Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
30 November 2010
Benjamin Wilson
(61-2) 9220-1384
benjamin.x.wilson@jpmorgan.com
Jason Steed
(61-2) 9220-1551
jason.h.steed@jpmorgan.com
See page 28 for analyst certification and important disclosures, including non-US analyst disclosures.
J.P. Morgan does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. As a result, investors should be aware that the firm may
have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. Investors should consider this report as only a single factor in making their
investment decision.
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................3
Coal Seam Gas and Water Use ...............................................5
The Great Artesian Basin.........................................................8
Surat and Bowen Basins .........................................................9
Six Key Water Concerns ........................................................10
Potential Implications for CSG Companies..........................24
Penalties for Breaching Water Conditions...........................26
Tables
Table 1: Water Types and Total Dissolved Solids.......................................................7
Table 2: Estimated Population - Surat and Bowen Basins...........................................9
Table 3: Summary of Key Water Risks and Risk Management Options ...................11
Table 4: Surat Basin – Type of Water Bores .............................................................13
Table 5: Bowen Basin – Type Water of Bores ..........................................................13
Table 6: Chemicals typically used in Australian CSG fraccing fluids.......................17
Table 7: Preferred Water Management Options – Queensland Government.............20
Table 8: Non-Preferred Water Management Options – Queensland Government.....21
Table 9: Salt and Brine Waste Management Preferences ..........................................21
Table 10: Analysis of Water Management Options ...................................................22
Table 11: Examples of Maximum Monetary Penalties from Water Breaches ...........26
Figures
Figure 1: Typical CSG Extraction Process ..................................................................5
Figure 2: Estimated Number of QLD CSG Wells........................................................6
Figure 3: Estimated % Water Volumes Extracted .......................................................6
Figure 4: Water Extraction vs Gas Production ............................................................6
Figure 5: Aerial Photo of CSG Fields ..........................................................................7
Figure 6: The Great Artesian Basin .............................................................................8
Figure 7: Cross-Section of the Great Artesian Basin ...................................................8
Figure 8: Location of the Surat and Bowen Basins......................................................9
Figure 9: Key Water Concerns...................................................................................10
Figure 10: Potential Water Movement in Aquifers from Changes in Water Pressure12
Figure 11: Location of Existing Water Bores in the Surat Basin ...............................13
Figure 12: Water Bores in QCLNG Gas Fields .........................................................14
Figure 13: Condamine Alluvium May Drain into Underlying Coal Seam ................15
Figure 14: Example of Hydraulic Fracturing Process................................................16
Figure 15: Surat Basin ...............................................................................................18
Figure 16: Bowen Basin.............................................................................................18
2
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
Executive Summary
The proposed coal seam gas (CSG) developments in Queensland’s Surat and Bowen
Basins have sparked public debate regarding the potential water impacts from CSG
drilling activities.
We identify the key water concerns raised by various groups and discuss the
strategies the major CSG players (Santos, Origin, BG and Shell) have employed to
address these concerns.
We spent two days visiting gas fields, irrigators, landowners and community groups
in Queensland’s Surat Basin to gain on the ground insights into the area’s water
concerns. As part of our research process we also spoke with the key CSG players,
relevant State and Federal Government Departments, law firms and water experts.
3
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
Each of the proposed CSG developments have been declared a ‘significant project’
by the Queensland Coordinator General for which an Environmental Impact
Statement is required in accordance with the State Development and Public Works
Organisation Act 1971 (Qld). The Commonwealth Government also requires an
Environmental Impact Statement under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 (Cth).
The Environmental Impact Statement process occurs under a bilateral agreement and
addresses matters on behalf of both the Queensland and Australian Commonwealth
Governments. The process is coordinated by the Queensland Coordinator-General.
4
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
In situations where coal seams are very deep and of low permeability, the use of
hydraulic fracturing or ‘fraccing’ may be employed to increase permeability. This
process involves pumping fluid comprising water, sand and other additives at high
pressure down the cased CSG well and into the coal seam. This action fractures the
coal seam and provides a pathway to facilitate gas flow through the coal.
Water flows to the surface Why does underground water rise to the surface?
unaided or is pumped out To extract CSG requires the coal seams to be depressurised by releasing the gas and
if the pressure within the
coal seam is low
associated underground water in the fractures of the coal seams to the surface. The
underground water is released as a byproduct of the CSG extraction process. The
depressurisation process affects the water levels in coal seams and can potentially
affect interconnected aquifers above (overlying) or below (underlying) the coal seam.
