[alokin]

I rarely post here, but I read. Unfortunately, Coal Seam Gas comes close to home and I thought I'll get quite good info here. So I plan to ask a series of questions to get a better background knowledge.
We are in the Blue Mountains Australia (and, yes there is an application for an exploration license, believe it or not - if you don't know we're world heritage area). http://stopcsgbm.net.au/docs/home.php
For a start: is there any difference between the process in Australia and the US - water, chemicals, environmental impact?
If you follow the link above, how many wells would there typically be in that area and what would there typically be in terms of physical buildings, roads, waste water ponds etc? Have you got pictures of these typical setups? (It makes a lot of impact if you actually can show how it would look like)
Thank you for any information, I will certainly come with other questions.

[ROCKMAN]

Howdy alokin. I roamed around the Blue Mountains for a few days some years ago. Looked at the Three Sisters with all the other tourists. Can't remember the name of the small town we railed to from Sidney. I'm not a CBM expert but know a few things. There will likely be a lot more similarities than differences between your projects and our. I'm sure you've searched the web for the tech aspects and I gather your more interested in the environmental impact. Here's a bit about that from the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Unconventional Extraction in the Oil and Gas: EPA is developing a proposed rule to amend the Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs) for the Oil and Gas Extraction Category. The proposed rule is scheduled for publication in 2014. In the 2012 Preliminary ELG Plan, published on August 7, 2013, EPA announced that it is proposing to discontinue revisions to the Oil and Gas ELGs to regulate pollutant discharges from the coalbed methane extraction (CBM) industry. As the plan also indicates, EPA will continue developing revisions to the Onshore Oil and Gas ELGs (40 CFR Part 435, Subpart C) to provide additional controls on pollutant discharges from the unconventional oil and gas extraction industry. EPA continues to collect and analyze information and will examine a variety of options for these discharges.

•Extraction Process
•Wastewater Generated by Unconventional Extraction
•Current Federal Regulatory Framework
•Proposal to Delist Coalbed Methane Rulemaking
•Additional Resources
•Additional Information

Extraction Process: Recent advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have made extraction of oil and gas from unconventional resources more technologically and economically feasible than before. Hydraulic fracturing is used to extract oil and gas from highly impermeable rock formations, such as shale rock, by injecting large amounts of fracturing fluids at high pressures to create a network of fissures in the rock formations and providing the oil and/or gas a pathway to travel to the well for extraction. Geologic pressure within the impermeable shale formations force these fracturing fluids back to the surface (sometimes referred to as "flowback"), along with naturally occurring formation water. These wastewaters are collectively referred to as unconventional oil and gas extraction wastewaters, or produced water. Coal beds are another source of unconventional gas. This gas—CBM—is naturally created during the geologic process of converting plant material to coal (coalification). To extract the methane, CBM operators drill wells into coal seams and pump out ground water (produced water or CBM wastewater). Removing the ground water from the formation is necessary to produce CBM, as the water removal reduces the pressure and allows the methane to release from the coal to produce flowing natural gas.

Wastewater Generated by Unconventional Extraction: Produced water from unconventional oil and gas wells often contains high concentrations of total dissolved solids (salts). These wastewaters may also contain various organic chemicals, inorganic chemicals, metals, and naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM). The quantity and quality of produced water varies from basin to basin, and over the lifetime of a well. Direct discharges from unconventional oil and gas extraction are subject to NPDES permit regulations (40 CFR Parts 122 through 125). Indirect discharges to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) are subject to the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR Part 403).

NPDES permits must include technology based effluent limitations. For direct dischargers of unconventional oil and gas wastewaters from onshore oil and gas facilities – with the exception of coalbed methane – technology-based limitations are based on the Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs) for the Oil and Gas Extraction Category. Permits for onshore oil and gas facilities must include the requirements in Part 435, including a ban on the discharge of pollutants, except for wastewater that is of good enough quality for use in agricultural and wildlife propagation for those onshore facilities located in the continental United States and west of the 98th meridian. Part 435 does not currently include categorical pretreatment standards for indirect discharges to POTWs for wells located onshore

Direct discharges from coalbed methane extraction from onshore oil and gas facilities are not currently subject to limitations under Part 435, as EPA did not consider such discharges in developing the onshore oil and gas ELG. NPDES permits for coalbed methane discharges are currently developed according to the best professional judgement (BPJ) of the permit authority, based on the factors specified in 40 CFR 125.3(c)(2). The BPJ-based requirements that have been applied to disposal of coalbed methane wastewater vary significantly from state to state, ranging from limitations on some conventional pollutants prior to discharge, to prohibition of direct discharges to waters of the U.S.


