Coal seam gas associated water treatment and management—opportunities and limitations

2013 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huanfei Jia ◽  
Johann Poinapen
Keyword(s):  
Water Treatment ◽  
Coal Seam ◽  
Thermal Processes ◽  
Coal Seam Gas ◽  
Brine Management ◽  
Beneficial Reuse ◽  
Management Processes ◽  
Pre Treatment ◽  
Policy Direction ◽  
Alternative Solutions

Coal seam gas (CSG) is a new major export for Australia. The production of CSG releases a significant amount of brackish water to the surface, known as associated water. Queensland’s Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) has predicted that the peak yearly flow of the associated water could range between 100-280 gigalitres (GL) per year. This presents a major challenge to the CSG industry in water and its by-product (brine) management. CSG water quality varies across regions, but is typically high in total dissolved solids, bicarbonate, hardness, and silica. Consequently, CSG water without treatment is unsuitable for beneficial uses. To date, reverse osmosis (RO) desalination processes with suitable pre-treatment steps have been employed to remove elevated salts and other compounds before CSG water can be used beneficially. One type of beneficial reuse of the treated water that has gained acceptance and prominence in recent times is the irrigation of agricultural crops and forestry. RO brine, a highly saline stream, requires a managed response to ensure a socially, environmentally and financially sound outcome. Conventional evaporation in brine ponds is not considered favourably under existing government directions and, consequently, alternative solutions are sought. Thermal processes, such as brine concentrators, have been used in the treatment of CSG RO brine. The resulting high-quality distillate produced by thermal processes can be used in a number of applications along with a greater proportion of water recovered from such processes. This peer-reviewed paper concludes that a thermal process in conjunction with a high-recovery RO membrane plant, configured as a hybrid membrane/thermal configuration, is probably a suitable solution to meet policy direction by improving system recovery as a precursor to advance associated water treatment and brine management. The discussion is generated out of MWH’s experience with CSG water treatment and management processes, which totals a number of significant projects in the CSG industry.

Process design of coal seam gas associated water treatment plants to facilitate beneficial reuse

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 104255
Author(s):  
Vimeipha Vilayphone ◽  
John G. Outram ◽  
Fiona Collins ◽  
Graeme J. Millar ◽  
Ali Altaee
Keyword(s):  
Water Treatment ◽  
Coal Seam ◽  
Process Design ◽  
Coal Seam Gas ◽  
Water Treatment Plants ◽  
Beneficial Reuse

scholarly journals Isotopic Signatures of Major Methane Sources in the Coal Seam Gas Fields and Adjacent Agricultural Districts, Queensland, Australia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xinyi Lu ◽  
Stephen J. Harris ◽  
Rebecca E. Fisher ◽  
James L. France ◽  
Euan G. Nisbet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Water Treatment ◽  
Coal Seam ◽  
Waste Water Treatment ◽  
Treatment Plant ◽  
Water Treatment Plant ◽  
Waste Water Treatment Plant ◽  
Source Attribution ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Coal Seam Gas ◽  
Isotopic Signatures

Abstract. In regions where there are multiple sources of methane (CH4) in close proximity, it can be difficult to apportion the CH4 measured in the atmosphere to the appropriate sources. In the Surat Basin, Queensland, Australia, coal seam gas (CSG) developments are surrounded by cattle feedlots, grazing cattle, piggeries, coal mines, urban centres and natural sources of CH4. The use of carbon (δ13C) and hydrogen (δD) stable isotopic composition of CH4 can identify, distinguish between and apportion specific emissions of CH4. However, in Australia there is a paucity of data on the various isotopic signatures of the different source types. This research examines whether dual isotopic signatures of CH4 can be used to discriminate between sources of CH4 in the Surat Basin. We also highlight the benefits of sampling at nighttime in warm to hot climate regions. During two campaigns in 2018 and 2019, a mobile CH4 monitoring system was used to detect CH4 plumes. Seventeen plumes immediately downwind from known CH4 sources were sampled and analysed for their CH4 mole fraction and δ13CCH4 and δDCH4 signatures. The isotopic signatures of the CH4 sources were determined using Miller–Tans plots. These new source signatures were then compared to values documented in reports and peer-reviewed journal articles. In the Surat Basin, CSG sources have δ13CCH4 signatures between −56.0 ‰ and −51.0 ‰ and δDCH4 signatures between −207.0 ‰ and −193.0 ‰. Emissions from an open-cut coal mine have δ13CCH4 and δDCH4 signatures of −60.3 ± 0.2 ‰ and −210.5 ± 0.5 ‰ respectively. Emissions from two ground seeps (abandoned coal exploration wells) have δ13CCH4 signatures of −60.7 ± 0.2 ‰ and −59.9 ± 0.9 ‰ and δDCH4 signatures of −191.2 ± 0.5 ‰ and −185.1 ± 0.9 ‰. A river seep had a δ13CCH4 signature of −61.1 ±  0.9 ‰ and a δDCH4 signature of −225.5± 1.4 ‰. Three dominant agricultural sources were analysed. The δ13CCH4 and δDCH4 signatures of a cattle feedlot are −63.0 ± 1.2 ‰ and −309.0 ± 1.0 ‰ respectively, grazing (pasture) cattle have δ13CCH4 and δDCH4 signatures of −59.9 ± 0.8 ‰ and −291.6 ± 2.4 ‰ respectively, and a piggery sampled had δ13CCH4 and δDCH4 signatures of −47.5 ± 0.2 ‰ and −300.3 ± 1.8 ‰ respectively, which reflects emissions from animal waste. An abattoir had δ13CCH4 and δDCH4 signatures of −44.3 ± 0.3 ‰ and −315.0 ± 1.3 ‰ respectively. A plume from a waste-water treatment plant had δ13CCH4 and δDCH4 signatures of −47.6 ± 0.2 ‰ and −177.5 ± 1.4 ‰ respectively. In the Surat Basin, source attribution is possible when both δ13CCH4 and δDCH4 are measured for the key categories of CSG, cattle, waste from feedlots and piggeries, and water treatment plants. Under most field situations using δ13CCH4 alone will not enable clear source attribution. It is common in the Surat Basin for CSG and feedlot facilities to be co-located. Measurement of both δ13CCH4 and δDCH4 will assist in source apportionment where the plumes from two such sources are mixed.