This is a key reason for why CSG extraction can affect water supply to water bores in
areas surrounding CSG extraction wells.
Gas and water in the coal seam Figure 1: Typical CSG Extraction Process
is usually separated at the
CSG well head
5
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
The water extraction volumes are based on an estimated 25,000 to 30,000 CSG wells
in Queensland over the next 20 years to 30 years. Currently there are approximately
3,000 wells in Queensland. The estimated percentage of CSG water volumes over
the next 20 to 30 years are approximately 60% for the Bowen Basin and 40% for the
Surat Basin.
60% of estimated future CSG Figure 2: Estimated Number of QLD CSG Wells Figure 3: Estimated % Water Volumes Extracted
water extraction volumes will be
from the Bowen Basin with the 40,000
remaining 40% from the Surat 30,000
Basin 30,000 Surat
Basin
20,000 40%
10,000
3,000 Bow en
Basin
-
60%
Currently Estimated
nex t 20 y ears
Source: Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Source: Queensland Department of Environment and Resource
Management Management
1
Department of Environment and Resource Management
2
Department of Environment and Resource Management; Basin Sustainability Alliance
6
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
7
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
The GAB covers an area of over 1.7 million square kilometres or ~22% of
Contains water volumes Australia’s land mass and is estimated to contain around 65 million gigalitres of
equivalent to around water equivalent to around 130,000 Sydney Harbours or 26 billion Olympic sized
130,000 Sydney Harbours swimming pools3.
Water bores tap the aquifers in the GAB with average bore depth of around 500
metres, however some water bores are drilled to depths of 2,000 metres. Some water
GAB aquifers are used as a bores are free flowing while others require pumps to bring water to the surface. The
source of water supply for aquifers of the GAB are an important underground water supply providing vital
agricultural, domestic and
industrial purposes
water to overlying regions for stock, domestic, urban and industrial use, often in
areas where there is no alternate water supply source.
Figure 6: The Great Artesian Basin Figure 7: Cross-Section of the Great Artesian Basin
3
Water Matters – Issue 4, May 2009. Commonwealth Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
8
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
Around 140,000 people live Table 2: Estimated Population - Surat and Bowen Basins
in the Surat and Bowen Basins
Geographical Area Estimated Population
Surat Basin 46,000
Bowen Basin 94,000
Total 140,000
Source: Queensland Department of Infrastructure and Planning; Office of Economic and Statistical Research
Surat Basin
Some aquifers in the Surat Basin The Surat Basin in southern Queensland stretches from the Western Downs near
connect with the GAB Dalby and extends as far as Roma. Generally the coal seams in the Surat Basin are
striated and not continuous. The aquifers of the Surat Basin are connected to the
GAB. BG (QGC), Origin (APLNG), Santos (GLNG) and Shell (Arrow) have
tenures for CSG developments in the Surat Basin area.
Bowen Basin
Most of the aquifers in the The Bowen Basin stretches north of the Surat Basin beyond Roma into central
Bowen Basin do not connect Queensland up as far as Rockhampton. The Bundana coal seam is the main coal
with the GAB
seam in the Bowen Basin and is a more continuous, solid seam of coal. The Bowen
Basin lies below the GAB and is not connected to the major GAB aquifers (however
the Bowen Basin does touch the precipe sandstone in some areas). Santos (GLNG),
Origin (APLNG) and Shell (Arrow) have tenures for CSG developments in the
Bowen Basin area.
4
Queensland Department of Infrastructure and Planning; Queensland Office of Statistical
Research.
9
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
6. 2.
Cumulative water Reduced water quality
impacts from multiple from water table
CSG developments cross contamination
Key Water
Concerns
5. 3.
Treatment, storage and Reduced water quality
disposal of saline water, from drilling chemicals
brine and salt contaminating water
4.
Gas migration to
water bores
Source: J.P. Morgan Research and Analysis
Site visit
We visited Queensland gas We spent two days visiting gas fields, irrigators, landowners and community groups
fields for two days to meet with to gain on the ground insights into the area’s water concerns. We met with various
agricultural landowners and
community groups
groups including the CEO of the Queensland Murray Darling Committee, the
Chairman of the Central Downs Irrigators, the CEO of the Basin Sustainability
Alliance, members of the Western Downs Alliance and agricultural property owners.
