton Sandstone at the site is in excess of 60°C, contains methane, and is highly reducing in nature. The aquifer is effectively devoid of oxygen which is required to support animal life. Temperature of the aquifer - The upper temperature limit for animal life is approximately 45°C and multicellular life (eukaryotes) is 60-62°C (Schmidt-Nielsen, 1975). The temperature in the Hutton Sandstone exceeds that in which animal life can exist is at the limit for eukaryotes.
Dillon et. al. (2009) suggest that stygofauna are unaffected by pressure variations associated with aquifer injection into confined aquifers.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 33 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Figure 15 Springs and mapped terrestrial GDEs in the vicinity of the site
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 34 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Figure 16 Schematic representation of recharge and discharge springs
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 35 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
5. Environmental values
The environmental values (EVs) of water are the qualities that make it capable of supporting aquatic ecosystems and human uses. The Queensland Government’s Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 (EPP Water) (State of Queensland, 2018) is the primary vehicle through which the EVs of waterways in Queensland are protected. For certain catchments, EPP Water and its supporting documents identify specific EVs alongside water quality objectives (WQOs) to ensure their protection. No such EVs or WQOs have been defined for the Cooper Creek catchment, thus the EVs listed under Section 6(2) of the EPP Water are relevant. These EVs are presented in Table 5, alongside their associated water quality objectives (WQOs), as identified in the EPP. Specific considerations relating to each of the EVs and their associated WQOs are discussed below.
Table 5 Environmental values and water quality objectives
Environmental Value Relevant Water Quality Objectives Aquatic ecosystems Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality (slightly disturbed (ANZECC, 2018); Queensland Water Quality Guidelines 2009 (State of ecosystem1) Queensland, 2013a) Aquaculture Not identified Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality Agriculture (ANZECC, 2018) Recreation (primary or Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Waters (NHMRC, 2008) secondary, visual) Australian drinking water guidelines, paper 6, national water quality Drinking water management strategy (NHMRC, NRMMC, 2011) Industrial use Not identified Cultural and spiritual values No recognized guidelines
With reference to drinking water, the ADWG (NHMRC, NRMMC, 2011) are values that relate to the quality of water at the point of use. They therefore do not directly relate to the quality of the injected water that may reach a user because of biogeochemical (e.g. adsorption, biodegradation, transformation) and physical processes (e.g. dilution, dispersion) that occur as it is transported through the aquifer. The detailed site- specific water quality data (Section 4.5) identifies that fluoride concentrations exceed the ADWG health criteria, but otherwise the groundwater at the site is effectively of drinking water quality. With the exception of the total dissolved solids concentration being limited to less than the aesthetic guideline value of 600 mg/L, the ADWG (NHMRC, NRMMC, 2011) guideline values will only be used for comparison with water quality results.
The Hutton Sandstone groundwater quality is generally suitable livestock watering based on the (ANZECC, 2000a), however the fluoride concentration exceeds its guideline value.
ANZECC (2000a) identifies that the suitability of water for irrigation is an interplay between the irrigation water quality, soil properties, plant salt tolerance, climate, landscape, and management practices. The sodium absorption ratio (average 150) and the electrical conductivity (average 1676 µS/cm) of the raw Hutton Sandstone groundwater significantly exceed the standard water quality parameters (SAR <12 and EC < 950µS/cm) identified for irrigation in the End of Waste Code for Irrigation of Associated Water (DES,
1Slightly disturbed waters are described as —the biological integrity of an aquatic ecosystem that has effectively unmodified biological indicators, but slightly modified physical, chemical or other indicators. This has been selected due to the depressurisation of the GAB, i.e. modified physical indicators.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 36 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
2019). It is therefore considered that the environmental value of irrigation is not applicable as treatment of the groundwater would be required prior to using it for irrigation.
The environmental values of aquatic ecosystems and cultural and spiritual values apply where groundwater discharges at springs. No springs have been identified for which the Hutton Sandstone is the source aquifer within 150km of the site. The WQO’s apply at the springs themselves and are therefore not applicable to the quality of the water injected. Similarly, cultural and spiritual values of the aquifer will not be modified because of the distance between the injection scheme and the springs.
No aquaculture or industrial use has been identified in the vicinity of the site. Recreational use of the Hutton Sandstone groundwater is only possible through the extraction via bores, and due to the temperature of the groundwater discharge (>60°C and therefore at a temperature that can scald skin), is unsuitable for recreational use without cooling.
The relevant environmental value is therefore considered to be agricultural use (livestock watering).
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 37 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
6. Produced water
Water for the injection trial will be produced from the multi-lateral pilot comprising the Glenaras 10L, 12L, 14L, 15L and 16L CSG pilot production wells targeting the Betts Creek Beds. These wells produce approximately 1 ML/day. If additional wells are installed, the produced water volumes may increase. A portion of the produced water will be used for the irrigation trial.
The quality of the Betts Creek Beds has been obtained from sampling and analysis of water produced during previous production pilots, including both the multi-lateral pilot that will supply the trial. A statistical summary of the results is provided in Table 6 with the full set of results provided as Appendix 2. Table 6 identifies the following parameters to have exceeded the guideline values adopted for comparison with statistics:
Electrical conductivity (ADWG) Total dissolved solids (ADWG) Sodium (ADWG) Fluoride (ADWG and ANZECC livestock) Ammonia (ADWG) Barium (ADWG) Total petroleum hydrocarbons (ADWG and ANZECC livestock) – based on one sample from one well, which was subsequently below the limit of reporting.
The produced water will be treated prior to injection, thus the water quality shown in Table 6 does not represent the quality of the injectant.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 38 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan
- Hutton Sandstone
Table 6 Produced water quality
Limit of ANZECC (2000) Parameter Group Parameter Units ADWG Count Minimum Maximum Average Median P95 Reporting Livestock
pH pH (laboratory) 6.5-8.5 - 9 7.7 8.5 8.3 8.4 8.5 Units Electrical Conductivity (µS/cm) @25°C µS/cm 1 1000 at 25°C - 9 1920 1980 1941 1930 1976
Lab 500 (aesthetic), TDS at 180°C mg/L 10 5000 (cattle) 9 1140 1270 1210 1250 1270
parameters else 1200
physiochemical Total Suspended Solids mg/L 5 - - 4 11 11 11 11 11 Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 1 - - 9 656 725 678 666 715 Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 1 - - 9 8 46 22 20 42 Hydroxide Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 1 - - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA Total Alkalinity mg/L 1 - - 9 666 756 695 680 753 Chloride mg/L 1 250 (aesthetic) 4000 9 228 249 238 237 248 500 (health) Sulphate SO4 mg/L 1 1000 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA 250 (aesthetic)
Calcium mg/L 1 200 (aesthetic) 1000 9 15 18 17 17 18 Magnesium mg/L 1 200 (aesthetic) 2000 9 2 6 2 2 4 Potassium mg/L 1 - - 9 17 26 20 20 25 Major/minorions Sodium mg/L 1 180 (aesthetic) 800 9 410 476 440 437 470 Fluoride mg/L 0.1 1.5 2 4 5.9 6.4 6.1 6.05 6.4 Bromine mg/L 0.1 - - 4 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.9 Silicon 0.05 80 - 9 35.3 38.8 36.18 35.6 38.28 Ammonia mg/L 0.01 0.5 (aesthetic) - 9 1.81 2.06 1.91 1.91 2.05 Nitrite as N mg/L 0.01 3 30 9 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA NA
Nitrate as N mg/L 0.01 50 400 9 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA NA Nitrite + Nitrate as N mg/L 0.01 - - 9 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA NA Nutrients Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.01 - - 9 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA NA Dissolved gas Methane µg/L 0.01 - - 5 3610 8050 5763 5695 7836 Aluminium mg/L 0.01 0.2 (aesthetic) 5 4 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Arsenic mg/L 0.001 0.007 0.5 9 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA Barium mg/L 0.001 0.7 - 9 2.5 2.83 2.67 2.66 2.82 Beryllium mg/L 0.001 0.06 - 9 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA
Boron mg/L 0.05 - - 9 0.75 0.87 0.80 0.79 0.85 Cadmium mg/L 0.0001 - - 9 <0.0001 <0.0001 NA NA NA Chromium mg/L 0.001 - - 9 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA Dissolved metals Cobalt mg/L 0.001 1 0.011 9 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 39 28 April 2020 - RevC www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Limit of ANZECC (2000) Parameter Group Parameter Units ADWG Count Minimum Maximum Average Median P95 Reporting Livestock
Copper mg/L 0.001 2 1 (cattle) 9 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Iron mg/L 0.05 0.3 (aesthetic) - 4 0.07 0.28 0.16 0.15 0.26 Lead mg/L 0.001 0.01 0.1 9 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA 0.5 (health) 0.1 Manganese mg/L 0.001 - 9 0.008 0.016 0.011 0.01 0.015 (aesthetic) Mercury mg/L 0.0001 0.001 0.002 9 <0.0001 <0.0001 NA NA NA Molybdenum mg/L 0.001 - - 4 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA Nickel mg/L 0.001 0.02 1 9 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.003 Selenium mg/L 0.01 - - 9 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA NA Strontium mg/L 0.001 4 - 4 0.787 0.856 0.822 0.823 0.855 Uranium mg/L 0.001 - - 4 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA Vanadium mg/L 0.01 0.26 - 7 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA NA Zinc mg/L 0.005 3 (aesthetic) 20 9 0.005 0.032 0.019 0.024 0.031
C6-C9 µg/L 20 - - 9 <20 <20 NA NA NA C10-C14 µg/L 50 1 0.011 9 <50 <50 NA NA NA
C15-C28 µg/L 100 2 1 (cattle) 9 <100 110 <100 <100 <100 Total C29-C36 µg/L 50 0.3 (aesthetic) - 9 <50 <50 NA NA NA Petroleum C10-C36 µg/L 50 0.01 0.1 9 <100 110 <100 <100 <100 Hydrocarbons 0.5 (health) 0.1 Benzene µg/L 1 - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA (aesthetic) Toluene µg/L 2 0.001 0.002 9 <2 <2 NA NA NA Ethylbenzene µg/L 2 - - 9 <2 <2 NA NA NA
Xylene (m & p) µg/L 2 0.02 1 9 <2 <2 NA NA NA BTEX Xylene (o) µg/L 2 - - 9 <2 <2 NA NA NA Xylene Total µg/L 2 4 - 9 <2 <2 NA NA NA Napthalene µg/L 5 - - 9 <5 <5 NA NA NA
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 40 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan
- Hutton Sandstone
7. Injection system
The injection system comprises the surface facilities that are used to amalgamate and treat the produced water, and the injection bores that are used to transmit the treated water to the aquifer.
7.1. Injection bores
GLL plan to repurpose three existing pilot wells for the injection trial. The Glenaras 6 well will be the primary injection bore, with Glenaras 2 and Glenaras 4 as contingent injection bores. When not injecting into them, the secondary injection bores will be used for monitoring.
