Something stinks about coal seam gas waste disposal

As CSG mining expands, reports show discrepancies in waste tracking data, raising questions as to where the contaminated waste is being disposed of. Johanna Evans reports.

METHANE GAS mining waste comes in many different forms; produced by several different processes at multiple stages of mining operations. IA published this story five years ago. This story is a follow-up.

Australia behind in CSG waste research

Coal seam gas mining is expanding across southwestern Queensland and into central Queensland. The existing and planned CSG production area in Queensland has increased by 8% since 2019, with current projection of about 22,000 CSG wells of which about 8,600 are already in place.

The industry is attempting expansion in New South Wales. As a result, there is a greater need to take a deeper look at the issue of CSG waste in all its forms. CSG waste is likely finding its way into the food chain and Murray Darling Basin via soil products, irrigation, road spraying, managed aquifer recharge and uncontrolled/deliberate releases in or near waterways.

$CSG waste trail: Where has all the contaminated fracking filth gone?$

CSG waste trail: Where has all the contaminated fracking filth gone?

Recent reductions in regulatory oversight of fracking operations have raised serious questions over Australia's food and water security.

Hazardous Waste in Australia report

The report on Hazardous Waste in Australia 2021 (HWiA) produced for the Commonwealth Department of Climate Change, Environment and Water, provides information about hazardous and controlled wastes produced and managed across the Australian economy, and finds there is a dramatic discrepancy between waste being produced by the gas industry and waste being disposed. Where is this waste containing toxic components going?

C100 is a nationally recognised waste category that includes alkaline solids/solutions which have a pH of over ten.

The HWiA report states on page 96:

Qld C100 waste that is produced by the CSG industry is mostly drilling mud (in liquid form), the waste output of the use of drilling fluids to access the coal seams, described in HWiA 2017 as containing mostly brine/water (76%), barium sulphate (14%) and bentonite clay/polymer (6%). This has dropped as a proportion of total Qld C100 dramatically in recent years — 120,000 tonnes in 2014-15 down to just 1,500 tonnes in 2017-18.

The reason for the disappearance of Qld CSG drilling mud from tracking data is almost certainly the new ‘End of Waste Code’ for coal seam gas drilling mud, which became effective in January 2019.

This waste code is designed to enable a waste to be reclassified as a resource, and therefore avoid administrative requirements such as waste tracking, as long as contaminant limits are demonstrated to be met and the material is managed according to one of the approved uses (essentially as input to composting to produce compost or conditioned soil product).

The HWiA report went on to describe (page 107) discrepancies and inaccuracy in the waste tracking data of D300 (CSG Produced Salts) waste. Blue Environment describes inaccuracy in the data reported and detail how they adjust the data accordingly. Worryingly it was noted that ‘perusal of 2019-20 waste transport certificates finds no CSG industry producers of D300 waste and a vastly reduced arising of just 680 tonnes — a far cry from the peak in tracking data above 50,000 tonnes in 2010-11’.

Santos’ Fairview gasfield problem audit and cracks appear at Narrabri

An audit by Queensland’s Petroleum and Gas Inspectorate revealed discrepancies between company and government reporting and appears to play down problems including leaking wellhead equipment and coal seam gas well integrity.

Geogenic contaminants studies off target in Australia

The Australian Government commissioned the ‘National assessment of chemicals associated with coal seam gas extraction in Australia’ in 2012. The assessment was a complex project of government partners, resulting in 14 reports and reviews including reviewing existing literature, identifying chemicals, modelling how chemicals could move from where they are released to other parts of the environment, assessing risks to workers and the public and assessing risks to the environment.

A further study by the CSIRO, ‘National assessment of chemicals associated with coal seam gas extraction in Australia — Release of geogenic contaminants’, analysed just two samples from coal seam gas targets of the eight considered. The remainder were from coal mining targets.

This study describes laboratory-based reporting that investigated the potential for release of geogenic contaminants from coal samples taken from locations across Eastern Australia. The Narrabri sample was obtained from a coal mine at Gunnedah, NSW. Coal mines usually target shallower seams and do not have the same degree of drilling mud containing drill fluids and naturally-occurring radioactive materials (NORMs).

