(49)

J. Env. Bio-Sci., 2018: Vol. 32 (1): 49-56 ISSN 0973-6913 (Print), ISSN 0976-3384 (On Line)

STUDY OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS OF SOME COAL BEAD METHANE WELL WATER

Rohit Kumar Singh1, Arvind Kumarsingh2, Rewatikant, Rampravesh Kumar, Vikash Kumar and
Shivadhar Sharma *
1
P.G. Department of Environmental Science, M.U. Bodh -Gaya.
* P.G. Department of Chemistry, M.U. Bodh- Gaya.

Received: 17-04-2018 Accepted: 27-04-2018

The extraction of methane Gas is facilitated by pumping of ground water from coal bead mines for regular and consistent gas
production. This water is discharged into near by pumps or rivers which ultimately purculate into the ground water of the area.
Water samples collected from Such well have been analyzed for different pollution parameters like pH, electrical conductivity (EC),
Turbidity (NTU),Bi-carbonate, calcium hardness, magnesium hardness, Fluoride, chloride, sulfate, nitrate, Dissolved silica, potassium,
and sodium. The study reveals high bi-carbonate, chloride, fluoride, and sodium carbonate in all most all the coal bead methane
(CBM) wells of the area with a low concentration of calcium, magnesium, sulfate. The water of these CBM wells is not potable and
at sometime, it is also not suitable for irrigation or other beneficial purposes without careful treatment.
Key words: Pollutant, coal bead, methane.