The pilot wells were drilled in 2008, and thus pre-date the advent of the Code of Practice, however the construction was compliant with current requirements for injection bores identified in the Code of Practice For the construction and abandonment of petroleum wells and associated bores in Queensland (DNRME, 2019). Specifically:
the bores were constructed with 7” (nominal 160mm ID) casing the casing has been cemented from total depth to surface the casing was pressured test to 2,100psi on construction of the well radial bond log of the cemented annulus was collected prior the initial well perforation and confirmed annular isolation of the injection target from all other zones.
Since the wells are currently completed as CSG pilot production wells targeting the Betts Creek Beds, the wells will be converted to injection bores by:
Plug and abandoning the lower hydrocarbon bearing section of the well by setting bridge and cement plugs below the Hutton Sandstone to isolate the current perforations the well will be flushed with Hutton formation water from the Gowing 1 bore during the abandonment process to remove any Betts Creek Beds formation water the integrity of the bridge and cement plug will be tested to 1,000psi the casing will be perforated across the Hutton Sandstone which may be performed underbalanced to minimise damage around the perforated zones the bore will be developed until the return water is clear and free of sediment which will be completed through a combination of backflushing and/or airlifting a multi-rate flow test will be performed to assess aquifer and bore hydraulic parameters, and baseline water quality samples will be collected.
Injection will occur directly through the headworks, utilising the full casing annulus to transmit the water to the screened intervals Should significant clogging of the injection bore occur, a plan for workover will be developed by the project team. This may include redevelopment, re-perforation or milling of the casing and under-reaming of the formation. Alternatively, Glenaras 2 and/or Glenaras 4 may be commissioned as injection bores.
All activities will be undertaken in accordance with the Code of Practice.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 41 28 April 2020 - RevC www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Table 7 Trial injection bores
Bore ID Longitude (WGS84) Latitude (WGS84) Type Glenaras 6 144.73188 -23.08972 Primary injection bore Glenaras 2 144.727177 -23.08574 Contingent injection bore Glenaras 4 144.72938 -23.08757 Contingent injection bore
Table 8 Injection bore construction
Bore ID Surface Casing Intermediate Casing Injection Interval Size Size CBL* (mbgl) (mbgl) (mbgl) (mbgl) (mbgl) (mbgl) weight weight weight Depth to Depth to Depth to Depth Grade andGrade andGrade Plug depthPlug Depthfrom Depthfrom Depthfrom
K55 K55 Glenaras 2 9 5/8” 0 132.47 7” 0 1109.42 Yes TBD TBD TBD 36ppf 23ppf K55 K55 Glenaras 4 9 5/8” 0 132.05 7” 0 1100.03 Yes TBD TBD TBD 36ppf 23ppf K55 K55 Glenaras 6 9 5/8” 0 133.06 7” 0 1097.46 Yes TBD TBD TBD 36ppf 23ppf * CBL = cement bond log. A radial bond log, which provides a 360° wraparound view of the annual cement integrity was performed on the bores. ppf = pounds per foot TBD = to be determined 7.2. Injectant treatment system
The purpose of the treatment system is to ensure that the injectant complies with the authorised water quality limits, and minimises the operational risks associated with clogging. The treatment plant has a maximum designed capacity of approximately 2.0 ML/day. A process flow diagram is provided as Figure 17.
The treatment plant will be located in the immediate vicinity of the Glenaras pond.
Raw produced water from the wells will be gathered and stored in the Glenaras pond. Storage will assist with:
Reducing the temperature of the water Degassing of methane and other volatile gases Settlement of coal fines and other sediment Flocculation of iron and manganese
The water will be extracted from the pond and will pass through coarse filtration and then micro-filtration to remove particulates. The majority of the filtrate will then undergo desalination through reverse osmosis. The saline reject from the desalination process will be returned to the pond. The permeate (desalinated water) will be blended with the filtrate to match the target salinity.
The blended water will be deoxygenated utilising membranes and/or via chemical scavenging.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 42 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
An analyser rack will continuously monitor the injectant water quality at the outlet of the treatment plant. If the injectant water quality falls outside of either the lower or the upper trip point for any of the parameters shown in Table 9, injection will automatically cease until the water quality returns to specification. This will ensure that the injectant remains in compliance with water quality limits.
Outflow from the treatment plant will be boosted to a maximum wellhead delivery pressure of 2,800 kPa.
Chemical balancing of the injectant may be used to meet compliance limits. Chemicals also will be used for cleaning the treatment system and will be present on site, and may include:
Sodium Hydroxide (caustic soda) Hypochloric Acid Citric Acid Hydrochloric acid DBNPA/Monochloramine (disinfectant) Diesel, and Miscellaneous grease, lubricants, coolants, instrumentation calibration fluids etc.
These chemicals are routinely in town water supply treatment systems.
Control measures to prevent unintended releases of these chemicals to the environment include:
the feed ponds are lined and constructed in accordance with EA requirements tanks are constructed with corrosion resistant materials and coatings, and will be hydrostatically tested with clean water prior to service bulk chemicals will be stored in bunded areas process waste streams and drains are to be recycled to earlier stages in the process where possible, otherwise they will be returned to the feed pond.
Table 9 Treatment plant set points and compliance limits
Parameter Units Compliance Limits Lower trip point Target! Higher trip point Electrical µS/cm Maximum 1999 NA 1,500* 1,800 conductivity Minimum 6.5 pH pH units 6.7 7.5 8.3 Maximum 8.5 Dissolved oxygen ppb Maximum 500 NA 300 400 * the target salinity may be reduced during selected stages of the trial to assist with geochemical compatibility assessment. ! Daily averages will be used for reporting purposes
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 43 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Figure 17 Process flow diagram
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 44 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
7.3. Trial Operation
It is intended to conduct the injection trial over a period of 12 to 18 months, to assess aquifer performance. Depending on water availability and maintenance issues, the trial may not run continuously over this period.
The trial will be run as a series of push-pull test cycles comprising the following phases:
a multi-rate injection test (MRT) a constant rate injection test (CRT) storage phase (no injection) extraction of injected water
The objective of the MRT is to assess the hydraulic performance of the injection bore (i.e. well losses). The MRT will comprise a minimum of three different (typically increasing) injection rates for relatively short durations (~24 hours). By observing pressure increases at varying injection rates, linear and non-linear head losses can be calculated. Repeats of an MRT following each CRT can also assist in further understanding potential changes in bore performance due to clogging. The final step of the MRT will be run at maximum wellhead delivery pressure.
The main objective of a CRT is to better understand the aquifer in terms of its hydraulic performance, including boundary conditions that may affect the longer-term performance of an operational injection scheme. The CRTs will be run at the maximum flow rate at which the treatment plant can run stably.
Analysis of the recovered water will be used to develop geochemical models, essential to understanding the potential for long-term geochemical change due to aquifer injection. Incorporation of a storage phase provides time for the injectant to react and the extraction phase thereafter provides empirical evidence for the potential for geochemical changes to aquifer water quality due to injection. The duration of the storage period will be calculated to ensure that injected water has a minimum residence time of 30 days (see Section 8.2.4).
A low salinity (e.g. no or less filtrate blended with permeate) phase and/or a sodium bromide tracer may be included to assess the physical transport behaviour at the site. Both the sodium and the bromide are inert and will not react with the aquifer material. The tracer will be extracted until bromide concentrations return to that of the non-amended injectant.
Recovered water will be sampled as per the monitoring program described in Section 9.3 and then discharged to the pond.
7.3.1. Emergency Planning and Response
The aquifer injection trials will be encompassed by the GLL Emergency Response Plan (GLL-ERP-001 ATP2019) for the site. The plan provides details of:
site description roles and responsibilities dangerous goods and hazardous substances register
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 45 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
site emergency equipment emergency control communications, including contact details and regulatory notification requirements, and site emergency response flow chart
7.3.2. Non-compliance response
The following non-compliances, relevant to aquifer injection, will require the response procedure to be followed:
An injection fluid monitoring result that does not comply with any of the compliance limits presented in Table 9 Detection of a groundwater chemical parameter that results in the degradation of the environmental value of groundwater at the site Migration of injected fluid out of the Hutton Sandstone A loss of hydraulic isolation of an injection bore The potential for serious environmental harm exists, or A specific condition of the EA relating to injection has been breached.
The response procedure is as follows:
The incident will be reported to the GLL Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer within 24 hours of occurrence Injection ceases (although extraction can continue) The Chief Operating Officer notifies DES within 24 hours of being informed of the incident (when required) The Chief Operating Officer instigates an investigation of the incident and will prepare a final report on the incident. The final incident report will be provided to DES within 28 days of the incident occurring Injection can recommence once it is confirmed that unauthorised environmental harm has not occurred.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 46 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
8. Potential impacts
Potential impacts associated with water injection relate to pressure changes (hydraulic impacts) and changes to water quality. The scales of potential impacts differ significantly (Figure 18):
hydraulic impacts propagate rapidly and extent for large distances from the injection bore, but will return back to static conditions relatively quickly injected water will change the quality of the groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the injection bore (10s of meters) and after the trial has ceased will move slowly down hydraulic gradient. As the injected water moves away from the injection bore via advection, it disperses and attenuates until chemistry changes are indistinguishable from the background water quality of the aquifer. Notwithstanding that the injected water will be of equal or better salinity than the background water quality and a portion of the injected water will be extracted to assess chemical changes, the return to background water quality will occur within a few kilometres of the injection bore. Advective movement in the GAB aquifers is slow (<5m/year), and thus will takes centuries to move this distance.
Predictions of potential impacts associated with the Glenaras injection trial are quantified in the following sections.
Figure 18 Conceptual diagram of the scale potential impacts associated with aquifer injection
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 47 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan
- Hutton Sandstone
8.1. Hydraulic impacts 8.1.1. Method
Hydraulic impact has been assumed to be a pressure change greater than 0.1m. This value was selected as the smallest amount of water level change that is practically measurable.
Water level changes have been estimated using the Cooper-Jacob (Cooper and Jacob, 1946) solution for a confined aquifer and implemented with the superposition in time method of Birsoy and Summers (1980) for variable pumping rates. The Cooper-Jacob solution, as an approximation of the Theis (1935) solution (radial flow), is considered appropriate as predictions are for time periods of days to a year. The solution was implemented stochastically using 200 simulations assuming the normal distribution of transmissivities obtained within 20km of the site (Section 4.2). A 50th percentile, upper 10th percentile and lower 10th percentile were calculated from the 200 simulations to represent the most likely and range of potential hydraulic impacts.
Potential hydraulic changes were estimated based on continuous injection at 2 ML/day for 1 year. This represents the maximum potential impact.
