News 
 State News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Coal seam water in limelight 

Coal seam water in limelight

13 Feb, 2009 03:00 AM
Worries about coal seam gas water contaminating local water courses could be allayed, courtesy of a pilot reverse osmosis plant that came on-stream for the first time late last week.

Following a tour of Arrow Energy’s facilities in and around its Daandine Field operations west of Dalby, principally to show the extent of its burgeoning operations, rural interest centered on the prospects for pilot desalination plants and their ability to treat the water associated with the coal seam gas/water extraction process.

Energy companies have been rushing to develop this energy-rich sector of south east Queensland but have rural producers and conservationists on edge over the quality of water being drawn from the underlying coal seams.

While a couple of feedlots already utilise water from Arrow Energy’s gas extraction process, often it is supplemented by bore water before being pumped to thirsty stock.

Arrow Energy environmental manager, Ralph Gunness, was buoyed when examining the first treated coal seam gas water to emerge from the company’s trial reverse osmosis plant on the day I visited.

Within months it is expected to be applied to crops on its Glenelg property via a centre-pivot irrigation system that will cover 80ha (204 acres) on each sweep.

“It will demonstrate to local farmers just what we can do with our water,” Mr Gunness said.

He says agronomists will conduct tests on the crops to be grown beneath the centre-pivot irrigator with the local community to be involved in “each step of the way” with the new plant on track to supply about 1.5ML of treated water each day.

“We’re looking to process all of our water for the benefit of the community,” he added.

Already, Arrow Energy is supplying around 13ML a day of coal seam gas water to neighbouring feedlots, local coal washing facilities, plus directing it to power stations for cooling purposes.

Mr Gunness believes the company’s pilot reverse osmosis plant will be the forerunner of further plants that not only will supply treated water for local producers but also earmark its use within local carbon sequestration projects involving both forestry and crops.

Arrow Energy envisages developing its reverse osmosis strategies by either positioning smaller-scale plants nearer clusters of wells, or near more substantial plants to provide water to designated irrigation projects.

“For the moment we’ll be working on the dynamics of how they (reverse osmosis plants) will work and how we can manage the water over time,” Mr Gunness said.

Vice president of AgForce, Ian Burnett, is cautiously optimistic about Arrow Energy’s pilot reverse osmosis plant.

His comments come in the aftermath of the lobby group’s worries about the impact of mining operations on water quality.

“While I haven’t seen the scheme, as far as agriculture is concerned, we are encouraged by any development to treat that coal seam gas water,” he said.

“We will be interested to see how the pilot plant develops,” Mr Burnett added.

Queensland Farmers Federation president, Gary Sansom, says he doesn’t doubt the quality of the treated water, querying, however, the costs involved.

“I’m sure reverse osmosis works but, unfortunately, it’s not cheap – so that might be a limiting factor to primary producers,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Queensland Government says it is finalising a discussion paper on ways to manage coal seam gas water.

Those wanting to comment on the issue should contact the Coal Taskforce at: coaltaskforce@dip.qld.gov.au

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
It is good to see an attempt to use the water instead of wasting it. However, saying the cost may be a limiting factor to the farmers is ridiculous. The cost of putting the water to use and not wasting it must be borne by the gas companies if the market for the byproduct is not what the gas companies would like to make a profit on every leg. They cannot just say it is too costly so we will just leave hundreds of thousands of tonnes of salt there to wash into the Murray Darling or our aquifers in decades to come, a massive problem for future taxpayers, our children. Feedlots have for decades sold their manure at less than cost because they are not allowed by the EPA to just stockpile it, and it is only recently that they have moved to full cost recovery with demand increasing. Every manufacturing industry has to meet the market with its waste product, and the primary product has to bear any costs of that. It is a primary rule of industry. If the primary product cannot bear the cost of properly disposing of the byproduct, then the industry surely is not sustainable, commercially or environmentally.
Posted by JB, 2/03/2009 7:09:01 AM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
This 2000ML storeage pond was constructed in accordance with EPA regulations, says Arrow Energy spokesman Gareth Quinn who stressed there was no evidence that any of its ponds had leaked with this facility lined with quality clay to eliminate any chance of seepage.
This 2000ML storeage pond was constructed in accordance with EPA regulations, says Arrow Energy spokesman Gareth Quinn who stressed there was no evidence that any of its ponds had leaked with this facility lined with quality clay to eliminate any chance of seepage.
Arrow Energy project engineer Warren James checks the first flows of treated water from the company’s reverse osmosis plant at Glenelg.
Arrow Energy project engineer Warren James checks the first flows of treated water from the company’s reverse osmosis plant at Glenelg.
Related Coverage
MULTIMEDIA
10 February, 2009
POLL
Q: Do you agree with Wilson Tuckey's 'No fuel, no fire' policy - that regular reduction of fuel load must be enforced in forest reserves?

Yes, it's the major bushfire issue that needs attention.
(81.9%)

Yes, it's an issue, but not the major problem.
(12.1%)

No, it's not such a big problem.
(6%)

Total Votes: 587
Poll Date: 11 February, 2009

Most popular articles

Advertisement



Queensland Country Life







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...