10
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
The predicted large volumes and variable quality of CSG water mean water
management is critical. The amount of water extracted varies from basin to basin and
also over the life of individual CSG production wells. Strategies for management
and beneficial use are dictated by water quality and quantity at each CSG
development site. Table 3 summarises the key water risks and management options
based on our analysis.
2. Reduced water quality from CSG drilling activities may result in a) one aquifer mixing with water from • Steel cased CSG wells with concrete seals.
• Groundwater modelling.
water table cross another aquifer or b) lower quality water in coal seams entering higher
• Regular groundwater testing and monitoring.
contamination. quality water aquifers. These events can occur from changes in water • Make good arrangements.
pressure from the dewatering process resulting in movement of water
between aquifers/coal seams or from poorly constructed CSG wells
which are not appropriately cased or sealed.
3. Reduced water quality from Risk of CSG drilling lubricants or fluids used during hydraulic fracturing • Steel cased CSG wells with concrete seals.
• Regular groundwater testing and monitoring.
drilling chemicals of coals seams entering water sources. This can occur from either poorly
• Treatment and disposal of water used during
contaminating water. constructed CSG wells or from poor disposal of produced water (eg not drilling and hydraulic fracturing.
removing all the produced water from fracced wells or from spilling • Make good arrangements.
produced water onto land or surface waters).
4. Gas migration to water bores. Gas can migrate from coal seams to overlying aquifers where a pathway • Regular water bore testing and monitoring.
• Appropriately constructed water bores.
exits. The process of gas migration usually occurs in areas at a distance
• Make good arrangements.
from the CSG well where depressurisation is lower. As such the gas
does not flow at high pressure to the surface and instead migrates away
from gas fields through natural geological pathways or via artificial
conduits such as man-made water bore wells.
5. Treatment, disposal and CSG water brought to the surface is typically highly saline and not • Regular groundwater testing and monitoring.
• Reverse osmosis treatment for beneficial use.
storage of CSG water, brine suitable for agricultural or domestic purposes. The CSG water can be
• Reinjection of water back underground.
and salt. treated to produce high quality water however the residual waste, known • Containment ponds.
as brine, is a highly concentrated saline mixture. • Licensed disposal facility.
• Pipe to marine waters.
6. Cumulative impacts from Cumulative water impacts from multiple CSG developments occurring • Development of a regional-scale groundwater
flow model from both private and public sector
multiple CSG developments. are currently difficult to accurately model.
sources.
11
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
The risk is water pressure changes as coal seams are dewatered may result in
overlying aquifers draining down into the coal seam. Thus water bores which tap
water from overlying aquifers may experience a drop in water levels. Similarly water
in underlying aquifers may move to coal seams above them over time. Figure 10
demonstrates how water could potentially move between aquifers and confining
layers from changes in water pressure as groundwater is removed during CSG
activities.
Figure 10: Potential Water Movement in Aquifers from Changes in Water Pressure
CSG wells
Arrows
represent
water
movement
Poorly constructed CSG wells Poorly constructed CSG wells which are not steel cased or do not have appropriate
can also contribute to water concrete seals to prevent water from escaping into other aquifers or the coal seam can
supply losses
also contribute to water losses. The steel casing is cemented into place isolating the
surrounding rock from the producing coal seams.
12
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
How many water bores are there in the Surat and Bowen Basins?
There are approximately 7,000 water bores in the Surat and Bowen Basins. The Surat
There are currently a total of Basin contains approximately 5,000 water bores and the Bowen basin contains
~7,000 water bores in the approximately 2,000 water bores5.
Surat and Bowen Basins
Table 4: Surat Basin – Type of Water Bores Table 5: Bowen Basin – Type Water of Bores
Water bores used for Type of Bore Percentage Type of Bore Percentage
agricultural, domestic Stock and domestic 94% Stock and domestic 97%
and industrial use Stock intensive 3% Other 3%
Irrigation 1% Source: Department of Environment and Resource Management
Town water supply 1%
Other (including mining) 1%
Source: Department of Environment and Resource Management
5
Department of Environment and Resource Management
13
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
How many water bores are within the proposed CSG development areas?