8.1.2. Predicted extent of the hydraulic impact zone
The 50th percentile predicted hydraulic extent of hydraulic impact (green line on Figure 19) after 365 days of injection at 2ML/day is approximately 80km from the injection bore. The potential range of hydraulic impact for one year of continuous injection at 2 ML/day is between 38km and 120km.
Due to the very high transmissivity of the Hutton Sandstone in the vicinity of the site, the increase in pressure is unlikely to increase by 5m (the Water Act 2000 bore trigger threshold) even immediately adjacent to the injection bore (Figure 20).
Pressure increases within the injection bore will be significantly greater compared with the aquifer response due to the friction associated with the water moving down the bore casing and through the perforations.
The hydraulic impact zone is only applicable to the Hutton Sandstone. There is unlikely to be a measureable pressure response in the overlying aquifers.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 48 28 April 2020 - RevC www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Figure 19 Predicted extent of hydraulic impact
Figure 20 Maximum estimated pressure increases
8.1.3. Predicted hydraulic impacts
Bores
Utilising the Water Act 2000 bore trigger threshold and since aquifer pressures are unlikely to increase by 5m in a maximum impact scenario (Figure 20), it is considered a remote possibility that surrounding landholder bores will be negatively impacted by pressure increases from the injection trial. The following numbers of bores are predicted to be within the hydraulic impact zone (Figure 21) and may therefore experience an increase in pressure:
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 49 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
50th percentile – 153 bores Upper 10th percentile – 238 bores Lower 10th percentile – 29 bores
Due to the small pressure increases and the absence of sub-artesian bores in the vicinity of the site, the likelihood that any sub-artesian bores start flowing is remote.
Groundwater dependent ecosystems
There are no mapped springs within the hydraulic impact zone that are sourced from the Hutton Sandstone (Section 1).
While there a low confidence derived GDEs mapped in along the drainage lines in the immediate vicinity of the site, the Hutton Sandstone is roughly 760m below ground at the site and is hydraulically disconnected to the surface (Section 4.6.2).
The HIZ is not predicted to extend to the closest mapped Hutton Sandstone outcrop, and therefore will not affect any terrestrial GDEs associated with the outcrop areas.
The trial will therefore no impact on groundwater dependent ecosystems.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 50 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Figure 21 Predicted hydraulic impact zone and Hutton Sandstone water bores - 2 ML/day continuous for 365 days
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 51 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
8.2. Water quality impacts 8.2.1. Method
Assuming piston flow, the water quality impact zone (radius - r) for a given injection volume for a known aquifer thickness and effective porosity can be calculated using the following formula:
푄푡 푟= 휋ℎ∅
Where: Q = injection rate (m3) t = elapsed time of injection H = aquifer thickness (m) ∅ = effective porosity
The aquifer thickness was assumed to be the average thickness of the Hutton Sandstone at the site (Table 3). Calculations were performed stochastically to generate 200 simulations based on the normal distribution of the effective porosity using the combined mean and standard deviation calculated from the neutron porosity wireline logs for Glenaras 2, Glenaras 4 and Glenaras 6 wells as identified in Table 3.
A continuous injection rate of 2ML/day was assumed. Since this is the maximum plant rate, it provides a conservative estimate of the water quality impact zone.
The movement of the injected water following the cessation of the trial has been modelled using AnAqSim (Fitts Geosolutions, 2020), and analytic element software. A steady-state simulation was run with the following assumptions:
Continuous injection into Glenaras 2 at 2ML/day Continuous extraction from RN11369 (Glenaras Bore) and RN146385 at 1.5 ML/day each The median porosity (27.8%) from the 200 simulations used estimate the WQIZ The average Hutton Sandstone thickness from Table 3 The hydraulic conductivity obtained from RN146385 (Table 2), which will result in greater pressure changes due to injection and extraction and therefore greater hydraulic gradients between the injection bore and the landholder bores, and A flat initial potentiometric surface.
Eight pathlines were seeded around each bore to show the direction and timing of travel.
8.2.2. Predicted extent of the water quality impact zone
Based on Figure 22, the maximum radial extent of water quality change around the injection bore after one year of continuous injection at 2ML/day is likely to be less than 111m (upper 10th percentile) and will only occur within the Hutton Sandstone. The actual radius of influence will be significantly less as the trial will not run continuously at the peak plant rate.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 52 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Figure 22 Radius of influence from continuous injection at 2 ML/day
8.2.3. Predicted water quality impacts
There are no receptors (groundwater bores or groundwater dependendent ecosystems) sourcing water from the Hutton Sandstone within the predicted WQIZ. While there a low confidence derived GDEs mapped in along the drainage lines in the immediate vicinity of the site, the Hutton Sandstone is roughly 760m below ground at the site and is hydraulically disconnected from the surface, and will therefore not be affected by the trial. There are no springs sourced from the Hutton Sandstone within the predicted maximum extent of the WQIZ.
The predicted movement of the injected water is shown on Figure 23. As expected, the injected water is captured by the extracting bores. The predicted time for water movement along the shortest pathline between the injection bore and the landholder bores are in excess of:
RN11369 – 1,700 years RN146385 – 1,100 years
Following arrival of the injectant at the extraction bores, the extracted water quality would be unlikely to change significantly. The injectant would be diluted by the capture of water from the wider aquifer and would have likely returned to background water quality through dispersion, dilution and reaction along the pathway.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 53 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Figure 23 Predicted long-term fate of the injectant
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 54 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
8.2.4. Geochemical compatibility
One of the primary purposes of the injection trial is to understand the compatibility of the injected water with the in-situ groundwater and aquifer minerals.
Extensive geochemical assessment of treated CSG water was undertaken during the Australia Pacific LNG injection trials. The assessment was undertaken through the Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance (GISERA) in conjunction with experts from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). The research findings of GISERA are publicly available and in addition, two papers were published in peer reviewed scientific journals. Key documents include:
Prommer et al. (2018) Deoxygenation Prevents Arsenic Mobilization during Deepwell Injection into Sulfide-Bearing Aquifers Rathi et al. (2017) Multiscale Characterization and Quantification of Arsenic Mobilization and Attenuation During Injection of Treated Coal Seam Gas Coproduced Water into Deep Aquifers Prommer et al. (2016) Geochemical Response to Reinjection
The above studies focussed on the Precipice Sandstone in the Surat Basin at two locations. While the basin and formation are different to the Glenaras trial, the research is considered an appropriate analogue because the Precipice Sandstone had the following similarities to the Hutton Sandstone at the site:
A sandstone with quartz-dominated mineralogy A relatively high primary permeability (approximately 5m/day) enhanced by fracturing Primary porosities of up to 30% An aquifer temperature of approximately 63-65°C at the trial sites Sodium-bicarbonate water type with circum-neutral pH and salinities between 460mg/l TDS and 3,500 mg/L Highly reducing environment as evidenced by the presence of methane Pyrite concentrations in the sediments and arsenic concentrations in the groundwater below detection limits Injection of reverse osmosis and deoxygenated treated CSG water.
Geochemical compatibility was assessed through laboratory column experiments and reactive transport models history matched to the chemical changes between the injection and extraction phases of the field trials. The findings for both trial sites included:
The observed hydrochemical responses to the injection and recovery of treated CSG water could be closely replicated by the reactive transport model The key processes identified were:
o The behaviour of sodium, calcium, alkalinity and many other constituents could be replicated without the inclusion of any geochemical reactions, providing evidence that the target formation has a limited reactivity over the temporal and spatial scales of the investigation
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 55 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
o Substantial increases in dissolved sulphate, arsenic and molybdenum concentrations during a non-deoxygenated phase of the trials, but less so during deoxygenated water injection, identified pyrite oxidation as the primary mechanism of metal mobilisation, however pH imbalance may have also contributed to the arsenic release o Forward predictions with the calibrated model indicated that for continuous injection at 3ML/day for one year, arsenic concentrations would not exceed the ANZECC (2000) livestock guideline value, and would reduce to less than the ADWG (NHMRC, 2015) within approximately 300m of the injection bore. The simulated aquifer was approximately one third of the Hutton Sandstone thickness at the Glenaras site o Deoxygenation was recommended to manage the potential risk associated with arsenic mobilisation
The treatment system and trial phasing that will be employed during the GLL trials will be similar to those described in the research. The trials upon which the research was based included inject-reside-extract phasing with residence times ranging from two to 64 days.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 56 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
9. Monitoring
The section describes the monitoring that will be performed during the trials. The primary objective of the monitoring plan is to ensure suitable data is collected to allow the stated objectives of the trial (Section 1) are met.
9.1. Locations
Monitoring will be undertaken at the locations identified in Table 10.
Table 10 Monitoring locations and summary of scope
Location ID Type Flow Pressure Quality Treatment plant export Plant Yes NA Yes GA6* Injection bore Yes Yes Yes RN146279 (Gowing 1) Monitoring bore (Hutton Sandstone) No Yes Yes RN11369 (Glenaras Bore) Monitoring bore (Hutton Sandstone) No Yes Yes RN146385 (Stewarts Creek Monitoring bore (Hutton Sandstone) No Yes Yes Bore, Marchmont Station) RN146209 (Summerhill Bore) Monitoring bore (Hooray Sandstone) No Yes Yes *Potentially GA2 or GA4 9.2. Flow and pressure monitoring
Flow and pressure monitoring are critical for understanding injection bore and aquifer hydraulic behaviour.
9.2.1. Injection system
All active injection bores will be equipped with:
Individual digital flow meters that can record both the flow rate and total volume injected A wellhead pressure gauge
A totalising flowmeter will be installed at the export of the treatment plant. This will record the total volume of water exported to the injection bores. It will be used to cross-check the individual bore flow meters.
The dataloggers connected to these instruments will have capacity to record at a maximum of 1-minute intervals.
9.2.2. Monitoring bores
A digital pressure gauge will be installed on the wellhead of each nominated monitoring bore. The pressure gauge will have the capacity to record data at a maximum of 1 hourly intervals.
Barometric pressure will be monitored at the trial site to allow for barometric correction of pressure responses. Barometric pressure will be recorded at a maximum of 1 hourly intervals.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 57 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Pressure gauges will be installed on the monitoring bores a minimum of 6 weeks prior to the commencement of injection to ensure that antecedent conditions, including barometric effects, are understood.
9.3. Water quality monitoring
Water quality monitoring is required to ensure compliance with the EA conditions and to allow the geochemical compatibility study to be completed for a potential operational scheme.
9.3.1. Injectant
Injectant water quality will be monitored immediately prior to the plant export, after the last treatment stage, and where there will be no further changes to water quality prior to injection. Water quality monitoring of the injectant will comprise two components:
Digital monitoring of electrical conductivity, pH, dissolved oxygen, redox (oxidation-reduction potential) and temperature connected to the plant control system. These parameters will be monitored at a maximum of 1-minute intervals. Should any of the parameters exceed their identified EA limits, the control system will stop injecting until the water quality becomes compliant Laboratory samples of the injectant will be collected: o During the commissioning of the treatment plant (3 samples) prior to the commencement of injection o daily for the first week of the trial o fortnightly during periods of extended injection o hourly during tracer injection (if performed)
Samples collected during the commissioning of the treatment plant will be analysed for the commissioning suite. And thereafter samples will be analysed for the extended suite identified in Section 9.3.4.