It is a well known fact that the conventional resources of energy the various parameters of CBM well water.
are depleting very fast and the uncontrolled increase in
Study Areas: The raniganj coal field is the very important
population has made the exponentially increasing demand for
depository area in Damodar valley of Gondwana basin which
clean energy in our country, and subsequently there is a great
is semi-elliptical, elongated shape and covers of an area of
hunt for alternatives to meet the demand. The coal bead
2000 km2 between the Damodar and Ajoyrivers. It falls between
methane gas is the most promising as India has approximately
latitude 2300.31 and 230511N and longitudes 860421 and
4.6 trillion cubic meter methane gas of reserve which may
870281E(Ghosh,2002;Murthy et al.,2010). This basin is the
fulfill the countries future growing energy demand to a greater
most important coal field of peninsular India where both the
extent (Singh,2002;Agarwal et al.,2013). In our country CBM
lower Gondwana (Permian) and upper Gondwana (Triassic -
recovery is increasing day- by -day and is expected to rise
lower Cretaceous) formation are present (Gee,1932;Ghosh et
from current 0.5 to 7 m m s c m d by 2020. the conventional
al.,1996).This formation of upper Permian age bearing thick
gas reservoir, coal is both the reservoir rock and the source
rock for methane. coal seams is the most significant for CBM reserve (Datta,2003;
DGH, 2006).The thickness and depth of the coal seams vary
In comparison to the conventional oil and gas wells, CBM wells
produce a larger volume of water in beginning and it goes on
decreasing with the process of tim e (Khatib and
Verbeek,2003;Raddy et al.,2003). Methane gas is produced
hydrologically confined coal beds through bio-geo. Physical
process and recovery of methane gas from coal beads is
accomplished by the removal of coal bead aquifer water in
order to reduce the pressure in the zone around the bottom of
the CBM reservoirs as shown in Fig. 1. The excreted water is
called CBM produced water which varies in geochemical
properties with the original depositional environment, depth of
burial coal type etc (Jackson and Myers,2002; Shramko et
al.,2009;Taulis,2007;Stearman et al.,2014). Though a number
of investigation have been reported on the geological aspects
of CBM produced water (Geological Survey of India,1994;
Sastry et al.,1977). The chemical signature of such water has
scarcely been carried out. The present paper aims to study Fig. 1: Recovery of methan from coal beads
NAAS Rating (2017)-4.43
 SINGH, SINGH, REWATIKANT, KUMAR ,KUMAR AND SHARMA
laterally from 1.6 to 22 meter and 26 to 1250 meters
respectively. The whole CBM area has been divided into three
CBM blocks permitted for exploration and production
department which are GEECL -south block, ONGC-North
central block and Essar, North-east blocks. Out of these, Essar
is producing about 1 lac m 3 gas from 25 Wells and GEECL is
producing about 2.5 lac m3 of gas from 40 wells. In the process,
they are producing an extremely large quantity of water at the
rate of about 10 m 3 per well per day (Mendhe, 2015).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Water sample collection was made from water produced from
ten CBM wells of GEECL, south blocks of Raniganj coal field
area. The water samples were kept in dry place under normal
atmospheric temperature and then analyzed for pH, EC, and
turbidity using the standard m ethod of analysis
(APHA.AWWA.WPCF, 1992). The rest water sample were
filtered and divided into two half's and were analyzed for bi-
carbonate, calcium hardness, magnesium hardness, fluoride,
chloride, sulfate, nitrate, dissolve SiO2, potassium, sodium.
The sampling of water from seven CBM wells was carriedout
by grab sampling method and sample water labeled as C1,
C2-C7,and their pH was determined at the spot by a digital pH
meter. The samples before bringing to the lab for analysis was
preserved by adding a little H2SO4 and putting it into an ice
bade.The E.C was measured by using CONSORT multi
parameter analyzer while turbidity of the sample was
determined was using turbidity meter, EUTECH Instrument
TN-100. sulphate and silica were measured by U.V visible
spectro photometric method (SHIIMADZU,UV-2550).The maser
anion has been estimated by ion chromatography DIONEX
(DX-120) and maser cation where determined by Flame Atomic
Absorption Spectrophotom eter (VARION-AA280FS).
Bicarbonate & alkalinity, calcium hardness were determined
by the titrimetric method. Chloride was determined by
argentometric titration.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The result of the analysis of all the seven CBM wells water
samples have been presented in Table 1 and were compared
with there desirable and permissible limit given in Table 2. The
pH of all the samples shows their slightly alkaline nature. The
variation in pH for the various CBM wells has been shown in
Fig.2. The pH varies from 7.74 to 8.88 with a minimum for C1
(50)
and maximum for C7.The electrical conductivity of samples
varies from 2380 to 6730us/cm the variation has been shown
in Fig. 3. The C6 CBM well recorded the minimum value of EC
while the C1 well recorded the highest value of EC.The turbidity
values vary from 12.42 to 41.4 NTU.The variation has been
shown by the Fig. 4. The distribution of bi-carbonate in different
CBM wells has been shown in Fig. 5. The C6 well shows the
minimum concentration of bi-carbonate, while C1 recorded the
maximum concentration of bi-carbonate.The variation in
calcium and magnesium ion in different CBM wells has been
displayed in Fig. 6. The Ca2+ concentration varies from 2.563-
5.19 ppm while magnesium (Mg2+) concentration runs from
2.954 to 7.53 ppm. However, both the ions have got less
concentration than their desirable limit 75 and 30 ppm
respectively.The variation In sodium concentration has been
shown in Fig. 7. On the basis of Ca 2+,Mg2+and Na + ion
concentration the values of SAR (sodium adjobson ratio) have
been also derived using the expression:
(SAR=Na+/1/2(Ca2++Mg2+)
The variation in SAR values has been shown in Fig.8. The high
values of SAR of all the CBM Wells clearly indicate their none
suitability for agricultural purposes because it may cause
infiltration, surface crusting and also reduce the permeability
of the soil (Van voast,2003).The CBM produced water can not
be used for irrigation because it will result in detoriation in soil
quality and changes in the physical and chemical parameter
of soil (Veil and Clark,2011). The variation of the major anions
like fluoride, chloride, sulphate, and nitrate has been shown in
Fig.9. The fluoride content varies from 1.512 to 1.892 ppm
which is slightly greater than the desirable limits of BIS that is
1.0 ppm.However, the values are almost compatible with its
permissible limit 1.5 ppm. The chloride concentration runs
from 105.9 to 1153 ppm which is much greater than it's desirable
limit 250 ppm and also the permissible limit 1000 ppm, however
sulphate concentration (5.404- 17.84 ppm) and nitrate
concentration (2.51 - 12.84 ppm) is much less than desirable
limit of 200 ppm and 45 ppm respectively. Dissolved SiO2 varies
from 35.45 to 38.01ppm with C7 well recoding exceptionally
very high concentration (127.6 ppm).The variation has been
shown in Fig.10. The variation in potassium content in different
well water has been presented in Fig.11, which varies from 11
to 23.7 ppm.The very high concentration of chloride in CBM
wells water makes it unsafe for drinking purposes (Jamshidi
(51) STUDY OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS OF SOME COAL BEAD METHANE WELL WATER