We contacted each of the major CSG players to obtain estimates of how many water
bores were within or near their Queensland CSG development areas. Only one of the
four major CSG players responded to our information request at the time of
publishing this report. Origin stated it has approximately 600 water bores within its
Walloons development area. Although BG did not provide us with information, the
location of water bores near its QCLNG gas fields are shown in Figure 12.
14
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
a) Water from one aquifer mixes with water from another aquifer or;
b) Lower quality water in coal seams enters higher quality water aquifers.
The risk for CSG players from an operational viewpoint is that water draining down
into the coal seams may affect gas flow production and reduce well productivity.
This may add to the costs of CSG extraction depending on the frequency and severity
of this event occurring.
Figure 13: Condamine Alluvium May Drain into Underlying Coal Seam
15
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
Drilling chemicals used during drilling CSG wells consist of lubricants and oils
containing hydrocarbons. Traces of these chemicals can enter underground water
sources during the drilling process. However, much of the recent concern regarding
potential chemical contamination of water is about hydraulic fracturing.
Hydraulic Fracturing
Hydraulic fracturing is typically Hydraulic fracturing or “fraccing” is often used in coal seams which are very deep
used in coal seams with low and of low permeability. Fraccing facilitates the flow of gas from the seam to the
permeability
surface and involves pumping large volumes of fraccing fluid comprised of water,
sand and chemical additives, under high pressure into the coal seam. This action
fractures the coal seam creating pathways to facilitate increased gas flow. The sand
holds the facture open to allow gas and water to flow to the gas well for extraction.
Most of the fraccing fluid is Fraccing occurs hundreds of metres underground and typically takes one to three
brought back to the surface days to complete. The majority of the fluids used in the fraccing process are brought
back to the surface and either recycled for future fraccing treatments, disposed of in
containment ponds or transported to water treatment facilities.
Fraccing fluid is either recycled Figure 14: Example of Hydraulic Fracturing Process
for future fracturing purposes,
stored in containment ponds or
taken to treatment plants
16
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
The Queensland Government has banned the use of BTEX and a major Australian
petroleum and gas industry body7 stated that BTEX is not used in Australian CSG
fraccing fluids. Table 6 lists chemicals typically used in fraccing fluids in Australia.
6
U.S. Geological Survey
7
The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association
17
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
Fraccing in the Bowen Basin is expected to occur more frequently due to the nature
of the coal seams. Coal in the Bowen Basin is typically deeper underground and the
Around 40% of the Bowen
geological formations of the coal seams are solid and densely packed in part due to
Basin’s CSG wells are expected the increased pressure from being deeper underground than the Surat Basin. This
to be fracced over the coming typically makes it more difficult for the gas to escape from coal seams in the Bowen
20+ years due to the lower Basin and is the primary reason why the Queensland Department of Environment and
permeability of coal in this area Resource Management is forecasting approximately 40% of CSG wells to be fracced
in the Bowen Basin over the coming 20 years or so.
On the other hand the coal seams in the Surat Basin are forecast to only have
Only 5% of the Surat Basin’s approximately 5% of CSG wells fracced over the next 20+ years due to the varied
CSG wells are forecast to be
fracced over the same period
geological formations of the coal seams. The Surat Basin coal seams are more
striated meaning it is easier for the gas to move through the coal and thus fewer CSG
wells are expected to require hydraulic fracturing.
Estimated Percentage of Fracced CSG Wells in Queensland over next 20+ years
Not
Not Fracced
Fracced 60%
95%
Source: Department of Environment and Resource Management Source: Department of Environment and Resource Management
8
Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management
18
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
Origin Energy
Australia Pacific LNG (APLNG) announced in October 2010 the discovery of BTEX
traces in fluid samples in eight CSG exploration wells in the Surat Basin west of
Miles. The samples were taken from exploration wells that had been stimulated by
hydraulic fracturing.
APLNG stated that BTEX is not used in its fracture fluids and its supplier confirmed
the fluids supplied do not contain BTEX. Although the concentration of BTEX
identified was very low and restricted to eight wells, the traces found highlight the
risk of chemicals and fluids entering underground water sources. Sampling
conducted on surrounding landholder water bores did not identify unsafe levels of
BTEX. A detailed investigation including comprehensive testing is ongoing at the
time of publishing this report.