9.3.2. Injection bores
Water quality samples will be collected from the injection bores by backflowing the bore following each cycle of injection. Samples will be analysed for the suite of parameters listed in Section 9.3.4.
9.3.3. Monitoring bores
Water quality samples will be collected from the bores as scheduled in Table 11
Table 11 Schedule of bore sampling and analysis
Bore ID Frequency Suite Injection bore 3 background samples prior to injection Commissioning
During injection phases: Extended o Every two days for the first eight days o Fortnightly during periods of extended injection During extraction phases:
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 58 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Bore ID Frequency Suite o Daily for the first week o Every 3 days for week 2-3 o Weekly thereafter Tracer Injection (if performed) Tracer suite o Two times per day for every day tracers are injected RN146279 (Gowing 1) Quarterly! Standard RN11369 (Glenaras Bore) Annually! Standard RN146385 (Stewarts Creek Bore, Annually! Standard Marchmont Station) RN146209 (Summerhill Bore)* Annually! Standard * The Summerhill bore taps the Hooray Sandstone ! Injected water is not expected to reach the monitoring bores during the injection trial (Section 8.2.2)
9.3.4. Analytical parameters
Water quality samples will be analysed by a NATA accredited laboratory for the following suites of parameters:
Standard suite: o Field parameters (electrical conductivity, pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, redox/ORP) o Physiochemical parameters (total dissolved solids, electrical conductivity, pH) o Major anions and cations (Na, K, Ca, Mg, Cl, CO3, HCO3, SO4) o Dissolved metals and metalloids (Al, As, Ba, Be, B, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, Hg, Pb, Mn, Mo, Ni, Se, U, V, Zn) o Fluoride o Nitrate, nitrite, Total N, Total P, sulphide o Total organic carbon Extended Suite o Basic suite o Dissolved organic carbon o Total suspended solids Tracer suite o Extended suite o Bromide Commissioning suite o Extended suite o Total petroleum hydrocarbons o Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes o Gross alpha and beta o E. Coli and faecal coliforms
Samples will be collected in accordance with the Monitoring and Sampling Manual (DES, 2018). Specific quality assurance/quality control measures will include:
Inclusion of trip blanks in all eskies holding samples for the commissioning suite (i.e. those suites that include volatiles) Collection of field duplicate samples at a frequency of 1 duplicate for every 10 samples collected.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 59 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Rinsate samples will not be collected as samples will be collected directly from a tap on the treatment system or wellhead with no secondary equipment (e.g. sampling pump) utilised. There is therefore no potential for cross-contamination of samples.
Samples will be collected directly in new laboratory supplied containers with appropriate preservatives for the analyses requested (e.g. nitric acid for metals). Samples (both primary and duplicate) for dissolved metals analysis will be field filtered using a new, disposable 0.45µm filter. Samples will be stored on ice or in a refrigerator prior to delivery to the laboratory under chain-of-custody protocols.
Water quality samples will be submitted to a laboratory with methods accredited by NATA for the analyses requested, and for which comprehensive internal laboratory QA/QC is undertaken and reported. It is anticipated that samples will be submitted to Australian Laboratory Services (ALS) for analysis. Field monitoring equipment, such as EC and pH meters, will be calibrated on a regular basis using appropriately ranged and preserved calibration solutions.
9.4. Reporting 9.4.1. Flow and pressure
Time series data of injection flow rate, water level change (displacement) and temperature response in the injection bore will be analysed for changes in the hydraulic regime that may be indicative of:
decreased bore efficiency (i.e. clogging of the bore screens and/or near bore formation) increased bore efficiency (i.e. unclogging/development of the bore screens and/or near bore formation)
To evaluate the hydraulic characteristics of the target aquifer, the pressure response to injection will be analysed in nearby monitoring bores completed in the same aquifer and compared with test pumping pressure responses, or model-derived data.
9.4.2. Water quality
Online water quality parameters (DO, EC, pH) will be analysed and reported as a daily average. Any non- compliance of the daily average values with EA conditions will result in initiation of a non-compliance response (refer Section 7.3.2).
Following a period of storage in the aquifer, an extraction phase will commence. Extracted water quality data will be compared with the background water quality data (Table 4 and additional pre-injection samples) to assess whether injectant-groundwater and/or injectant-rockmass chemical reactions have occurred. Water quality data will also be compared with ANZECC (2000) and ADWG (2015) guidelines values for stock water and treated drinking water respectively.
Water quality results will be quality assured through the comparison of relative percentage differences between the primary sample and the duplicate sample.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 60 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
9.4.3. Technical feasibility assessment
At the completion of the injection trial, a report will be written documenting the aquifer injection trial at the Glenaras site. The report will provide details of the trials performed, including (but not limited to):
equipment utilised injection rates, durations and volumes presentation and description of the monitoring performed injection bore hydraulic performance aquifer hydraulic performance a geochemical compatibility assessment
The technical feasibility of injection into the Hutton Sandstone will be assessed based on the trial results. For the purpose of the assessment, technical feasibility will be defined as the ability to inject water at a rate and quality that will not cause material environmental harm or affect the long-term viability of the injection scheme. The technical feasibility assessment will include consideration of the primary objectives of the injection trial:
The hydraulic performance of the Hutton Sandstone and the ability to bank water, maintain or increase aquifer pressures The geochemical compatibility of the injectant and the formation waters to ensure that the environmental value of the aquifer would not be degraded through long term injection The technical requirements for an operational scale scheme, and The feasibility of injection into the Hutton Sandstone as a possible mitigation option for potential impacts on users of the Hutton Sandstone resulting from CSG production in ATP2019.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 61 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
10. Public consultation
A public consultation program will be undertaken prior to the commencement of injection. To guide the development of this stakeholder engagement strategy, the following objectives must be achieved for the stakeholder engagement process to be effective:
Creating awareness of the injection program – ensuring as many possible stakeholders are aware of the project Conducting stakeholder consultation activities Developing resource materials – ensuring as much information on the injection trial as possible is conveniently accessible to all stakeholders Capturing, recording, and considering stakeholder feedback – providing the tools to collect, record, consider, and effectively respond to stakeholder feedback.
Engagement may include:
One-on-one presentations with key stakeholders Tour(s) of the trial site for relevant stakeholders Local government briefings Notification of directly affected landholders, government agencies, and local government at least one month prior to the commencement of injection.
Landholders with properties immediately surrounding the site will be given the opportunity for their relevant bores to be monitored on a regular basis throughout the trial.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 62 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
11. Risk assessment
This section ranks the hazards, preventative measures, and the assessed untreated consequence and treated risk levels in conformance with the procedure recommended in the Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managed Aquifer Recharge (NRMMC, 2009). Risks have been scored using the likelihood and consequence measures identified in Table 12.
The risk assessment has considered hazards in the context of a source-pathway-receptor model, which is commonly used for assessment risks to groundwater systems. The injection scheme is the source, the pathway is the Hutton Sandstone aquifer, and the receptors are either human users of extracted groundwater from the Hutton Sandstone or ecosystems supported by groundwater from the Hutton Sandstone. Since both pressure and water quality changes can be transmitted through the aquifer, risk has been assessed at the receptor. Hazards associated with water quality changes consider the potential for the installation of new groundwater bores within the water quality impact zone.
Of the 14 risks assessed, 12 of the risks have been assessed as low. The two risks that have been assessed as medium are related to the primary objectives of the injection trial, i.e. the assessment of geochemical compatibility (relating to the release of inorganic chemicals) and operational feasibility (relating to clogging).
If the chemistry results of the extraction phase show that inorganic chemicals are not released in concentrations exceeding the adopted water quality objectives, then the risk will immediately be reduced to ‘low’ for an operational scheme. However, if there is mobilisation of inorganic chemicals exceeding the adopted water quality objectives, the construction of a reactive transport model (based on the data acquired during the monitoring program) will allow the assessment of options to reduce the risk to an acceptable level for ongoing operations and approvals.
The risk relating to clogging is an operational risk only, and in the context of a trial is of insignificant environmental consequence. The trial will assess the risk to an operational scheme and potential mitigation options (if necessary) will be included in the technical and economic assessment of feasibility, and the design of an operational scheme (if required).