and Jessen, 2012). and agriculture purposes as well.The effective management of

the coalfield requires more specific scientific investigation
The study clearly indicates that all the CBM wells water is
before the adoption of any disposal method and their water
badly polluted with respect to bicarbonate, turbidity, chloride,
may be used after complete treatment for the various pollutants.
sodium and SAR, which make it unsafe for drinking purposes

Table 1: Physical and chemical properties of CBM well water

Ca lci um H ar dness( mg /L)

Disso lv e SiO 2 ( mg/L)

Ma gn esium(mg /L)

P ot assi um(m g/ L)
S am ple N umber

Tu rbidit y {NTU}

Flu or ide( mg /L)

C hlo ride (mg /L)

S ulphate (mg /L)

H CO 3 ( mg/L)

N itra te(m g/ L)

So diu m(m g/L)

SA R (meq/L)
E.C (µ s/ cm)
pH

C1 7.74 6730 29.1 2323 3.53 6.076 1.569 1153 17.84 2.97 35.29 20.8 1252 596.76

C2 7.78 6910 34 2300 3.5 6.052 1.512 1152 16.96 2.51 35.01 20.14 1210 553.77

C3 8.34 4700 41.4 1880 5.19 7.3 1.75 733 16.08 8.75 30.09 23.7 1241 494.42

C4 8.36 4610 36.7 2100 5.1 7.53 1.62 731 16.8 8.72 30.82 23.21 1234 491.24

C5 8.85 2380 17.03 1487 2.595 3.04 1.568 117.9 6.071 12.84 38.01 11.35 532.8 321.10

C6 8.59 2348 12.88 1400 2.563 3.01 1.532 116.1 6.01 12.34 35.45 11 533 319.35

C7 8.88 2446 12.42 1416 2.78 2.954 1.892 105.9 5.404 10.26 127.6 11.65 524.7 309.92

Table 2: of water quality parameters of WHO and BIS (Permissible limit).

S.No Parameter WHO Permissible limit BIS Permissible (Acceptable) limit

1. P.H 6.5 -8.5 6.5-8.5
2. Turbidity (NTU) - 5(1)
3. E.C(us/cm) 1400 -
4. Fluoride(mg/lit) 1.5 1.5(1.0)
5. Calcium(mg/lit) 200 200(75)
6. Magnesium(mg/lit) 50 100(30)
7. Sulphate(mg/lit) 500 400(200)
8. Nitrate(mg/lit) 50 45
9. Chloride(mg/lit) 250 1000(250)
10. Potassium (mg/lit) 12 -
11. Sodium (mg/lit) 200 -
 SINGH, SINGH, REWATIKANT, KUMAR ,KUMAR AND SHARMA (52)

Fig. 2: Variation of pH of CBM well water

Fig. 3: Variation of Electrical conductivity of CBM well water

Fig. 4: Variation of Turbidity of CBM well water

(53) STUDY OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS OF SOME COAL BEAD METHANE WELL WATER

Fig.5 : Variation of Bicarbonate of CBM well water

Fig. 6: Variation of Calcium & magnesium of CBM well water

Fig. 7: Variation of Sodium of CBM well water

 SINGH, SINGH, REWATIKANT, KUMAR ,KUMAR AND SHARMA (54)