Arrow Energy
Arrow Energy announced in November 2010 that traces of benzene were detected in
three wells in its developments in the northern Bowen Basin. Traces of benzene
were identified in two wells in Moranbah tenure and one in an adjoining exploration
tenement. The traces are the equivalent of between one and three parts per billion.
Arrow stated it has not used benzene or BTEX in its hydraulic fracturing fluids.
According to Arrow there are no registered water bores within five kilometres of the
affected wells and the coal seam water is not used for feedstock. Independent testing
is being undertaken to determine if the traces of benzene are naturally occurring or
entered the water via other means. The company is also testing water bores closest to
the affected wells.
Cougar Energy
ASX listed Cougar Energy received an Environmental Protection Order from the
Queensland Government in July 2010 to cease operations of its pilot underground
coal gasification plant near Kingaroy (north of Toowoomba). The operation remains
closed at the time of publication as the Queensland Government is still not satisfied
that groundwater resources in the area are adequately protected. Although
underground coal gasification is a different technology to the CSG developments
being undertaken by the major CSG players in Queensland, this example highlights
the risk of potential future Government intervention regarding water concerns.
19
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
Concentrated saline waste Treatment of CSG water through desalination or reverse osmosis technologies
is known as brine produces higher quality water however a byproduct is the concentrated saline waste
water known as brine. Brine is typically defined as saline water with a total dissolved
concentration of more than 40,000 milligrams per litre (seawater is around 35,000
milligrams per litre).
The Queensland Government released its CSG Water Management Policy in June
2010’s with the aim to:
Aim is to maximise beneficial
use and minimise the risk of
• Maximise the beneficial use of CSG water
environmental harm • Minimise the risk of environmental harm
Untreated water for beneficial use • Supplying untreated water for beneficial use
(agricultural, mining, industrial, municipal purposes)
Treated water for beneficial use • Supplying treated water to approved quality standard for beneficial use
(agricultural, mining, industrial, municipal purposes)
20
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
Injection of water back underground • Injection of lower quality CSG water than the receiving target formation
(where detrimental impact is likely) or surrounding environment
Disposal to surface waters • Risk that CSG water quality and quantity may disrupt surface water
flows and ecology
Disposal to land • Risk that CSG water quality and quantity may affect soil, vegetation and
ecology
3. Pipe brine to marine waters • Only if independent scientific analysis shows the
marine waters will not be adversely affected
4. Solid salt to existing disposal • Suitable existing licensed and regulated waste
facility disposal facility
5. Solid salt to new disposal facility • Purpose built licensed and regulated waste Least Preferable
disposal facility on land owned by CSG operator
21
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
Into aquifer • Recharges depleted aquifers × Poor quality water could contaminate • Appropriate only if water quality is of equal or better
aquifer quality than the receiving aquifer
× Costs of treating water may make option • If treatment required may limit economical suitability
unviable
Storage
Containment ponds • Short term option × Relatively large land area required • Suitable for short term requirements
× Risk of overtopping onto land or waters • Lining of ponds required to prevent seepage
× Risk of seeping into land or waters • Sufficient freeboard needed to prevent overtopping
× No beneficial use
Evaporation ponds • Short term option × Substantial land area required • Limited due to large surface areas required
× Risk of overtopping onto land or waters • Regulators prefer containment ponds (deep dams
× Risk of seeping into land or waters with a small footprint) rather than evaporation ponds
× No beneficial use (shallow dams with a large surface area).