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 63 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Table 12 Measures of likelihood and consequence for risk assessment
Level Descriptor Description Measures of Likelihood A Remote May occur only in exceptional circumstances; may occur once in 100 years B Unlikely Could occur within 20 years or in unusual circumstances C Possible Might occur or should be expected to occur within a 5- to 10-year period D Likely Will probably occur within a 1- to 5-year period E Almost certain Is expected to occur with a probability of multiple occurrences within a year Measures of Consequence 1 Insignificant Insignificant impact or not detectable Health – minor impact for small population 2 Minor Environment – potentially harmful to local ecosystem with local impacts contained to site Health – minor impact for large population 3 Moderate Environment – potentially harmful to regional ecosystem with local impacts primarily contained to site Health – major impact for small population 4 Major Environment – Potentially lethal to local ecosystem; predominantly local, but potential for off-site impacts Health – major impact for large population 5 Catastrophic Environment – Potentially lethal to regional ecosystem or threatened species; widespread on-site and off-site impacts
Table 13 Risk matrix based on the categories in Table 12
Likelihood A Remote B Unlikely C Possible D Likely E Almost certain 5 Catastrophic High High High Extreme Extreme 4 Major Medium Medium Medium High Extreme 3 Moderate Medium Medium Medium Medium High 2 Minor Low Low Medium Medium Medium
Consequence 1 Insignificant Low Low Low Medium Medium
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 64 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan
- Hutton Sandstone
Table 14 Environmental risk assessment
Hazard Validation / Verification Comments on Inherent Risk Controls Description Monitoring Likelihood To ControlTo Consequence ResidualRisk Consequence Prior Water protection: Pond designed with no external catchment The presence of pathogens in the CSG There is negligible up-slope stormwater run-off influence on Pathogens water is unlikely due to the significant the site introduced depth and confined nature of the source Pond is located above outside of the Queensland Floodplain through the formations. Assessment Overlay (Level 1) injectant The pond receives CSG water directly Fencing around the pond to reduce the potential for stream, from the gathering system. The pond is contamination from wildlife and stock Not required
degrading the lined but uncovered. Low
2 Minor2
environmental Bird faeces or other wildlife is the most Remote A Treatment processes: values of in- likely source of pathogens. Insignificant1 Ultra filtration effective at removing most pathogens situ No receptors are located within a including Cryptosporidium groundwater conservatively estimated predicted
water quality impact zone. The aquifer provides a treatment barrier for removal of pathogens (e.g. Toze, 2004, Vanderzalm, et al. 2009)
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 65 28 April 2020 - RevC www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Hazard Validation / Verification Comments on Inherent Risk Controls Description Monitoring Likelihood To ControlTo Consequence ResidualRisk Consequence Prior Treatment processes: Ultra filtration Hutton Sandstone background water Reverse osmosis quality: De-oxygenation Salinity, sodium fluoride and ammonia Inorganic exceed ADWG guideline values chemicals Process control: Fluoride exceeds ANZECC livestock introduced Permeate will dominate the injectant water quality, reducing guideline value through the the relative concentrations of those inorganic chemicals with Produced water: injectant pre-treatment concentrations greater than guideline values Salinity, sodium, fluoride, ammonia and stream or Deoxygenation will reduce the potential for geochemical barium exceed ADWG guideline values dissolution of release/mobilisation through pyrite oxidation. Monitor in accordance with Fluoride exceeds ANZECC livestock metals from Continuous on-line monitoring of pH, dissolved oxygen, monitoring plan. guideline value
aquifer electrical conductivity. Injection to cease when injectant is 2 Minor Injectant Medium C PossibleC minerals, Moderate3 out of specification Injectant quality current unknown. degrading the Potential mobilisation of inorganic environmental Trial design: chemicals through pyrite oxidation values of in- The extraction phase will identify if geochemical release exceeding water quality objectives. situ occurs in concentrations in excess of adopted water quality No receptors are located within a groundwater objectives. conservatively estimated predicted Continued extraction can reduce the concentration to less water quality impact zone. Travel times than the water quality objectives. to closest receptors >1,000 years If the extraction phase identifies no geochemical release, the risk is low
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 66 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Hazard Validation / Verification Comments on Inherent Risk Controls Description Monitoring Likelihood To ControlTo Consequence ResidualRisk Consequence Prior Treatment processes: Increased Ultra filtration Hutton Sandstone: salinity or Reverse osmosis Site-specific 95%ile salinity (electrical sodicity conductivity) is 1999 µS/cm (range 859- introduced Process control: 2010 µS/cm) through the Injectant blended to equal or better quality than in-situ Monitor in accordance with injectant groundwater (95%ile salinity)
Injectant Low monitoring plan
stream, 2 Minor Electrical conductivity high trip point (1800 µS/cm) less than
No receptors are located within a Unlikely B degrading the target water quality conservatively estimated predicted Insignificant1 environmental Continuous on-line monitoring of pH, dissolved oxygen, water quality impact zone. Travel times value of in-situ electrical conductivity. Injection to cease when injectant is to closest receptors >1,000 year groundwater out of specification
Hutton Sandstone: Ammonia exceeds ADWG guideline Nutrients Treatment processes: value, nitrite, nitrate and phosphorus (organic Ultra filtration detected at similar concentrations to carbon, Reverse osmosis produced water nitrogen, Manage blend ratio of permeate with bypass to produce Produced water: phosphorus) injectant of an acceptable quality Ammonia exceeds ADWG guideline introduced Water protection: value, nitrite, nitrate and phosphorus Monitor in accordance with through the Feed Pond designed with no external catchment
detected in background Hutton Low monitoring plan
injectant 2Minor There is negligible up-slope stormwater run-off influence on
Sandstone water quality Unlikely B stream, the site Injectant Insignificant1 degrading the Feed Pond also located above 1 flood level Injectant quality current unknown environmental Fencing around the feed pond to reduce the potential for No receptors are located within a value of in-situ contamination from wildlife and stock conservatively estimated predicted groundwater water quality impact zone. Travel times to closest receptors >1,000 years
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 67 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Hazard Validation / Verification Comments on Inherent Risk Controls Description Monitoring Likelihood To ControlTo Consequence ResidualRisk Consequence Prior Hutton Sandstone: Concentrations of all organic parameters Organic analysed were less than applicable LOR chemicals, not CSG Water (preliminary): Treatment processes: including Low concentration of TPH detected on Feed pond volatilisation/biodegradation disinfection by- one occasion but not in subsequent Ultra filtration Monitor in accordance with products, samples
Low monitoring.
degrading the Injectant 2 Minor Residence time in aquifer: 2 Minor environmental Injectant quality currently unknown Potential for attenuation of organic chemicals in the aquifer Unlikely B value of in-situ No receptors are located within a due to presence of coal and carbonaceous shales groundwater conservatively estimated predicted water quality impact zone. Travel times to closest receptors >1,000 year Hutton Sandstone: Total suspended solids <5 mg/L Produced Water: Total suspended solids of produced Treatment processes: Turbidity and water generally <5 mg/L, however Settlement of solids in the pond particulates produced water will be gathered to an Ultra filtration introduced open pond Reverse osmosis through the Injectant (during aquifer injection trial): Process control: Monitor in accordance with injectant Injectant quality currently unknown Closed system downstream of the ultrafiltration monitoring plan. stream, Low No receptors are located within a Routine monitoring of bore performance degrading the conservatively estimated predicted Residence time in aquifer: PossibleC environmental Insignificant1 Insignificant1 water quality impact zone. Travel times The porous nature of the aquifer will filter the particulates value of in-situ to closest receptors >1,000 year from the water (clogging potential but reducing potential groundwater Turbidity and particulates are significant environmental impacts) risk for physical clogging of the near wellbore aquifer
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 68 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Hazard Validation / Verification Comments on Inherent Risk Controls Description Monitoring Likelihood To ControlTo Consequence ResidualRisk Consequence Prior
Radionuclides Hutton Sandstone: introduced Radionuclides not analysed through the Treatment processes: Produced Water: injectant Retain reducing conditions in the aquifer through de- Characterise injectant prior Radionuclides not analysed stream or oxygenation to trial. Injectant: released from Validate through
Injectant quality currently unknown Low
aquifer matrix, 2 Minor Characterisation of potential for geogenic release is a monitoring in accordance No receptors are located within a degrading the primary objective of the trial (geochemical compatibility) PossibleC with monitoring plan. conservatively estimated predicted Insignificant1 environmental water quality impact zone. Travel times value of in-situ to closest receptors >1,000 year groundwater
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 69 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Hazard Validation / Verification Comments on Inherent Risk Controls Description Monitoring Likelihood To ControlTo Consequence ResidualRisk Consequence Prior Groundwater Monitoring and Adaptive Response: Over- Fracture pressure based on site-specific Adaptive management will be implemented through a pressurisation fracture gradient of 813psi measured at modelling-monitoring-management approach whereby each of injection ground level component is used to inform and refine the others. Should bore, causing Maximum designed discharge pressure the monitoring and modelling indicate an increase in risk to rupture of is 2,800kPa, approximately 50 % of potential receptors due to aquifer injection, the adequacy of aquitard,
formation fracture pressure. monitoring can be reviewed to assist management of that failure of Stochastic assessment of the pressure risk. injection and Pressure and flow build-up and hydraulic impact zone Pressure and flow monitoring data will be assessed monthly monitoring monitoring in accordance show that pressure increases will be and used to calibrate the pressure rise model which will then bores, and / or Low with groundwater
less than those experienced from be used to assess the transmission of pressure effects to Rare A artesian monitoring plan. GABSI pressure recovery. All landholder bores. conditions in Insignificant1 Insignificant1 immediately surrounding Hutton Bore completion: previously Sandstone bores are already artesian Mechanical integrity of the casing and grout sheathe has sub-artesian and with controlled flow. been assessed and documented during the construction of open bores No landholder bores are located closer the injection bores completed in to injection site than the GLL monitoring Process control: the target bore (Gowing 1). Maximum designed discharge pressures is significantly less aquifer than formation fracture pressure No large regional faults have been mapped in the vicinity of the injection site. Contaminant Small scale faulting in the vicinity of the migration in Hutton Sandstone characterisation: injection site has been interpreted in fractured rock Limited fracturing not pervasive Not required.
seismic surveys however, these Low and karstic Rare A structures do not appear to be aquifers continuous over significant distances or Insignificant1 Insignificant1 depths. No carbonate formations present.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 70 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Hazard Validation / Verification Comments on Inherent Risk Controls Description Monitoring Likelihood To ControlTo Consequence ResidualRisk Consequence Prior
Hutton Sandstone lithology Treatment processes: Aquifer (predominately quartzitic) not Retain reducing conditions of the injectant through de- dissolution and susceptible to dissolution. Monitor in accordance with oxygenation aquitard and Produced water pH slightly alkaline, Low monitoring plan. Ensure neutral to alkaline pH
bore stability reducing potential for corrosion and Remote A
dissolution 1 Insignificant 1 Insignificant No Hutton Sandstone sourced springs identified within 150km of the site. The closest potential terrestrial GDE from the site is greater than 130km from the site, Groundwater Monitoring and Adaptive Response: where the Hutton Sandstone outcrops. Adaptive management will be implemented through a
modelling-monitoring-management approach whereby each A conservative estimate of the water component is used to inform and refine the others. Should quality impact zone indicates that it will Impacts on the monitoring and modelling indicate an increase in risk to Pressure and flow be less than 120m following 2ML/day of groundwater potential receptors due to aquifer injection, the adequacy of monitoring in accordance injection continuously for 365 days dependant monitoring can be reviewed to assist management of that Low with groundwater
ecosystems risk. Remote A monitoring plan. Stochastic modelling indicates that the 3Moderate Pressure and flow monitoring data will be assessed monthly 1 Insignificant hydraulic impact zone (0.1m pressure and used to calibrate the pressure rise model which will then increase), may extent up to 120km, but be used to assess the transmission of pressure effects to most likely will be approximately 80km. potential GDEs
Pressure increases due to the trial significantly less than those experienced through GABSI.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 71 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Hazard Validation / Verification Comments on Inherent Risk Controls Description Monitoring Likelihood To ControlTo Consequence ResidualRisk Consequence Prior Implementation of injection trial is to assess feasibility in alignment to the CSG Water Management Policy (State Energy and of Queensland, 2012). Infrastructure and setup: greenhouse Not required.