scholarly journals Coal seam gas produced water treatment by ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis and multi-effect distillation: A pilot study

2015 ◽  
Vol 146 ◽  
pp. 94-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Long D. Nghiem ◽  
Christian Elters ◽  
Alexander Simon ◽  
Taguchi Tatsuya ◽  
William Price
Keyword(s):  
Water Treatment ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Coal Seam ◽  
Reverse Osmosis ◽  
Produced Water ◽  
Coal Seam Gas ◽  
Produced Water Treatment

Forward osmosis as a pre-treatment for treating coal seam gas associated water: Flux and fouling behaviour

Desalination ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 403 ◽  
pp. 144-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Youngpil Chun ◽  
Sung-Jo Kim ◽  
Graeme J. Millar ◽  
Dennis Mulcahy ◽  
In S. Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coal Seam ◽  
Water Flux ◽  
Forward Osmosis ◽  
Coal Seam Gas ◽  
Pre Treatment

scholarly journals Draft Genome Sequence of Cellulosilyticum sp. I15G10I2, a Novel Bacterium Isolated from a Coal Seam Gas Water Treatment Pond

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Adelskov ◽  
Bharat K. C. Patel
Keyword(s):  
Water Treatment ◽  
Coal Seam ◽  
Genome Sequence ◽  
Draft Genome ◽  
Draft Genome Sequence ◽  
Treatment Facility ◽  
Coal Seam Gas ◽  
Novel Bacterium

ABSTRACT Cellulosilyticum sp. strain I15G10I2 was isolated from a coal seam gas water treatment pond at the Spring Gully water treatment facility, Roma, Queensland, Australia. Analysis of the genome of 4,489,861 bp and G+C content of 35.23% revealed that strain I15G10I2 shared limited similarity to members of the genus Cellulosilyticum, family Lachnospiraceae.

Managing well integrity in Queensland

2019 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 810
Author(s):  
Michael P. Scott
Keyword(s):  
Coal Seam ◽  
Petroleum Industry ◽  
Coal Seam Gas ◽  
Continuous Improvement Process ◽  
Well Integrity ◽  
Management Processes ◽  
Abandoned Wells ◽  
Integrity Management ◽  
Compliance Program ◽  
Systemic Problems

A significant increase in activity in the Queensland petroleum industry began around 2005 with the rapid growth of coal seam gas developments. The integrity of these drilled wells is paramount to the continued safe operation of the Queensland petroleum industry, ensuring no detrimental effect to safety, health and environment. The Queensland Petroleum and Gas Inspectorate (PGI) is responsible for monitoring industry compliance with well integrity management requirements under the regulatory framework. This is achieved through three proactive actions (engagement, inspections, audits) and three reactive actions (response to enquiries, complaints, incidents). This paper focuses on the well inspections and audits conducted by the PGI. The PGI conducts an annual program of well inspections as part of its risk-based compliance program. These inspections are in addition to the inspections performed by industry. Although recent inspections have found well integrity-related deficiencies requiring rectification, no major or systemic problems have been identified. In fact, industry generally appears to be proactively addressing any deficiencies they find through their own well integrity management processes. The PGI is in the process of ensuring a renewed focus on well integrity during its own well inspections through structured and standardised inspections that have clear aims. This is part of a continuous improvement process and is a risk-based decision informed by the data that have been gathered. This will help ensure the program is not simply focused on quantity of inspections, but also on outcomes and quality. To complement the well inspection program, several audits have been conducted over the past 4–5 years. As part of this, in the first quarter of 2019, the PGI began conducting audits of the well integrity management systems (WIMS) of the four major coal seam gas producers. The results of this audit show improvement in both WIMS documentation and the implementation of those systems. Future PGI work in this area includes continuing with the recent audit programs, reviewing inspection processes and a plan to increase focus on plug and abandoned wells over the next 18 months.

scholarly journals Novel pre-treatment of zeolite materials for the removal of sodium ions: potential materials for coal seam gas co-produced wastewater

SpringerPlus ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Oscar Santiago ◽  
Kerry Walsh ◽  
Ben Kele ◽  
Edward Gardner ◽  
James Chapman
Keyword(s):  
Coal Seam ◽  
Sodium Ions ◽  
Coal Seam Gas ◽  
Pre Treatment

Coal Seam Gas Water Treatment and Reuse Options

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 (11) ◽  
pp. 4788-4803 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graeme R. Lewis ◽  
Peter Baudish
Keyword(s):  
Water Treatment ◽  
Coal Seam ◽  
Coal Seam Gas ◽  
Reuse Options
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document