A series of studies reveals how best to treat CSG water before re-injecting it underground to minimise contamination.

Water produced when coal seam gas (CSG) is extracted from below ground can be safely re-injected hundreds of metres underground, according to new CSIRO research.

Water is pumped out of coal seams to access the gas held within them. CSG in the Surat Basin, Australia, produces on average 70 gigalitres of water each year – a seventh of the water held in Sydney Harbour. What to do with this water is one of a number of concerns voiced by communities around CSG.

Our research shows that injecting large volumes of treated CSG-produced water at suitable locations within the Surat Basin is unlikely to cause any harm to groundwater quality.

However, to achieve this the water has to be treated adequately to eliminate the risk of polluting groundwater with arsenic – a generally immobile toxic element that occurs naturally in some of the rock formations being considered for re-injection.

Why re-inject CSG water anyway?

Laboratory experiments to determine the release mechanism of arsenic from sediments in the Precipice Sandstone. CSIRO, Author provided.

In Queensland, the state government’s policy on managing “produced water”, also commonly known as “CSG water”, is to “encourage the beneficial use of CSG water in a way that protects the environment and maximises its productive use as a valuable resource”.

In many cases the most suitable and socially-accepted option is to treat the water, using reverse osmosis technology, and inject it into deep aquifers. The re-injected water can be used to top-up already stressed aquifers.

However, looking at similar projects around the world, especially from Florida, has shown that injecting clean water underground can sometimes mobilise naturally occurring contaminants such as arsenic.

When rainwater seeps underground and becomes groundwater it changes its composition. During the subsurface passage that can often take thousands of years the groundwater composition changes slowly to successively take on the characteristics of the rocks.

When water with a non-compatible composition is directly injected into deep aquifers, the injected water will also react with the rocks and therefore change its characteristics to one that is compatible with the new host rock. This occurs through the release of elements from the rocks, a process called mineral dissolution.

In addition, arsenic mobilisation can also occur by a process called desorption, in which case loosely-attached ions are released from mineral surfaces. Both processes may proceed until a new balance or “geochemical equilibrium” is established and both have the potential to mobilise toxic elements such as arsenic.

Testing the waters

In our new research, we analysed results from injection experiments at Reedy Creek and at Condabri, both located in the Surat Basin in Queensland, through computer models that can simulate groundwater flow and groundwater quality.

This analysis showed that if and how much arsenic is mobilised depends on the composition of the injected water. From the research we conclude that minimising arsenic release most importantly depends on oxygen being stripped from the water prior to injection of the CSG water.

During the research elevated arsenic levels have been found during a field experiment at one of the sites (Reedy Creek), for which both experiments and computer modelling suggest that arsenic release was triggered by the injected water.

However, computer modelling also demonstrated that this type of arsenic mobilisation could have been completely prevented by adjusting the pH of the injected water to the pH of the naturally-residing groundwater.

The experiments performed at the second research site at Condabri under different experimental conditions showed that arsenic concentrations in the groundwater increased substantially if the injected water was not stripped of oxygen.

When oxygen was not removed from the injected water this caused the dissolution of the naturally-abundant mineral pyrite, or “fool’s gold”. Arsenic is often embedded in trace amounts in this mineral.

What can we do?

The findings from this research were used to guide the design requirements for the large-scale implementation of CSG water injection into the Precipice aquifer. During the treatment process all water is now deoxygenated prior to injection and the pH of the injected water is similar to the natural groundwater.

The Reedy Creek re-injection scheme is now successfully operating and injecting treated CSG water. Since starting the injection in 2015, over 10 gigalitres (GL) has been injected into the Precipice aquifer and the scheme is currently Australia’s largest treated water re-injection scheme.

As a result groundwater levels in parts of the Precipice aquifer have started to rise for the first time in the last few decades.

, Research Scientist, CSIRO.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.


  1. I am a very retired diploma scientist outside this subject, but I follow science. If we banned everything that someone has banned or said it should be, we would be having trouble lighting fire.
    I am against CSG because it produces CO2, not because of some dirty producers. Clearly, this is a clean approach to a bad process, but don’t damn the clean bit.
    I admit to being a lunatic; I am in favour of nuclear energy, the least dirty, safest base load, with by far the best record for all of the base loads. One disaster, Chernobyl and two and a half (3 Mile Island No 2 doesn’t rate as a full one) serious events in 60 years.

  2. I am not a scientist, but even a person with a modicum of bloody common sense would tell you this is a bad reckless idea. This industry is banned in several sensible countries and it is shameful that the CSIRO is prepared to risk its formerly great reputation in promoting it when clearly all around the world where it operates there are monumental problems.

Commenting on this post has been disabled.