Optimise recharge pressures to reduce energy costs Low gases Energy demands of injection will reflect energy requirements for treatment Remote A process and pumping requirements from Insignificant1 Insignificant1 the treatment plant and export pumps Bore failure causes All activities on injection bores will be conducted in injectant to accordance with the Code of Practice For the construction enter non- and abandonment of petroleum wells and associated bores target aquifer. in Queensland Version 2. Monitoring in accordance In-situ The intermediate casing was cement grouted from total Caused by failure of injection bore. with monitoring plan. groundwater of depth to surface and pressure tested to 14,000 kPa following Low
2 Minor2 3 Serious3 non-target cementing. Integrity of the cement sheath was assessed and Remote1 aquifer has confirmed isolation of the target interval from overlying and differing water underlying formations quality to that of injectant.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 72 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Hazard Validation / Verification Comments on Inherent Risk Controls Description Monitoring Likelihood To ControlTo Consequence ResidualRisk Consequence Prior This is an operational risk rather than an environmental risk. The potential for clogging by particulates is not considered to be a significant risk Bore Commissioning: due to the nature of the source water Underbalanced perforation and the treatment system prior to Clogging Development of injection bores to remove solids post injection. (including perforation Air entrainment and gas binding not deposition of Treatment processes: considered a risk due to the artesian suspended Ultra filtration (removes particulates in the injectant) nature of the Hutton Sandstone and the solids from Desalination (removes particulates in the injectant) negligible potential for cascading of the CSG water, air De-oxygenation (redox control to limit reaction in the aquifer) injectant into the bore. Monitoring in accordance entrainment Process control: Low risk of biological clogging due to the with monitoring plan.
and gas Injectant blended to equal or better quality than in-situ Minor1 Medium
minimal concentrations of nutrients and 4Possible binding, 2Moderate groundwater to minimise potential for clay organics in the Hutton Sandstone biological dispersion/swelling aquifer, CSG water. Injectant growth, and Off-specification water directed back to the feed pond concentrations will be even lower due to geochemical Bore workover treatment. reactions) If a significant loss of performance occurs, re-develop, re- Swelling and / or dispersion of clays has perforate, recomplete or utilise contingent bores. the potential to be a clogging
mechanism. Carbon steel corrosion product from casing may cause clogging.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 73 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan
- Hutton Sandstone
12. References
ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000) Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality. Volume 1, The guidelines. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand. Birsoy, Y.K. and W.K. Summers, (1980) Determination of aquifer parameters from step tests and intermittent pumping, Ground Water, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 137-146. Commonwealth of Australia (2013) Significant impact guidelines 1.3, Commonwealth of Australia. 20 December 2013 Cooper, H.H. and C.E. Jacob, (1946) A generalized graphical method for evaluating formation constants and summarizing well field history, Am. Geophys. Union Trans., vol. 27, pp. 526-534. DAWE (2020) Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative. https://www.agriculture.gov.au/water/national/great-artesian-basin/great-artesian-basin-sustainability- initiative, accessed 12/03/2020. DES (2018) Environmental authority EPPG00853213, held by Australia Pacific LNG Pty Limited, effective of 21 June 2018. Department of Environment and Science. DES (2018) Monitoring and Sampling Manual: Environmental Protection (Water) Policy. Department of Environment and Science. Queensland Government. DES (2019) End of waste code for irrigation of associated water (including coal seam gas water). Regional and Regulation Support, Department of Environment and Science. April 2019. DES (2020) WetlandInfo. https://wetlandinfo.des.qld.gov.au/wetlands/. Accessed 28 July 2020. DNRME (2019) Code of Practice For the construction and abandonment of petroleum wells and associated bores in Queensland Version 2. Petroleum and Gas Inspectorate. Department of Natural Resources Mines and Energy.16 December 2019. Dillon P, Kumar A, Kookana R, Leijs R, Reed D, Parsons S, Ingerson G (2009) Managed Aquifer Recharge - Risks to Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems - A Review. Water for a Healthy Country Flagship. Report to Land and Water Australia, 2009 Doody, T.M., Hancock, P.J. and Pritchard, J.L. (2019) Information Guidelines Explanatory Note: Assessing groundwater-dependent ecosystems. Report prepared for the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development through the Department of the Environment and Energy, Commonwealth of Australia 2019. Eamus D., Froend R., Loomes R., Hose, G. and Murray, B. (2006a) A functional methodology for determining the groundwater regime needed to maintain the health of groundwater-dependent vegetation. Australian Journal of Botany, 54: 91–114. Eamus, D. Hatton, T., Cook, P. and Colvin, C. (2006b) Ecohydrology Vegetation Function, Water and Resource Management. CSIRO Publishing. Fensham R.J, Ponder, W.F. and Fairfax, R.J. 2010. Recovery plan for the community of native species dependent on natural discharge of groundwater from the Great Artesian Basin. Report to Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management, Brisbane. Fitts Geosolutions (2020) AnAqSim. Analytic Aquifer Simulator. Fitts Geosolutions, LLC. GABCC (2000) Great Artesian Basin Strategic Management Plan. Great Artesian Basin Consultative Council. September 2000. Galilee (2016) Underground Water Impact Report ATP529 – Galilee Basin. Final for submission. Galilee Energy Limited.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 74 28 April 2020 - RevC www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Geoscience Australia (2020) Earthquakes@GA. https://earthquakes.ga.gov.au/. Accessed 17 February 2020. KCB (2016) Hydrogeological Assessment of the Great Artesian Basin Methods and Data Report (Companion Document to the Final Reports). Prepared for the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, July 2016. NRMMC (2009) Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental Risks (Phase 2) Managed Aquifer Recharge. Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Environment Protection and Heritage Council, National Health and Medical Research Council. NHMRC (2015). Australian Drinking Water Guidelines Paper 6 National Water Quality Management Strategy. National Health and Medical Research Council. National Resource Management Ministerial Council, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Queensland Government (2020) Queensland Globe. https://qldglobe.information.qld.gov.au/. Accessed 28 July 2020) Peeters, L (2014) A Background Color Scheme for Piper Plots to Spatially Visualise Hydrochemical Patterns. Groundwater, Vol 52, No1, January-February 2014, pp1-6. Prommer, H., Rathi, B., Donn, M., Siade, A., Wendling, L., Martens, E., and Patterson, B. (2016) Geochemical Response to Reinjection. Final Report. CSIRO Land and Water, October 2016. Prommer, H., Sun, J., Helm, L., Rathi, B., Siade, A. and Morris, R (2018) Deoxygenation Prevents Arsenic Mobilization during Deepwell Injection into Sulfide-Bearing Aquifers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 23, 13801-13810. Rathi, B., Siade, A.J., Donn, M.J., Helm, L., Morris, R., Davis, J.A., Berg, M. and Prommer, H. (2017) Multiscale Characterization and Quantification of Arsenic Mobilization and Attenuation During Injection of Treated Coal Seam Gas Coproduced Water into Deep Aquifers. Water Resources Research, Vol 53, Issue 12, 10779-10801. Richardson, S., Ervine, E., Froend R, Boon, P., Barber, S. and Bonneville, B. (2011) Australian groundwater-dependent ecosystem toolbox part 1: Assessment framework. Waterlines Report. National Water Commission, Canberra. Schmidt-Nielsen, K. (1975). Animal Physiology: Adaptation and Environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 699pp. Smerdon, B, Ransley, T., Radke, B., and Kellett, J (201) Water resource assessment for the Great Artesian Basin. A report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Great Artesian Basin Water Resource Assessment. Australia. State of Queensland (2020) Queensland Springs Database. Downloaded from QSpatial SKM (2014) Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative (GABSI) Value for Money Review. Final Report. Prepared for the Department of the Environment, January 2014. Theis, C.V., (1935) The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using groundwater storage, Am. Geophys. Union Trans., vol. 16, pp. 519-524. Toze, S. (2004) Pathogen survival in groundwater during artificial recharge. Wastewater Re-use and Groundwater Quality (Proceedings of symposium 11S04 held during 1UGG2003 at Sapporo. July 2003). IAHS Publ. 2S5. 2004. Vanderzalm, J., Sidhu, J., Bekele, E., Ying, G-G., Pavelic, P., Toze, S., Dillon, P., Kookana, R., Hanna, J., Barry, K., Yu, X.Y., Nicholson, B., Morran, J., Tanner, S. & Short, S. (2009) Water Quality Changes During Aquifer Storage and Recovery. Water Research Foundation, Denver, USA.
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 75 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Warris, B.J. (1969) Longreach Oil Lt Rand No. 1 Well QLD. Well Completion Report. Data Analysis Pty Ltd, October 1969.