Fig. 8: Variation of Sodium Absoption Ratio of CBM well water

Fig. 9 A: Variation of Sulphate,Nitrate Floride of CBM well water

Fig. 9 B: Variation of chloride of CBM well water

(55) STUDY OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS OF SOME COAL BEAD METHANE WELL WATER

Fig. 10: Variation of Dissolve SiO2 of CBM well water

Fig. 11: Variation of potassium of CBM well water

REFERENCES
Geol. Surv. India 61, 1-343.
1. Agarwal. A, Mandal. A, Karmakar. B. and Ojhan. K. (2013). Modeling
6. Geological Survey of India (GSI) (1994). Recent advances in the
and performance prediction for water production in CBM wells of
study of Gondwanas of Peninsular India. In: Proceedings of the
an Eastern India coalfield. Jour. Petrol. Sci. Engin. 103,115-120.
IXTh International Gondwana Symposium. Spec. Publ. G.S.I.,
2. APHA.AWWA.WPCF (1992). Standard methods for the examination
Hyderabad, India, Calcutta, 30.
of water and waste water, 16th edn. APHA, Washington.
7. Ghosh, S.C. (2002). Theraniganj coalfield: an example of an Indian
3. Datta, D. (2003). Coal resources of West Bengal. Bulletin of the
Gondwana rift. Sed. Geol. 147:155-176.
Geological Survey of India, Series 'A', No. 45, Coalfields of India,
8. Ghosh, S.C., Nandi, A., Ahmed, G. and Roy, D.K. (1996). Study of
Volume V.
Permo-Triassic boundary in Gondwana sequence of Raniganj Basin.
4. DGH (2006). Directorate General of Hydrocarbons Annual Report
In: Proceedings of the IXth International Gondwana Symposium.
''Exploration and Production Activities in India'' Ministry of Petroleum,
Oxford and IBH Publication, New Delhi, Calcutta, pp. 195-206.
Govt. of India, pp 1-76.
9. Jackson, L. and Myers, J. (2002). Alternative use of produced
5. Gee, E.R. (1932). Geology and coal resources of Raniganj. Mem.
water in aquaculture and hydroponic systems at Naval Petroleum
 SINGH, SINGH, REWATIKANT, KUMAR, KUMAR AND SHARMA
Reserve No. 3. In: Ground Water Protection Council produced water
conference, Colorado Springs, CO, Oct 16-17.
10. Jamshidi, M. and Jessen, K. (2012). Water production in enhanced
coalbed methane operations. Jour. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 92-93:56-64
11. Khatib, Z. and Verbeek, P. (2003). Water to value-produced water
management for sustainable field development of mature and green
fields. Jour. Pet. Technol. 55(1):26-28
12. Mendhe, V. A., Mishra, S., Varma, A.K. and Singh, A. P.
(2015).Coalbed methane-produced water quality and its
management options in Raniganj Basin, West Bengal, India. Appl.
Water Sci.
13. Murthy, S., Chakraborti, B. and Roy, M.D. (2010). Palynodating of
subsurface sediments, Raniganj Coalfield, Damodar Basin, W est
Bengal. Jour. Earth Syst. Sci. 119(5):701-710.
14. Reddy, K.J., McBeth, I. and Skinner, Q.D. (2003). Chemistry of trace
elements in coalbed methane product water. Water Res. 37:884-
890.
15. Sastry, M.V.A., Acharyya, S.K., Shah, S.C., Satsangi, P.P., Ghosh,
S.C., Raha, P.K., Singh, G. and Ghosh, R.N. (1977). Stratigraphic
(56)
lexicon of Gondwana formations of India. Geol. Surv. India, Misc.
Publ. 36, 1-170.
16. Shramko, A., Palmgren, T., Gallo, D., Dixit, R. and Swaco, M.I.
(2009). Analytical characterization of flow-back waters in the field.
In: 16th annual petroleum & biofuels environmental conference
(IPEC), Houston, November 3-5 2009.
17. Singh, U.P. (2002). The progress of Coalbed Methane in India. North
American Coalbed Methane Forum, November.
18. Stearman, W., Taulis, M., Smith, J. and Corkeron, M. (2014).
Assessment of GeogenicContaminants inWater Co-Produced with
Coal Seam Gas Extraction in Queensland, Australia: Implications
for Human Health Risk. Geosciences.219-239.
19. Taulis, M.E. (2007). Groundwater Characterisation, and Disposal
Modelling for Coal Seam Gas Recovery; University of Canterbury:
Christchurch,New Zealand, 2007.
20. Van Voast, W.A. (2003). Geochemical signature of formation waters
associated with coalbed methane. AAPG Bull 87:667-676
21. Veil, J. and Clark, C.E. (2011). Produced-water-volume estimates
and management practices. SPE Prod Oper 26(3):234-239