• Disposal of brine and other waste material required
Disposal facility • Risk transfers to licensed × Transportation costs may be large • Suitable depending on proximity to production areas
operator of disposal facility × No beneficial use and economics
Agricultural Use
Livestock watering • Beneficial use for regional × May affect animal health and production if • Suitable for certain livestock depending on water
industry water quality not suitable quality and proximity to production areas
Irrigation • Beneficial use for regional × May affect soil structure and crop yield • Dependent on water quality
industry • Treatment costs may outweigh agricultural benefits
Industrial Use
Coal mine use • Beneficial use via dust × Water transportation costs to coal • Suitable depending on proximity to production areas
suppression, truck washing, operations and economics
haul and pit road water • Opportunity to share costs with coal operator
• Transport costs may be shared
Water cooling tower • Beneficial use for regional × May require water treatment or capex for • Suitable depending on proximity to production areas
industry infrastructure conversion to accommodate and economics
• Transport costs may be shared lower water quality
Fire protection • Beneficial use for regional × Requires storage facilities close to regional • Suitable depending on proximity to CSG production
communities townships areas and economics
Municipal Use • Beneficial use for local × Treatment required • Suitable depending on proximity to CSG production
communities × Limited longevity of supply (20 years) may areas and economics
offset economic viability of investment
Surface Waters • Provides increased base flows × Potential erosion of banks • Limited due to sensitive nature of surface water
for water systems suffering × Difficult to match to natural flow rates systems
depleting water flows × May contaminate soil, water course and
ecology if not treated to appropriate level
Source: JP Morgan Research Analysis; Parsons Brinckerhoff Coal Seam Gas Water Management Study August 2004
22
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
The process of gas migration usually occurs in areas at a distance from the CSG well
where depressurisation is lower. As such the gas does not flow at high pressure to
the surface and instead migrates away from the gas fields to outlets such as natural
geographic surface vents or artificial conduits such as man-made water bore wells.
Standard water bores are not designed to safely bring CSG to the surface. The build
up of gas in water bores can result in large uncontrolled releases of gas which may
pose a risk to public health and safety. The build up of gas can also damage water
bore pumps.
“We have noted that the current groundwater modelling is inadequate in terms of
scale and detail to identify the impacts of multiple CSG developments on
groundwater interactions in the Great Artesian Basin (GAB) and hence on EPBC Act
listed discharge springs communities in the GAB.”
Geoscience Australia. "Summary of Advice in Relation to the Potential Impacts of Coal Seam Gas
Extraction in the Surat and Bowen Basins, Queensland”. 29 September 2010
The Geoscience Australia report recognises that Santos, BG and Origin have
considered the short term local impacts of groundwater extraction on local users and
proposed appropriate mitigation strategies which address most of the water issues.
However, in terms of long term cumulative impacts, Geoscience Australia states that
more data and sophisticated modelling are required.
Regional-scale groundwater flow Geoscience Australia advocates a comprehensive regional-scale groundwater flow
model from private and public model from private and public sector sources to better inform understanding of long
sector sources needed
term cumulative water impacts. Currently individual CSG players are unable to
adequately model cumulative impacts due to the limited sharing of commercial-in-
confidence data. The outcomes from the cumulative regional model are highly
uncertain until more CSG production data becomes available.
23
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
We believe that despite the CSG companies employing water risk mitigation
strategies, the inherent uncertainty regarding these risks and the unknown cumulative
water impacts may result in higher ongoing capex and opex costs for the CSG
players than currently planned. Capex costs may include additional or improved
infrastructure to store and treat water such as water treatment plants and brine storage
facilities. Opex costs may include water transportation costs, clean up costs to
remediate affected areas or potential future legal liabilities from aggrieved
landowners, irrigators or graziers.
24
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
Due to the large upfront capex required for these long life CSG developments, once
the infrastructure is built (pipelines, LNG facilities etc) the CSG players are in effect
'locked in' for a 20+ year period. We believe this situation and the potential of more
stringent government regulation presents a risk to CSG players over the medium
term.
In the event that a CSG player is obliged under contract conditions to fulfill its gas
commitments to customers under a Government intervention or regulatory change
scenario, the CSG player may be legally obliged to find alternative gas supply
sources or obtain gas on the spot market for its customers.
25
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
Financial Assurance
The Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management also
requires financial assurance (security deposit, cash or bank guarantee) from CSG
players to cover potential costs of rehabilitating areas significantly disturbed by CSG
activities. The financial assurance remains until the regulator is satisfied that no
claim on the assurance is likely. Any amendment to a project means the financial
assurance must be recalculated and regularly updated throughout the life of the
project.
We contacted each of the major CSG players to determine the financial assurance
provided to the Queensland Government and also enquired about any environmental
insurances that the companies may have regarding their CSG activities in
Queensland. We did not receive a response to either of these questions from the
companies at the time of publishing this report.
Under the Act the Queensland Government can also issue Clean-Up Notices and
Cost Recovery Notices in the event of a water contamination incident. The cost of
complying with these notices can be substantial depending on the severity of the
water contamination.