Appendix 1 – Detailed site-specific Hutton Sandstone water quality data
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 76 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Bore ID RN11369 RN11369 RN11369 RN11369 RN11369 RN11369 RN11369 RN11369 GW01
Parameter Group Parameter UnitsLimit of Reporting ADWG ANZECC: Livestock Count Minimum Maximum Average Median P95 27/07/2011 7/05/2013 16/06/2014 16/06/2015 6/12/2016 9/10/2017 23/10/2018 22/08/2019 3/30/2016 Electrical Conductivity (µS/cm) µS/cm <1000 @ 25°C - 6 859 2010 1676 1810 1999 1792 2010 1602 1827 - - - 1965 859 pH pH Units 6.5 – 8.5 - 8 7.5 8.0 7.9 7.9 8.0 7.9 7.92 7.95 8.03 7.92 7.5 - 8.01 7.75 Dissolved Oxygen mg/L - - 7 0.59 6.22 1.7 0.93 4.85 0.94 0.68 6.22 0.93 1.65 0.59 - - 0.89 Field Redox) mV - - 7 -252 58 -133 -159 14 -168.8 ‐225.7 57.7 -252.3 -116.4 -159.1 - - -158.9 parameters Temperature °C - - 8 46 65.4 59.4 60.0 65.2 65.4 64.7 46 58.6 58.61 61.3 - 62.45 58.44 pH (laboratory) pH Units 6.5-8.5 - 5 8.28 8.34 8.31 8.31 8.34 - 8.32 8.33 8.29 8.34 8.28 - - - Electrical Conductivity (µS/cm) @25°C µS/cm 1 1000 at 25°C - 5 767 1090 982 1035 1083 - 1040 1090 1030 1040 - - - 767 Lab
mical TDS at 180°C mg/L 10 500 (aesthetic), else 1200 5000 (cattle) 8 452 708 616 629 698 644 676 708 629 590 673 - 615 452 physioche
parameters Total Suspended Solids mg/L5 - - 1<5 <5NANANA ------<5 Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 1 - - 8 21 455 366 439 453 440 420 391 438 455 448 - 21 <1 Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 1 - - 8 11 449 252 342 448 <1 6 13 <1 11 449 - 444 342 Hydroxide Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 1 - - 8 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 - <1 <1 Total Alkalinity mg/L 1 - - 8 2 466 365 438 465.4 440 426 404 438 466 2 - 464 342 Chloride mg/L 1 250 (aesthetic) 4000 8 48 84 73 77 83.4 77 77 82 70 73 84 - 79 48 Sulphate SO4 mg/L 1 500 (health) 250 (aesthetic) 1000 8 1 5 3 3 4.8 1 <1 <1 5 3 <1 - <1 <1 Calcium mg/L 1 200 (aesthetic) 1000 84 5445 4 4 4 5 5 4 - 4 4 Magnesium mg/L 1 200 (aesthetic) 2000 8 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 - <1 <1 Potassium mg/L 1 - - 83 4 444 4 4 4 443- 43
Major/minorions Sodium mg/L 1 180 (aesthetic) 800 8 194 267 237 236.5 263 267 237 256 234 244 226 - 236 194 Fluoride mg/L 0.1 1.5 2 9 2.3 3.9 3 3.3 3.7 3.5 3.2 3.3 3.9 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.5 2.3 Bromine mg/L 0.1 - - 2 0.2 0.7 0 0.50.7 0.7 ------0.2 Silica 0.05 80 - 6 32.3 42.8 36 35.2 41.4 - 37.3 36.4 42.8 33.9 33.8 - - 32.3 Ionic balance % 0.01 - - 9 0.2 5.75 3 3.06 5.4 4.01 0.4 4.76 1.46 2.09 5.75 0.2 4.22 3.06 Ammonia mg/L 0.01 0.5 (aesthetic) - 7 0.33 0.62 0.49 0.56 0.608 0.62 0.58 0.56 0.43 0.56 0.33 - - 0.36 Nitrite as N mg/L 0.01 3 30 7 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 - - <0.01 Nitrate as N mg/L 0.01 50 400 7 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 - - <0.01 Nitrite + Nitrate as N Nutrients mg/L 0.01 - - 7 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.03 - - <0.01 Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.01 - - 6 0.04 0.6 0.41 0.6 0.6 <0.01 0.6 0.6 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 - - - Methane µg/L 0.01 - - 6 928 3260 2137 2380 3170 - 928 3260 2460 2300 2900 - - 974 Butane µg/L 0.01 - - 1<0.01<0.01 NA NANA ------<10 Butene µg/L 0.01 - - 1<0.01<0.01 NA NANA ------<10 Ethane µg/L 0.01 - - 1<0.01<0.01 NA NANA ------<10 Ethene µg/L 0.01 - - 1<0.01<0.01 NA NANA ------<10
Dissolvedgas Propane µg/L 0.01 - - 1<0.01<0.01 NA NANA ------<10 Propene µg/L 0.01 - - 1<0.01<0.01 NA NANA ------<10 Aluminium mg/L 0.01 0.2 (aesthetic) 5 9 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Arsenic mg/L 0.001 0.007 0.5 9 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Barium mg/L 0.001 0.7 - 9 0.167 0.263 0.236 0.244 0.260 0.248 0.242 0.263 0.244 0.252 0.243 0.233 <0.001 0.167 Beryllium mg/L 0.001 0.06 - 8 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 - <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.26 <0.001 Boron mg/L 0.05 - - 8 0.24 0.35 0.32 0.33 0.35 - 0.33 0.35 0.33 0.32 0.33 0.32 0.35 0.24 Cadmium mg/L 0.0001 - - 4 <0.0001 <0.0001 NA NA NA - - - - - <0.001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Chromium mg/L 0.001 - - 3 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA ------<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Cobalt mg/L 0.001 1 0.011 8 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Copper mg/L 0.001 2 1 (cattle) 9 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Iron mg/L 0.05 0.3 (aesthetic) - 9 0.05 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.08 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.12 Lead mg/L 0.001 0.01 0.1 7 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA - <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 Lithium mg/L 0.001 - - 2 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 ------<0.001 - Manganese mg/L 0.001 0.5 (health) 0.1 (aesthetic) - 9 0.013 0.015 0.014 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.016 0.015 0.013 0.015 0.013 0.015 0.014 0.013 Dissolvedmetals Mercury mg/L 0.0001 0.001 0.002 8 <0.0001 <0.0001 NA NA NA - <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.01 <0.0001 <0.0001 Molybdenum mg/L 0.001 - - 3 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA ------<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Nickel mg/L 0.001 0.02 1 8 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA - 0.006 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Selenium mg/L 0.01 - - 2<0.01<0.01 NA NANA ------<0.01 <0.01 Strontium mg/L 0.001 4 - 9 0.177 0.282 0.258 0.266 0.281 0.259 0.282 0.282 0.266 0.266 0.277 <0.01 0.28 0.177 Uranium mg/L 0.001 - - 3 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA - <0.001 - - -- - <0.001 <0.001 Vanadium mg/L 0.01 0.26 - 9 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA NA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Zinc mg/L 0.005 3 (aesthetic) 20 8 <0.005 <0.005 NA NA NA - 0.010 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 Aluminium mg/L 0.01 0.2 (aesthetic) 5 7 0.02 0.15 0.0575 0.03 0.1335 - 0.03 <0.01 0.04 0.15 0.02 <0.01 0.02 - Arsenic mg/L 0.001 0.007 0.5 7 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 - Barium mg/L 0.001 0.7 - 7 0.235 0.278 0.257 0.257 0.2778 - 0.266 0.278 0.238 0.277 <0.001 0.235 0.257 - Beryllium mg/L 0.001 0.06 - 7 0.253 0.253 0.253 0.253 0.253 - <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.253 <0.001 <0.001 - Boron mg/L 0.05 - - 5 0.3 0.36 0.34 0.35 0.359 - 0.38 - - <0.005 0.3 0.35 0.36 - Cadmium mg/L 0.0001 - - 2 <0.0001 <0.0001 NA NA NA ------<0.0001 <0.0001 - Chromium mg/L 0.001 - - 2 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA ------<0.001 <0.001 - Cobalt mg/L 0.001 1 0.011 7 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA - <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - Copper mg/L 0.001 2 1 (cattle) 7 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 - 0.010 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 - Iron mg/L 0.05 0.3 (aesthetic) - 7 0.05 0.34 0.17 0.13 0.319 - <0.05 0.34 0.05 0.13 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - Lead mg/L 0.001 0.01 0.1 7 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA - <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - Total MetalsTotal Bore ID RN11369 RN11369 RN11369 RN11369 RN11369 RN11369 RN11369 RN11369 GW01
Parameter Group Parameter UnitsLimit of Reporting ADWG ANZECC: Livestock Count Minimum Maximum Average Median P95 27/07/2011 7/05/2013 16/06/2014 16/06/2015 6/12/2016 9/10/2017 23/10/2018 22/08/2019 3/30/2016
Total MetalsTotal Manganese mg/L 0.001 0.5 (health) 0.1 (aesthetic) - 7 0.014 0.017 0.015 0.015 0.017 - 0.016 0.017 0.014 0.014 0.016 0.015 0.015 - Mercury mg/L 0.0001 0.001 0.002 7 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 - <0.0001 0.06 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.01 <0.0001 - Molybdenum mg/L 0.001 - - 2 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA ------<0.001 <0.001 - Nickel mg/L 0.001 0.02 1 7 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 - 0.006 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - Selenium mg/L 0.01 - - 1<0.01<0.01 NA NA NA ------<0.01 - Strontium mg/L 0.001 4 - 7 0.257 0.307 0.287 0.286 0.307 - 0.282 0.305 0.257 0.307 0.286 <0.01 0.278 - Uranium mg/L 0.001 - - 2 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA - <0.001 - - - - - <0.001 - Vanadium mg/L 0.01 0.26 - 7 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA NA - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - Zinc mg/L 0.005 3 (aesthetic) 20 6 <0.005 <0.005 NA NA NA - 0.024 <0.005 <0.005 - <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 - C6-C10 µg/L 20 - - 7 <20 <20 NA NA NA <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 - - <20 C6-C10 (minus BTEX) µg/L 20 - - 7 <20 <20 NA NA NA <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 - - <20 C10-C16 µg/L 100 - - 7 <100 <100 NA NA NA <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 - - <100
Total C16-C34 µg/L 100 - - 7 <100 <100 NA NA NA <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 - - <100 C34-C40 µg/L 100 - - 7 <100 <100 NA NA NA <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 - - <100 Recoverable Hydrocarbons C10-C40 µg/L 100 - - 7 <100 <100 NA NA NA <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 - - <100 C6-C9 µg/L 20 - - 7 <20 <20 NA NA NA <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 - - <20 C10-C14 µg/L 50 1 0.011 7 <50 <50 NA NA NA <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 - - <50 C15-C28 µg/L 100 2 1 (cattle) 7 <100 <100 NA NA NA <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 - - <100 Total C29-C36 µg/L 50 0.3 (aesthetic) - 7 <50 <50 NA NA NA <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 - - <50 Petroleum
Hydrocarbons C10-C36 µg/L 50 0.01 0.1 7 <50 <50 NA NA NA <100 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 - - <50 Benzene µg/L 1 1 - 7 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 - - <1 Toluene µg/L 2 800 (health) 25 (aesthetic) - 7 <2 <2 NA NA NA <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 - - <2 Ethylbenzene µg/L 2 300 (health) 3 (aesthetic) - 7 <2 <2 NA NA NA <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 - - <2 Xylene (m & p) µg/L 2 600 (health) 20 (aesthetic) - 7 <2 <2 NA NA NA <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 - - <2 BTEX Xylene (o) µg/L 2 - - 7 <2 <2 NA NA NA <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 - - <2 Xylene Total µg/L 2 - - 7 <2 <2 NA NA NA <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 - - <2 Napthalene µg/L 5 - - 3<5 <5 NANANA <5 - - - - <5 - - <5 2,4,5-trichlorophenol µg/L1 - - 1<1<1NANANA ------<1 2.4.6-Trichlorophenol µg/L1 - - 1<1<1NANANA ------<1 2,4-dichlorophenol µg/L1 - - 1<1<1NANANA ------<1 2,4-dimethylphenol µg/L1 - - 1<1<1NANANA ------<1 2,6-dichlorophenol µg/L1 - - 1<1<1NANANA ------<1 2-chlorophenol µg/L1 - - 1<1<1NANANA ------<1 2-methylphenol µg/L1 - - 1<1<1NANANA ------<1 2-nitrophenol µg/L1 - - 1<1<1NANANA ------<1 3-&4-methylphenol µg/L2 - - 1<2<2NANANA ------<2 Phenoliccompounds 4-chloro-3-methylphenol µg/L1 - - 1<1<1NANANA ------<1 Pentachlorophenol µg/L2 - - 1<2<2NANANA ------<2 Phenol µg/L1 - - 1<1<1NANANA ------<1 Acenaphthene µg/L1 - - 1<1<1NANANA ------<1 Acenaphthylene µg/L1 - - 1<1<1NANANA ------<1 Anthracene µg/L1 - - 1<1<1NANANA ------<1 Benz(a)anthracene µg/L1 - - 1<1<1NANANA ------<1 Benzo(a) pyrene µg/L 0.5 - - 1<0.5 <0.5 NANANA ------<0.5 Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene µg/L1 - - 1<1<1NANANA ------<1 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene µg/L1 - - 1<1<1NANANA ------<1 Benzo(k)fluoranthene µg/L1 - - 1<1<1NANANA ------<1 Chrysene µg/L1 - - 1<1<1NANANA ------<1 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/L1 - - 1<1<1NANANA ------<1 Fluoranthene µg/L1 - - 1<1<1NANANA ------<1 Fluorene µg/L1 - - 1<1<1NANANA ------<1 Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene µg/L1 - - 1<1<1NANANA ------<1 Polycyclicaromatic hydrocarbons Phenanthrene µg/L1 - - 1<1<1NANANA ------<1 Pyrene µg/L1 - - 1<1<1NANANA ------<1 Polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons EPA448 ug/L 0.5 - - 1<0.5 <0.5 NANANA ------<0.5 Glenaras Aquifer Injection Management Plan - Hutton Sandstone