As such, the title of the study is misleading and a dedicated study of actual coal seam gas targets needs to be undertaken. The study does not disclose what depth and formation the samples were acquired from.

Why happenings in Queensland are relevant to NSW

Recent developments in Queensland have seen a CSG Brine Management Action Plan published by the Queensland Government and a subsequent proposal by an ASX-listed company, Parkway Corporate.

Parkway Corporate, via a recently established subsidiary, Queensland Brine Solutions Pty Ltd (QBS) ACN: 668 367 011, claims to be developing technology to enable produced water to be turned into saleable products, thus removing the need to bury the CSG brine in salt tombs. This technology will need to be scrutinised closely to see if it is able to treat the expected industry waste salts volume of six million tonnes.

NSW has an expanding extractives industry that will be keen to benefit from technology that treats alkaline waste. How much waste can we feasibly generate before it becomes more than we can treat and have we already passed that point?

The staff who currently work for Santos in NSW are mostly from Queensland and most of the contractors who come into NSW to work are from Queensland. There has also been a revolving door from the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to the gas industry and vice versa.

Still no solution for Santos’ toxic waste

The controversial Narrabri Gas Project has raised concerns over the disposal of toxic waste products.

Types of CSG waste disposal

Landspraying while drilling (LWD) also known as land spreading, mud spraying or land application, is the process of applying water-based drilling mud on carefully selected approved agricultural land.
Mix turn bury, residual drilling materials disposal — this process involves spreading drill cuttings either directly on the surface or incorporating them into the soil profile.
Land amendment irrigation — as described in the ‘Zero Waste Well’ document, this process of chemically amending water extracted from coal seams directly in the soil is called ‘land amendment irrigation’ (LAI). These amendments can either be mixed in-line at a water treatment plant or applied directly to land prior to the application of coal seam water.
Low point drain controlled/uncontrolled release* — the practice/process of emptying the contents of the gathering lines (water in the gas) to grade (into the receiving environment). This waste is raw and untreated.
High point vent uncontrolled release* — these vents release gas to air from the water-gathering lines. In some cases, they can also release raw untreated water.
Wellhead collection tanks* — many wellheads have tanks installed at the wellhead to catch raw untreated fluids.
Managed release* — controlled and uncontrolled releases of treated/untreated water to rivers and creeks such as into the Dawson and Condamine Rivers.
Managed aquifer recharge — recharging of depleted aquifers with treated CSG waste.
Irrigation* — stock and crop irrigation via treatment plants.
Biosolids/Landfarming* — End of Waste codes enable waste from the gas industry to be dealt with by amendment so that it can be incorporated into the environment.
Road spraying* — in the name of dust suppression, waste is sprayed on roads.
Road/wellpad construction* — residual drilling materials are permitted to be used for this purpose.
Accidental spills* — Santos, QGC and Origin Energy have reported spills in the last few years.

(* Documentation suggests the Pilliga Forest may be exposed to these particular practices.)

Radioactive substances in the U.S.

Recent peer-reviewed research, ‘Elevated sediment radionuclide concentrations downstream of facilities treating leachate from landfills accepting oil and gas waste’, completed in the U.S., finds that radioactive substances which have been disposed of at landfills are finding their way into water sources. Geogenic contaminants include trace elements (such as arsenic, manganese, barium, boron and zinc), radionuclides (such as isotopes of radium, thorium and uranium) and organic contaminants such as hydrocarbons and phenols.

This latest study is consistent with other literature on the impacts of fracking, such as a recent Harvard study funded by the EPA that found radioactivity of ambient particles was higher downwind of unconventional oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Another study, funded by the EPA and National Institutes of Health, found Pennsylvania children living near fracking sites at birth were two to three times more likely to be diagnosed at ages 2-7 with leukemia than those who did not live near oil and gas activity.

One of the biggest problems with coal seam gas extraction is that the science has always been left until after the rigs have rolled in and nowhere is this more apparent than in the area of waste management.

Johanna Evans is currently campaigning for the State of NSW to become CSG free and for a statewide ban on unconventional gas. She is a volunteer for North West Protection Advocacy. You can follow Johanna on Twitter @jo_noCSG.