Export file:


  • RIS(for EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)
  • BibTex
  • Text


  • Citation Only
  • Citation and Abstract

Basin-wide groundwater vulnerability assessment: a GIS based DRASTIC approach to the problem of coal seam gas extracted water

1 School of Population Health, the University of Queensland, Herston Road, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia
2 School of Earth & Environmental Sciences, the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
3 Public Health Dorset, Princes House, Princes Street, Dorchester, Dorset, DT1 1TP, UK
4 Primary Care & Population Sciences, the University of Southampton, UK

Special Issues: Water Security and Sustainability

Coal seam gas (CSG) production requires the extraction of large volumes of water. Discharges of the extracted water into the environment occur via authorised temporary permits or through accidental releases. The purpose of this study is to assess the risk to shallow groundwater aquifers from potential CSG water releases in Queensland, Australia. A GIS based methodology was used to identify vulnerable shallow aquifers by overlaying a series of risk factors, which increase the likelihood of flow from the ground surface into aquifers below. We identified where the vulnerable aquifers are located and estimate that about 10,000 people live in these areas. The GIS based exposure mapping approach applied here provides a useful ‘first-pass’ assessment of areas with CSG activity. Areas identified as potentially high risk should be prioritised for further detailed investigation.
  Article Metrics

Keywords coal seam gas water; groundwater contamination; GIS; DRASTIC; Queensland

Citation: Maryam Navi, Shahram Nasiri, Chris Skelly. Basin-wide groundwater vulnerability assessment: a GIS based DRASTIC approach to the problem of coal seam gas extracted water. AIMS Environmental Science, 2017, 4(1): 168-186. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2017.1.168


  • 1. DEEDI (2011) Queensland coal seam gas overview. Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Geological Survey of Queensland.
  • 2. USGS (2000) Coal-Bed Methane: Potential and Concerns. U.S. Geological Survey.
  • 3. Murray J (2012) Coal Seam Gas Water-River Discharge: Context Matters. International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production.
  • 4. NWC (2011) Onshore co produced water extent and management. Waterlines Report Series No 54: Commonwealth of Australia, National Water Commission (NWC), Waterlines Report Series No 54.
  • 5. Veil JA, Puder MG, Elcock D, et al. (2004) A white paper describing produced water from production of crude oil, natural gas, and coal bed methane. Lemont, IL: Prepared for US Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory.
  • 6. Harrison SM, Molson JW, Abercrombie HJ, et al. (2000) Hydrogeology of a coal-seam gas exploration area, southeastern British Columbia, Canada: Part 1. Groundwater flow systems. Hydrogeol J 8: 608-622.
  • 7. Anna LO (2003) Groundwater flow associated with coalbed gas production, Ferron Sandstone, east-central Utah. Int J Coal Geol 56: 69-95.    
  • 8. Fisher JB (2003) Environmental issues and challenges in coalbed methane production. 18th International Low Rank Fuels Symposium.
  • 9. Young AL (2005) Coalbed Methane: A New Source of Energy and Environmental Challenges. Environ Sci Pollut R 12: 318-321.    
  • 10. Bergquist E, Evangelista P, Stohlgren TJ, et al. (2007) Invasive species and coal bed methane development in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Environ Monit Assess 128: 381-394.    
  • 11. NSW-DTI. 2011. NSW government investigates saline water leak [Internet]. NSW Department of Trade and Investment. Available from: http://www.resources.nsw.gov.au/news/saline-water-leak
  • 12. ABC-News, 2012. Drilling scare halts coal seam gas work. ABC News online. Available from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-28/drilling-scare-halts-coal-seam-gas-work/3977786
  • 13. QWC (2012) Underground Water Impact Report for the Surat Cumulative Management Area. State of Queensland, Queensland Water Commission (QWC).
  • 14. Navi M, Skelly C, Taulis M, et al. (2015) Coal seam gas water: potential hazards and exposure pathways in Queensland. Inter J Env Heal R 25: 162-183.    
  • 15. Stearman W, Taulis M, Smith J, et al. (2014) Assessment of geogenic contaminants in water co-produced with coal seam gas extraction in Queensland, Australia: implications for human health risk. Geosciences 4: 219-239.    
  • 16. ATSDR (2005) Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
  • 17. Nuckols JR, Ward MH, Jarup L (2004) Using geographic information systems for exposure assessment in environmental epidemiology studies. Environ Health Persp 112: 1007.
  • 18. Jarup L (2004) Health and environment information systems for exposure and disease mapping, and risk assessment. Environ Health Persp 112: 995.    
  • 19. Hargrove WW, Levine DA, Miller MR, et al. GIS and risk assessment: A fruitful combination; 1996.
  • 20. Chen X, Feigley C, Frank E, et al. (1998) Exposure Assessment for Trichloroethylene in Drinking Water Using a Geographic Information System. Geographic information systems in public health, third national conference. San Diego: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
  • 21. Rupert MG (1999) Improvements to the DRASTIC Ground-Water Vulnerability Mapping Method. US Geological Survey.
  • 22. Aller L, Bennett T, Lehr JH, et al. (1987) Drastic–a standardized system to evaluate groundwater pollution potential using hydrogeologic setting. US Environmental Protection Agency.
  • 23. Stigter T, Ribeiro L, Dill AC (2006) Evaluation of an intrinsic and a specific vulnerability assessment method in comparison with groundwater salinisation and nitrate contamination levels in two agricultural regions in the south of Portugal. Hydrogeol J 14: 79-99.    
  • 24. BOM (2011) The Australian Hydrological Geospatial Fabric. Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Available from:ftp://ftp.bom.gov.au/anon/home/geofabric
  • 25. BOM (2009) Climate, Rain Fall/ National Surface Water. Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Available from http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/climate_averages/rainfall/index.jsp
  • 26. Babiker IS, Mohamed MA, Hiyama T, et al. (2005) A GIS-based DRASTIC model for assessing aquifer vulnerability in Kakamigahara Heights, Gifu Prefecture, central Japan. Sci Total Environ 345: 127-140.    
  • 27. CSIRO (1991) Digital Soil Atlas. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). Available from: http://www.asris.csiro.au/downloads/Atlas/soilAtlas2M.zip
  • 28. Geoscience-Australia (2000) Digital Elevation Model (DEM). Geoscience Australia. Available from https://data.qld.gov.au/dataset/digital-elevation-model-3-second-queensland
  • 29. ABS (2011) Population by Age and Sex, Regions of Australia. Australian Bereau of Statistics. Available from: http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/tablebuilder


This article has been cited by

  • 1. Surina Esterhuyse, Developing a groundwater vulnerability map for unconventional oil and gas extraction: a case study from South Africa, Environmental Earth Sciences, 2017, 76, 17, 10.1007/s12665-017-6961-6

Reader Comments

your name: *   your email: *  

Copyright Info: 2017, Maryam Navi, et al., licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licese (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Download full text in PDF

Export Citation

Copyright © AIMS Press All Rights Reserved