Appendix 2 – Detailed produced water quality data
RDM Hydro Pty Ltd RDM_GLL_GlenarasHuttonIMP_RevD ABN 83 624 788 870 77 28 July 2020 - RevD www.rdmhydro.com.au
Well ID Glenaras 10L Glenaras 12L Glenaras 10L Glenaras 12L Glenaras 10L Glenaras 12L Glenaras 14L Glenaras 15L Glenaras 16L Parameter Group Parameter Units LOR ADWG ANZECC: Livestock Count Minimum Maximum Average Median P95 21/08/2019 21/08/2019 29/10/2018 29/10/2018 04/03/2020 04/03/2020 04/03/2020 04/03/2020 04/03/2020 pH pH Units 6.5-8.5 - 9 7.7 8.5 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.46 8.53 7.81 7.72 8.4 8.37 8.31 8.37 8.3 Electrical conductivity at 25°C µS/cm 1 1000 at 25°C - 9 1920 1980 1941 1930 1976 1930 1920 1980 1970 1920 1950 1950 1920 1930
Lab TDS mg/L 10 500 (aesthetic), else 1200 5000 (cattle) 9 1140 1270 1210 1250 1270 1150 1150 1160 1140 1250 1270 1270 1250 1250 physical
parameters TSS mg/L5 - - 411 11111111 <5 <5 <5 11 - - - - - Bicarbonate Alkalinity-mg CaCO3/L mg/L 1 - - 9 656 725 678 666 715 725 701 696 666 662 656 668 662 663 Carbonate Alkalinity-mg CaCO3/L mg/L 1 - - 9 8 46 222042 31 46 <1 <1 24 20 8 18 8 Alkalinity (Hydroxide) as CaCO3 mg/L 1 - - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Alkalinity (total) as CaCO3 mg/L 1 - - 9 666 756 695 680 753 756 748 696 666 686 676 677 680 671 Chloride mg/L 1 250 (aesthetic) 4000 9 228 249 238 237 248 237 245 246 249 233 238 234 228 230 Sulfate as SO4 - Turbidimetric mg/L 1 500 (health) 250 (aesthetic) 1000 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Calcium mg/L 1 200 (aesthetic) 1000 9 15 18 17 17 18 18 18 17 18 15 18 17 15 16 Magnesium mg/L 1 200 (aesthetic) 2000 926224 2 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 2 Potassium mg/L 1 - - 9 17 26 20 20 25 20 17 26 18 21 18 23 18 20
Major/minor ions Major/minor Sodium mg/L 1 180 (aesthetic) 800 9 410 476 440 437 470 437 428 413 410 476 451 448 432 461 Fluoride mg/L 0.1 1.5 2 4 5.9 6.4 6.16.056.4 6.4 6.2 5.9 5.9 - - - - - Bromine mg/L 0.1 - - 4 0.4 0.9 0.60.60.9 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.5 - - - - - Silicon mg/L 0.05 80 - 9 35.3 38.8 36.18 35.6 38.28 36.5 35.7 38.8 37.5 35.3 35.4 35.3 35.5 35.6 Ionic Balance % 0.01 - - 9 0.36 5.16 2.94 2.85 4.76 2.85 4.15 2.97 2.45 5.16 2.22 2.33 0.36 3.94 Ammonia as N mg/L 0.01 0.5 (aesthetic) - 9 1.81 2.06 1.91 1.91 2.05 1.81 1.86 1.81 1.81 1.92 2.06 2.04 1.91 2.01 Nitrate (as N) mg/L 0.01 3 30 9 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA NA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Nitrite (as N) mg/L 0.01 50 400 9 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA NA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Nutrients Nitrite + Nitrate as N mg/L 0.01 - - 9 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA NA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Total Phosphorous mg/L 0.01 - - 5 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA NA - - - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Methane mg/L 0.01 - - 4 3610 8050 5763 5695 7836 3610 6620 8050 4770 - - - - - Butane mg/L 0.01 - - 2<0.01<0.01NANANA <10 <10 ------Butene mg/L 0.01 - - 2 64 129 96.5 96.5 125.75 64 129 ------Ethane mg/L 0.01 - - 2<0.01<0.01NANANA <10 <10 ------Ethene mg/L 0.01 - - 2<0.01<0.01NANANA <10 <10 ------
Dissolvedgas Propane mg/L 0.01 - - 2<0.01<0.01NANANA <10 <10 ------Propene mg/L 0.01 - - 2<0.01<0.01NANANA <10 <10 ------Aluminium mg/L 0.01 0.2 (aesthetic) - 4 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 - - - - - Arsenic mg/L 0.001 0.007 - 9 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Barium mg/L 0.001 0.7 - 9 2.5 2.83 2.6733 2.660 2.818 2.64 2.65 2.5 2.5 2.71 2.66 2.83 2.77 2.8 Beryllium mg/L 0.001 0.06 - 9 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Boron mg/L 0.05 - - 9 0.75 0.87 0.80 0.79 0.85 0.87 0.82 0.78 0.78 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.8 0.81 Cadmium mg/L 0.0001 - - 9 <0.0001 <0.0001 NA NA NA <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Chromium mg/L 0.001 - - 9 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Cobalt mg/L 0.001 1 - 9 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Copper mg/L 0.001 2 - 9 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Iron mg/L 0.05 0.3 (aesthetic) - 4 0.07 0.28 0.16 0.15 0.26 0.07 0.14 0.28 0.16 - - - - - Lead mg/L 0.001 0.01 - 9 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Lithium mg/L 0.001 - - 0 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA ------
Dissolvedmetals Manganese mg/L 0.001 0.5 (health) 0.1 (aesthetic) - 9 0.008 0.016 0.011 0.01 0.0152 0.012 0.01 0.01 0.008 0.01 0.008 0.014 0.016 0.014 Mercury mg/L 0.0001 0.001 0.002 9 <0.0001 <0.0001 NA NA NA <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Molybdenum mg/L 0.001 - - 4 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - - - - - Nickel mg/L 0.001 0.02 - 9 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.003 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.003 <0.001 Selenium mg/L 0.01 - - 9 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA NA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Strontium mg/L 0.001 4 - 4 0.787 0.856 0.822 0.8225 0.855 0.851 0.856 0.794 0.787 - - - - - Uranium mg/L 0.001 - - 4 <0.001 <0.001 NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - - - - - Vanadium mg/L 0.01 0.26 - 7 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA NA <0.01 <0.01 - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Zinc mg/L 0.005 3 (aesthetic) - 9 0.005 0.032 0.019 0.024 0.031 <0.005 <0.005 0.005 <0.005 0.01 <0.005 0.032 0.026 0.024 TPH C6-C10 µg/L 20 0.2 (aesthetic) 5 9 <20 <20 NA NA NA <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 C6 - C10 Fraction minus BTEX (F1) µg/L 20 0.007 0.5 9 <20 <20 NA NA NA <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 C10 - C16 Fraction µg/L 100 0.7 - 9 <100 <100 NA NA NA <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 TRH C16 - C34 Fraction µg/L 100 0.06 - 9 <100 130 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 130 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 C34 - C40 Fraction µg/L 100 - - 9 <100 <100 NA NA NA <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 C10 - C40 Fraction (Sum) µg/L 100 - - 9 <100 130 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 130 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 TPH C6 - C9 Fraction µg/L 20 - - 9 <20 <20 NA NA NA <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 C10 - C14 Fraction µg/L 50 1 0.011 9 <50 <50 NA NA NA <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 C15 - C28 Fraction µg/L 100 2 1 (cattle) 9 <100 110 NA NA NA <100 <100 <100 110 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 C29-C36 Fraction µg/L 50 0.3 (aesthetic) - 9 <50 <50 NA NA NA <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 +C10 - C36 (Sum of total) µg/L 50 0.01 0.1 9 <100 110 NA NA NA <50 <50 <50 110 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 Benzene µg/L 1 0.5 (health) 0.1 (aesthetic) - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Toluene µg/L 2 0.001 0.002 9 <2 <2 NA NA NA <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 Ethylbenzene µg/L 2 - - 9 <2 <2 NANANA <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 Xylene (m & p) µg/L 2 0.02 1 9 <2 <2 NANANA <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 BTEX Xylene (o) µg/L 2 - - 9 <2 <2 NANANA <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 Xylene Total µg/L 2 4 - 9 <2 <2 NANANA <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 Naphthalene µg/L 5 - - 9 <5 <5 NANANA <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 2,4,5-trichlorophenol µg/L 1 0.26 - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2.4.6-Trichlorophenol µg/L 1 3 (aesthetic) 20 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Well ID Glenaras 10L Glenaras 12L Glenaras 10L Glenaras 12L Glenaras 10L Glenaras 12L Glenaras 14L Glenaras 15L Glenaras 16L Parameter Group Parameter Units LOR ADWG ANZECC: Livestock Count Minimum Maximum Average Median P95 21/08/2019 21/08/2019 29/10/2018 29/10/2018 04/03/2020 04/03/2020 04/03/2020 04/03/2020 04/03/2020 2,4-dichlorophenol µg/L 1 - - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2,4-dimethylphenol µg/L 1 - - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2,6-dichlorophenol µg/L 1 - - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2-chlorophenol µg/L 1 - - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2-methylphenol µg/L 1 - - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2-nitrophenol µg/L 1 - - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 3-&4-methylphenol µg/L 2 - - 9 <2 <2 NA NA NA <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 Phenoliccompounds 4-chloro-3-methylphenol µg/L 1 - - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Pentachlorophenol µg/L 2 - - 9 <2 <2 NA NA NA <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 Phenol µg/L 1 - - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Acenaphthene µg/L 1 - - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Acenaphthylene µg/L 1 1 - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Anthracene µg/L 1 800 (health) 25 (aesthetic) - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Benz(a)anthracene µg/L 1 300 (health) 3 (aesthetic) - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Benzo(a) pyrene µg/L 0.5 600 (health) 20 (aesthetic) - 9 <0.5 <0.5 NA NA NA <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene µg/L 1 - - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene µg/L 1 - - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Benzo(k)fluoranthene µg/L 1 - - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
PAH Chrysene µg/L 1 - - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/L 1 - - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Fluoranthene µg/L 1 - - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Fluorene µg/L 1 - - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene µg/L 1 - - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Phenanthrene µg/L 1 - - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Pyrene µg/L 1 - - 9 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Sum of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ug/L 0.5 - - 9 <0.5 <0.5 NA NA NA <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5