26
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
27
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
Analyst Certification:
The research analyst(s) denoted by an “AC” on the cover of this report certifies (or, where multiple research analysts are primarily
responsible for this report, the research analyst denoted by an “AC” on the cover or within the document individually certifies, with
respect to each security or issuer that the research analyst covers in this research) that: (1) all of the views expressed in this report
accurately reflect his or her personal views about any and all of the subject securities or issuers; and (2) no part of any of the research
analyst’s compensation was, is, or will be directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendations or views expressed by the
research analyst(s) in this report.
Important Disclosures
Valuation and Risks: Please see the most recent company-specific research report for an analysis of valuation methodology and risks on
any securities recommended herein. Research is available at http://www.morganmarkets.com , or you can contact the analyst named on
the front of this note or your J.P. Morgan representative.
Analysts’ Compensation: The equity research analysts responsible for the preparation of this report receive compensation based upon
various factors, including the quality and accuracy of research, client feedback, competitive factors, and overall firm revenues, which
include revenues from, among other business units, Institutional Equities and Investment Banking.
Registration of non-US Analysts: Unless otherwise noted, the non-US analysts listed on the front of this report are employees of non-US
affiliates of JPMS, are not registered/qualified as research analysts under FINRA/NYSE rules, may not be associated persons of JPMS,
and may not be subject to FINRA Rule 2711 and NYSE Rule 472 restrictions on communications with covered companies, public
appearances, and trading securities held by a research analyst account.
Other Disclosures
J.P. Morgan ("JPM") is the global brand name for J.P. Morgan Securities LLC ("JPMS") and its affiliates worldwide. J.P. Morgan Cazenove is a
marketing name for the U.K. investment banking businesses and EMEA cash equities and equity research businesses of JPMorgan Chase & Co.
and its subsidiaries.
Options related research: If the information contained herein regards options related research, such information is available only to persons who
have received the proper option risk disclosure documents. For a copy of the Option Clearing Corporation’s Characteristics and Risks of
Standardized Options, please contact your J.P. Morgan Representative or visit the OCC’s website at
http://www.optionsclearing.com/publications/risks/riskstoc.pdf.
28
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
29
Garry Sherriff Asia Pacific Equity Research
(61-2) 9220-1502 30 November 2010
garry.sherriff@jpmorgan.com
by a dealer properly registered under applicable securities laws or, alternatively, pursuant to an exemption from the dealer registration requirement
in the relevant province or territory of Canada in which such offer or sale is made. The information contained herein is under no circumstances to
be construed as investment advice in any province or territory of Canada and is not tailored to the needs of the recipient. To the extent that the
information contained herein references securities of an issuer incorporated, formed or created under the laws of Canada or a province or territory
of Canada, any trades in such securities must be conducted through a dealer registered in Canada. No securities commission or similar regulatory
authority in Canada has reviewed or in any way passed judgment upon these materials, the information contained herein or the merits of the
securities described herein, and any representation to the contrary is an offence. Dubai: This report has been issued to persons regarded as
professional clients as defined under the DFSA rules.
General: Additional information is available upon request. Information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable but JPMorgan
Chase & Co. or its affiliates and/or subsidiaries (collectively J.P. Morgan) do not warrant its completeness or accuracy except with respect to any
disclosures relative to JPMS and/or its affiliates and the analyst’s involvement with the issuer that is the subject of the research. All pricing is as
of the close of market for the securities discussed, unless otherwise stated. Opinions and estimates constitute our judgment as of the date of this
material and are subject to change without notice. Past performance is not indicative of future results. This material is not intended as an offer or
solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument. The opinions and recommendations herein do not take into account individual
client circumstances, objectives, or needs and are not intended as recommendations of particular securities, financial instruments or strategies to
particular clients. The recipient of this report must make its own independent decisions regarding any securities or financial instruments
mentioned herein. JPMS distributes in the U.S. research published by non-U.S. affiliates and accepts responsibility for its contents. Periodic
updates may be provided on companies/industries based on company specific developments or announcements, market conditions or any other
publicly available information. Clients should contact analysts and execute transactions through a J.P. Morgan subsidiary or affiliate in their home
jurisdiction unless governing law permits otherwise.
“Other Disclosures” last revised September 1, 2010.
Copyright 2010 JPMorgan Chase & Co. All rights reserved. This report or any portion hereof may not be reprinted, sold or
redistributed without the written consent of J.P. Morgan.#$J&098$#*P
30