Proposal to Delist Coalbed Methane Rulemaking: In 2010, EPA published a report on the coalbed methane extraction industry. Since initiating the CBM rulemaking, EPA continued analyzing the information collected from the CBM industry and also collected and analyzed more current data. Some of EPA’s findings have changed since EPA selected this industry for the rulemaking. To update the public on technical aspects, EPA developed the Technical Development Document for the Coalbed Methane (CBM) Extraction Industry and Economic Analysis for Existing and New Projects in the Coalbed Methane Industry. After reviewing financial data pertaining to this industry (including natural gas price projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration), wastewater quality/quantity data and the cost of available wastewater treatment options, it appears that EPA may not be able to identify a wastewater treatment technology that would be economically achievable for this industrial subcategory. Although potential treatment technologies may exist, these technologies do not appear to be economically achievable due, in part, to the decrease in gas prices as a result of the recent boom in development of shale gas resources.

One interesting side story developed when the began CBM ops in Wyoming. The ranchers actually welcomes produces waters since it was a rather arid region. And there wasn't a problem with salinity...not a lot of NaCl. But there was a fairly high concentration of Na and there has not been an establishment of how much was too much. Not sure if they ever resolved that question.

When you get down to specific questions just ask away.

[Scrub Puller]

Yair . . . I too have an interest in CSG (as it is termed by the 'Media' over here).

There are stories about circulating about over optimistic calculations concerning the gas available to fill the pipes heading into the export facilities being built at Gladstone, just north of us

I see one industry 'insider' reckons its not a problem . . . they'll just have to drill more wells. That is a problem for, compared to the US, the property owner receives little compensation for the inconvenience of unwanted gas wells on their country.

It is extremely difficult (impossible?) to get information concerning decline rates as it seems production numbers from individual wells will not be made available.

If these wells have higher than anticipated decline rates I wonder are there enough rigs available to maintain supply once those one those two (I think 42") pipes begin to flow.

It seems a crazy notion that billions of dollars are being invested in at least four gas trains and yet the resource is to some extent unproven . . . that is the pubtalk I'm hearing anyway from truckers, dozer drivers, welders and other grunts working in the field.

Thanks to ROCKMAN for the heads up and if there are any members here who could post insights to Australian CSG production it would be much appreciated.

Cheers.

[alokin]

Thanks for the replies!
Scrub do you have more information regarding the gas trains? And I think you are mainly interested because of the export facility at Gladstone rather than you are in the area of CSG.
I don't know how they will do it in the mountains since most of the area is national park (well no problem for OUR government). So there are no property owners, but roads must be built. And the terrain is extremely rugged. We have the advantage to rural Australia that there are simply more people.
I would really know more about decline rates, because this would be a huge argument against the job creation argument. Note we have tourism here since more than a hundred years.

[Scrub Puller]

Yair . . . Guday alokin. The term "train" is confusing and was probably me being a smart ass . . . I have no back ground much in oil or gas but have been watching oil depletion through trade journals long before the days of the internet.

A "train" in this context (as I understand it) is plant that takes the gas in at one end, processes and chills it and pumps it into ships . . . I'm sure others will set us straight if I have that wrong. (big grin)

Cheers.

[ROCKMAN]

FYI - An LNG "train" is not a cho-cho. That's the term they use for the plants that compress the NG. "Train" in the sense of a continuous series of the components that liquefy the NG.

[ROCKMAN]

Here's a good bit of detail on one of your CBM projects: https://www.ausimm.com.au/content/docs/ ... pril07.pdf

BTW I would be very shocked to see anyone build a LNG plant with not only a guaranteed long term supply of NG but also have the future price locked down. A plant with insufficient throughput is a bad investment. An LNG plant that spends too much for its feedstock is a bad investment.

[alokin]

Building a LNG plant means therefore no stop to CSG mining, national park or not. As soon as there is the facility gas must flow. How far would it be economically viable to transport?

[ROCKMAN]

Transport the NG or the LNG? The NG would go by pipeline and distance does matter. I assume the LNG will be shipped by sea so the pipeline has to run to the coast where the plant is. That's going to cost $X and is already factored in.

But I'm going to guess that they've already developed enough NG flow some here to justify the LNG plant. It's just to huge an investment to just assume the NG will eventually be delivered. But as I think I may have mentioned earlier not only is it common to have a guaranteed supply locked up but also guaranteed buyers at a scheduled price.

[alokin]

Rockman, I really appreciate your posts, you simply know heaps!
What they tell us is that gas will become cheaper. I have to find out were the gas goes in NSW.

[alokin]

Some victory:

Coal seam gas (CSG) exploration applications will be frozen for six months across NSW while the state government reviews the controversial process.

Premier Barry O’Farrell accused the former Labor government of granting petroleum exploration licences ‘‘like confetti’’ and warned the government would also audit existing licences.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/nsw-freezes-new-csg-exploration-permits-20140326-35hxv.html
Our immediate thread is over as well (so far) because of the dodgyness of the applicant.

[ROCKMAN]

alokin - Nothing wrong with taking their time. Especially when there's many years of experience doing it elsewhere to examine. And they promise cheaper NG, eh? Get them to put that into a guaranteed contract and see if they'll sign it. LOL.